# A question on POV



## ascanius (Nov 29, 2011)

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


----------



## ellianbaker (Nov 29, 2011)

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


----------



## Lord Darkstorm (Nov 29, 2011)

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

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


----------



## Reaver (Nov 29, 2011)

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


----------



## Lord Darkstorm (Nov 29, 2011)

Reaver said:


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



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

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

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

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


----------



## TWErvin2 (Nov 29, 2011)

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Ravana (Nov 30, 2011)

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

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

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


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Nov 30, 2011)

Ravana said:


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



Charles Stross has done it twice, in _Halting State_ and _Rule 34_.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 30, 2011)

Ravana said:


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



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


----------



## Ravana (Nov 30, 2011)

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


----------



## ascanius (Nov 30, 2011)

Ravana said:


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


You bring up a relative point for me and character thoughts.  Thus far I have used character thought, but I tend to use them in a way where the character could have said them out loud instead of just thinking them.  For example.  "that was stupid of me."  She thought, but without the quotes and in italics.  Any thoughts on this method.  Or do you mean instances such as.  Tommy thought about going to school or staying home to get some much needed sleep before studying for the exam.  Now that I think of it I tend to use both.  I can see where not using thoughts such as the proceeding sentence would be very difficult to show.  I mean how the heck to you show internal conflict about anything, especially about a certain topic.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 30, 2011)

Ravana said:


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



It seems that often it is not effective. Maybe that is why you see it so rarely in published work. In most cases where I've seen it in writing groups or on writing forums, it was not well done.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Nov 30, 2011)

Steerpike said:


> It seems that often it is not effective. Maybe that is why you see it so rarely in published work. In most cases where I've seen it in writing groups or on writing forums, it was not well done.



It's a little jarring at first, but I got used to it pretty quick in both _Halting State_ and _Rule 34_. I don't think there's really much point in doing it; psychologically it didn't feel any different than if he'd used third-person.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 30, 2011)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> It's a little jarring at first, but I got used to it pretty quick in both _Halting State_ and _Rule 34_. I don't think there's really much point in doing it; psychologically it didn't feel any different than if he's used third-person.



Interesting about _Rule 34_. I didn't realize Stross had done this twice. It would be interesting to hear his own rationale for doing so.

In the work by Nick Sagan I mentioned above, I think the use of second person was effective. It was only for one viewpoint character, and the way in which it was done worked nicely with respect to the character and that character's role in the story. In many ways, the use of second person characterized that particular character in a way that would have been hard to duplicate with third person. And the fact that this character was the only character not in third person POV served to further distinguish and characterize the character with respect to all of the others.

When it comes to using second person for an entire work, I'm not sure what is really gained by it. As Stross shows, it can be done effectively, but as you say there doesn't seem to be much point to doing it.


----------



## Ravana (Dec 1, 2011)

ascanius said:


> You bring up a relative point for me and character thoughts.  Thus far I have used character thought, but I tend to use them in a way where the character could have said them out loud instead of just thinking them.  For example.  "that was stupid of me."  She thought, but without the quotes and in italics.  Any thoughts on this method.  Or do you mean instances such as.  Tommy thought about going to school or staying home to get some much needed sleep before studying for the exam.  Now that I think of it I tend to use both.  I can see where not using thoughts such as the proceeding sentence would be very difficult to show.  I mean how the heck to you show internal conflict about anything, especially about a certain topic.



I use both–and usually have to be very careful, because I'll pretty much automatically use both in the same story, from the same character. I'm not sure how good a practice that is (well, okay, it can't exactly be bad practice, considering how often I've seen it), but it usually feels wrong to me to be switching back and forth in my own writing. Making the decision on which to use at a given point may be the most difficult thing I do, in terms of what things are "difficult" for me. 

It's possible to show internal conflict through actions (that old "show, don't tell" advice), or to contain it in dialog… but, yeah, it's a lot harder. Depends on the requirements of the story how much of this you actually _need_ to include; you might surprise yourself, in trying to eliminate it or find other ways to express it, just how little is required some times. 

One interesting "halfway" exercise you can try: make _all_ the character's thoughts "internal dialog," expressed in italics as if being spoken. If nothing else, it will show you how often you normally use expressions such as "He thought [X]"–which may in turn lead to some promising ways to trim off excess verbiage. Even if you decide you don't like the method, you'll probably learn something in the process.


----------



## Devor (Dec 1, 2011)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> It's a little jarring at first, but I got used to it pretty quick in both _Halting State_ and _Rule 34_. I don't think there's really much point in doing it; psychologically it didn't feel any different than if he'd used third-person.



