Log in

bear by san

March 2017



Powered by LiveJournal.com
bear by san

All right, group. It's time to meditate on the pure white light of stupidity.

I understand that I've engendered a little confusion relating to point of view and the uses thereof with my comments on Whiskey & Water. W&W is in third-person true omniscient, with a mostly-nonintrusive narrator. This is different from a headhopping or best-seller omniscient POV, and I don't mean to recommend, as somebody asked in email, that everybody run right out and start writing everything in omniscient.

Now, I'm a firm proponent of the idea that fashion is fleeting, and that there are no rules in literature, only techniques that work and do not work. However, I also honestly believe that the easiest way to do a job well is often the best. Which doesn't mean you should always use a hammer.

Sometimes, you need a wood chisel instead. And sometimes you need a laser-guided crosscut saw.

The definitions of different points of view are quite basic stuff, discussed with greater or lesser effect in most high school English classes and elementary how to write books. And yet, many of us don't really understand them, or understand what they're good for.

Essentially, what you have in POV is a space defined by three intersecting sliding lines. One axis relates to who is talking, the second defines how they are sensing, and the third plots when they are reporting from.

So, for example, the first axis, we have several options. Most commonly used are first person singular and third person. ("I" and "s/he"). Also options are "we" (first person plural) and "you" (second person singular or plural, in English). These are useful for different things, and every single one changes the story as you relate it. And they can be mixed and matched to create identity confusion. For example, in Bester's "Fondly Fahrenheit," (spoilers beyond link) where the "I" and the "he" become inextricably mingled at the end of the narrative.

This is stunt writing. Stunt writing is hard, and we expect to fall on our faces when we try it. Sometimes, though, it works. (There's a scene in The Stratford Man that's simultaneously is past tense and present tense, from two points of view that are the same person at two different points in his life. That, boy, that sucked to write. But more on this in the section on time, below.)

An interesting thing here is that, in all of the POV choices in the first category except first person, there is an implied narrator. Somebody, in other words, is telling the story. Somebody says you. Or he.

Or, to give examples, when a story is cast in first person limited point of view and it begins I walked down to the dock and thought about my mother, we know who the narrator is. It is I. (I, in the case of fiction, cannot be presumed to be the writer, except in very odd cases where it is. As in for example Kurt Vonnegut's Breakfast of Champions, further to which we will discuss below.)

In other words, if I recast the line above in third person, somebody says He walked down to the dock and thought about his mother. That somebody is NOT the POV character.

Perhaps this will be more explicit if I demonstrate second person: You walked down to the dock and thought about your mother. See? Somebody else is telling the POV character ("You") what you did. (The you in this case isn't the reader any more than the narrator is the writer, but you are invited to project into the character strongly--or, in some tricky cases, to alienate from them. It's a POV often used when the writer is working with a profoundly unlikable protagonist, for a variety of subtle reasons.)

That somebody is the narrator. Who can see inside the POV character's head, and in current fashion isoften presumed to only be able to see inside the POV character's head. But--and this is important--the narrator is not, as is often presumed, the POV character except in first person limited point of view. (see above.)

There is no such thing as third person limited point of view.

Hah. Got your attention now, don't I? Lemme 'splain.

Because this brings us to the second axis, the one where we are concerned with how the narrator is sensing.

On the second axis, we also have a sliding scale, from a very limited POV to an omniscient one, and then--the true weirdy--objective POV. Here's the thing. With the exception of first-person limited and third-person objective, the POV choices made here (all of which imply a narrator) are not different POVs. They are different implementations of the same POV--the omniscient POV.

So what we sloppily call third person limited is in fact third person limited omniscient. Because we can, in fact, see into the inner thoughts of at least one character, our POV character (and more, if we are writing a multiple-POV story.) And this omniscience (the ability of the narrator to know more than an actual person standing there watching things unfold could.) is a profoundly misunderstood characteristic of narrative. How do I know that He is Thinking About His Mother? Because the omniscient narrator told me.

But omniscience is a sliding scale. It can be extremely tightly limited--one character's thoughts and reactions only--or it can slide back and do what I refer to as the Psychic Steadicam. (This, by the way, is the POV of my natural voice, and it confuses the heck out of readers who are very much trained to read a tight limited third person, so I have been forced, over the years, to learn not to do it.) And when you get far enough up, and a broad enough view, you have a true omniscient.

But what about head-hopping, I hear you cry. Isn't it evile?

Well... yes. Or jarring, anyway. And lazy, lazy, lazy. Lazy like a lazy thing.

