# Developing a distinct character voice?



## cydare (Sep 15, 2016)

The novel I'm currently working on will be written in third person limited and has two POV characters. As such, I'm anxious to give them distinct voices.

This is particularly difficult for me outside of dialogue. I seem to be having a bit of trouble when it comes to separation between the voice of each of my characters and the voice of me, as the author. 

What are everyone's experiences with voice? How do you use and define it?


----------



## Penpilot (Sep 15, 2016)

My life experiences, my vocabulary, my way looking at things will always color the language, but those things are generally unconscious. When I write, the character takes precedent, so that which is me gets colored by them. It's like I'm the broth and the character is the spice, the veggies, the meats, etc., all the other ingredients to the soup. 

Another way to look at it is, instead of trying to look at the world with me-type glasses, I look at the world through character-type glasses. It's still me behind the glasses, thought.


----------



## Malik (Sep 15, 2016)

Deconstruction. I didn't get a handle on character voice (or my own) until I really understood the language to the point where I could identify what makes speech patterns unique. Gerunds, split infinitives, contraction, adverb placement, trochaism, simple vs. continuous verbs, simile, metaphor. Once I could identify it, I could rebuild it consistently.


----------



## cydare (Sep 15, 2016)

Penpilot, I'll definitely try to pop in my character's eyes as I write, even if it's still my mind using them! Thank you! The analogy really helped in terms of author vs character voice.

And Malik, that's incredibly helpful! I am currently in a linguistics course and I'll pay special attention. I honestly never thought of it that way. You've opened my eyes.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Sep 15, 2016)

I write in first person, so this comes somewhat naturally. What I do is try to get to know the character and get a sense of how they think and talk. I do interviews with them and write down their answers, or even casual, informal chats. Once I know the character well enough, voice will come naturally. Because, well, it's them talking, not me. 

I'm not sure how this relates to writing in third person though. Third person has always felt too detached and objective for me and that's why I avoid it.


----------



## Malik (Sep 15, 2016)

cydare said:


> Penpilot, I'll definitely try to pop in my character's eyes as I write, even if it's still my mind using them! Thank you! The analogy really helped in terms of author vs character voice.
> 
> And Malik, that's incredibly helpful! I am currently in a linguistics course and I'll pay special attention. I honestly never thought of it that way. You've opened my eyes.



I minored in linguistics (I'm an old-school structuralist) and worked in computational linguistics for a time. It's going to help your writing like you can't believe.

Linguistics posts on my blog:

Showing vs. Telling and Typing vs. Writing: Why Movies are not Novels | Joseph Malik

Fair Folk, Greek Literature, and the Plight of the Modern Cunning Linguist | Joseph Malik

Markov and Me | Joseph Malik

They Have a Word for That? | Joseph Malik

Hit me up if you have any questions. I'm probably not hip to the modern theories; it's been 20 years. But I'm always up for talking linguistics. I really do believe that it's an overlooked (and all-too-often handwaved) part of sci-fi and fantasy and it's the one thing I decided to really grind my teeth about.


----------



## Malik (Sep 16, 2016)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> Third person has always felt too detached and objective for me and that's why I avoid it.



Third doesn't have to be detached. Read my book. PM me with an email address and I'll send you a copy.

Third LIMITED is detached. That's where you get the bullshit half-assed cinematic scenes and the straightjacket POV with no author intrusion. ****in' yawn.

Third OMNISCIENT is where you introduce a narrator's voice. This is how stories used to be told; it's called "storytelling," and  it's an ancient technique of the masters, lost to the ages. And I'm bringing it back. (I just had an interview with a blogger who commented on my use of narrative voice. He said that my book is "a backpack nuke that [I've] managed to smuggle into the midst of the indie fantasy market." My first review on GR said that she suspects that I'm a major literary author writing fantasy under a pseudonym. So far, so good.)

We see a lot of third limited because it doesn't require delineation between character and narrator voice, and as a result, it writes very fast. Pulp writers love it because you can just bang everything out in one voice -- or even in no voice, and keep it cold and cinematic. Which is chickenshit. NARRATE. Put yourself out there and see if people like _you._ If you don't -- if you choose limited third -- then you can use your story as a shield and not have to endure _personal_ rejection. They don't like your story. They don't like your characters. You're insulated.

Chickenshit.

Third omniscient is also very hard. It takes years to develop, which is likely the main reason that people don't do it in this age of instant gratification and YouTube fame. With third omniscient you will literally spend months moving words around giving everyone a distinct voice, and it can take years or even decades to develop your own narrative voice to the point where it's unique and separate from the characters. It is literally a dying art. 

On the plus side, it's been pointed out that I don't have to worry about hordes of pulp writers stealing my thunder if I end up with a runaway hit on my hands. On the other hand, maybe I suck and nobody will buy my series because it's not written in limited third the way everything else "has to be."

But not all third is detached. Just 99% of it in fantasy and sci-fi these days.


----------



## TheCatholicCrow (Sep 16, 2016)

cydare said:


> The novel I'm currently working on will be written in third person limited and has two POV characters. As such, I'm anxious to give them distinct voices.
> 
> I seem to be having a bit of trouble when it comes to separation between the voice of each of my characters and the voice of me, as the author.
> 
> What are everyone's experiences with voice? How do you use and define it?



I prefer to stay away from Third Person altogether. Sometimes the story calls for it but for the most part, I prefer first person because I'm lazy that feel the most natural to me. I want to get into the head of the character, not just manipulate their actions like a puppeteer. I find it to be the most engaging, after that, Omniscient. Once upon a time I used to enjoy Third Limited but I find it harder to stomach now (maybe I've just seen too many instances of it being used poorly). 

If you've never read it before, consider picking up a copy of Gillian Flynn's _Gone Girl _ (yes, I know it's a way different genre) but it's become my go-to example of a story with two very unique and well done voices (His and Hers) ... if I remember correctly, both in the first person (nothing new for Thriller but a bit out of the ordinary with the Mystery plotline- usually you see mystery in 3rd because you need that removal to keep the reader guessing - so did they or didn't they? Who was in the library with Colonel Mustard? Also - the whole pulp thing). Anyway, I found it to be a good read (albeit risque) but if you're looking for distinct voices it's topnotch. Plus, since it was so huge several years ago, you shouldn't have a problem getting a hold of a used copy for dirt cheap or finding it in a library. 

If you haven't already, take some time to get to know your characters. Write a few scenes (for each) in first person. Figure out who they are, not just how they talk but _how they think_. Optimistic? The way they view the world around them will be naturally more perky. Pessimistic? The way they view the world might be cynical... so for the Optimist you might choose to focus on certain details in description (smells, sights, etc) while for the other you might go with a slightly less external mode for processing (feelings, thoughts, impressions)... You can use two different forms of narration for each in lots of subtle ways. The way you choose to reveal this information will play a role ... 

"The rain fell down in big fat drops that stung his skin. Great, he thought to himself, I'll have to wash the car again." *vs*
"Despite the rainfall, a choir of birds hid in the rafters, singing together. Joyce found it to be delightful." 

Both include insight to their mindsets but they also frame the same situation (a rainy day) in a different mood that should capture some element of the character. Neither is a good example, just something written on the fly but hopefully you understand what I'm referring to.   

I like Malik's article (Why movies are not books) but I would humbly add that films are a different form of storytelling. I think it's perfectly acceptable to let it influence you to some degree_as long as_ the written word comes first (not just novels either - add in some flash, vignettes, short stories, and poetry). The same goes with Anime / Manga or comics. Each has a time and place and enjoying them might help you expand your understanding of storytelling and art but it won't necessarily translate well to your writing. No need to swear it off completely but there's nothing quite like analyzing & learning techniques from written text.  

@Malik - Beyond lazy descriptions, I would add to the list random jumps between scenes. I recently tried critiquing a flash piece where every fourth or fifth line was a new scene. Hopping around like that might work with a visual format but (at least the way they'd done it) it was jarring and didn't work as short fiction. (It wasn't meant to be experimental either.) In addition to nothing happening, it was just a jumbled mess of mini vignettes with no clear plot progression. I love Tarantino's films but let's just say there's a reason he should stick to film. Some ideas and techniques are best left in other mediums.


----------



## Chessie (Sep 16, 2016)

I think character voice is different from author voice. How do the two come together? Through descriptions, story line, characters, everything. The author carries a certain tone throughout a story, one that compliments and is tied into theme. There are breaks within the POV character's narrative where the author speaks or narrates as Malik said. Then character voice is just a matter of how she's built and how she reacts to what's happening around her.

In one of Brandon Sanderson's youtube lectures, he goes over the structure for a paragraph and how to open a scene. Start with something concrete about the character, then add setting and a bit of description, next sentence is something about the character again, and so on. Also dialogue. So the way I see it is the author's voice comes in first thing in that OP sentence and tells the reader about character. Setting and descriptions are a mixture of author and character voice. Author comes in on the next sentence about character. Descriptive narrative, dialogue, and observations about other characters are made from character perspective and also author voice. They tie in together to create the essence of you in that story.

In regards to POV preferences...that's just it, personal comfort. What we think is lazy and uninspired (like first person present) might just be the way that particular writer tells her story best. Different strokes and all that. I pretty much only write in 3rd--like, basic 3rd because I'm not really sure that I even understand 3rd limited. Present tense, yes, is actually kind of growing on me but I have yet to try prose with it. I'm still plenty able to connect with my characters and story regardless if I use 3rd. It's just what works for me.


----------



## Chessie (Sep 16, 2016)

@Catholic Crow: Gone Girl is such a good book! (that wife tho...)


----------



## cydare (Sep 16, 2016)

I messed up when I said third person limited (I translated directly from my first language.  I should know by now that isn't how things work). What I meant was close third person. Or, if I made another error, the sort of third person which is most like first person, and you see through the character's eyes. Sorry about that!

*Malik*, those blog posts are fantastic, and some tie into what I'm learning now. Thank you for the help and the offer! I'll definitely send you a message once I have a grasp on how I want to include linguistic deconstruction past 'I should do it'. Is your book the one in your picture?

*DragonoftheAerie *and *TheCatholicCrow *- I think I'll try writing out a few scenes or short stories in first person, if only to enter the character's head in a more personal manner. It's a good idea to experiment in different ways. One of the reasons I'm keeping away from first person in the actual story is because one of the protagonists isn't quite human. They go through periods where everything is a jumble, and rather than interesting, has been coming off as confusing.

I'll also check out Gone Girl. I'm always looking for recommendations, especially ones that can help. Thank you!

*Chesterama*, I've just started listening to Brandon Sanderson's lectures yesterday, so this is a really nice way to direct me. Your explanation is helping me figure things out as I think about them more deeply.


----------



## Nimue (Sep 16, 2016)

Hey Malik... Is it really necessary to denigrate every single method of storytelling except the one you've decided to use?  Particularly since the OP has said they're using third limited and the question wasn't why they shouldn't.

Maybe keep the list of everything you think is chickenshit to your blog...


Edit: I'm pretty sure close third and third limited are equivalent?  Either way, you're seeing the world from one character's viewpoint at a time.


----------



## cydare (Sep 16, 2016)

Is it? I think I'm confusing myself with terminology. Thank you Nimue.


----------



## Malik (Sep 16, 2016)

Nimue said:


> Hey Malik... Is it really necessary to denigrate every single method of storytelling except the one you've decided to use?  Particularly since the OP has said they're using third limited and the question wasn't why they shouldn't.
> 
> Maybe keep the list of everything you think is chickenshit to your blog...
> .



Really, it's just that one thing. And I do denigrate it. It's flaccid, it's overused, it's wearisome, it leads to bad writing, and worst of all, it's a crutch. It's flooding the market because it writes fast. It writes fast because _it takes voice away and concentrates on action and description._ (_Edited to add: It shouldn't, and it doesn't have to, but it can be used as a very clinical, fast-writing technique by stripping away voice and letting the descriptions carry the scene, and that's how it's being misused. And it's misused so much that now people think that this is how it's "supposed to be done.")_ It has killed the art of fantasy narration. And it's why we have questions like the OPs, about "how do I separate my characters' voices from my own?" That question exists because nobody does it in fantasy anymore. You have to go back thirty years to find an example. Or turn to lit-fic, where everybody still does it all the time.

