Depends on genre we write. . Example :romance Most of the romantic novels written on first person point of view... Reader can feel the emotions and feelings more close of character ... How ever drawbacks would be like the first person has to know everything or has to make him know... Where as in third person point of view character no need to know everything happening in the situation... Every point of view would be having it's own draw backs and advantages . . So, ultimately writer has to decide which point of view suits your work...
I think it depends on your writing style and Genre... in third person point of view, the reader would know everything but, the characters in the chapter may not be knowing what is happening whereas, in the first person point of view, the reader would know things when the first person knows. so, one of the characters in the chapter has to know what is happening(if you go with two first-person points of views) In the first-person point of view, you can go into the protagonist mind and write his/her feelings, emotions, fears, desires etc... in third person point of view, narration and vision would be great. that is why I feel most of the fantasy-based books prefer the third person for romance, most would prefer first person point of view as we can write protagonists desire, feelings, fears and emotions we can create suspense through the third person pov...where as in the first person pov we can create twists or unexpected...
It just depends on how well each is done, i suppose. I like the intimacy of first-person, but I also like the simplicity of third-person.
I'm not sure I understand this person's reasoning. Maybe they think it would be easier to make broad suggestive sweeps in third person, while first person is more detailed and specific? Personally, I don't think it should be a major issue for you if you do your research. Not just information but more informal and personal reportage. Food blogs, travel blogs. Why not check out YouTube too, I'm sure there will be some teenagers on there, talking about their first visit to France. Fantasy adventure? So you're not writing high literature? And it sounds like it's YA due to the protagonist's age. First person would be ideal for this audience I think.
This isn't really accurate - I would say the majority of romance is in third. But, related to what I think you're actually getting at, it's generally in CLOSE third, which allows readers to have all the benefits of first that you're mentioning - right inside the character's head, good insights into feelings, etc.
I write most stories in third person. I would say rather close. You have access to inner thoughts of my MC. You see the world in their pov. Now I will do a crime puzzle story. The couple that is to solve the murder are a married couple. They have been married for more than forty years. In order to solve the case they need to talk to a lot of people. Some of them will only supply information to him, others will only supply info to her. I don't think i will have problems writing the scenes when they are separated. I will use her or his POV. But in the scenes where they are together what POV do i use? I have tried this before in romantic stuff, but i usually end up with an extremely distant third person POV when both MCs are present. This has disturbed me so much that I usually choose only one POV leaving me with one of the MCs more shallow and all info from things happening the non pov character being told in dialog with the pov MC. Does anyone have any nice tricks?
You don't have to use only one POV in a scene. You can switch as the storytelling requires, just put a blank line in when you do. That said, don't switch POV unnecessarily. The switch costs the reader enough mental effort that there should be some profit they get out of it.
In the scenes where they're together, pick one and maintain the closeness you've had in their other scenes. That's worked well for me.
I'd say pick the one who has the most meaningful internal dialogue in their scenes together. Or else alternate - if you were following the husband in scene 17 and they're together in scene 18, follow the wife for that scene. I agree that just sliding out to distant third for their scenes together is unlikely to be satisfying, not once your readers have gotten used to being in their heads.
Who told you that? "Catcher In The Rye" and "To Kill A Mockingbird" are two of my favorite novels. They wouldn't be half as enjoyable if in 3rd person.
Agree with the other responses. In either case (1st or 3rd person) you want to be as accurate as possible in description of details. Which “eyes” you are telling the story through does not seem as relevant as giving scene detail that you can acquire from many sources without personally visiting the site. Suggestion: Get a preliminary beta read or two on what you’ve written so far and see if it “rings true.”
I have two main characters, and they’re usually together. I often find myself writing a scene in distant third and then, when the bones are written, choosing a POV character. (I once wrote the same dinner party six times—from each of three important characters, and then it changed a lot, so I did it again. The conclusion was that it just had too much stuff in it, so I broke much of it out to different scenes and went back to the POV character I’d started out with.)
Okay, this might seem like a stupid question, but how do you make sure a story stays omniscient? I don't want to be head hopping or switching POVs. I want to use an omniscient POV. So, what is the trick to make sure you are actually maintaining an omniscient POV? I know there is no trick. This is something I struggle with. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks.
I don't know this for sure, but I think the idea is for the reader to not wonder about anything that already happened. The entertainment is in seeing it happen, or even being surprised at how interactions play out, but never wondering why things are playing out a certain way. I guess you want things to unfold using only things the reader knows about, so you don't have to tell them about things that don't matter, but you can't bring something up late for effect. Aren't movies often in omniscient? If the badguy has a knife or a plan, you have to see it before it comes out, even if the POV character doesn't.