But Bear, didn't you just say that there were no rules, only techniques?

Well, yes. And you'll note that I didn't say don't do it. I said it was evile.  

...wait, lemme 'splain.

Okay, head-hopping (aka "best-seller omniscient") is a specific type of omniscient writing that attempts to get away with storytelling in omniscient without the use of a narrator to hold things together (1). Essentially, it dispenses with transitions, with the most powerful tool of the omniscient voice--which is the ability to pull back and show a broad, sweeping perspective, as Richard Adams often does in Watership Down, which is the book I most often point to when I want to demonstrate omniscient done well--and instead bounces the reader from head to head so that the reader can be told what each character is feeling or thinking.

The reason I say its evile is because it is crude, because it's cheating (we don't need to bother to characterize, when we can just bounce into the Duke's head and show you what he's thinking), and because it dispenses with subtlety in the interests of making things as easy as possible on the reader and the writer. Also, it tends to remove ambiguity and lattitude for interpretation; it is thus because the writer says it is thus, and that feels, to me, often managerial and manipulative.

Also, my aversion to it probably has something to do with the fact that it's frequently seen in books where the villain is a fat unctuous sadistic pedophile who kicks puppies. Hard. And thus I find it often indicates and reinforces an auctorial lack of subtlety.

A true omniscient, by contrast, is a lovely and subtle thing. The narrator (and I do not think its possible to write good omniscient without having a strong narrator, understanding her and understanding her agenda, knowing who is telling the story and why) is possessed of a flexible tool for exposition and characterization. In addition, she has the privilege of dipping into and assuming character voices, of flicking lightsome through the grass, of immersing or distancing.

On the other hand, it is extraordinarily difficult to do. Because it requires that the writer have a great deal more control over his material than most of us do, expecially at the beginning. He must be aware of his transitions, of how he moves from space to space, of what he is revealing and what he is allowing to pass unremarked. I found it absolutely exhausting to write, actually.

Right. That brings us to objective, doesn't it? Objective is the complement to omniscient; it is the cinematic or camera's-eye view, where one can see all the externals, but none of the internals. Dashiell Hammett, for a case study. *g*

Which brings us to the third axis, time. Or when the narrator is reporting events from. Most commonly used is past tense (I walked down the street.) Less common, but still not infrequent, is present tense (I walk down the street.) Some readers are quite biased against present tense (some are also quite biased against first person or second person or omniscient. So what? Do what the book needs you to do.) and I think this may in part be because it so often written, not to put too fine a point on it, like shit. For example, we have a tendency to get sloppy in present tense, to say "I am walking down the street" when what we really mean is "I walk down the street."

All that scaffolding adds up, and adds up to sloppy prose. Only use the progressive when you need it, because it is a life-sucking fiend. (This goes for the past tense too. "I was walking." No. "I walked," unless the progress or its interruption is the important thing.)

Then there are the weirdies. Future tense! Future perfect tense, which I once wrote a story in, on a dare. (It begins "It will have been raining in Harvard Square for half an hour when you give up hope.") Those, again? Stunt writing. Use them for a reason.

Or, hell. Go ahead and play with all of them. Be adventuresome. Figure out what the tools are good for. Practice!

But we need to not assume that because we tried to pull something off we got it right, or that it was the best way to get the effect we needed. Because each of these POV choices results in a different book; each of them offers limitations and rewards and special shiny things And I think it takes practice and experimentation to figure out what they're good for and why.

But that doesn't mean we're doing it well. Not at first, anyway. Eventually, with practice, one (I sincerely hope!) gets to the point where one can cast a book in first-person omniscient and make it work.

And make it something the book needs.

Then you get to be a genius.

(1) Narrators may be intrusive or self-effacing. The intrusive narrator says "Reader, I married him." The self-effacing narrator does not. For modern in genre examples of intrusive narrators used to good effect, may I recommend the works of skzbrust and papersky?

Today's The Firesign Theatre obsession brought to you by comments in a friend's lj. *g*


Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
You are the best girl evAR. You know what always defeated me in completely comprehending this - the 3 intersecting lines thing.
Crude, cheating, managerial and manipulative.


I'll just slink back to my manuscript and lick my wounds now.

(I'm full of "But...but...*my* novel is different!" objections. But as with many criticisms, this one stings because I suspect it's accurate).
Of course, the obvious solution is to do it well, and prove me wrong. *g*
*blinkblink* Wow. It's not yet 9AM and my brain is full.

Brilliant post, I really enjoyed it.