And what I said was that, if you're using limited third because you're afraid of personal rejection -- if you remove your own voice because you're afraid that they'll hate you, the narrator, and not the story or the characters -- that's chickenshit. I stand by it. That's not the only reason to write in close third, but I've heard writers say they do it for exactly this reason. "If someone doesn't like your book, it's the book's fault, not yours." Absolute crap. You're an entertainer. A pie in the face comes with the job.



TheCatholicCrow said:


> @Malik - Beyond lazy descriptions, I would add to the list random jumps between scenes. I recently tried critiquing a flash piece where every fourth or fifth line was a new scene. Hopping around like that might work with a visual format but (at least the way they'd done it) it was jarring and didn't work as short fiction. (It wasn't meant to be experimental either.) In addition to nothing happening, it was just a jumbled mess of mini vignettes with no clear plot progression. I love Tarantino's films but let's just say there's a reason he should stick to film. Some ideas and techniques are best left in other mediums.



Head-hopping in short fiction is tough unless you're a master stylist. There's a great piece by Palanhiuk here, told narratively, where he changes voices, tenses, and from first to second to third person. And it's brilliant. Me, I'm not that brave. Or that good.


----------



## FifthView (Sep 16, 2016)

When it comes to developing distinct character voices, there are two issues I think.

First is knowing your characters, having a distinct image of each character–his history, personality, motivations, and so forth.

The other is the more technical details of presenting that character in such a way that he is distinct for the reader (while also making him someone the reader wants to follow.)

There was a _Writing Excuses_ podcast on third limited that used an example of how to present your characters so that they are distinct. 

Brandon Sanderson suggested imagining a goblet of water sitting in a room and different characters passing through that room.  One might see it and think it's great wealth because water is scarce in his world.  Another might see the finely crafted goblet and make plans to steal it later when she passes back through the room.  Another might not even notice the goblet of water.

So that is one exercise you can do.  Take your two characters and imagine them both noticing or observing the same thing in your world–an object, a person engaged in some activity, an event–and write short pieces about a) what the person actually notices/sees, b) what the person thinks and feels about it, c) what the person chooses to do in reaction to its presence.  You could do this multiple times for different things.  I'd suggest picking things from the world of your story because these are the sorts of things those characters are likely to encounter or to have encountered sometime in their past.

Different characters will have different frames of reference.  A carpenter might notice the table under that goblet and not think much about the goblet.  An assassin might notice the heavy curtains in the room–a place to hide–and might also wonder whether the person who lives in this mansion frequently leaves his filled goblets sitting around (making poisoning easier?)

The comparisons characters make may also be distinct for each character.  Perhaps a carpenter will be more likely to compare items on the basis of their structural elements or fine/sloppy crafting, whereas an assassin might consider their usefulness, and a thief their value.

Characters might use different metaphors, curses, and even terminology for things differently.


----------



## Nimue (Sep 16, 2016)

Malik said:


> And what I said was that, if you're using limited third because you're afraid of personal rejection -- because you're afraid that they'll hate the narrator and not the story or the characters -- that's chickenshit. I stand by it. That's not the only reason to write in close third, but I've heard writers say they do it for exactly this reason. "If someone doesn't like your book, it's the book's fault, not yours." Absolute crap. You're an entertainer. A pie in the face comes with the job.



That's a bizarre reason to choose a POV.  And no, I don't choose to write in third limited because I'm afraid of personal rejection. (What?  Seriously?) I choose it because I love seeing the world through characters' eyes, and because almost all of my favorite books--Hugo-award-winners and all--use this form, so it's a comfortable and natural method.  It can be beautiful and full of voice and immersive as hell.

I'm not afraid to slip into omniscient when the narrative calls for it, but I think inisisting that all/most stories would be better in omniscient...regardless of the atmosphere they're trying to achieve...is misguided.


----------



## Russ (Sep 16, 2016)

Malik said:


> And what I said was that, if you're using limited third because you're afraid of personal rejection -- because you're afraid that they'll hate the narrator and not the story or the characters -- that's chickenshit. I stand by it. That's not the only reason to write in close third, but I've heard writers say they do it for exactly this reason. "If someone doesn't like your book, it's the book's fault, not yours." Absolute crap. You're an entertainer. A pie in the face comes with the job.



It's funny I know dozens of professional writers who make their living writing in close or limited third and none of them has every remotely suggested that they do it out of fear of personal rejection.  Most of them do it because it best serves the modern desire to see close up inside a character with allowing them a great deal more plot flexility than first. 

In a well done piece of fiction, the author does not exist.  Authorial intrusion is a problem to be avoided.  

I think cydare's question touches about something important and shows an strong self awareness of a potential problem.  An author can have a style, sometimes called a "voice", but characters need to have their own distinct voices, different from that of the author.  Each character should speak like themselves, see the world like themselves, not just like the author.

I think awareness of how other people speak around you can also help you write distinctive character voices.  Really listen to people and think about how they speak.  Feel free to speculate about why they speak that way.  Awareness (which cydare obviously has because of the posed question) is half the battle.


----------



## Malik (Sep 16, 2016)

I had someone say exactly this at a convention last year, on a panel. It made me insane. The person was a pulp writer, and a fairly successful one. Their stuff wasn't great but the individual in question is making a lot of money. They said that they didn't fear rejection because it was the book's fault, not theirs, and the next one would be better. 

"Well, aren't you part of the book?"

"Well, no. I write from the characters' POVs. It's not me. It's them."


----------



## FifthView (Sep 16, 2016)

I'm often in agreement with Malik.  Third limited can indeed be a crutch, facile, and so forth.  One might say that of _anything_.  

But I suspect that it's easier to get away with that in third limited than in third omniscient.  I don't know, but I wonder if that whole "immersion in character" aspect can sometimes limit our awareness of the facile nature of some third limited writing.  Whereas third omniscient when facile is more likely to stab us in the eye.

This doesn't mean that third limited is by default a crutch or a useless narrative strategy. Done well, it's as great as any other narrative strategy.


----------



## Malik (Sep 16, 2016)

Russ said:


> In a well done piece of fiction, the author does not exist.  Authorial intrusion is a problem to be avoided.



The author absolutely exists. Narrative tone and authorial intrusion are not the same thing, but even the latter can be done beautifully. The Princess Bride. The Hitchhiker's Guide. Glory Road (granted, written in first but with countless editorial doglegs). Tom Clancy, Stephen Hunter, Lemony Snicket. The Scarlet Letter. Authorial intrusion is full of pitfalls and the most strident advice is to avoid it. Again, though; it used to be perfectly fine. Plenty of gothic horror novels used it to great effect. 

And isn't a first-person novel nothing but authorial intrusion?


----------



## Russ (Sep 16, 2016)

Malik said:


> I had someone say exactly this at a convention last year, on a panel. It made me insane. The person was a pulp writer, and a fairly successful one. Their stuff wasn't great but the individual in question is making a lot of money. They said that they didn't fear rejection because it was the book's fault, not theirs, and the next one would be better.
> 
> "Well, aren't you part of the book?"
> 
> "Well, no. I write from the characters' POVs. It's not me. It's them."



It is the first time I have heard of that.  However, if the person is successful, and that technique is what allows them to get past a potential emotional barrier to publishing I say who am I to criticize the mental gymnastics they do to get the job done.

But I suspect of the people who write in close third it is a tiny, tiny, tiny, insignificant number who do it for that reason.

On a total aside aside, I see people using the term "pulp" writer from time to time around here.  I know what the term means historically, but am curious as to what people think the term means when applied to modern writers.


----------



## Malik (Sep 16, 2016)

FifthView said:


> Done well, it's as great as any other narrative strategy.



The problem is that it's often not. As with anything. Sturgeon's Law. 

The problem is that there is so much of it right now -- to the point where writing blogs and forums and even "professional editors" are adamant that it's the ONLY WAY to write fantasy and sci-fi (I went through a whole thing with an editor who wanted me to change my entire book to limited third, rewrite everything, because it was "wrong") that it's getting harder and harder to find the stuff that's done well. There's a landslide of this crap right now. Limited third is becoming a religion.

You _can_ have distinct character voices in limited third. You should. You should have a narrative tone in your writing, even if you don't intrude. But close third lets you get away with not having these things. Which, again, brings us back to the likely genesis of the OP's question.


----------



## Russ (Sep 16, 2016)

Malik said:


> The author absolutely exists. Narrative tone and authorial intrusion are not the same thing, but even the latter can be done beautifully. The Princess Bride. The Hitchhiker's Guide. Glory Road (granted, written in first but with countless editorial doglegs). Tom Clancy, Stephen Hunter, Lemony Snicket. The Scarlet Letter. Authorial intrusion is full of pitfalls and the most strident advice is to avoid it. Again, though; it used to be perfectly fine. Plenty of gothic horror novels used it to great effect.
> 
> And isn't a first-person novel nothing but authorial intrusion?




I think we agree on this.  As I indicated above I think each author can and should develop their own style, which you call narrative tone.  I am all for unique and distinctive narrative tone.  But the "Voices" in the novel should be those of the characters, not mine.

A first person novel, done properly, has no authorial intrusion, but it has a great deal of voice of the narrator who is not the author (generally).

Perhaps an example best illustrates the difference.  IF I am writing a first person book about a Russian WWI soldier, the book should be full of the voice of a Russian WWI sniper, not the voice of a middle aged Canadian lawyer or even the voice of a middle aged Canadian lawyer thinking about what it would be like to be a Russian WWI sniper.

Reminders of the existence of an author during the narrative negatively impacts immersion.  IF that is your goal, than it can be a tool to achieve that goal.  Most people don't want to break immersion that way.


----------



## Russ (Sep 16, 2016)

FifthView said:


> I'm often in agreement with Malik.  Third limited can indeed be a crutch, facile, and so forth.  One might say that of _anything_.
> 
> But I suspect that it's easier to get away with that in third limited than in third omniscient.  I don't know, but I wonder if that whole "immersion in character" aspect can sometimes limit our awareness of the facile nature of some third limited writing.  Whereas third omniscient when facile is more likely to stab us in the eye.
> 
> This doesn't mean that third limited is by default a crutch or a useless narrative strategy. Done well, it's as great as any other narrative strategy.




Do you feel that limited third for some reason is inherently facile?  Or more inherently facile that other POV choices?


----------



## Penpilot (Sep 16, 2016)

cydare said:


> I messed up when I said third person limited (I translated directly from my first language.  I should know by now that isn't how things work). What I meant was close third person. Or, if I made another error, the sort of third person which is most like first person, and you see through the character's eyes. Sorry about that!



Sorry. In a hurry so have to keep this short. 

There are two types of third limited: third subjective/close and third cinematic/objective. Third subjective is what you're familiar with. Third objective you don't get into character's heads at all. It plays like a movie hence why it's called a cinematic POV.  

For me, I write in what ever POV the story calls for because each has its pros and cons, and each story has its needs and challenges.


----------



## Malik (Sep 16, 2016)

Russ said:


> It is the first time I have heard of that.  However, if the person is successful, and that technique is what allows them to get past a potential emotional barrier to publishing I say who am I to criticize the mental gymnastics they do to get the job done.
> 
> But I suspect of the people who write in close third it is a tiny, tiny, tiny, insignificant number who do it for that reason.
> 
> On a total aside aside, I see people using the term "pulp" writer from time to time around here.  I know what the term means historically, but am curious as to what people think the term means when applied to modern writers.



