# Is it okay to turn the camera on the POV character in 3rd Person limited?



## BWFoster78 (Oct 2, 2012)

I understand the viewpoint that "it's okay to do anything as long as you're consistent," but I'm looking for a more in depth discussion of this topic.

Last night, we had a new person at our writing group.  He's been writing for over 50 years and works (don't know if it's his day job or not) as a writing coach and consultant.  He didn't make a lot of comments, but those that he did were quite insightful.

I have a problem though:  I have a hard time accepting advice unless I fully understand the logic behind it.  For what he told me below, his main justification seemed to be that "any editor will tell you to change it."  

If an editor believes it, that's good information.  It tells me that it's something that I need to pay attention to (I know some of you would disagree, but this is about me wrapping my head around something).  However, it doesn't help me a lot to follow a rule if I don't understand the purpose of the rule.

HERE'S THE ISSUE:

3rd person limited viewpoint and using the following -

His eyes went wide.  (note that "his" refers to the POV character)

Bruce told me that you cannot turn the camera on the POV character and that this needed to be changed.  His two arguments were - that's what editors say and that it can confuse the reader into making it seem like you're using 3rd person omniscent.

He went on to say that: "He opened his eyes wide" would be okay.

I don't quite understand the reasoning.  It's not first person.  You're referring to the POV character's actions.  You show him raising his hand or drawing a sword.  What's the difference between that and saying that "His eyes went wide?"

I also don't think that this is going to present an issue to the readers.  Hmmm.  That book had wonderful characters, kept me on the edge of my seat with the action, and made me truly care about what happened.  I wouldn't recommend it, though.  I kept thinking getting confused as to whether the author used 3rd person limited or 3rd person omniscent.

Another thing:

If you accept that "His eyes went wide" is fine and really no different that "He opened his eyes wide," how about "Realization dawned in his eyes?"  

Anyway, thanks if you made it this far.


----------



## Penpilot (Oct 2, 2012)

It's subtle but I agree with the commenter in that the change was consistent with limited pov and the original wasn't. The change puts you back into the characters head instead of outside as the original is. 

To my understanding, in limited you can only see what the pov character sees and feel what they feel so the original is taking the reader outside of that.

But to be honest, I wouldn't have pick that up and I probably do the exact same thing. And you could argue it does stay in his head.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 2, 2012)

Penpilot,

I'm not trying to be argumentative as much as I want to understand:

The character knows that his eyes widened.  I just did it, made my eyes go wide.  I was certainly aware of it.  So, if I'm in my head, why can't I relate what I know?

Would this be wrong: he clenched his fist behind his back.

He can't see it happening?


----------



## Penpilot (Oct 2, 2012)

He can't see but he can feel what's happening and so it's internal to the character.

It would also be valid to say His eyes widened.


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 2, 2012)

When someone tells you something that is demonstrably untrue, that should send up a yellow flag at the least. "Any editor will change it" is nonsense, because I see this exact phrasing in published material all the time. Of the possible explanations for that, the only one that matches up with what your guy was saying is that somehow these works published by the big publishers made it from submission to the book shelf without seeing an editor. Clearly, that is ridiculous.

That said, "His eyes went wide" implies, to me, an outside observer. You are not filtering the action through the POV of the character but showing what a person observing the character would see. This is just fine. It doesn't have to be an omniscient viewpoint for you to use this. Recognize it isn't the closest possible POV, but that's fine as well. I think most people envision stories from the perspective of a movie, and not as though they are peering directly out through the eyes of the MC like they're in a first-person shooter or something. Considering it that way, no matter how tight your POV is, the reader is probably envisioning the character from the outside, as though they are watching them. If you don't want them to do that, first person is probably more effective than third. Given that readers are probably viewing the character in their head from the outside, even when you're in a tight third person POV, then "his eyes went wide" is perfectly acceptable.