The omniscience belongs to the narrator. Even if he's unnamed, define him as a character with a distinct voice and tone and opinions. Give him his own goals. (They might lie outside of the story world.) He enters the consciousness of the MC and occasionally pulls away like a camera to pan through the cast. He'll keep coming back to the MC though. Here's an example from Howard's End. The cast is listening to Beethoven at a concert hall: It will be generally admitted that Beethoven's Fifth Symphony is the most sublime noise that has ever penetrated into the ear of man (narrator's opinion). All sorts and conditions are satisfied by it (transition, begin: "omniscient pan"). Whether you are like Mrs. Munt, and tap surreptitiously when the tunes come--of course, not so as to disturb the others--; or like Helen, who can see heroes and shipwrecks in the music's flood; or like Margaret, who can only see the music; or like Tibby, who is profoundly versed in counterpoint, and holds the full score open on his knee; or like their cousin, Fräulein Mosebach, who remembers all the time that Beethoven is "echt Deutsch"; or like Fräulein Mosebach's young man, who can remember nothing but Fräulein Mosebach (end: "omniscient pan"): in any case, the passion of your life becomes more vivid, and you are bound to admit that such a noise is cheap at two shillings. It is cheap, even if you hear it in the Queen's Hall, dreariest music-room in London, though not as dreary as the Free Trade Hall, Manchester; and even if you sit on the extreme left of that hall, so that the brass bumps at you before the rest of the orchestra arrives, it is still cheap. (narrator's opinion) "Who is Margaret talking to?" said Mrs. Munt, at the conclusion of the first movement. She was again in London on a visit to Wickham Place. (simple narration) Helen looked down the long line of their party, and said that she did not know. (simple narration) "Would it be some young man or other whom she takes an interest in?" (simple narration) "I expect so," Helen replied. Music enwrapped her, and she could not enter into the distinction that divides young men whom one takes an interest in from young men whom one knows. (POV to MC) From there it focuses on the MC before panning again through the cast again. The narrator says/thinks things the MC never would. That's how you know it's not her narrating. Omniscient POV has a movement. Think of it cinematically, like the camera. It'll move some, but not too much. You don't want it jumping around like The Blair Witch or being drunkenly canted like that godawful Battleship Earth. It sweeps but then it focuses. It has to stay in place long enough satisfy the audience. The narrator is the chatty Spielberg who knows the whole story and tells you the pieces he wants to. The details are chosen not to answer questions, but to ask them, because the director wants drama.
There are different levels of omniscience. The narrator can know everything that has occurred up to the "present" moment, or know the entire time span from start to finish throughout the story. You just have to keep checking yourself, "Does the narrator really know this now?" quite apart from "Should the narrator reveal this now.
I don't want my omniscient narrator to come across like a character. It's not. It's just another way to tell a story. I would rather it be invisible than a way to steal the spotlight. It's more the head hopping or avoiding head hopping that troubles me. Does anyone else here use an omniscient narrator?
I think I'm a couple of million words away from having the skill to do an omniscient narrator. One of the semi-modern examples of an omniscient narrator that I've occasionally mentioned is Robert Barnard's Death of a Mystery Writer. (Wow, 1979? Less modern than I thought.) The narrator doesn't come across like a character--in fact, you have to read for a while, with focused attention on POV, to eventually realize that it is omniscient. I've considered getting a used copy and reading through it with a highlighter, to help me recognize the patterns of slowly descending into one mind, emerging, hovering, and slowly descending into another one. Returning to add: Apparently Barnard's Death in a Cold Climate is also omniscient. I can't remember if I've read that one.
Returning to add: Elizabeth Gilbert's Signature of All Things is also omniscient, and practically brand new. I've heard her talk about it in interviews, and one of the things discussed was (if I recall correctly) that her narrator has a relatively modern mindset, despite the fact that all of the characters are in the 18th/19th century. Not that the narrator is a character, but they, for example, dryly acknowledge the shock value of executing children for theft.
I tend to agree with @Seven Crowns that an omniscient narrator should have a distinct voice/perspective. Otherwise I'd say you're just using regular third person with shifting POV characters.
Thirded. The omni voice is an independent, all-knowing character... like climbing on grandpa's lap so he can tell you a story. Though there is that other level authors use, like Jospeh Heller and Frank Herbert, where they just head hop like a loose balloon but never really establish an independent voice. Not sure what you call that.
Are you sure you're not meaning the word 'objective' rather than 'omniscient'? You seem to be more concerned with how involved the narrator is with your story rather than how much the narrator knows.
Here's the interview with a bit about Elizabeth Gilbert's omniscient narrator in The Signature of All Things: https://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/books/ct-prj-1013-elizabeth-gilbert-signature-of-all-thi-20131013-story.html