My mother was a pulp romance writer back in the 80's. She wrote teen romances under this onerous contract for one of the big houses. All of her books had to be a certain length, they had to stick to one of a handful of acceptable plots, they all had to have certain characters, and they had to culminate in the first kiss. The first two, she said, were easy. The next six drove her to drink. To me, that's a pulp. Delivering what's expected, no more, no less. No surprises, no art. 

Amazon (and Smashwords) has done an amazing thing in tapping into a market of fantasy and sci-fi readers who are willing to read fantasy and sci-fi that's written like trash romance.

When I say pulp fantasy writer, I mean someone who is writing as fast as they can, hammering together two-dimensional books from expected tropes and cliches and well-worn storylines. The lost prince. The evil sorcerer controlling an army of orcs. The young orphan coming of age. Not putting out anything new, not putting out anything deep (no allegory, no metaphor, half-assed worldbuilding, shoddy research -- and you know how I am about research), just writing and getting the money. The romance novel / erotica approach to fantasy. Type THE END. Publish. Start the next one. I won't name names. 

I mean, it's fine. Sure. Good on 'em; they're making a living and I'm not. But ten pages in, I've found twenty typos or misused words and I already know how the story is going to end. And then I look and see that this author has written six books in the past two years, and flipping through the first few pages, they're all like this. That, to me, is a pulp writer. A perfectly legitimate way to make a living but not my thing.


----------



## Russ (Sep 16, 2016)

Malik said:


> My mother was a pulp romance writer back in the 80's. She wrote teen romances under this onerous contract for one of the big houses. All of her books had to be a certain length, they had to stick to one of a handful of acceptable plots, they all had to have certain characters, and they had to culminate in the first kiss. The first two, she said, were easy. The next six drove her to drink. To me, that's a pulp. Delivering what's expected, no more, no less. No surprises, no art.
> 
> Amazon (and Smashwords) has done an amazing thing in tapping into a market of fantasy and sci-fi readers who are willing to read fantasy and sci-fi that's written like trash romance.
> 
> ...



Appreciate you explaining that.  I thought that was what you meant, people who produce high volume formulaic work, often to a deadline, but now I know.  I read old pulp for fun, but don't read any modern pulp.


----------



## FifthView (Sep 16, 2016)

Russ said:


> Do you feel that limited third for some reason is inherently facile?  Or more inherently facile that other POV choices?



Difficult for me to explain; I'm still piecing things together.

I think that we expect characters to be imperfect, have foibles, and the like.  So facile writing in third limited can "pass" somewhat, as long as we are still able to immerse ourselves in the POV character's experiences.  Gaps, oddities, and so forth in the narrative get something of a pass.  Limited description of the environment?  Other details left out?  Well, the character just didn't notice these things. Let's say we are a little more forgiving with that narrative voice.

But in third omniscient, particularly the type that has a storyteller narrator, we expect absolute mastery from the narrator.  If "someone" is going to tell us a story, we expect him/her to be a master storyteller, to know when and when not to intrude, and how to intrude, and to present characters with pertinent fidelity as well as other details of the environment and events.

So...I'm grasping here trying to explain impressions I've not had to explain before. 

I think it's generally acknowledged that 3rd omniscient is more difficult to do well than 3rd limited?  I don't want to use _argumentum ad populum_ to prop up my own views, and I acknowledge that I'm still piecing things together.  I do not want to argue that either narrative strategy can so easily be characterized simplistically.  I think that third limited can be just as great as third omniscient, and given the explosion of bad examples which nonetheless find buyers, I'd hazard to guess that, in general, doing it well is not as easy as snapping one's fingers.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Sep 16, 2016)

Malik said:


> Third doesn't have to be detached. Read my book. PM me with an email address and I'll send you a copy.
> 
> Third LIMITED is detached. That's where you get the bullshit half-assed cinematic scenes and the straightjacket POV with no author intrusion. ****in' yawn.
> 
> ...



Third limited, yeah, that's what i meant. But i think third limited when i hear third, because third omni is so rare. (I don't know why. Harder to do well, maybe?)

Third limited does have its place, like everything. It can be done really well, and some stories are best told in third limited. But it can be awful when done badly.


----------



## Russ (Sep 16, 2016)

FifthView said:


> Difficult for me to explain; I'm still piecing things together.
> 
> I think that we expect characters to be imperfect, have foibles, and the like.  So facile writing in third limited can "pass" somewhat, as long as we are still able to immerse ourselves in the POV character's experiences.  Gaps, oddities, and so forth in the narrative get something of a pass.  Limited description of the environment?  Other details left out?  Well, the character just didn't notice these things. Let's say we are a little more forgiving with that narrative voice.
> 
> ...



Although you have not yet refined this into a well developed worldview, I appreciate your efforts to articulate your thoughts on the matter.

Now you got me thinking too.


----------



## Nimue (Sep 16, 2016)

Honestly?  There's a lot of terrible omniscient out there as well, particularly in amateur or indie fiction.  The obligatory beginning where the author stops to tell the reader alllll about the boring history of the setting before reaching any character or action.  Or the oh-so-original storyteller prologue.  Or the "let me pause to describe all the characters in weird detail before you care about them."  Third person omniscient is literally the oldest trick in the book, and it's been mangled at least as many times as third limited, even if it's not as popular in the moment.


----------



## Russ (Sep 16, 2016)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> Third limited does have its place, like everything. It can be done really well, and some stories are best told in third limited. But it can be awful when done badly.



In today's adult commercial fiction (or adult genre fiction if you prefer) is not it's place "market dominance"?

Your comment also begs the question.  Are other POV choices less awful when done badly?  Is there a POV choice that mitigates the impact of poor writing?


----------



## FifthView (Sep 16, 2016)

Nimue said:


> ...even if it's not as popular in the moment.



One of the problems with having a discussion about anything is the tendency to go full-on absolutist.  

By suggesting that one narrative strategy may be easier—to pass—than another, I'm not saying that omniscient third can't be written poorly.

Nor, that third limited is simple to do well.

I'm not saying that one narrative strategy as a whole is better than the other.  

I would propose that third limited's popularity is precisely due to the fact that it more easily passes.  But this might not be a bad thing.  If importance of story plays a role, then having unobtrusive narration may allow the story to shine, and this also may account for third limited's relative popularity.


----------



## Incanus (Sep 16, 2016)

Interesting discussion.

In my view, no POV is inherently better or worse than any other.  The best POV is the one that best suits the story idea.  The amount of current use of any POV (or lack of same), or that some authors do it poorly, plays no part in my deliberation.  Why would it?  Sturgeon's Law all the way.

That said, I do find third-omni the most difficult to write, and first person the easiest.


----------



## FifthView (Sep 16, 2016)

Incidentally:  Apologies to cydare for the highjacking of this thread. 

I think we could have had a great discussion about ways to improve in creating distinct character voices in third limited.  My first comment moved in that direction.  But sometimes these more general discussions pop up, leading us to overlook the original purpose of a thread.


----------



## Russ (Sep 16, 2016)

FifthView said:


> I would propose that third limited's popularity is precisely due to the fact that it more easily passes.  But this might not be a bad thing.  If importance of story plays a role, then having unobtrusive narration may allow the story to shine, and this also may account for third limited's relative popularity.



I think that analysis  might be a tad too cynical.  

I have had some long conversations with very successful genre fiction writers about point of view.  From them I would suggest that the reason for the dominance of third limited amongst current publications is that it is the best way to bring readers two things that people currently believe are very important in good fiction:

1) a feeling to close attachment to the protagonist and other characters; and

2) some flexibility with allowing the reader to see events that will impact the plot that the protagonist would not be aware of.

I would go far as to say that for the modern genre fiction writer, it looks to me that third limited is the default choice unless there is a clear indicia that the story is best served by some other pov choice.


----------



## Chessie (Sep 16, 2016)

Russ said:


> In a well done piece of fiction, the author does not exist.  Authorial intrusion is a problem to be avoided.




Oh, no. Russ. How can I possibly change your mind about this? Let's see...

...

...

Without the author there is no story. None. Zero. A well done piece of fiction is a balance of author, character, plot, setting, the whole kitchen sink. The author's voice must be present otherwise how else is the story created? Author works behind the scenes, drives and manipulates the story with their own distinct way of weaving. Authorial intrustion in the "you", that's one thing. Having your voice present is another.

I'm currently reading Entreat Me by Grace Draven. She is probably my new favorite author atm. Her voice is strong yet subtle, sensual, a bit raw, and very noticeable. The characters are their own people but SHE is still there. And I love that. Tell me a story! Narrate to me! It's why I read books and why I love writing. Whisk me away! But when an author's voice isn't there...I'm putting that baby back on the shelf.


----------



## Russ (Sep 16, 2016)

Chesterama said:


> Oh, no. Russ. How can I possibly change your mind about this? Let's see....



I think we probably actually agree on this.  I think an author should have a unique narrative tone or style and express it fully.  But the "voices" in the book should be those of the characters.  See my post #23 above.


----------



## Chessie (Sep 16, 2016)

@Nimue: If you're finding poorly written Indie fiction allow me to direct you to authors that are actually worth your dollars. Grace Draven writes what you and I both enjoy, so I highly recommend her for starters. I know that not all Indie is written well but not all trade is written well either. But there are some really good books put out there by Indies. The best place to go is Amazon...and seriously it will change your literature reading life. I was skeptical about reading Indie until I discovered Lindsey Buroker's fantasy books. She is also very good (her Flash Gold Steampunk series is thumbs up).

And regarding pulp like Malik has been talking about: it's written fast. A lot of sacrifices are made to push books off the e-press in a month. While I respect those writers and believe that it's indeed possible for them to publish good books in a short amount of time, there are sacrifices made such as descriptions and worldbuilding but what does that really matter? I read a lot of Indie books, some are lame but satisfy my needs as a reader. I think it just takes a lot of practice to be that kind of author but it's doable.


----------



## FifthView (Sep 16, 2016)

Russ said:


> I think that analysis  might be a tad too cynical.
> 
> I have had some long conversations with very successful genre fiction writers about point of view.  From them I would suggest that the reason for the dominance of third limited amongst current publications is that it is the best way to bring readers two things that people currently believe are very important in good fiction:
> 
> ...



Ah, I don't know if cynicism is the right objection.  I do think it ignores the strengths of third limited, however, and your #1 is a good one.  But again, sucking that reader in so that the reader becomes a part of the story—identifies with the protagonist and experiences the story with the protagonist—might be "easier" when you also have the benefit of free indirect speech and a direct pipeline to a character's thoughts, feelings, impressions.

Then again, those things can be achieved in third omniscient as well.  I confess that one of my favorite aspects of _Dune_ was the frequent delivery of direct character thoughts, in italics.  In fact, I think that almost everything that third limited can do, third omniscient can also do.  I suppose the question would be in whether and to what degree the narration is limited, and what effect this has.


----------



## cydare (Sep 16, 2016)

FifthView said:


> Incidentally:  Apologies to cydare for the highjacking of this thread.



It's a very interesting discussion, so no worries!

Personally, I've never had a preference as a reader when it came to first vs third, or close vs omniscient. Each serves a different purpose and immerses me into the story in a slightly different way. In terms of writing: If I have a group of important characters who often interact, I like the freedom of omniscient. Characters with separate storylines that converge near the end (or when I want to keep a sense of mystery for some reason or another) - I go with close. I use first person for characters who live more in their minds, or have a particularly interesting voice.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Sep 16, 2016)

This discussion has rapidly turned into "which pov is good and which pov stinks" and apparently there are very strong opinions on it. I stick to the idea that anything can be done well and anything can be done badly. 

But, as for *personal preference...* I'm not saying third limited is bad, i'm saying that I like writing in first person better. 

First person has more in common with third omniscient than third limited because, as Malik said, you have the storyteller voice shining through. They are both typically very personal narrative styles. Though, i'm sure it is quite possible to write in third omni in an impersonal, generic, straightjacketed way, so that deserves clarification... But, i like the narration to be personal. It connects me to the story. Writing in first person enables me to have more intimacy with the main characters and their viewpoints than would ordinarily be possible. Third limited usually removes some of that intimacy and personal dimension. 