This is the kind of issue upon which some writers and writing teachers like to engage in mental autostimulation. It's the sort of thing that a reader isn't going to care about if, in fact, they even notice it. Fixating on it takes away from time when you could be doing something productive (like writing)


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 2, 2012)

> When someone tells you something that is demonstrably untrue, that should send up a yellow flag at the least. "Any editor will change it" is nonsense, because I see this exact phrasing in published material all the time. Of the possible explanations for that, the only one that matches up with what your guy was saying is that somehow these works published by the big publishers made it from submission to the book shelf without seeing an editor. Clearly, that is ridiculous.



The guy has been published.  What I think probably happened is that he had an editor or editors harp on it to him over the years.  Perhaps his saying that an editor would make you change it is hyperbole (though not necessarily from his perspective).  I think it is worth considering his comment.



> That said, "His eyes went wide" implies, to me, an outside observer. You are not filtering the action through the POV of the character but showing what a person observing the character would see. This is just fine. It doesn't have to be an omniscient viewpoint for you to use this. Recognize it isn't the closest possible POV, but that's fine as well. I think most people envision stories from the perspective of a movie, and not as though they are peering directly out through the eyes of the MC like they're in a first-person shooter or something.



Exactly!  This sums up nicely what I was trying to get out of my head.  Thanks!

I don't think that I ever envisioned the scenes as exactly through my POV character's eyes.  I limit the view to things that knows and can see, but I do not limit showing him.



> Considering it that way, no matter how tight your POV is, the reader is probably envisioning the character from the outside, as though they are watching them. If you don't want them to do that, first person is probably more effective than third. Given that readers are probably viewing the character in their head from the outside, even when you're in a tight third person POV, then "his eyes went wide" is perfectly acceptable.



Yes, my thinking exactly.  If I wanted it to be that tight, I'd use 1st.



> This is the kind of issue upon which some writers and writing teachers like to engage in mental autostimulation. It's the sort of thing that a reader isn't going to care about if, in fact, they even notice it. Fixating on it takes away from time when you could be doing something productive (like writing)



I get what you're saying, but I like to understand.  I always feel that it's the thing that I didn't consider enough that's going to come back and bite me.

Thanks for the reply!


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 2, 2012)

Does: "Realization dawned in his eyes." 

differ substantially from: "His eyes went wide."


----------



## Ireth (Oct 2, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> Does: "Realization dawned in his eyes."
> 
> differ substantially from: "His eyes went wide."



I think it does. Widening eyes can mean any number of things -- surprise or fear being the ones that immediately spring to mind. Realization can also vary, from something good to something bad. Taking a sentence like this out of context makes it a bit tricky to work with.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 2, 2012)

Ireth said:


> I think it does. Widening eyes can mean any number of things -- surprise or fear being the ones that immediately spring to mind. Realization can also vary, from something good to something bad. Taking a sentence like this out of context makes it a bit tricky to work with.



Sorry.  In the context that we're still talking about the POV character.

Penpilot, Steerpike, and myself seem to be in agreement that it's okay to point the camera at the POV character.  

The sentence in question takes it a step farther.  It shows a realization by the POV character, kind of panning the camera on him and inside his head at the same time.  

I'd definitely see that kind of sentence as belonging in 3rd person omniscent.  Is its presence too jarring, then, in 3rd person limited?


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 2, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> Does: "Realization dawned in his eyes."
> 
> differ substantially from: "His eyes went wide."



I think it does as well. Both hint at something going on within the mind of the character, but "realization" focuses it a bit more, whereas "his eyes went wide" could be for a number of reasons. In both cases you are describing something someone else will see.


----------



## Penpilot (Oct 2, 2012)

My previous posts were from my phone so I couldn't elaborate more on my thoughts on this. Finally on a big keyboard. Yay.

To me the difference between _His eyes went wide_ and _He opened his eyes wide_ is, to me at least, almost insubstantial. I mean technically yes the original is kind of outside the head, but on a scale of one to ten, with ten being very bad, this is a one or a two at worst. To me, it's in a gray area. And if this is a once in a chapter sort of deal then I don't think it's a big worry by any means. 

I mean examine your work as a whole and if you slip into the gray once in a bit, *shrug*. If it's constantly in the gray area, I'd give it more thought.


----------



## Devor (Oct 2, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> HERE'S THE ISSUE:
> 
> 3rd person limited viewpoint and using the following -
> 
> ...