Can I be you when I grow up?
Aww. But would you really want to be?
Wow. This was dense, full of things to ponder. The intersection of three lines made a lot of sense. Thanks.

Have you read "The Book Thief" by Markus Zusak? It's a YA title, so maybe not, but it's a great read for adults, too. It's as close to first-person omniscient as I've seen. And yes, it works.
I haven't. Burgess and Vonnegut both pull it off--Burgess in A Dead Man In Deptford and Vonnegut in Breakfast of Champions. In which Vonnegut writes the book from the point of view of the author writing the book he is also the first person narrator of.

(This goes for the past tense too. "I was walking." No. "I walked," unless the progress or its interruption is the important thing.)

Feel free to smack me down like an unpublished plebe, but, once interrupted, doesn't the progressive become the imperfect?

"I was walking down the street when the car hit me."

At least that's how we dealt with l'imparfait in high school French, where I learned far more grammar than I ever did in those pesky English classes.

Thank you for this dissection.
True, but irrelevant to the discussion in this case. *g*
Damn you're good. I'm going to quit writing "how to" posts and just put up feeds of your stuff.
I hear some criticism that I'm much better at writing how to posts than actually writing, now and again.

But hey, I have a cheese board. I'm cool.
The stunt-writing that I've always particularly admired is changes in narrative POV. Eyre again, and its occassonal shift to present-tense. Or the shifting between first-present and third-past in the Jenny novels. Or the shifts in The Edible Woman, which I resented the hell out of at the time that I read it, but which has worked its way deep into my grudging brain as an example of stunt-narration that added a layer to the story that wouldn't have been there otherwise.

*g* the Jenny books are one long game with unreliable narrators, of course, which is also fun.

I admire stunt writing. Sometimes its hard to cope with, true, but when doen well, that can be part of the point.
Very interesting. I have never considered using a future tense before. Not sure I'd even dare attempt it.
Very useful approach to doing omniscient well. Until now, when I taught stuff about P.O.V., I've tried to explain the end result of omniscient, but I think the attitude it grows out of--the presence of a narrator, whose choices aren't random--may be more helpful to a lot of writers. Thanks!
It's all sartorias. She taught me the magic trick.
discussed with greater or lesser effect in most high school English classes

You'd think so, wouldn't you ? <sigh>

(it was almost 20 years ago, but I don't recall much beyond some basic discussion of grammar in high school English, and precious little of that)
Very interesting discussion. I'm reading "My Dirty Little Book Of Stolen Time" by Liz Jensen, which uses a very 19th Century thing in having her first person (unreliable on at least one count) narrator directly address the reader. So much so that she includes direct flattery of the reader in the narrative, commenting on the reader's beauty.

Which leads to the wonderful implication that you -- the IRL reader -- isn't the same as the 'you' the narrator imagines, so there's an implied meta-character outside the story, the implied you. It's all a bit 'dear diary.'

She does it in past tense, memoirist-limited first person -- she surmises what's on the mind of other characters in the story without popping into their heads directly. And on the 'when' access, up until about 2/3rds the way through, she's describing past events from a sketchily-described 'now.' But then, she catches up with her own story, and relates events -- in past tense -- from a 'when' just after the events described, but without foreknowledge of the events comprising the rest of the story.

Or, in less schmeatic terms, the book is a journal of events, or diarist first person. The narrator doesn't begin writing about the events in her life until the middle of the story and then 'catches up' and carries on.

And on top of that, it's a time travel novel. An easy enough read, but not without it's metacritcal pleasures...
I can't help but think of the JD Robb novels, which head-hop even in tight third POV, yet the author is one of the best-selling novelists of all time.

The guidelines you've outlined are probably true for everyone but romance writers. The reader expectation there is different, so what makes a good book is the occasional hop, especially when the hero or heroine first realizes they may have feelings for the other. Also, the first into third thing is used a lot to indicate flashbacks, so you just have to do it skillfully.

But what do I know? I've only read about 30 million of them.
'For example, we have a tendency to get sloppy in present tense, to say "I am walking down the street" when what we really mean is "I walk down the street."'

Exception: Damon Runyon, who was imitating the speech of people who used the progressive present tense as the past tense.
FWIW, I think it's assumed that voice tricks tend to just layer on top of POV choices as long as they (the voice tricks) don't make things unclear. I could be wrong, but they seem like separate issues to me.
Thank you.

I love it when someone explains writing techniques in a scientific way - makes it much easier for me to grasp. Usually, I'm floundering about in vagueness.

Question ...