I haven't read it, but it doesn't sound like it's actually written in 2nd person.  Typically you actually need to be trying to persuade or talk to your audience directly.  I imagine it would look like a series of letters, speeches, persuasive essays, editorials... a manifesto.

I believe it can be done, and done well, but I think there's only one genre in which it could really work at a novel's length.  That's Historical Fiction.  If you were writing about events people were a little familiar with, I think it might be compelling to read things like, "You uncle was just arrested, the fool drank from the wrong waterfountain, and now you need to go see him..." or "Haven't you heard from your husband Freddie?  I'm so worried for you, I've been checking the casualties list every day..."

I believe you could write a whole book as if the reader were a character in the story, kind of like Link in the old games, where he never speaks so that you can feel like people are talking straight to you (in fact, aren't most roleplaying video games in 2nd person?).  I just think you'd have to write in a world people are familiar with.

Come to think of it . . . doesn't LOTR enter the free domain soon-ish?  You could probably write a piece set in Middle Earth.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 1, 2011)

_Halting State_ is definitely in second person. I haven't read _Rule 34._


----------



## Devor (Dec 1, 2011)

Steerpike said:


> _Halting State_ is definitely in second person. I haven't read _Rule 34._



It would really help me if you could elaborate on how that's accomplished.  The Wikipedia article isn't very clear.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 1, 2011)

The second person uses second-person pronouns like "you" and "your." It can also use the imperative with respect to verbs.

An example is Nathaniel Hawthorne's story "The Haunted Mind." _Nathaniel Hawthorne's short story: The Haunted Mind_


----------



## Devor (Dec 1, 2011)

Steerpike said:


> The second person uses second-person pronouns like "you" and "your." It can also use the imperative with respect to verbs.
> 
> An example is Nathaniel Hawthorne's story "The Haunted Mind." _Nathaniel Hawthorne's short story: The Haunted Mind_



I said earlier that I didn't think it sounded like Halting State was written in the second person, and I sort of meant that I had the impression it was written kind of like this piece that you've quoted.  At least from quickly skimming the story, during which I might have missed something, I don't see many of the distinctive elements you'd expect to see in a 2nd person work.  It reads much as a regular story, substituting "you" for a character's name.  I'm going to agree somewhat with Ravana when she says she won't even give a pass to those Adventure Books for the same reason.  2nd Person perspective should probably be divided along those lines, much like 3rd Person Limited, Plural and Omniscient.  A true 2nd Person point of view should really be addressed directly to the reader, and ought to be separated from a 2nd Person style which simply uses "you" in a weak effort to connect.

I recently read Dracula, which is written in a series of diary entries and correspondence.  There are letters which begin "Dear Whomever," followed by a few pleasantries, but then quickly devolve into the typical narration very similar to what you'd expect to see in a novel.  I've never seen a story which takes full advantage of the 2nd Person POV.  There's never exhortation, you never properly feel like a character in the story, and the full potential of the 2nd Person POV has just never been reached in a novel, in my opinion.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 1, 2011)

Devor, I do not think one is meant to feel like the character in a second person POV story. That may be true of the choose your own adventure books, but in general I think it is a mistake for the reader to think that "you" in the second person story refers literally to the reader, and that mistake in interpretation may be why so many people find the POV to be jarring.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Dec 2, 2011)

Devor said:


> I don't see many of the distinctive elements you'd expect to see in a 2nd person work
> 
> ...
> 
> There's never exhortation, you never properly feel like a character in the story, and the full potential of the 2nd Person POV has just never been reached in a novel, in my opinion.



You're making it sound like it's _actually_ impossible to do this. Can you give an example of what a "proper" 2nd-person story would look like? An example sentence or paragraph? I'm not sure what I would "expect" to see beyond the narrator being given as "you" rather than "he" or "I."

I mean, the Wikipedia entry on narrative mode seems to think that the 2nd-person mode is a rare thing, but it has been done. It notes both Stross novels as well as _Bright Lights, Big City_. I guess I'm not sure why you don't consider it "proper" 2nd-person mode just because it's not engaging enough. Why is the level of engagement necessary for it to qualify as proper 2nd person, any more than a story in first or third person? The narrative mode has nothing to do with how good it is, just whether or not the person engaging in the action is specified as _you_.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Dec 2, 2011)

2nd person that worked (for teenage me) = "Choose Your Own Adventure" books.