This isn't worth more than ten seconds of thought.  Change it, don't change it, but move on to the important stuff.


----------



## Christopher Wright (Oct 2, 2012)

... I don't see the problem. It sounds more like a pet peeve.

I can sort of see the omniscient thing, maybe, but it would be a kind of 3rd person omniscient *limited* since all you're doing is describing something, whereas omniscient usually puts you in everyone's head at the same time. Actually 3rd person omniscient limited is an interesting idea... *wanders off, muttering, distracted*


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 2, 2012)

Penpilot said:


> My previous posts were from my phone so I couldn't elaborate more on my thoughts on this. Finally on a big keyboard. Yay.
> 
> To me the difference between _His eyes went wide_ and _He opened his eyes wide_ is, to me at least, almost insubstantial. I mean technically yes the original is kind of outside the head, but on a scale of one to ten, with ten being very bad, this is a one or a two at worst. To me, it's in a gray area. And if this is a once in a chapter sort of deal then I don't think it's a big worry by any means.
> 
> I mean examine your work as a whole and if you slip into the gray once in a bit, *shrug*. If it's constantly in the gray area, I'd give it more thought.



I think it's more of a consistent thing.  I'm deliberately turning the camera onto the POV character, and, as Steerpike wrote, I'm not sure that's a bad thing.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 2, 2012)

Devor said:


> This isn't worth more than ten seconds of thought.  Change it, don't change it, but move on to the important stuff.



I think it's just about always worth the effort to gain true understanding of the why behind something.


----------



## Penpilot (Oct 2, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> I think it's more of a consistent thing.  I'm deliberately turning the camera onto the POV character, and, as Steerpike wrote, I'm not sure that's a bad thing.



I've been thinking about this some more. I think I'm going to adjust my stance. I was thinking about if this is fair game and to me it is. You're not relating anything that the character can't know and it comes down to the phrasing, which can't be considered omniscient in my books unless it's revealing something that the POV can't know. Third limited is still third, which means there's a detached narrator that is either very close or can be distant. It's often described as someone riding on the POV's shoulder. So yeah, now I actually don't think there's anything wrong with the original.


----------



## Twook00 (Oct 2, 2012)

What exactly are you trying to convey with this phrase?  Surprise, shock, fear?  Is it needed for pacing?  Is it necessary to have your POV's eyes go wide or is there a better way to convey his emotion?

"Jon, I'm pregnant," Darla said.
Jon's eyes went wide.  "What did you say?"

or

"Jon, I'm pregnant," Darla said.
John looked up.  "What did you say?"

or

"Jon, I'm pregnant," Darla said.
"What did you say?"

Example one works okay for me.  It definitely gets the point across, and it has a nice beat before the character's response.  

Example two also has that beat between dialogue, but lacks some of the emotion.

Example three, sans beat, works okay as well but is very much up to the reader.  If you've done a good job establishing you're character, maybe this is all you need.  And if the dialogue is sound, you can convey his surprise (or shock or anger) without even mentioning it.  

"That's it.  I'm gone."  he turned for the door.  
"Jon, I'm pregnant," Darla said.  
He froze.  "What did you say?"
"I said...I'm pregnant." 
Slowly, he turned.  Darla stood by the kitchen table, a dish towel wringing in her hands, her eyes wet with tears.  "Jon?"
"Were having a baby?"
"Yes."  
"WERE HAVING A BABY!"

I don't know if this is a good example or not.  I'm just wondering if maybe this type of phrase is something that would eventually get cut out or changed.

As an aside, is this something your character would actually do?  I ask because my eyes never do that.  Its just not an expression my face makes (in fact it kind of feels awkward when I try it.  Just a thought).


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 2, 2012)

> What exactly are you trying to convey with this phrase? Surprise, shock, fear? Is it needed for pacing? Is it necessary to have your POV's eyes go wide or is there a better way to convey his emotion?



The phrase itself doesn't matter.  It could just as easily have been "His veins throbbed" or "A tear leaked from his eye."