I have two main characters, both of whom narrate in the first person, and they narrate very differently. The narration is full of their individual personality and character. She's an introverted, philosophical person who fills paragraphs with her internal musings. She loves to describe, and waxes poetic and emo about her circumstances. He's much more succinct and chatty. His narration is more stream-of-consciousness. He swears like a sailor. He's far more self-aware than she is--he's able to break the fourth wall and talk to the reader directly, while she cannot. (I have no idea why, I didn't plan it this way, but that's the way it came out, so I ran with it.) They see things very differently and I love having both their perspectives.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Sep 16, 2016)

Also, first person narration can add an entirely new dimension to developing your character's arc, because as they themselves change, their narration will also. It can reveal how their perspective is evolving.


----------



## Chessie (Sep 16, 2016)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> Also, first person narration can add an entirely new dimension to developing your character's arc, because as they themselves change, their narration will also. It can reveal how their perspective is evolving.


This should be happening regardless of the POV a writer chooses to use. And I don't think anyone here is saying one way of narrating is better than another. We're all voicing our preferences and stimulating mental discussion as to what works for us.


----------



## Russ (Sep 16, 2016)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> Also, first person narration can add an entirely new dimension to developing your character's arc, because as they themselves change, their narration will also. It can reveal how their perspective is evolving.



But should this not also occur in third person limited?  And in third person limited is it not easier to how more characters (such as the antagonist) changing and developing as well?

I would respectfully disagree with your conclusion that third person limited usually removes more intimacy than third person omn.

I don't see why the differences between your two characters could not achieved just as effectively in third person limited as in two firsts.

Doing two firsts also risks confusion if not done really well.  Although it can be done very effectively, as a friend of mine did in the amazing book Mindscan.  Now that was a two first person challenge.  But he wrote it that way because the nature of the plot made it an everest like challenge and he wanted to do that climb.


----------



## Reaver (Sep 16, 2016)

FifthView said:


> Then again, those things can be achieved in third omniscient as well.  I confess that one of my favorite aspects of _Dune_ was the frequent delivery of direct character thoughts, in italics.  In fact, I think that almost everything that third limited can do, third omniscient can also do.  I suppose the question would be in whether and to what degree the narration is limited, and what effect this has.



Couldn't agree more. As anyone can tell simply by looking at my signature here, one of my favorite books of all time is Dune. 

Third person omniscient does take skill to be done well but it's unquestionably my favorite way to write. My least favorite is second person.


----------



## Malik (Sep 16, 2016)

Chesterama said:


> I don't think anyone here is saying one way of narrating is better than another..



Nah, I'm pretty much saying exactly that.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Sep 16, 2016)

Russ said:


> But should this not also occur in third person limited?  And in third person limited is it not easier to how more characters (such as the antagonist) changing and developing as well?
> 
> I would respectfully disagree with your conclusion that third person limited usually removes more intimacy than third person omn.
> 
> ...



To each their own, I guess. But, first person *does* do different things, highlight different strengths, accomplish different goals... 

If anything done in one POV can be done just as easily in any other, why is there any debate about which is best? Why do writers have preferences?


----------



## Reaver (Sep 16, 2016)

Malik said:


> Nah, I'm pretty much saying exactly that.



I'm doing the same. First is okay, third limited is better, third omniscient is best. Second person is awful. Remember those "Choose your own adventure" books from the 80's?


_*You find yourself in a small, dimly lit room. There are three wooden doors. One to your left, one to your right and one directly in front of you. Which door will you take?

If you choose the door to your left, turn to page 5.

If you choose the door to your right, turn to page 11.

If you choose the door directly in front of you, turn to page 26.*_

Ugh....


----------



## Chessie (Sep 16, 2016)

Malik said:


> Nah, I'm pretty much saying exactly that.


Holy shit. I'm trying to make a point here, make it easy for me please? 

People have preferences and that's just the way it is. My husband loves to read military history and I think that's boring as whack. He calls the books I read "elf romance crap". His tastes are not better than mine and mine aren't better than his. First person _isn't_ better than 3rd close or omn. It'st just another tool in the box.

Dragon, you're a very young writer still. Perhaps first is the right narration tool for you atm because you're still learning skills and maturing. It's easier for you to relate to your story and characters in this way. But in the future sometime, as an adult, you may see things differently. We evolve throughout our lives and one way isn't better than another. I wrote in first person at your age however since my 20s, I've been writing in 3rd. It provides me with more freedom to tell my stories whereas now I find first person difficult to engage with. YA is mainly written in first person & present because readers of that age group identify better with stories narrated in that way. Who knows why that is. What I'm saying is that discounting 3rd is only shooting yourself in the foot early on. Try new things, explore challenges in your writing, grow as an individual and be okay with looking at things differently someday down the road.


----------



## Malik (Sep 16, 2016)

Reaver said:


> I'm doing the same. First is okay, third limited is better, third omniscient is best. Second person is awful. Remember those "Choose your own adventure" books from the 80's?



That is EXACTLY what I think of when I read second person.

I'm really not saying that any one style is better than any others. Just that . . . you know, forget I said anything.

I've been carrying the third omni + strong narrative torch for about 20 years, ever since it started to fade. And I'll say this again: 25 years ago, no writing professor ever told anyone that they HAD to write in one voice or another, unless it was for an exercise. In creative writing, we were never told NOT to head-hop. We were told, "Your POV shifts are clumsy," "Your character voices aren't sincere," "Your narrative voice is weak." If you did write in limited third, it was, "Huh. You wrote entirely in limited third. Interesting."

An expensive run-in with an editor earlier this year who wanted to **** up my whole thing and have me rewrite all hundred-thousand words in limited third pretty much cemented my hatred for the convention. I was already most of the way there after all the constant blathering on writing blogs that it's the only way to write fantasy and sci-fi, because that's crap. That goes for Chuck Wendig, too. Sorry. I love reading his blog and he's a great writer, but he's spreading misinformation and therefore part of the problem. It is not the only way. It's the most forgiving way, and arguably the best for beginning writers.

I love third omni. I do. It's how all of my favorite books were written. I still only use it sparingly, because it's intensely powerful. Most of my scenes are in limited third, but there's a time and a place to step up to the plate and TELL THE ****IN' STORY. 

I'll pour you another drink and make more nachos. Tell me more about that thing you just said. He did _what?_ What the hell was going through his head? What was the other guy thinking?


----------



## Reaver (Sep 16, 2016)

I think that the main reason I like third omni is because I have a god complex when it comes to the worlds and characters I create. I want to show their thoughts, feelings and all the stuff "deep down in places they don't talk about at parties". (I had to use this quote because it's great and totally encapsulates how I feel about this.)

I believe doing this makes the characters three dimensional and worthy of emotional investment in their journey. A book that has transformed the way I develop my characters is Dr. Antonio Del Drago's "_The Mythic Guide to Characters"_.

I recommend it to authors of all skill levels if they want to create more realistic characters.


----------



## Penpilot (Sep 16, 2016)

Malik said:


> 25 years ago, no writing professor ever told anyone that they HAD to write in one voice or another, unless it was for an exercise. In creative writing, we were never told NOT to head-hop. We were told, "Your POV shifts are clumsy," "Your character voices aren't sincere," "Your narrative voice is weak." If you did write in limited third, it was, "Huh. You wrote entirely in limited third. Interesting."



In all the writing classes I've taken, and one editing class I took, I have never heard anyone say not to use omnipotent, or that you must write in limited. If I kept running into people like that, I'd probably tell them to f-off. 




Reaver said:


> I think that the main reason I like third omni is because I have a god complex when it comes to the worlds and characters I create. I want to show their thoughts, feelings and all the stuff "deep down in places they don't talk about at parties". (I had to use this quote because it's great and totally encapsulates how I feel about this.)



Hmm... anyone with a god complex should not be writing third omni. Instead, they should write in first omni.


----------



## Heliotrope (Sep 16, 2016)

I've been following this fascinating conversation and I have noticed that no one has touched on first person omni, so thanks to PenPilot for finally bringing it up! 

I'm a HUGE fan of Kurt Vonnegut, who I think writes in first omni. He has a very strong narrative voice, writes in first, but also knows what every single character is thinking and feeling. This has never bothered me. I love it. Most of Galapagos is written in third omni: 

_There was no mystery a million years ago as to how a thirty-five-year-old American male named James Wait, who could not swim a stroke, intended to get from the South American continent to the Galapagos Islands. He certainly wasn't going to squat on a natural raft of vegetable matter and hope for the best..._

But then he will shift to first and speak directly to the reader, even asking the reader questsions: 

_It's hard to believe nowadays that people could ever have been as brilliantly duplicitous as James Wait - until I remind myself that just about every adult human being back then had a brain weighing about three kilograms!... 

So I raise the question, although there is nobody around to answer it: Can it be doubted that three-kilogram brains were once nearly fatal defects in the evolution of the human race? _

He does a similar thing in Slaughter House Five: 

_All this happened, more or less. The war parts, anyway, are pretty much true. One guy I knew really was shot in Dresden for taking a teapot that wasn't his. Another guy I knew really did threaten to have his personal enemies killed by a hired gunman after the war. And so on. I've changed all the names._

But then he goes on to get totally into the heads of all the characters and 'head-hops' flawlessly. 

 Hemmingway also did first person omni beautifully: 

_Robert Cohn was once middleweight boxing champion of Princeton. Do not think I'm very much impressed by that as a boxing title, but it meant a lot to Cohn. He cared nothing for boxing, in fact, he disliked it, but he learned it painfully and thoroughly to counteract the feeling of inferiority and shyness he had felt on being treated as a Jew at Princeton._

So I would never consider first person to be "an amateur" style or purely YA style. And I don't think first Omni should be ignored in this conversation. 

They are all useful tools that serve their purpose. They can all be used in fascinating ways, so long as the writer himself/herself is brave enough to do and say fascinating things.

*Edit: I think, my issue is not with any specific style, but the fact that not enough writers are willing to say and do fascinating things. 

I think when voice is done badly it is just a sign of bad writing in general. Not a symptom of the voice itself.


----------



## Heliotrope (Sep 16, 2016)

As far as the OP, you have chosen third limited, which is a perfectly acceptable choice. 

So how to make your characters sound distinct: 

- I typically try to make my characters as different from each other as possible, so I wouldn't have two female POV characters, instead I would have a male and a female. I would have one old or one young, or one a visible majority and one a visible minority. This changes their worldviews enough to be very distinct from each other so the reader knows exactly what POV they are reading. 

- give them a "limp and an eyepatch". Give each character a defining characteristic that sets them apart. Make it something noticeable enough that it comes up from time to time, like an old war injury that makes it difficult to walk or climb stairs, or a glass eye that itches, or an old tattoo they are embarrassed about and try to keep hidden. When you bring this foible up now and again in the narrative it makes the character feel more "real" to the reader, as don't we all have little things about ourselves that bother us? A bad back, bad teeth, a scar? 

- give them different goals, or if they have a similar goal, a different motivation. Obviously they will think about this motivation often, as it is what is driving them forward in the story. Give them different motivations to set them apart from each other. 

A great exercise I ran into is: 

Think of five of your fami,y members or friends and list them with a defining quality. One thing that sounds out to you as being distinctly "them":

Example:

My dad- needs to be in charge, micromanager
My old grandad- everyday is a good day
My husband- needs to be a funny guy/ never takes anything seriously
My mother- highly anxious
My sister - princess

Now lock all those people in an elevator. How would they respond? 

My dad would be hatching a plan and telling everyone what to do. He'd be climbing up the elevator shaft trying to get help. 

My grandad would be reassuring everyone that help was on its way and to be positive and he'd likely start singing. 

My husband would say something along the lines of "who farted?" Or perhaps "good thing no ones pregnant." 

