A question on POV

[ascanius]

Ok so I have noticed that in my writing I tend to only use the POV of the main character I am currently writing. This goes so far as omitting things about other main characters in the scene. Basically I write the scene, in my case chapter, exclusively from the POV of that character. I have noticed that this presents some problems with flow and how much information I can disclose without suddenly increasing the POV's or making the scene forced. However in defense, I have noticed this makes me become creative about how, and what information I give. Also it helps create plot ideas that I never would have thought about, though often times I find myself trying very hard not to include another POV. On a side note I find that it creates questions about the characters that I can leave to answer later as the characters progress, I'm hoping that this will help with character progression and intrigue. I was just wondering about everyone's input on the use of POV and how exclusive or inclusive it is. Is any one better, easier to read.

[ellianbaker]

I've read and written several different POV styles, and each has its merits and downfalls, I think. It also depends on the story (for me, anyway). I've read some novels where the transition from one POV to another was in-scene and smooth, and it worked beautifully, and I've read novels that threw me off with the same technique. Writing-wise, I generally stick with a single POV through a full scene, but, like I said, it depends on the story. (And the characters, sometimes.)

[Lord Darkstorm]

3rd person is most accepted pov, and it is definitely a means of not telling the user everything. When you add a dozen pov characters to a story, and neglect to mention a key piece of information one of them knows, you might hear term 'hiding information', since the character knowing it, and you keeping it tends to annoy the reader.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the reader doesn't have to know anything more than the pov character knows. Otherwise there would be no mystery novels.

[Reaver]

I've found that for me, the omniscient point of view works best, because the reader knows everything that's going on everywhere at every moment. It allows you to tell what's going on inside the character's mind, their feelings, etc. It also allows the reader to discover things alongside the characters. This POV also allows you to limit the amount of information the reader gets if you so desire.

[Lord Darkstorm]

I've found that for me, the omniscient point of view works best, because the reader knows everything that's going on everywhere at every moment. It allows you to tell what's going on inside the character's mind, their feelings, etc. It also allows the reader to discover things alongside the characters. This POV also allows you to limit the amount of information the reader gets if you so desire.

This is by far the hardest pov style to write. I've only read a couple books where this was done well enough that it wasn't regularly jarring when jumping from one head to another. It also means that you get more reader annoyance when you do with hold information from them. You can go into any head, know anything, but you won't tell the reader? Quick way to piss me off. I know, I've stopped reading books that have done this.

When you write for another person, you have to convince them to trust you to tell the story without belittling or insulting the one reading it. While it might not be intentional on your part, when you make it clear everyone else knows what is going on but the writer isn't going to tell the reader because it isn't the right time...rest assured you are about to loose a reader. If the reader doesn't trust you to tell the story fairly, then they won't read it.

Many a new writer has decided on the god mode of writing thinking it will be easy. Be anywhere, do anything, know or tell whatever you want. The end result is usually bad, and of the published books I've read who have done this, I know of two that did it so well the number of times I had to pause and reread something was less than five. I have read quite a few done this way, and if the story isn't outstanding (which fortunately most of the authors were) then they aren't worth the aggravation. So, if your stories are so good they can overcome the usual lack of ability to properly write in such a pov, then go for it. Most of use aren't that good, and I have to say, most of the writers I have read who have used it, didn't have the ability to do it well either.

If in doubt, use 3rd limited, it's easiest to write, most readers accept it well, and it is easier to keep from annoying your readers withholding information.

[TWErvin2]

Writing from one POV (be it first person POV, or 3rd person limited and sticking with one character) can prove challenging in providing 'necessary' information to the reader. Sometimes, however, I've learned that what I feel is 'necessary' isn't necessary to the story, just something I'd like to share with the reader at that moment.

My novel writing has consisted fully of 1st person POV. It's what I tend to enjoy reading most and I find it both interesting and challenging to tell a story to readers using that method. I've written and had short fiction published that used both first person POV and third person limited. I've never attempted omniscient, and generally don't prefer novels that are written using that POV. As was stated above, I think it would be the most difficult to do well, at least for me. I think that 2nd person POV ('you' perspective) is difficult and I've never seen it done successfully as a novel (except for decide yourself adventure books). As an editor at a small ezine, I've seen more than a few attempts with maybe only 1 or maybe 2 over the years being published.