The point of the question was to facilitate a discussion of whether it is permissible to turn the camera on the POV character in 3rd person limited.  Thus far, it seems like the resounding opinion of the forum is: yes.

As to your aside:

Eyes widening is a response that indicates surprise.  I'm not sure it it's involuntary or not.  It's a pretty standard expression.


----------



## Butterfly (Oct 2, 2012)

Right, because you have two similar threads going at the same time, I'm not sure if this is more related to this one or the other one. So, I'll just plonk it in here where it seems more relevant.

I think you should take a look at psychic distance. Might help you out with some of these issues.

A blog article to get you started ... This Itch of Writing: Psychic Distance: what it is and how to use it

(Yes, I know I keep linking to this blog, but I love it... she has some great tips and advice).


----------



## Twook00 (Oct 2, 2012)

> The point of the question was to facilitate a discussion of whether it is permissible to turn the camera on the POV character in 3rd person limited.



Understood.  What I meant to convey here was that maybe there's a better way to handle this rather than risk throwing the reader out of your story.  Most people may not mind or notice, but others might.  

Personally, the "eyes widening" example doesn't feel like turning the camera to me.  The character will know that he has done this thing and if he knows he is doing it than its not really going out of his head.  Its a reaction, like gasping or sighing.

What about: _Tom chewed his lip in thought_?  Would you want to describe this from the POV's viewpoint?  It's technically something he would know he is doing, but he probably isn't thinking about it.  From his viewpoint, he is thinking about something else and may not realize he is chewing his lip.  On the other hand, the person sitting across from him will notice it because it is something he does when he is thinking.


----------



## wordwalker (Oct 2, 2012)

I would agree, widening eyes is something you feel, and so the character can notice it himself. (And, "eyes went" is more removed from the character's intention than "he widened his eyes," but I think it's a good thing-- it conveys that this is a reflex, not a plan.)



BWFoster78 said:


> Does: "Realization dawned in his eyes."
> 
> differ substantially from: "His eyes went wide."



This is different: "dawned in" is something you'd have to look *at* to notice. It's a looser, more "watching from the shoulder" kind of VP that some people use, but I think it hurts the immediacy too much. It has a lot of cousins, "he looked angry" etc (okay, "fury blazed..." so that it isn't just lame) that I also think take us too far out of VP.

None of this means you "can't" do it --unless you have an editor (or teacher) who draws the line there-- but I think it does more harm than good when there are so many other ways to say it.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 2, 2012)

> Understood. What I meant to convey here was that maybe there's a better way to handle this rather than risk throwing the reader out of your story. Most people may not mind or notice, but others might.



That's another element of the question.  When someone I respect makes a comment, I want two things: to understand fully the issue and to understand how important the issue is.

It sounds like this isn't that much of a big deal.



> Personally, the "eyes widening" example doesn't feel like turning the camera to me. The character will know that he has done this thing and if he knows he is doing it than its not really going out of his head. Its a reaction, like gasping or sighing.



Me either.  It seems like he's taking the stance that POV is literal.  As in, if you use 3rd person limited, you should only see out of the character's eyes.  I think it's permissible (and my stance is getting firmer on this by having this discussion) that it's okay to show anything that the character is aware of, even if it means seeing the character from "outside."



> What about: Tom chewed his lip in thought? Would you want to describe this from the POV's viewpoint? It's technically something he would know he is doing, but he probably isn't thinking about it. From his viewpoint, he is thinking about something else and may not realize he is chewing his lip. On the other hand, the person sitting across from him will notice it because it is something he does when he is thinking.



Not THAT is an interesting question.  Is it okay to show the character doing something he's not aware he is doing?  

I feel that it would not be okay.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 2, 2012)

wordwalker said:


> I would agree, widening eyes is something you feel, and so the character can notice it himself. (And, "eyes went" is more removed from the character's intention than "he widened his eyes," but I think it's a good thing-- it conveys that this is a reflex, not a plan.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Regarding the last part: my concept here is that you're inside the person's head.  You can say: the POV character realized that X = Y.  Right?  Is it then too far of a step to say Realization dawned in his eyes?