My mother would be freaking out, screaming at my dad for being such an idiot and who the hell chose this stupid elevator anyway? 

... 

You get the idea.


----------



## skip.knox (Sep 16, 2016)

If I am focused on the relative merits of third vs first, present vs past, and so on, I am focused on the wrong thing. I should be focused on my story. However I write it is how I write it and the only criterion is whether or not I do it well. Amen, Brother Malik.

Total up all the time you spent thinking and arguing over this point. Now wish you had spent that time writing.


----------



## FifthView (Sep 16, 2016)

skip.knox said:


> However I write it is how I write it and the only criterion is whether or not I do it well.



And yet, the approach you choose can make a large difference in the story you end up writing.  

Are these choices irrelevant?  Does the type of story you want to tell matter when choosing a narrative approach?


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Sep 16, 2016)

I fall into the camp of any POV is good if it fits the story. Not every story fits every POV.

Song of Ice and Fire written like Dune? Uh, no thanks... although there could be some entertaining italic moments. Slaughterhouse Five written like Hunger Games? Nope. A Clockwork Orange like Fifty Shades? Oh wait, nothing should be written like Fifty Shades...

I'm also not a purist in one POV being more inherently difficult than another. I think 1st is a bit easier, but writing Moby Dick sure as hell wouldn't be easy without copying, heh heh. It is really easy to write any POV poorly, that's the truth.


----------



## Heliotrope (Sep 16, 2016)

^^^^ see, this is interesting to me, because I feel like it does, but in the same vein the story often comes to me in a specific voice. My current wip comes to me in first person no matter how hard I try to force it to be third omni. I really want it to be third omni, which is where I'm most comfortable, but this particular story just feels better in first.

I think a lot has to do with tone and mood as well.

* edit: dem snuck in there while I was responding to fifthview... Sneaky dem


----------



## skip.knox (Sep 16, 2016)

I don't buy it, though I cannot make a good case as to why. It doesn't *feel* like a choose a narrative approach. I just start telling the story and it happens as it happens.  One happened to be first person. All others have been third. I confess I don't think much about whether it's omniscient or close or skewed. When I'm famous, my biographer can explain it to me.

Maybe I'm just not writerly enough, but for me, every story I write can only be told in the way I tell it. Someone else would tell it differently, I'm sure.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Sep 16, 2016)

As to character voice... there are plenty of choices that can be made. In an Epic I'm working on, you will find differences of terminology. Little things in word choice, outside grammar, such as the narrative and dialogue voices of religious people referring to a collection of religious figures of differing ranks as "adherents" while the Clan POV will call them "holies". The 90 year old scholar isn't of a mind to consider bopping people on the head, but the 9 year old is good with that. The narrative voice of young scholar who grew up in a village might say "I didn't see no cattle" while getting mocked by her peers, while the Clan warriors might speak this way most all the time and mock those with a scholarly air. A lighter more buoyant narrative for a seventeen year-old girl high on her trying to solve a mystery despite the fact she could die any moment, and a more stern, get the job done narrative (with flashes of unspoken irreverence) for the son of a clan Chieftain. 

Trying to mash-up the POV with the narrative voice is both challenging and fun. Dialogue is a related bird, but in some ways easier to hit than the snipe which is the POV-narrative mash. If determined, all one needs to do is highlight every character's dialogue in a rewrite phase (preferably very near the end) and make sure character speech patterns and word usage are as strict as you want. This is done in screenwriting a lot, where it's super easy since every dialogue has a tag. 

One area where 3rd Om is easier than a multi-POV limited (I separate 3rd into Limited and Intimate) is that there is only one narrative voice in the 3rd Om. From there, it's all about dialogue and consistent actions. In a multi-POV 3rd Limited, a person can go all kinds of crazy tweaking that narrator-POV blend for every POV.


----------



## Reaver (Sep 16, 2016)

FifthView said:


> And yet, the approach you choose can make a large difference in the story you end up writing.
> 
> Are these choices irrelevant?  Does the type of story you want to tell matter when choosing a narrative approach?



I agree with you FV, but I don't think that's the point Skip is trying to make. If I'm not mistaken, I think the point is that the author needs to focus more on the act of writing and not fret over how it gets done. The important thing is that your narrative voice, no matter what style it is, is heard by the masses and makes an impact, even if in a small way, in the reader's life.


----------



## skip.knox (Sep 17, 2016)

I'm with you on that, Heliotrope. This may or may not contradict what I said earlier, but contradictions do not frighten me, and anyway hobgoblins dine on consistency. I had any number of runs at my first novelette, _The Garden of Hugo Vuerloz_, all in third person. But then, one day, for no reason I can recall, I wrote this:

The elf was dead by the time I found him. His throat had been cut and he had bled out in an alley between narrow shops and run-down warehouses. I looked around in case the killer was still nearby, but I couldn't see very far in the darkness.

And that was that. It gave me tone and approach, and there was no way the story was not going to be first person. What wasn't working for me suddenly worked. Like you, I had not wanted to write in first person. Doing so made me toss out weeks of writing. But there it was. That was the voice and there was no sense trying to go in another direction. Here's hoping that's how it goes for you, too.


----------



## Chessie (Sep 17, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> ^^^^ see, this is interesting to me, because I feel like it does, but in the same vein the story often comes to me in a specific voice. My current wip comes to me in first person no matter how hard I try to force it to be third omni. I really want it to be third omni, which is where I'm most comfortable, but this particular story just feels better in first.
> 
> I think a lot has to do with tone and mood as well.
> 
> * edit: dem snuck in there while I was responding to fifthview... Sneaky dem


You're also writing for middle grade so first is more than appropriate.

Honestly, some of my favorite books are written in omni. Gone With The Wind, anyone? The Hunchback Of Notre Dame? And Then There Were None? Oh, I could keep going. If omni was something I did well, I would totally go for it. I've tried and totally suck. Going to stick with 3rd for now but this conversation has provided the gift of insight. Have I reeeeally tried to practice getting better at omni? No. I sort of just gave up after a while but it might be time to revisit it.


----------



## FifthView (Sep 17, 2016)

I agree with many of the observations made in the last couple of pages, so quoting from everyone and responding individually would be messy and complex.

I do think Heliotrope hit the mark when she agreed with me about the importance of matching narrative voice with story (why, of course I agreed!) and also said that the decision a) often comes via some intuitional route rather than as a purely conscious decision and b) has a lot to do with tone and mood.  

I also think that having a firmer understanding of the possibilities might help when making those decisions.  I asked Skip the question for that reason; I'm not terribly fond of the idea that contemplating these things is a waste of time.  (I always have a knee-jerk reaction against comments which seem to shut down a conversation while simultaneously invalidating what has already come during the conversation—when I think a conversation is valuable.)  However, perhaps the great variety of approaches combined with the tonal/mood aspects makes a purely conscious decision nearly impossible, given also the great variety of potential story "types"  you are trying to match to those varied approaches.   

I don't mean only traditional genre/subgenre "types."  That would be too simplistic.  I think the latest season of _Writing Excuses_, which focuses on the way different "Elemental Genres" can influence the telling of a story, drives home the point that any basic story idea can take so many routes depending on the way you tell it.  (Basic idea:  Take your traditional genres, like mystery or humor or romance, etc., and mix-&-match some of their elemental techniques in a story you are writing so that you benefit from a sort of cross-genre approach.)

Another area that clutters the decision making process:  For each of the broad POV narrative strategies, there are multiple approaches.  Heliotrope mentioned first-person omniscient—it's different than other 1st-person approaches.  For 3rd omni, there are different approaches, so that one novel in 3rd omni may be quite different than another novel in 3rd omni.  3rd limited?  Demesnedenoir brought up again a distinction between Limited and Intimate; we've talked about that before, but in my headlong rush to discuss the topic in general in this thread, I elided.  Then when you consider the differences between subjective, objective, and omniscient narration....more complexity.

Even so, I do believe that expanding our understanding of the possibilities can only help our intuition when it comes time to write, hit delete-delete-delete, and rewrite.


----------



## Russ (Sep 17, 2016)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> To each their own, I guess. But, first person *does* do different things, highlight different strengths, accomplish different goals...
> 
> If anything done in one POV can be done just as easily in any other, why is there any debate about which is best? Why do writers have preferences?



 I think there are differences between POV techniques, and like tools there are different tools for different jobs.

I just disagree with your conclusion that third person limited removes more intimacy than third person limited.

POV choice is very important.  First person is a tricky way of writing adult fiction where the plot is at all complex.  There is a time and a place for it but it is a hard technique to do well.


----------



## Heliotrope (Sep 17, 2016)

Thanks, Fifthveiw, 

I think it is important to discuss and study these tools as well, as more tools in the toolbox is always a good thing. 

I also think this is why the old adage from every single professional author to "read, read, read, read" is so important. I posted in chit-chat last night that WP Kinsella, who wrote Shoeless Joe (which became Feild of Dreams) lived in my hometown. A few months ago he came to speak at our little public library. After his time I shook his hand and asked him, what can you tell a new writer? One thing to help a new writer succeed... Yep, like everyone else he said 

"Please take time to read. Read everything. Read old stuff and new stuff. Read the classics and the Nobel prize winners, but also read the genre you find at the checkout at the grocery story. Read magazines and read children's books. Read everything." 

And I think that is so true. Because when you do that it really opens your eyes to the potential of every possible tool. 

I love how Chesterama noticed that many of her favorite books are written in omni, but she has never tried to write that way? Why? Because she is told it isn't in fashion anymore? Because that is not how modern fantasy is written? I'm not sure her reasoning, but I would encourage her to try it. 

I would encourage any author to try any tool that helps them get their story across better. 

Margaret Atwood has a story called "The Blind Assassin" that has one narrative in past tense, one narrative in present tense, and one narrative as chapters in a pulp sci-fi that one of the characters is writing, with a bunch of news articles and funeral home programs thrown in for good measure. 

Please don't limit yourselves.


----------



## FifthView (Sep 17, 2016)

@Helio:

Way back on page 5, the thread's OP cydare made a comment that bubbled up to the top for me:



cydare said:


> Personally, I've never had a preference as a reader when it came to first vs third, or close vs omniscient. Each serves a different purpose and immerses me into the story in a slightly different way. In terms of writing: If I have a group of important characters who often interact, I like the freedom of omniscient. Characters with separate storylines that converge near the end (or when I want to keep a sense of mystery for some reason or another) - I go with close. I use first person for characters who live more in their minds, or have a particularly interesting voice.



Not only did I appreciate seeing how another writer makes these decisions—I recognized something in it.

Russ had already brought to my mind the question of 3rd limited's strength, so I'd had that percolating when cydare made that comment. 

I haven't addressed the comment because...I didn't know how to do it without making some sort of absolutist comment about how a particular POV strategy is "best" when trying to write a particular story.

Nonetheless, the idea of creating a "sense of mystery" and writing "characters with separate storylines" does seem to influence my own decision with using 3rd limited.  I've been wondering if the _limitation_ inherent in 3rd limited might actually be a strength when trying to inject a story with a sense of mystery.  Using that sort of tunnel vision means leaving so much of the rest of the world cloudy, distant, what-have-you.  Plus, having characters on separate narrative tracks, and desiring to accentuate the separation—here, again, the idea of tone and mood—might mean 3rd limited would be something to consider seriously.  (3rd omni might subliminally key the reader into the fact that these separate tracks are simply the narrator withholding information, because it's all tied together?  Dunno.)  ASOIAF might be a case in point when considering this use of 3rd limited. _[Edit:  But, once again, it's not as if I believe 3rd omni and 1st person narration can't have a sense of mystery.  So once again I'm back at the...]_

I suppose that trying to define, absolutely, what POV narration matches what story, for everyone, might be far less important than each author coming to a personal understanding of all the tools in the toolbox.


----------



## Heliotrope (Sep 17, 2016)

Totally agree. I didn't mean "don't limit yourself" as in "Don't use a limited POV", I meant "don't limit yourself to only one style, saying _oh, I only write in first, or I only write in third omni"._ I just wanted to make that clear. Don't limit yourself to only one style of tool. 