How to choose the POV for me really depends on the story to be told. The main character, conflict and resolution play a big part. But normally, my stories originate as an ideal--an event or bit of dialogue or a situation. Then I create the world where it can take place and then the characters. By the time the characters are thought on, I pretty much know what will work better.

As an editor reading slush, I sometimes come across pieces that I think would've been much better presented using a different POV. Sometimes the 'acrobatics' show in the twists and turns used to tell the story from only one POV. And the mentioned above 'hiding' in omniscient can lead to a thumbs down too, especially with an attempted twist or ironic ending.

Okay, as I look back, I rambled a bit off the main topic...it happens on occasion.

[Ravana]

I've used all the normal permutations: first and third person, singular, plural and omniscient; all of them have worked. (Nobody, but nobody, that I've seen, writes in second person—I'm not giving a pass even to "adventure" books: those are third person, with the word "you" substituted in for "he." I'm not even sure it's possible to write second person successfully, and I'm certainly not about to try it.) All depends on the story as to which I use. Don't think I've ever made a deliberate decision at the outset as to which I was going to use; just started writing in whatever seemed natural for the moment—and, on the rare occasion, have changed it from first to third, or vice versa, after I started.

"Omniscient" doesn't necessarily mean the reader has access to everything, only that it's possible for the writer to provide access to it. All "omniscient" really means in this context is that the story isn't told from inside the head of a single character… technically, it should take place as if the reader were present as a witness—without access to any character's thoughts, just the actions such a witness could observe. Which actually makes information almost too easy to "control": you need to make deliberate (and often seemingly unmotivated) changes of scene to introduce information that doesn't take place in view of the main characters, and need to have the characters say what they're thinking—no matter how unlikely the utterance may sometimes be: "As you know…" (ugh!)—in order for the reader to discover this. But as far as "hiding" anything from the reader: don't set up the expectation that you're going to bounce all over the world revealing everything that might have some bearing on the story, and they'll never miss it. Though if you do set up such expectations, don't be surprised if you're taken to task for it if (when!) you leave something important out. You have been warned.

Most books I've seen talked about as "third-person omniscient" are really third-person plural: told from multiple points of view, not always even limited to what's going on in the head of a single character at a time… think LoTR. Science fiction often uses a variation of this with "cut-scenes" interspersed, to provide occasional background or linking information: the earliest (certainly the earliest stand-out) example I can think of is John Brunner's Stand on Zanzibar, though there may be others that predate it. A perhaps more familiar example along similar lines is Dracula, which scatters news articles in amongst the various characters' narrations. Works quite well, in the sense that someone else with a limited viewpoint has to "know" what's being revealed, so a great deal of information can still remain "secret"… though it only works well if you know how to write news stories plausibly.

[Benjamin Clayborne]

(Nobody, but nobody, that I've seen, writes in second person—I'm not giving a pass even to "adventure" books: those are third person, with the word "you" substituted in for "he." I'm not even sure it's possible to write second person successfully, and I'm certainly not about to try it.)

Charles Stross has done it twice, in Halting State and Rule 34.

[Steerpike]

I've used all the normal permutations: first and third person, singular, plural and omniscient; all of them have worked. (Nobody, but nobody, that I've seen, writes in second person—I'm not giving a pass even to "adventure" books: those are third person, with the word "you" substituted in for "he." I'm not even sure it's possible to write second person successfully, and I'm certainly not about to try it.) All depends on the story as to which I use. Don't think I've ever made a deliberate decision at the outset as to which I was going to use; just started writing in whatever seemed natural for the moment—and, on the rare occasion, have changed it from first to third, or vice versa, after I started.

I've seen second person used successfully a number of times. Nick Sagan uses it nicely for one viewpoint character in his book Edenborn. Also, Charles Stross uses it in his Hugo-nominated work Halting State. I know I've come across a few other instances of it in novels where it worked just fine, and I've seen a number of short stories that employ it to one extent or another. It is probably the most difficult POV to pull off successfully, but I think it can work.

[Ravana]

I'll have to see if I can find them. I honestly can't wrap my head around it working, but I'm always willing to be proven wrong.