----------



## wordwalker (Oct 3, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> Regarding the last part: my concept here is that you're inside the person's head.  You can say: the POV character realized that X = Y.  Right?  Is it then too far of a step to say Realization dawned in his eyes?



I think the difference is that the person himself isn't so aware that the realization is showing in his *eyes*. If it were the wideness of the eyes, his jaw dropping, fists clenching or so on, okay.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 3, 2012)

wordwalker said:


> I think the difference is that the person himself isn't so aware that the realization is showing in his *eyes*. If it were the wideness of the eyes, his jaw dropping, fists clenching or so on, okay.



I get what you're saying.  

Here's my thinking:

It seems okay to show what the person is thinking.  In fact, I can go straight into his head if I want.

It seems okay to turn the camera on him and show what his eyes are doing.

If A is okay and B is okay, why wouldn't A + B combined by okay?  I'm showing what's happening in his mind through an expression relating to the physical.


----------



## The Din (Oct 3, 2012)

Seems like cheating to me. If POV is limited, keep it limited. Turning camera on POV jerks the reader out of his head, to do this simply to convey emotion might be seen as lazy writing. Why risk it on something easy to change? He raised his eyebrows... Realized he must be staring... etc.


----------



## wordwalker (Oct 3, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> It seems okay to show what the person is thinking. In fact, I can go straight into his head if I want.
> 
> It seems okay to turn the camera on him and show what his eyes are doing.
> 
> If A is okay and B is okay, why wouldn't A + B combined by okay?  I'm showing what's happening in his mind through an expression relating to the physical.



Actually, my point is that eyes widening is not turning the camera on the VP character, it's him *feeling* the eyes widen, just as he feels other motions he makes. "View"point doesn't mean it becomes the one kind of description that's limited to sight.

In fact, most of our physical self-awareness is touch and kinesthetic, not sight or other senses. (Not many real exceptions: the sound of our voice or footsteps, certain times we look down at our clothes/body, when a rustle or smell is enough to draw our attention, or the "taste of" an emotion if you think you can make it distinctive.)

I think cultivating that sense-- um, feeling-- well, "awareness" that the VP is perceived by non-"camera" senses is a big part of making VP more immediate.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 3, 2012)

> Seems like cheating to me. If POV is limited, keep it limited. Turning camera on POV jerks the reader out of his head, to do this simply to convey emotion might be seen as lazy writing. Why risk it on something easy to change? He raised his eyebrows... Realized he must be staring... etc.



Again, the point is the principle.

I don't understand why 3rd person limited has to literally mean that you see everything through the eyes of the POV character.  Why can't you focus the story on the POV character and be able to "see" anything that he's aware of. 

I don't understand why that is cheating.


----------



## wordwalker (Oct 3, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> Again, the point is the principle.
> 
> I don't understand why 3rd person limited has to literally mean that you see everything through the eyes of the POV character.  Why can't you focus the story on the POV character and be able to "see" anything that he's aware of.
> 
> I don't understand why that is cheating.



I'd say you're right.

At least, "cheat" is a strong word, since the only "rules" here are about the effects choices have. One reason it might seem cheating is that a closer VP does simulate one person's actual view (with sensations and thoughts b not "looking at" himself), while a "behind-the-shoulder" VP that also allows that isn't matching any one real perspective. Or it might be how some writers slip into it for convenience (or just plain by mistake), and so people could call them lazy.

But you could use either. It might be a called "glory vs gritty" choice:

use a "shoulder" VP if you think the world is so visual it's incomplete without being able to simply watch the VP character amid it, or maybe it's so easygoing a style you want to describe that obvious subject in the obvious way.
or, do the extra work to keep the VP character from describing himself, if you think the purer way is stronger. Because it *is* the one thing a real person couldn't simply see.

Either way, it only works if you're consistent. If you want the looser VP, show the character himself early, and keep showing him enough that it's understood. Or, the stricter VP gets its extra strength from voluntarily building up the pattern that you *don't*, and any exception does seem like you've violated your own plan. Either way, it's a style.