What do you call it if, in the middle of a second-person narrative, you take a step back and let one of the protagonists on stage tell the viewpoint character (you) what you are about to do? (Calling it a second person present tense view of a second person pluperfect future tense narrative seems a little cumbersome to me (and I'm about to drop one into the next scene of HALTING STATE, just because I can).)

Re: Question ...

Are we suddenly narrating from the POV of this secondary protagonist? Or is he just ordering us around?

I'd say at the juncture it's still second person present tense. Your tense hasn't changed. You just have a toppy interloper shouting orders at you. *g*

Now you can tell me what the third-person present/past tense interlink should be called. (the character is lucid dreaming about an event in his past, and I give both POVs at once--that of the one who does not know what is about to happen, and that of the one who does.)

Wow. Lots of light shed on shadowy subjects. Thank you!

But...but...but! Omniscient means all-knowing, yes? So "limited omniscient" makes my head explode. Is this a case of professional jargon in which we're taking omniscient to mean something other than all-knowing? (Totally legit thing to do, but I wanted to check.) Because to me, calling the Artist Formerly Known As 3PL "3P limited omniscient" sort of sounds like the narrator knows everything-everything, but only chooses to tell us what she knows about the inside of a single person's head. And that seems like the long way round to me.

I'm sure I'm overthinking; I'm an editor by trade, so that's what I do. But I may have to sub in "3P psychic limited" or something to preserve my sanity...unless I'm missing something, which I very likely am.

Disclaimer: I solemnly swear that I'm not trying to be pedantic or quarrelsome. I just want to understand why I'm snagging on this and no one else is. (Maybe it's like the thing where some people say "technology-agnostic," when they mean "technology-neutral," and my head assplode and everyone else goggles at the brain spatter and carries on.)
You're overthinking. Yes, limited omniscient would be, um, all-knowing, but only about some things.

Welcome to English, the land of plastic silverware.

Live with the terminology, or confuse yourself and everyone else. *g*
I do not think its possible to write good omniscient without having a strong narrator, understanding her and understanding her agenda, knowing who is telling the story and why

I've been coming to this conclusion myself. I think some of the answers can be implicit knowledge on the part of the writer, though.

I've been noodling about on an post about omniscient, but it hasn't gelled yet.

I think the narrator can be completely self-effacing (I have one of those in a story that's going up at Strange Horizons sometime this month), but he or she has an agenda, and the writer needs to know it and use it....
Also, my aversion to it probably has something to do with the fact that it's frequently seen in books where the villain is a fat unctuous sadistic pedophile who kicks puppies. Hard. And thus I find it often indicates and reinforces an auctorial lack of subtlety.

Ohhh yes! I'm plodding through a book that does this AND head-hopping AND one-character-knowing-exactly-what-the-other-character-is-thinking (because the author can't distinguish between what she knows and what her characters should logically know) and it's driving me potty. (However, I'm getting loads of ideas for my snarky fantasy NaNo...)

I love your posts. Thank you. I have also got my sf-reading husband (who never likes the same books I do) reading Hammered He realy likes it.
Gah! *realLy*
Two things:

1. How do you find time/energy/brain to *write* these missives on craft? (I don't really expect an answer, I'm just sort of reeling in awe and admiration. And possibly fear.)

2. Weirdly, I've just been looking up Firesign Theatre quotes for absolutely no reason, and then I read your journal. Heh. :)
I never get laid. ;-)

pronominal reversal

One thing you may not have come across is that people on the autistic spectrum can because of being on the autistic spectrum reverse pronouns strangely for example talk in direct speech about themselves (when people would normally use I) instead in the third person. This isn't stunt writing (or talking) - it's just a way their brains work.

Re: pronominal reversal

*g* I talk to myself in the third person, fairly constantly. But I've experienced the other phenomenon, too.

"Bo knows baseball."
I would love to write a story with a truly omniscient narrator -- one who really does know everything, not just writing as if s/he knows everything. Unfortunately, so far the only candidate appears to be God, or a god, and that is not the kind of story I want to write.

p.s. I love that future perfect story. Shiny!
*g* A truly omniscient narrator *does* know everything. Even if just because he's making it up.

That's the cool thing. Do check out the Burgess book. It;s brilliant.
Oh yeah, fine. Link away.

Thank you!
Thank you for sharing this. I will have to go read again and most likely several times after that. I am afraid, *face-in-hands* I did not get it all in one go. Will add this to memories. Also would you mind if I put the url for this here :


I am sure it will interest people on there! I thought I would be polite and ask.
Once again thanks.
no problem!
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>