And yes, I agree... understanding all the tools in the toolbox is very important and why I'm glad we have discussions like this on MS. Because maybe your story is best in first, or third, or maybe you find that the best way to tell your story is to have a combo of all of them. Why force yourself to write a prologue in third omni when a simple newspaper article would be more effective? Why force yourself to write in third omni if small interjections of first omni, directed to the reader would be more interesting?

I think my thing is just "be interesting." However you do that is up to you.


----------



## FifthView (Sep 17, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> Totally agree. I didn't mean "don't limit yourself" as in "Don't use a limited POV", I meant "don't limit yourself to only one style, saying _oh, I only write in first, or I only write in third omni"._ I just wanted to make that clear. Don't limit yourself to only one style of tool.



Ah, I knew that, ha ha, I was going off on a little tangent because my earlier discussion with Russ has been troubling me.  I.e., What are my own decision making processes, and am I missing something?

Part of the problem is that my current WIP, not a word yet written, keeps forcing the omni vs limited question in my head without a clear resolution.


----------



## Heliotrope (Sep 17, 2016)

Ok, well if you'd like I'll share my experience? 

So you have been with me since almost the beginning of Blackbeard probably a year ago? It started out as a historical fantasy, then quickly became an urban time travel fantasy. I started planning it in third omni, but when I sat down to write it came out in first person. I hated first person and wrote and re-wrote and re-wrote in third omni. But it didn't come. Whenever I sat down to write the words would start flowing in first. So now I'm just rolling with it, but it may change. Who knows? Maybe as I go along a chapter might be better in third from another perspective? I'll just have to finish the damn thing and see. 

Fig Boy, a short that I wrote for top scribe just came out as a strange combo of third limited and third omni and since none of my beta readers complained I kept it like that. 

But for Blackbeard I had a similar experience to Skip where suddenly this just popped out: 

_School was different that morning. The lobby of Martin Luther King Middle School was quieter than normal, but not a solemn quiet, more the knife edge quiet of fear. Too many questions to be asked. Too many imaginations creating terrible futures of war. Nobody knew what to say or what to do because nobody really understood what had actually happened. The teachers turned on the TV in the multipurpose room and watched the news while we students gathered in groups and pretended to understand. 

There were a few kids who said stuff. A few loud mouths like Jacob Moncton who said his dad said they should just blow them all up. Every last one of them. That would solve that problem. And really, who could argue with Jacob Moncton’s dad? Maybe he was right. Maybe it would solve the problem, if any of us knew what the problem actually was in the first place. _

And Bam. There it was. First person and no turning back.


----------



## FifthView (Sep 17, 2016)

Yeah I've been thinking that I should just start writing it and see what happens.  Part of the problem is that, I know, I don't 100% have the full story/tone/mood/goal(for myself) clear in mind.  I have had a clearer idea–multiple of those–throughout the conceptualization phase, but then a new character recently popped in mind and that threw all the rest out of whack.  Naturally, one could say that's a clear indication that maybe I should just nix that character.  But he's really, really, really cool and came so clearly to mind, I'm more inclined to think the sudden inspiration is tied to sublimnal messages about how the novel really ought to be written.

Alas, this is one of the problems with relying entirely on intuition–for me at least.


----------



## Heliotrope (Sep 17, 2016)

Yep, that happens to be too. I've written three drafts of my opening... Three seperate openings before I have finally found one I've settled on. I was missing something, a key element to tie it all together, but I didn't realize something was missing until I finally sat down to write it. 

I would suggest just free writing and see what happens. My story opening now is pretty controversial. It is not the fluffy adventure story I had originally planned, but it feels right now to me, I on,y had to write the gunk out I think.

Also, please rely in intuition!!! Please allow that dark scary part of your brain to dictate your work. That is where the good stuff comes from. Listen to it and follow it. That's why I suggest free writing first, cleanse your subconscious. You may be happily surprised by what you find.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Sep 17, 2016)

To me, the strength of multi-POV limited is that it's a compromise between Om and a flat Limited/Intimate.  The stories I tend to write need to be seen from multiple angles dramatically, but I also want the depth of each POV that isn't typically achieved with a narrative 3rd Om. Really, it's just a subjective 3rd Om viewed from one character at a time, anyhow. 3rd Lim can be as narrative as you like, and that's where it get fascinating. Two chapters from two different characters experiencing the exact same event carries a deeper connection than if you did a 3rd Om, typically. But there are a variety of Om techniques.



FifthView said:


> Ah, I knew that, ha ha, I was going off on a little tangent because my earlier discussion with Russ has been troubling me.  I.e., What are my own decision making processes, and am I missing something?
> 
> Part of the problem is that my current WIP, not a word yet written, keeps forcing the omni vs limited question in my head without a clear resolution.


----------



## Chessie (Sep 17, 2016)

@Heliotrope...actually...

Ok, you guys are probably going to think I'm pretty dumb but I have a confession to make. Last night, I read like 10 articles on omni vs 3rd limited. So it's been ages since I was in a creative writing class. I realized, while reading examples, that I actually DO write in omni most of the time. I mix it up with 3rd because I've been told that I do too much telling.

The reality is, that 3rd limited and omni are basically identical during dialogue and other bits of narrative. I'm grateful for this conversation because all of you have educated me, and it's given me a lot to think about. I love having my mind blown and that's what has happened for me. Hey...

Mini rant: I'm on the verge of quitting my crit group. They're nice people that mean well, but as with every other crit group either online or irl that I've participated in, I only get out of it that everyone wants me to write the way THEY feel comfortable. In thinking about this conversation and reading those articles, I realize the reason people either love or hate my writing is because I've been writing in omni all this time.

Please, don't laugh at me. I should've known the difference ages ago. But I do today thanks to all of you.

What comes naturally for me is telling...feelings, thoughts, context. My manuscript is getting slashed for "too much telling", "don't use the word felt SHOW it", "why the backstory?". ****. It's not backstory it's context. And the rest of it is the way I narrate a story. I'm thinking that I want to get better at this. I'm going to. One thing is that I don't head-hop. I stick with one pov per scene though, not per chapter. My povs aren't always organized, meaning you'll get small characters giving a big story picture on occasion. It's how I love to do this. And I've decided to just improve my skills.

Malik is right. I really don't like 3rd limited. I know many of you write this way and I respect that. But for me? Heck no. It's not my style.


----------



## Russ (Sep 17, 2016)

Chesterama said:


> Malik is right. I really don't like 3rd limited. I know many of you write this way and I respect that. But for me? Heck no. It's not my style.



I think each person should develop their own style and make the POV choice that will work best for what they are trying to achieve.  The key is just that the choice should be an informed choice, at its highest a combination of reason and instinct.  

To me threads like this help me with that choice.  When someone discusses, (or even argues for or contra) different POV choices, my knowledge base to make that choice for myself gets better.

Sorry to hear your critique group is not going well.  I  have been in some good ones, and the thing the good ones had in common for me was that I really respected the members's skills or instinct, or both.  Now I mostly just work with my wife (who is an absolutely savage and merciless editor) and a few close friends from time to time.  Hope whatever you choose to do with your crit group works out for you.


----------



## Chessie (Sep 17, 2016)

I'm pretty much done with critique groups now. This one was my last shot. I finally have an editor worth a darn so I'll be working with her and beta readers. Betas are way more helpful because they tend to be in my target audience vs other writers who can only see a manuscript by how they would write it. Nope. Done.


----------



## Nimue (Sep 17, 2016)

In defense of third limited...Does this really need to be said?  I'm not sure, but I don't agree with the idea that people choose third limited because they're going along with the current or they don't know better or they're just limiting themselves for no reason when omniscient would always be better/more fun/etc.

I write small stories that focus on the experiences and actions of one character--at most, two.  I want to stay in their heads, to leave in the mystery and the tension of things they don't know, character motives that they can't explain.  A story seems more fraught and dangerous to the lone POV when there is no reassurance or foreshadowing from the author, or even a balancing sense of the wider scope of the world.  It also seems to me a very natural way to experience a story, bound to one mind walking through it.  

Now, I don't think I adhere slavishly to the concept of "don't bring anything up if the character wouldn't see/think of it!".  I dip into exposition and background when it might cross the character's mind, even if the level of detail and linearity is unlikely for their thoughts, and I describe things often with more poetry and lingering than would be completely realistic.  That, I think, is built into POV as a literary conceit.  No story is truly, absolutely blinkered to a character's vision unless we're talking stream-of-consciousness, here.

On the other hand, I enjoy that third-limited lets me feed hints and glimpses to the reader when the character cuts off a thought, or denies their own feelings, or simply doesn't want to go into detail.

I've dabbled in omniscient--and might thread omniscient into a third-limited story for a section where neither POV is fit to narrate (and when I want a little distance, like a fairy tale.  Is it only me that finds omniscient _distant_?)  I've written a couple things in first person, and find it remarkably close to third-person limited/subjective/whatever, but not my preferred state.  Third-limited, as opposed to first, gives the sense of the character as separate from the reader, and the world as something that exists beyond the narrator's perception.

Hard to explain, and I'm not sure I've done it well, but I'm a stalwart fan of reading and writing in third limited for some pretty deeply-felt reasons.


----------



## skip.knox (Sep 17, 2016)

>It's not backstory it's context.

Chesterama, I offer this as nothing any stronger than a suggestion for consideration. I have a kind of rule of thumb when dealing with critiques, particularly the ones that feel formulaic. Kill the adverbs! Too much backstory. Too much description, or too little, and so on. 

Rather than saying, but those adverbs are needed, that's not backstory that's development, without that description we'd be in a white room. And so on. Instead, I reformulate (try to; sometimes I have to cool down first!) the comment into something like: this passage did not work for me.

That is, I try to start with the assumption that the reader is being honest and did not like a passage (or character or plot development). The words the reader chose to express that may not be on the right path. It might not have been the adverb at all. It might be that the backstory passage--the necessary context!--was not properly connected to the scene. So I look for ways *I* think that passage could be improved. I try to move it away from who's right and who's wrong; I try to shift from 'fix this' to 'improve this'. 

Now, sometimes, the comment is knee-jerk. The reader is attuned to spotting adverbs and is going to jump on them every time. I can usually spot that sort and I just dismiss them out of hand. I have a beta reader who thinks every page of every chapter needs to proceed at breakneck speed, and every time I slow down she yells at me (the comment is "blah, blah, blah"). I know this is knee-jerk because I've read her stuff in turn, and I get frustrated because I never know why anyone does anything because they're too busy dashing about. So I have to take her comments with a filter. And, like you, I may have to walk away, if it becomes all filter and no value.

Anyway, I'm wandering off here. My suggestion is to at least begin with the assumption that the reader is complaining about *something* even if the specific criticism isn't really on target.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Sep 17, 2016)

I'm going to share a family story, LOL. My grandma was famous for this line, "You might be right."

Whenever she worked on a project and when anyone made a suggestion, she would stop and think, and instead of arguing or disagreeing, she would just say, "You might be right." After which, she proceeded exactly as she planned to begin with, LOL. This is how to react to critiques. Always think about what they say, but look behind what they're actually saying. I almost never make changes to the story in the way critique people suggest, but if I see an issue propping up the critique, I will try to address it. Or, I'll just ignore it. And sometimes, even when I could ignore it, thinking about it opens my eyes to something else. 

Recently Helio hit on something that is weird one for me, because we are in a sense both right, which involved reader expectation versus reality... in this case, reader expectation is (for a lot of people at least) not going to be reality, but because most readers don't know real vs movie, it didn't feel real to her (and likely many others). But the notion of working in magic so that movie vs reality no longer matters created the possibility to seed more culture/world history. 