----------



## wordwalker (Oct 5, 2012)

Actually, I think there might be one exception to the idea that a stricter VP means the character can't see much of himself: bits of basic first description, if it's expanded out around an action.

That is, it might be worthwhile to say "he brushed his short red hair back" even though this one time you're including some details that aren't on his mind at the moment. (Call it the very back of his mind being reminded of the color.)

I think this works for hair, for height/build (all kinds of walking and things can slip this in), and I guess for complexion. But never for eyes: the one thing eyes never see is themselves, so "her blue eyes locked on the enemy" would *not* fly in stricter VP.

But then, you can always move on to the familiar tools of "what do they think of someone who looks like--" or the old glimpsed-in-the-mirror trick. (Even Cyrano stopped to notice his own profile's shadow.)

And either way, clothes are easy to mention, how his choice of outfit today either affects his movement or taking a moment to think how it fits in.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Oct 8, 2012)

I haven't read all of the comments but here's my 2 cents anyway.

For me, it's all about how an action or feeling is normally perceived. Since we want to strive for clarity in our writing we need our description to be crystal clear.

So, in the case of the OP, the POVs eyes widening is not clear. Yes, if you are just widening your eyes to check if you can feel it, we all know that you will notice the movement of facial muscles. Because of this the thought arises that we should be able to write this without issue. The problem is that "eyes widening" is typically a physical response to shock or fright. If you were indeed shocked enough for your eyes to widen, I doubt that the facial movements would even be noticed by you. Others would notice it while you wouldn't even realize. Therefore, this physical response to emotion is primarily visual & something that cannot be properly experienced without a mirror.

Now, there are plenty of physical sensations that a POV can truly feel. For example, the skin crawling or shivering due to shock or fright. This description, also aligned with the same emotion is crystal clear. It isn't typically noticed by others outside the POV (other than goosebumps or small body tremors) but it is certainly & without a doubt, felt by the POV. Therefore, this reaction is primarily a tactile response & a better choice for the POV in this instance.

Since clarity should be the goal for the vast majority of us, I would tend to agree with the critique you were given.

I hope I explained my position clearly... Lol.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 8, 2012)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I haven't read all of the comments but here's my 2 cents anyway.
> 
> For me, it's all about how an action or feeling is normally perceived. Since we want to strive for clarity in our writing we need our description to be crystal clear.
> 
> ...



I think that we kind of refined the question in the subsequent posts.  The discussion, to me, boils down to:

In 3rd Person Limited, do you have to only relate the story literally through the POV character's eyes or can you position the camera over the character's shoulder?

In your post, you seem to advocate only being able to see through the eyes.  If you don't mind, could you try to explain why you feel this is the case?


----------



## WyrdMystic (Oct 8, 2012)

I think this is a really interesting topic and agree with what has been said. My addition would be its very hard to know when to draw the line. In 3rd person limited you filter through the characters mind - however, a character would not 'think' in the way the narrator describes. Sure, mood would be ingrained in metaphors and similies, though a character would never think about her 'flowing locks'. They would simply notice themselves stroking their hair. In that respect you could say that 3rd person limited is just another form of the omniscient POV. In the cases being described above 'his eyes widened' is ambiguous as you can both 'know' your eyes widened and 'see' another's eyes widened. 'Realization dawned in his eyes' is best left when viewing a non-POV character and could simply be left at 'Realization dawned' for the POV character.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Oct 8, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> I think that we kind of refined the question in the subsequent posts.  The discussion, to me, boils down to:
> 
> In 3rd Person Limited, do you have to only relate the story literally through the POV character's eyes or can you position the camera over the character's shoulder?
> 
> In your post, you seem to advocate only being able to see through the eyes.  If you don't mind, could you try to explain why you feel this is the case?



Sure... It's purely personal preference. I like to be close to the POV, relaying information & feeling, by description, as the character experiences the world & events around them.

In my view, an emotional connection between the character and the reader, as they travel through the story together, is the ultimate goal. For my writing style, I want to make that relationship as close and tight as possible. What's closer than looking through one character's eyes? Seeing what they see. Living in the skin? Feeling what they feel. Hearing, smelling, and tasting... The closer the better for me.