I was into those back in the 80s!

I've read other works of fiction in which the narrator is "talking to" the reader as if he's having (and monopolizing) a conversation with the reader. Those stories tend to read like third-person narration (or first- if the narrator is telling you his story), but with a bit of second-preson sentences thrown in to make you feel like you're there. (Yes, like Link... you're mute, but the narrator may "respond" to you.)

I'm a teacher--I see a lot of short stories like this in textbooks. But off the top of my head, I can only think of Dr. Seuss ending _The Cat in the Hat_ with a question to the reader/listener and Shel Silverstein's "Invitation" poem at the start of the Anniversary edition of _Where the Sidewalk Ends._


----------



## Ravana (Dec 2, 2011)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> You're making it sound like it's _actually_ impossible to do this.



I would have argued it's pretty close–in that it should not be possible to replace "you" with "he" (or "I") and have the same story. That having been said, the quote in the Wikipedia article from the McInerney novel does seem to fit that criterion, if he manages to sustain it (which I'm assuming he does). 

To give a more detailed version of what I'd expect would be necessary for second person to work: it should be as inescapably personal and immediate as first person–in other words, it has to make the reader feel like an actual "I" in the situation, not like a mere witness to what's being related (as with third person narrative), but with the reader's entire access to the story being dictated by a _single_ PoV narrator–the one who is the _actual_ "first" person. By "dictated," I intend a very strong sense: the "you" character cannot have independent reactions, emotions or thoughts within the story–all that is imposed by the narrator: there's no access to the "you" character's _own_ internal mechanisms. At the same time, the reader cannot have direct access to what's going on in the _narrator's_ mind; nor can the reader be given access to any other information apart from what the narrator chooses to convey, not even if it's something a character might reasonably be expected to notice on his own in the circumstances the narration places him in. Which usually isn't a problem, as this can also take place in other narrative modes… but consider the possibilities of a narrator who is deaf: he may neglect to mention such minor details as shots ringing out. (Come to think of it, that could be incredibly cool.…) More broadly, the narrator will only mention those things that catch his attention–including, possibly, ones that wouldn't be noticed by others–whereas in third person, at least, the author may mention a great many things that escape the immediate attention of his characters.

Consider the following from the McInerney quote:



> "All might become clear if you could just slip into the bathroom and do a little more Bolivian Marching Powder. Then again, it might not. A small voice inside you insists that this epidemic lack of clarity is a result of too much of that already."



The "you" character is being told what he is thinking and feeling… even what he _might_ feel. The character has no ability to respond to this, either to confirm or deny.

-

The above definition also suggests that there should be a distinct difference between first and third person narratives… and there should. (Anybody who doesn't get this: consider which of these you prefer to read… and why. How often can your objections be traced to a failure of that distinction being made by the author, where the one you don't care for _could_ have easily been written as the other? This may not work if you have no strong preferences, of course–though it might still be the reason you didn't like a particular story, even if you don't normally prefer one PoV over another.) Point of view should always involve more than simply changing pronouns around.


----------



## Devor (Dec 2, 2011)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> You're making it sound like it's _actually_ impossible to do this. Can you give an example of what a "proper" 2nd-person story would look like? An example sentence or paragraph? I'm not sure what I would "expect" to see beyond the narrator being given as "you" rather than "he" or "I."
> 
> I mean, the Wikipedia entry on narrative mode seems to think that the 2nd-person mode is a rare thing, but it has been done. It notes both Stross novels as well as _Bright Lights, Big City_. I guess I'm not sure why you don't consider it "proper" 2nd-person mode just because it's not engaging enough. Why is the level of engagement necessary for it to qualify as proper 2nd person, any more than a story in first or third person? The narrative mode has nothing to do with how good it is, just whether or not the person engaging in the action is specified as _you_.



If ever there was a conversation I was hoping to get out of, it's this one.  I don't really mean to sound like I have such strong feelings about it, and once wikipedia seems to disagree with you, you know you're in trouble.

I haven't read Halting State, and I'm sorry that I mentioned it the first time, or at least for the wording I used.  I was only reacting your statement that it didn't make a difference psychologically.  If it's a truly different perspective, it should feel like one.  But I've also asked (was I not clear enough?) how the 2nd Person narration is accomplished in Halting State, and it would really help me if someone answered that one.