I will also note, I've stumbled on an editor who is really good at this. She raises questions that make you think without really "critiquing" in the usual sense... while at the same she's willing to whack you with a hammer when you need it, LOL.



skip.knox said:


> >It's not backstory it's context.
> 
> Chesterama, I offer this as nothing any stronger than a suggestion for consideration. I have a kind of rule of thumb when dealing with critiques, particularly the ones that feel formulaic. Kill the adverbs! Too much backstory. Too much description, or too little, and so on.
> 
> ...


----------



## Chessie (Sep 17, 2016)

I'd like to argue the point that 3rd limited is more immersive or intimate than omni. If that were the case, then why are there so many examples of great literature written in both styles that satisfy readers? The answer lies with an author's skill. Yes, omni is more distant in certain ways but maybe that's why it resonates with me. Irl I'm not talkative at first. I tend to observe people quietly and am somewhat shy. I take my time to get to know people. First person breaks this barrier for me and that's why I can't read or write in first. Too close too soon. There is an intimacy in 3rd but I also find it stale at times. I really believe anything can be done wrong or right...and now I better go write for reals.


----------



## Nimue (Sep 17, 2016)

Chesterama said:


> I'd like to argue the point that 3rd limited is more immersive or intimate than omni. If that were the case, then why are there so many examples of great literature written in both styles that satisfy readers? The answer lies with an author's skill.



I also think that character intimacy isn't the first aim of all books, nor does it need to be?  For instance, the Lord of the Rings doesn't stand out to me as really intimate with its characters, but that's hardly a downside for a story so grand and sweeping in scope.  I do think that the different POVs bring something different to the table, but I wouldn't argue that one is better than the other--only that I prefer one over another in terms of what I read and write.  In that I don't believe we disagree.


----------



## Penpilot (Sep 17, 2016)

Chesterama said:


> @Heliotrope...actually...
> 
> Please, don't laugh at me. I should've known the difference ages ago. But I do today thanks to all of you.



Don't worry about things like this. A willingness to learn and recheck and relearn things is a good trait to have. It sure beats the inability to admit errors or to see things from a different POV. Forgive the small pun. 



Chesterama said:


> Malik is right. I really don't like 3rd limited. I know many of you write this way and I respect that. But for me? Heck no. It's not my style.



Write what works for you.

Sorry to hear about your writing group. IMHO there's no right or wrong. There's just what works and what doesn't and maybe why. For me, I never tell someone that they can't use this or that. I say I don't think this works, and maybe it's because of this. 

In one of my writing groups I used to be in, a lady came in with a that was technically a mess, tense shifts, head hopping, grammar, etc. But the funniest thing was it was tremendously engaging. The writing was honest and drew you in spite of what ever issues it had. It had something raw and real about it. She later told us it was a memoir. 



Chesterama said:


> I'd like to argue the point that 3rd limited is more immersive or intimate than omni.



I think it's more of with 3rd limited it's easier to be intimate and with 3rd omni there tends to be a distancing effect. But just because it's limited, as you said, doesn't mean a poorly written story can't be completely cold. And omni in the hands of someone skilled enough to deal with the inherent distancing can definitely be charming and intimate.


----------



## Heliotrope (Sep 17, 2016)

Chesterama said:


> @Heliotrope...actually...
> 
> Ok, you guys are probably going to think I'm pretty dumb but I have a confession to make.



Chessie, I could never, ever think you were dumb. 

Ever.


----------



## Heliotrope (Sep 17, 2016)

Again, I feel that third limited is an absolutely acceptable narration strategy, but I don't think that third omni is necessarily distant, really... If I flip through Gabriel Garcia Marquez _One Hundred Years of Solitude_: 

Bare with me through a lengthy excerpt: 

_Actually, Remedios the Beauty was not a creature of this world. Until she was well along in puberty Santa Sofia de la Piedad had to bathe and dress her, and even when she could take care of herself it was necessary to keep an eye on her so that she would not paint little animals on the walls with a stick daubed in her own excrement. She reached twenty without knowing how to read or write, unable to use the silver at the table, wandering naked through the house because her nature rejected all manner of convention. When the young commander of the guard declared his love for her, she rejected him simply because his frivolity startled her. "See how simple he is," she told Amaranta. "He says that he is dying because of me, as if I were a bad case of colic." When, indeed, they found him dead beside her window, Remedios the Beauty confirmed her first impression. 

"You see," she commented. "He was a complete simpleton."

It seemed as if some penetrating lucidity permitted her to see the reality of things beyond any formalism. That at least was the point of view of Colonel Aureleliano Beundia, for whom Remedios the Beauty was in no way mentally retarded, as was generally believed, but quite the opposite. "It's really as if she's come back from twenty years of war," he would say. Ursula, for her part, thanked God for having awarded the family with a creature of exceptional purity, but at the same time she was disturbed by her beauty, for it seemed a contradictory virtue to her, a diabolical trap at the center of her innocence. It was for that reason that she decided to keep her away from the world, to protect her from all earthly temptation, not knowing that Remedios the Beauty, even from the time when she was in her mother's womb, was safe from any contagion. It never entered her head that they would elect her beauty queen of the carnival pandemonium. But Aurelionao Segundo, excited at the caprice of disguising himself as a tiger, brought Father Antonio Isabel to the house in order to convince Ursula that the carnival was not a pagan feast, as she said, but a Catholic tradition. Finally convinced, even though reluctantly, she consented to the coronation._

Note the above is all very 'telly' and very distant in the sense that we aren't shown people standing around in rooms talking to each other and arguing about going to the carnival... And yet it is deeply intimate, because what the narrator is focussing on the deep moral dilemma in each of the characters. Their thoughts and fears and feelings instead of actions.


----------



## Nimue (Sep 17, 2016)

Again, we come to the idea that a great author can make anything work, or more to the point knows exactly what they need to make it work...

But to me, that passage isn't intimate at all?  I don't feel much for any character involved.  Rather, it's revealing, even penetrating, but the end result is that the reader gains clarity, not attachment or sympathy.


----------



## Heliotrope (Sep 17, 2016)

Mmmmm, then perhaps we must define what we mean by "intimate". 

I think then, that for you intimate means _feeling intimately_ for the characters, perhaps? If that is the case, then yes I agree that third limited does that really well. Some of the books where I felt most connected to the characters were written in third limited. 

And for me, intimate means _intimately understanding_ the characters, which I think can be done well in all matter of narration styles. 

There is, perhaps a difference there.


----------



## Nimue (Sep 17, 2016)

Yes, I was just thinking that.  I'm not sure the word adequately describes it.  I'm trying to delineate the difference between fleetingly seeing into someone's deepest and most private thoughts, and the sense of understanding and identification you get from riding with one character for the length of a story.  Both have their uses in drawing in the reader, of course.  It really depends upon the feelings you're trying to achieve--it would be wrong to think that all of us, even working in the same genre, are trying to deliver the same end result to our readers.  It simply can't be true, from the variety of people that we have here.


----------



## Chessie (Sep 17, 2016)

Lol this conversation has me enraptured. Damn it. 

At least we're all having a lovely discussion and learning from one another. Our goals with writing differ, as do our means of communicating story. The passage Helio put up doesn't sound that distant to me and in fact, I love it because someone - the narrator - has made an attempt to get involved with me by telling me a story. 

I wanted to share this tiny passage from my WIP (which is still raw after 3 pass throughs) to use as an example:

_ 
One last photo remained in his hand, lingering like the residual feelings for her in his heart. Someday he'd eventually forget about her. But the others back home were right: it would take a while to heal and find love again. If he wanted love again. 

Thick creases stretched across the black and white photograph of him and Lila, taken at a park in Jamaica Plains the day of their engagement. The unfortunate thing was that everyone else thought her beautiful, too. Large, perfectly golden curls hanging down her shoulders. Sultry red lipstick on those full lips. A body he enjoyed getting into. Her arm through his on the bench and they were both smiling, supposedly eager to start their lives together. 

Looking at himself in that photo, unaware that she wasn't planning on marrying him from the start, made his stomach turn. She had lied and for that he couldn't forgive her. Damn, he'd even cleaned up for her that day. No grease stains across his forehead. Dishwater blonde hair neatly combed and slicked back with gel. A nice suit instead of the mechanical jumper he always wore when she visited his workshop at lunch. He wanted to give her the world. Instead, she decided to get it on her own.
_

So my crit group had mixed feelings about this chapter in general, but especially this passage. Too much telling, they said. Too many thoughts. Not enough action. They didn't really feel close to him. BUT...with the exception of one lady...they said that the chapter held their interest. It's like ok, would it have been better in 3rd limited? Idk maybe. But I enjoy giving readers perspective that yes, maybe they could get on their own but my job is to tell a story clearly and effectively. My work is to entertain. If I'm doing that in first or third or omni, what does it matter?


----------



## Nimue (Sep 17, 2016)

Throwing out a wild lob here, based on crit groups I have known, I'm going to guess that the reaction to that passage might be due not to POV (It seems pretty limited-with-narrative-conceit-overdescription to me) but rather to the writer's instinct to groan at a passage where routine details are passed across one after another.  All the physical description, all the setup, gotten out of the way.

And the writer-critter's instinct is to say, "I've seen this a hundred times before!  Why isn't it more creative!  I can see this coming from a mile away--they look at a photo, a mirror, a puddle, yadda yadda, we know what the main character looks like."

And on the other hand...is the reader going to care?  Is the indie romance reader you, Chester, are aiming for, going to care that they've been *told* what the MC looks like and what his motivations are rather than being guilefully fed those things over the course of the first five chapters?  I kinda doubt it.  Romance novels in particularly have that moment where everyone's hair color and eye color and tragic past is doled out.

This is a matter of priority, for sure.  Yes, in some ways, it's a missed opportunity to tell the reader all about something.  Is it possible you could draw out more tension about why and how Lila left him?  Maybe.  But what if it fits your story pace and tone to say it right there?  It's hard to tell.  I think a lot of exposition can not only be forgiven, but can be the best way of informing and engaging with the reader, particularly towards the beginning of a story.

A lot of the times writers do make terrible critters (and I am on the bullseye for this one) because we see all these patterns and tropes so many times that they begin to rub us the wrong way and we see them always as _errors_.  When they're really subjective as heck based on audience, genre, style, intention, etc etc etc.



Ahaha, this is an entirely different topic.  This poor thread ^^


----------



## Heliotrope (Sep 17, 2016)

Chessie, if that is how you want to write, then please read this story by Margaret Atwood (a short) 

http://faculty.scf.edu/glanvip/ibis.pdf

Cut yourself some slack, and wave your crit group good-bye.


----------



## Chessie (Sep 17, 2016)

Cydare we've hijacked your thread! Sorry.  (maybe we should begin a new one on whatever the topic is now)


----------



## FifthView (Sep 17, 2016)

The issue of intimacy is fascinating.

A little out of the ballpark here, but I've often been amazed by how some television shows have the effect on me that, at some point, I "snap out" of the world and realize once again I'm watching a television set.  I mean, it's "3rd cinematic" and yet for a long length of time I've been inside the scene, inside the characters, experiencing the events as if I was in that world.  Attachment to characters can be emotional as well as intellectual.  BUT, interestingly, I may not be viewing that world as they view it, and I'm often not.

It's "immersion" rather than "intimacy"?

But I think the same thing happens with books, and I think most cases of third limited do not remove that sense of separation from characters that I also experience with third omniscient.  Sometimes I "blend" with the character—we are in agreement emotionally, intellectually, seeing the same things—but it's by no means a long-lasting experience and I'm soon outside that character again viewing the character as a separate individual.  

I suspect this is largely because I, FifthView, simply am not a female assassin or a male magician's apprentice with a mixed heritage of dragon, human, and elf.  I am not longing for my parents to still be alive (because, they already are) or for respite from the tortuous visions caused by a curse.  I can sympathize, hopefully, but cannot be them.