Either way, examining the emotion and describing reaction based off how a particular emotion is most clearly & typically perceived can help a ton.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 9, 2012)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Sure... It's purely personal preference. I like to be close to the POV, relaying information & feeling, by description, as the character experiences the world & events around them.
> 
> In my view, an emotional connection between the character and the reader, as they travel through the story together, is the ultimate goal. For my writing style, I want to make that relationship as close and tight as possible. What's closer than looking through one character's eyes? Seeing what they see. Living in the skin? Feeling what they feel. Hearing, smelling, and tasting... The closer the better for me.
> 
> Either way, examining the emotion and describing reaction based off how a particular emotion is most clearly & typically perceived can help a ton.



I don't think that having an "over the shoulder" camera view eliminates the ability to do any of those things.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Oct 9, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> I don't think that having an "over the shoulder" camera view eliminates the ability to do any of those things.



I'd agree that you can still do it with an "over the shoulder" POV but, in my mind, it's certainly not as close. Truth is, in any 3rd person, you are probably altering how close or far you are to the POV fairly often. For my taste though, I'd prefer to remain as close as possible whenever possible.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 9, 2012)

Now that we've kinda established that my method is technically okay, I find myself moving away from it in favor of getting a little more into the POV character's head.

I'm not sure how keeping a distance benefited me.

Instead of showing an action of the POV character, I've been indicating more about his thoughts and feelings.  I think it works better.

At the same time, I plan to keep the concept of the over the shoulder shot alive in that a view of what he's wearing doesn't bother me even if he wouldn't consider it.


----------



## Ireth (Oct 9, 2012)

Personally, I think if you're going to move in so close to the third-person narrator as to only experience things from practically inside their skin, then you might as well just use first-person. It probably wouldn't make much of a difference.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Oct 9, 2012)

Ireth said:


> Personally, I think if you're going to move in so close to the third-person narrator as to only experience things from practically inside their skin, then you might as well just use first-person. It probably wouldn't make much of a difference.



There's certainly a difference if the overall story needs to be told from multiple viewpoints.... Intersecting plot lines where individual stories interconnect across spans of time or distance. Multiple 1st person POVs are extremely jarring with more than one character saying "I did this... I saw that..."Also, the ability to kill off a POV character in 3rd. Almost always, we know a 1st person POV lives. There's usually only one of them.


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 9, 2012)

Probably true as a rule T.Allen.Smith, but I've read books where the first person narrator dies, even if it was the only narrator up to that point; or books where there are multiple first person points of view, or one first person points of view and multiple points of view in third person included in the same book. Looks like the field is pretty wide open. The real question is "what can you make work?"


----------



## WyrdMystic (Oct 9, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> "what can you make work?"



Challenge accepted.

Really, I do think that writing is like any other profession. That means know the rules and reasons for them but always push the boundaries in search for perfection. All professions look to stretch, redefine or even break what is thought of as possible or correct. That's how things evolve. Twenty years ago 'bookisms' were the best thing since sliced bread (or indeed the bread slicer). It will be the same with the rules we think stand true today in another twenty years, budding writers will think...'really?'. So there's really no better way to say it then Steerpike has....

"What can you make work?" - in fact that sounds like a post all of its own.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Oct 9, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Probably true as a rule T.Allen.Smith, but I've read books where the first person narrator dies, even if it was the only narrator up to that point; or books where there are multiple first person points of view, or one first person points of view and multiple points of view in third person included in the same book. Looks like the field is pretty wide open. The real question is "what can you make work?"



Hehe... I knew you'd say that as we've discussed this before. But yes, you're correct. I'm just speaking in general, more widely accepted terms & from my own opinion. After all, the conversation evolved from BWF asking me why I'm a proponent of that style of writing. It's only my preference. 

There's no right or wrong way to write... Only good or bad.

Still, I definitely see a strong distinction between extremely close 3rd limited & 1st person.


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 9, 2012)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Still, I definitely see a strong distinction between extremely close 3rd limited & 1st person.



I do as well. I tend to think of it more as flavor, but that line can get a bit hazy at times.


----------