For the most part, I don't think 2nd Narration really works in a story because in writing, "you" typically refers to the reader.  If the reader, or a fictional character to whom the narration is addressed, is not actually supposed to be the subject of the story, then it's not, in my opinion, properly written in 2nd Person.  Instead it falls into that category of writing and speaking which is seen in some languages and colloquialisms where the wrong tense and POV are used deliberately.

"So this morning, I'm walking through the grocery store, and I see someone chewing on a grape.  And he spits it out, right back into the grape bin.  And I'm like, 'What the heck, dude?  Just seeing you do that is enough to make me stop buying fruit!'"

The present-tense here is being used as a gimmick to draw the listener in, and doesn't actually mean that the story is happening now.  It's "fake," in that sense, and after a few sentences the reader or listener adjusts and the effect wears off.  I think most stories which are credited as writing in the 2nd Person POV do the same.  I was trying to suggest in my last post that 2nd Person POV should be split along the those lines.  Is it a stylistic choice, or is "you" genuinely supposed to be "you."

I wasn't talking about the quality of the writing, but whether the 2nd Person POV is genuine.  I'm only looking at the question of categorization, that's all.

In terms of achieving a "true" 2nd Person POV, I mentioned Dracula and the way that letters that devolve into long narrations which, genuinely, are no longer second person.  I suggested a few posts before that, if the reader was already familiar with the world and the major events involved, as would happen in Historical Fiction (and possibly Fan Fiction), you could probably write in 2nd Person, as a series of letters, and avoid that narration.  If every letter was addressed to the same person, the reader might genuinely be able to insert himself into the place of that character.  It would be much the same way that "Link" never speaks in a video game for the express purpose of helping the player feel like the characters are talking directly to them.

Another possibility would be writing in the style of a manifesto.  I will correct myself and add the adventure books, now that I've thought more about what I'm actually saying, but I want to highlight those which might begin with, "You're reading quietly to yourself, a little confused about what your reading, when all of a sudden a swirling vortex opens behind you and sucks you into a parallel world...."  I do think a non-adventure book could begin the same way, and write in a similar style, but maintaining the effect over a great span of time would be extremely difficult.

I'm going to disagree with Ravana a little bit.  I don't think a 2nd Person POV should really get inside your head.  It might work well and even feel genuine for a short story or a quote, but as the writing progresses towards novel length the reader adjusts and the effect of the 2nd Person POV as a distinct POV will be lost.  In that sense, I'm also disagreeing with Wikipedia, but I'll emphasize again that what I really think is that the POV should be divided based on how genuinely you are speaking to your reader (or a character in whose place the reader is standing proxy), not that nobody should ever call such a work 2nd Person POV.

I want to end there, but I think I'll say one more thing.  As much as I've made it sound impossible, I think that I, as a writer, would rather write in 2nd Person POV than in 1st Person.  Right now I'm very tempted to try it for a short story and post it.  But I'm not pledging to do so, especially as I wouldn't be able to do so in a reasonably short amount of time.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 2, 2011)

Devor said:


> If the reader, or a fictional character to whom the narration is addressed, is not actually supposed to be the subject of the story, then it's not, in my opinion, properly written in 2nd Person.



Devor - I hear what you're saying, but I do think this is overly limiting in terms of the definition of second person. From what I can tell, there is no such requirement within the definition of second person point of view itself. It may be the type of second person narrative you prefer, but to me there is no question but that the works that do not follow the idea that "you" is the reader are still in second person.

As I noted above, setting aside the choose your own adventure stories, I believe that in the vast majority of cases, the second person "you" is not the reader, and the reader's misunderstanding (in some cases) that "you" is meant to refer to them is part of why people have trouble with the point of view.

In Nick Sagan's book _Edenborn_, for example, the portions of the book written from the perspective of the character Deuce are in second person. There is no way to interpret that story such that the reader is meant to be the character Deuce. It is nevertheless a second person narrative. Also, in _Halting State_ I believe names are provided for the characters who are referred to by "you" in the second person narrative. These characters are not the reader and are not intended to be. 

The second person narrative is accomplished in that book as it is in others by the use of pronouns such as "you," "your," and the like, and other such grammatical differences.

I don't see a reason to cast aside a distinction based solely on these grammatical differences. Ultimately, that's what you have in terms of differences between first and third person as well, and you can easily rewrite most first or third person narratives as the other by changing the pertinent grammatical elements. Taking a few sentences off the top of my head:

1st Person:

I grabbed my sword and headed out the door. The last time the outsiders attacked the village, I was a young child. They took my mother and my brother, destroyed my home and my life. This time I was determined to see them take far less.