I also think this is because much third limited being written simply doesn't "do that"—develop strong intimacy of the sort where I _remain_ inside the character's POV for longer lengths of time.  I mean, the writers take for granted that whatever they put down on the page automatically does that because, well, "third limited."  This is probably why so much of it seems stale to me.  Not all of it, of course.  But there simply are waves and waves of it being churned out.

The same applies to third omni for me.  One can write the MRUs of third omni in such a way that the very same sort of intimacy occurs as occurs in the best third limited. But I wonder if too often writers these days simply look at the two approaches as being fundamentally, diametrically opposed.  And so when 3rd omni is written, no special attention to building intimacy happens.   (Yet I must remember what I wrote in a different comment:  There are multiple types of _both_.)

The single typical difference might be in the fact that third limited tends to stick with one POV for a much longer time.  Anyone else have that experience with some multi-POV third limited books where you're reading, extremely "into it," and then comes a chapter from another character's POV and you groan because you know you'll have to wade through it?  That happened a lot to me with ASOIAF, but it's not alone.  Now imagine transitioning 2-3 times within a single chapter of omni.  But is the single-POV chapter of 3rd limited fully "intimate" all throughout?  See above.  

And then there are those 3rd limited approaches that are more objective—not Intimate but merely Limited.  Heh.  Ok, I've blathered on and on again.


----------



## Chessie (Sep 17, 2016)

Nimue, you're absolutely right in that using the photograph to show what the hero looks like was a cheap trick. But you know what? I stand by it because I figured that I could be cheesy for once. I like to play around with my writing and sometimes it backfires. Interestingly enough, the other readers didn't care about the photograph itself...just the narration.

Regarding intimacy: not a fantasy novel but Appointment With Death by Agatha Christie is a fantastic example of omniscient. The first chapter starts out with Poirot hearing a conversation on the balcony above his bedroom window. Christie then moves to the siblings having that conversation, which is a very spirited one, and although she's moving quick and breaking every single rule ever given, the dialogue is delightful and highly engaging. I understand their desperation. I sympathize with their sadness, feelings, and fear. Even though the story is told by many characters that are excessively described for a couple of paragraphs and then they're gone, I'm drawn in. I do feel close to them and by the end of the book when the murderer is revealed, I sympathize with them, too. I do believe that there can be closeness with omniscient but it's a smaller window than 3rd close. And do I really need to be that close with characters anyway? I don't really care about that and never have. I just like to read a good story and move on to the next and don't re-read anything. Anyway, I've run out of things to say about this conversation.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Sep 17, 2016)

Groaning through some multi-POV chapters is commonplace for sure. Heck, with Martin, I've skipped a chapter here and there. And with his huge books, sometimes a character you are enjoying might not show up again for 100 pages. 

I have a different experience... I don't "immerse" as a reader or a viewer, not since I was 12 anyhow. Reading LoTR, and maybe seeing Star Wars (the good one) for the first time in the theater, but other than that? Not really. 



FifthView said:


> The issue of intimacy is fascinating.
> 
> A little out of the ballpark here, but I've often been amazed by how some television shows have the effect on me that, at some point, I "snap out" of the world and realize once again I'm watching a television set.  I mean, it's "3rd cinematic" and yet for a long length of time I've been inside the scene, inside the characters, experiencing the events as if I was in that world.  Attachment to characters can be emotional as well as intellectual.  BUT, interestingly, I may not be viewing that world as they view it, and I'm often not.
> 
> ...


----------



## Nimue (Sep 17, 2016)

Chesterama said:


> And do I really need to be that close with characters anyway? I don't really care about that and never have. I just like to read a good story and move on to the next and don't re-read anything.



And this is fascinating to me because sympathetic characters are of paramount importance to me and I have books I've re-read upwards of a dozen times!  It really does underscore the fact that we all have our own goals and priorities and styles--and thank God we're all writing different kinds of books, because readers have that same variety of needs and desires.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Sep 17, 2016)

Chesterama said:


> Dragon, you're a very young writer still. Perhaps first is the right narration tool for you atm because you're still learning skills and maturing. It's easier for you to relate to your story and characters in this way. But in the future sometime, as an adult, you may see things differently. We evolve throughout our lives and one way isn't better than another. I wrote in first person at your age however since my 20s, I've been writing in 3rd. It provides me with more freedom to tell my stories whereas now I find first person difficult to engage with. YA is mainly written in first person & present because readers of that age group identify better with stories narrated in that way. Who knows why that is. What I'm saying is that discounting 3rd is only shooting yourself in the foot early on. Try new things, explore challenges in your writing, grow as an individual and be okay with looking at things differently someday down the road.



Or maybe I just prefer it for reasons completely unrelated to my age, as some writers apparently do  

And yes, I don't think any one POV is *better* than another. Different stories are better told in different POV's, and, as you say, different authors do well in different POV's too, but there's none that are *bad...* Not even second person. I'm quite sure it's possible to write a great story in second person. 

It's not that I don't like or don't use 3rd either. Generally I prefer 3rd for shorter things (because typically I'm trying to focus on setting and mood in shorter stuff and that's harder to do in first) and 1st for long stuff (because the character is central in importance). That doesn't mean I won't try stuff the other way around...I'm thinking third omniscient might be the right POV for a historical fantasy novel I'm planning on writing soon. I haven't done much in third omni except the beginning of a novel I didn't finish and a short story I wrote to a Two Steps from Hell song (which was really badly written, but I still love it) My current projects are all in first, though, because my characters are full of personality and perspective and snark and it's just really, really fun. 

But, trying new things is almost always a good idea (I say almost because you shouldn't do drugs) 

P.S. Being a teenager on the Mythic Scribes community sometimes feels like: "Look at the newly hatched baby author!" *collective 'Awww, how cute!'* I know you aren't pulling a "You'll-Understand-When-You're-Older," so this isn't really in direct reference to your post...but I am just so outside the bell curve here I really am the Newly Hatched Baby Author, lol.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Sep 17, 2016)

And, I have no idea where this conversation has gone since last I was here because it basically exploded.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Sep 18, 2016)

I guess it all depends on what's important to you in a story, and what kind of stories you write...

Like...for me the characters are very important, especially their relationships. How much I enjoy a book is basically dependent on how well the characters and their relationships were developed. A great story won't hold my attention unless the characters are well done. Likewise, I will forgive almost any sin if the characters are great. 

I mean, I've REALLY loved books in which I couldn't relate to the characters very well. George Orwell's 1984 was one of those. But generally characters are very important to me. All my favorite books are those with great characters (though not many of them are first-person, actually.) 

In the case of first person, I think who your character is has a lot to do with which POV you should pick too. Some characters are good narrators; some aren't. Some let you right in; some are very, very difficult to crack (my male MC was like this at first). Some won't let you in at all. I would really like to write from my villain's POV, just for fun, but I know I couldn't do it in first. He wouldn't let me that far in! Third I could manage with him. But some characters aren't good for narrating. Maybe once I get to know him better, though...

First person is hard though. How does my reader find out information if my character can't witness it? Also, today I wanted to describe my villain's eyes as like rippling glacier ice, but then I realized my MC lives in the tropics and has never seen or heard of a glacier or ice. Sad times


----------



## skip.knox (Sep 18, 2016)

>First person is hard though. How does my reader find out information if my character can't witness it?

Read more detective novels! Chandler and Hammett and Cain, of course, but more modern ones as well. First person is very common for that genre.


----------



## FifthView (Sep 18, 2016)

skip.knox said:


> >First person is hard though. How does my reader find out information if my character can't witness it?
> 
> Read more detective novels! Chandler and Hammett and Cain, of course, but more modern ones as well. First person is very common for that genre.



Robin Hobb has this habit of making Fitz obsessive, highly focused on one thing, so details mentioned by other characters in dialogue get overlooked.  He's heard those things, but not really noticed them–he's storming ahead focusing on something else–whereas the reader has noticed them.  Details in the environment may be noticed, but he doesn't really think about them, so he doesn't put 2 and 2 together.  She goes a little overboard on this however; one begins to grow irritated by his stupidity.


----------



## Chessie (Sep 18, 2016)

I found this in one of my Kindle books last night and thought it was perfect to share here in case it would be helpful:


_Narrative distance is basically how close we are to the characters. To put this another way, it’s a measure of how different the reader’s perspective is from the character’s perspective. At a far narrative distance, we’re outside of the characters, observing them. Stories written in far narrative distance include fewer character thoughts and almost no internal visceral reactions. When the narrator does share internalizations by the characters, they’re given using filtering words. At a close narrative distance, we’re inside the characters, experiencing the world through their eyes and perspective, as if we were them. It includes more internal dialogue (character thoughts) and more internal, visceral reactions, and we want to show more than tell and avoid filtering words when writing with close narrative distance. 

*The question of narrative distance is also at the heart of understanding the difference between character voice and author voice. The farther our narrative distance, the more authorial voice we use. The closer the narrative distance, the more character voice we use. (The exception to this, of course, is when we’ve created a narrator character for our omniscient book, like we see in The Book Thief.)*   --Marcy Kennedy, Point Of View In Fiction (Busy Writers Guide)_


----------



## FifthView (Sep 18, 2016)

Thanks, Chesterama.

I've been trying to think of the various ways that 3rd limited-intimate closes the distance and how those can and might be applied to 3rd omniscient.  So for instance free indirect discourse, which I think is rather common in 3rd limited-intimate, could be used when writing omni.  Direct character thoughts like those used in _Dune_.  I've pointed out a couple times that Rowling seems to use an omni narrator in the first chapter of the first book of HP that mimics character voices (like a ventriloquist) for the narrative voice.  These are simply ways to close the distance.

All of this does really return us to the initial topic of the thread, because we need to understand how to make distinct character voices, how to deliver/utilize those voices to close the distance, outside dialogue.  _If_ we want that closeness, not that it's absolutely necessary.

Edit:  Also, however....when it comes to having a strong impression of an omni storyteller, I realized last night that sometimes the intimacy/closeness is to that narrator rather than to the characters.  There are times when I feel like I'm a co-conspirator with a storyteller, spying on the world together with that narrator.


----------



## Chessie (Sep 18, 2016)

Fifthview, my understanding is that HP is written in omniscient. The tricky part of all this is that it's not always easy to tell if narrative is close or distant, especially when we're wrapped up in a story. The clues are in the words. And yes, intimacy in omniscient is to the narrator. 

I recommend that book. She gives thorough explanations on POV and mistakes writers make in mixing them up (like I do with omni and 3rd limited). This conversation has been a huge eye-opener for me, and now I understand a lot of the mistakes I make in my narrative. Simple things, really, but this is why these discussions are so important. They help us grow and improve our skills.


----------



## JaniceKersh (Sep 21, 2016)

I usually try to think the whole character through in the beginning: what personality will they have? What traits do they possess? And from that I start building the voice. What phrases may they use? How do they use them?


----------



## Malik (Sep 21, 2016)

HP was written almost entirely in tight third, from Harry's POV. Rowling likely invented the Invisibility Cloak and the pensieve as gimmicks to get around this; they enable Harry to see things for himself that otherwise she'd have to narrate or info-dump. 

And yes, literary deconstructionism is a bullet between the eyes of the fun of reading.


----------



## Chessie (Sep 21, 2016)

Malik said:


> HP was written almost entirely in tight third, from Harry's POV.


I've read that it was written in omni but maybe that person is wrong. Idk. Never read it myself.


----------



## FifthView (Sep 21, 2016)

My understanding is that Rowling occasionally used omniscient but most of it was limited.  The weird thing is that I read them but didn't think much about it at the time, so I'd have to go back and check to see exactly where the boundaries are.  The first chapter of the first book is obviously omniscient, although for a short section of it she dips into a more limited approach with Harry's uncle.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Sep 21, 2016)

The vast majority of the chapters are in limited third, but the first chapter of the first book is in third omni, and the first chapters of the sixth and seventh books also leave Harry's POV to show events happening to other characters, in an objective POV. At the beginning of each book the POV is looser (as she introduces Harry) but mostly it's in tight third.


----------