3rd person:

Tanya grabbed her sword and headed out the door. The last time the outsiders attacked the village, she was a young child. They had taken her mother and her brother, destroyed her home and her life. This time she was determined to see them take far less.

2nd Person:

You grab your sword and head out the door. The last time the outsiders attacked the village, you were a young child. They took your mother and your brother, destroyed your village and your life. This time you are determined to see them take far less.

That's all there is to it. The "you" in the second person narrative may or may not be intended to be you, the reader.


----------



## Devor (Dec 2, 2011)

Steerpike said:


> I don't see a reason to cast aside a distinction based solely on these grammatical differences.



Why would you think I was talking about differences in grammar?  I'm talking about the impact on a reader.  And in an over-categorized world, what's the harm in drawing one more distinction?  I've made a lot of points now and I don't know how much clearer I can be.  I would just hope you understand the crux of what I'm trying to say.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 2, 2011)

Devor said:


> Why would you think I was talking about differences in grammar?  I'm talking about the impact on a reader.  And in an over-categorized world, what's the harm in drawing one more distinction?  I've made a lot of points now and I don't know how much clearer I can be.  I would just hope you understand the crux of what I'm trying to say.



I do understand what you're saying. I'm the one talking about grammatical differences. Impact on the reader doesn't determine whether something is written in second person, first person, or third person. It may determine how effectively the POV is used, but not whether an author is actually using it or not.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Dec 2, 2011)

Devor said:


> I haven't read Halting State, and I'm sorry that I mentioned it the first time, or at least for the wording I used.  I was only reacting your statement that it didn't make a difference psychologically.  If it's a truly different perspective, it should feel like one.



The issue isn't whether or not 2nd person has been done well, the issue is whether what's been done can reasonably be called "2nd person," and that's unarguably the case. I don't personally find 2nd person particularly distracting or enriching; 1st and 2nd and 3rd person all feel a bit different to me, but not radically so. I'm sure others have different experiences.



> But I've also asked (was I not clear enough?) how the 2nd Person narration is accomplished in Halting State, and it would really help me if someone answered that one.



Sorry, here's an example passage from _Rule 34_ (I don't have _Halting State_ at hand, but _Rule 34_ is set in the same universe):



> You are not stupid: You aren't carrying anything illegal on your person–it's all in your head. Even your fall-guy phone is only guilty of behaving in a shifty manner. So you do not attempt to flee. Instead, you do as the uniformed gentleman requests and meekly step into the front hall to help him with his enquiries, whereupon you realize that something is very wrong indeed because the walls and ceiling and floor are covered in clear plastic anticontamination sheets, and there's a scene of crime officer in a bunny suit coming down the stairs. "Will a driving license do?" you ask the cop.





> For the most part, I don't think 2nd Narration really works in a story because in writing, "you" typically refers to the reader.



I dunno. In my experience, it works just fine. It was a little hard to get used to at first, but then I got used to it and it wasn't distracting. I don't know why Stross decided to do it, but presumably he had some reason.

Look at it this way: role-playing games talk to "you" the player (either computer games or pen and paper games where a game master is talking to you), addressing you as a fictional character who you are not. Those seem to work perfectly fine. I don't know why it would be different between (e.g.) _Deus Ex_ and _Halting State_, except that one of them there's choices you can make, and the other there aren't. Having played/read both, I can say that I didn't find _Halting State_ to be any less engaging just because it was a static book rather than a dynamic video game.



> If the reader, or a fictional character to whom the narration is addressed, is not actually supposed to be the subject of the story, then it's not, in my opinion, properly written in 2nd Person.



Okay. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then, but the term "2nd person narrative mode" is usually used to mean what I (and Wikipedia) use it to mean. You don't have to agree that that's what "2nd person narrative mode" should mean, but you're going to confuse people if you don't use it that way. ;-)


----------



## Erica (Dec 5, 2011)

I'm a fan of tight or deep third person myself. That precludes switching povs in the middle of the scene. It also means you don't describe things that would likely be irrelevant to your pov character in a given scene. For instance, when a character walks into a room, he or she is most likely going to notice one or two important things about his or her surroundings and filter out the rest unless he or she has a good reason for attending to every little detail (like she's searching for clues at a crime scene or something).

It's a leaner style of writing. I enjoy stories where the writer doesn't tell me everything all at once about the characters and their motivations or bog me down with too many details. Of course, a story can be mainly in a tighter pov and zoom out into a more omniscient view for some scenes that are needed to establish setting or a particular mood.


----------

