How deep do you go into 3rd person limited?

[skip.knox]

>that's what Deep POV techniques are designed for.
I have to qualify that. It's what is *claimed*. My argument is the claims are spurious and even superficial because they are not intrinsic to Deep. No POV can cut back on dialog tags, can bring the reader in close, etc., because it's the *author* who does these things. And they can be done well or poorly in any POV. And if you *aren't* trying to engage the reader, delve deep into your characters, etc., then ... well, there are places for that kind of writing--snarky comedies, for example--but it's not the kind of writing most of us talk about around here. And (oh, let's start all our sentences with conjunctions!), if the author is trying to engage the reader and get them involved with the characters, but does so poorly, choosing Deep isn't going to help.

The goals, in short, are commendable. But Deep isn't going to get the author any further down the road than will any other POV choice, and advice columns that pretend it will are just ... pretending.

 

[Devor]

My argument is the claims are spurious and even superficial because they are not intrinsic to Deep. No POV can cut back on dialog tags, can bring the reader in close, etc., because it's the *author* who does these things. And they can be done well or poorly in any POV. And if you *aren't* trying to engage the reader, delve deep into your characters, etc., then ... well, there are places for that kind of writing--snarky comedies, for example--but it's not the kind of writing most of us talk about around here. And (oh, let's start all our sentences with conjunctions!), if the author is trying to engage the reader and get them involved with the characters, but does so poorly, choosing Deep isn't going to help.

First to clarify, "engagement" wasn't my word. There are more ways to engage with readers than can be counted. I'm also not interested in arguing about dialogue tags and other pedantic claims I don't doubt you've seen made (I've seen them too - baffling how many writers get caught up over such unimportant things).

I was talking much more specifically about making the reader feel what the character feels.

And that's not always something you want to do. For example, you might want readers to feel terrified of a bomb under the table which the character has no idea about. You might even want to continue the scene after the bomb goes off and the character dies. You're not really supposed to do that kind of thing in "Deep." And if the character is sitting there for a moment with their arm blown off and their hair burning and shards cutting into their left eye, getting into that character's head might be quite a bit heavier than the book is interested in getting.

So I'm definitely not claiming that Deep is best or right for everything.

I should also note that Deep can also look very similar to writing in 1st POV. But with "Deep" you can head hop in between chapters or scene breaks, or under whatever conditions you're able to set up for yourself. It's awkward to have 3 POV characters all be in 1st POV. I do think there can be other, more subtle differences, but that's a different discussion.

Now I write my fanfiction in really, really heavy Deep. My own WIP is less deep - I have to spend a lot more time on description and establishing characters, and working towards the events they will need to "go deep" to later reflect on, and even then it'll still be a smaller percentage of the prose because the worldbuilding will never really stop coming.

But in my fanfiction I want the characters and the readers to feel, feel more, and then feel even more. I use these Deep techniques, and I get the results I'm shooting for, and I know that I couldn't get them in any other way.

I posted a really weak example before. But then I was only talking about how you can go heavier or lighter on the techniques as you need. For example, I use them a lot less during a fight scene because it can get in the way. But let me post a more serious and emotional section.

“I mean what I said, Ladybug.” Chat Noir took two steps back and turned to look over the Paris skyline. His voice was shaky and he seemed determined not to look at her. “I’m taking somebody out, a friend from my normal life, and... I think you and all of Paris know how I feel about you, and that hasn’t changed yet, but I can see what’s happening, that it was always inevitable… so if I start acting a little differently towards you it’s because I want to respect her.”

And just like that, all of her fears faded away. She had spent a year dreading the day she would break his heart, and now, perhaps, he had taken the hint and spared them both. About time, Chat.

But this isn’t what she wanted tonight. And he looked so... heartbroken.

“I know I keep pushing you away, but I care about you, Chat, more than I know how to put into words.” He still didn’t look at her, but she couldn’t take her eyes off him. He deserved more than the sadness in his face. “This girl you’re dating had better be good enough for you.”

And then his expression lit up, and he turned to look at her with a smile, and his eyes, somehow, transformed him back into the optimistic kitten she had always known. “I can tell you that much for sure, Ladybug. This girl’s incredible.”

Chat Noir was moving on. Ladybug was so relieved. He should step back that annoying flirting he does. He might pay her less attention and focus more on the supervillains. It was a relief to be free of that burden of fearing his heartbreak. The cat could find a new human pet. Maybe he would finally take saving Paris seriously.

This is what relief feels like, right?

The weight was off her shoulders. He was going to be with somebody else. Ladybug tried to picture a normal guy, a normal girl, a boring conversation, a girl who would know the real person behind Chat Noir.

And she would have no idea of the incredible and selfless things he did all the time. For Paris. For everybody.

For her.

You just can't get that kind of effect without going deep into the POV. If you don't know the IP you might not recognize the full impact. But in context, you read this section, you can feel what she's feeling, and it's a feeling that's hard to even put into words. Is she happy? Relieved? Sad?

She doesn't even realize that what she's feeling is loss, and maybe neither does the reader, and yet the reader feels it with her.

You can do a lot of amazing things with different writing techniques. But deep emotional subtlety? No, "Deep" as we're calling it is how you get that.

 

[Steerpike]

No POV can cut back on dialog tags, can bring the reader in close, etc., because it's the *author* who does these things.

Yes, the author is doing it just like a contractor might build a home. And just like a contractor might use a hammer for one purpose and a screwdriver for another, I think an author can use POV and other 'tools' for different purposes and to achieve different effects. If you write in first person or deep third person I think you're going to end up with a much different product than if you're writing in a third-person omniscient POV, for example.

 

[Steerpike]

I should also note that Deep can also look very similar to writing in 1st POV. But with "Deep" you can head hop in between chapters or scene breaks, or under whatever conditions you're able to set up for yourself. It's awkward to have 3 POV characters all be in 1st POV. I do think there can be other, more subtle differences, but that's a different discussion.

I think it can be awkward, if not handled well. I've read books that switch between first, second, and third person POVs where the author handled it well. I think it can be done with multiple first person POVs as well, but the individual POVs need to be written as distinct. If they all 'sound' the same I think there would be a problem.

 

[skip.knox]

No argument there, Steerpike. What I'm skeptical about is the reverse causation. That is, articles that say (or imply) that choosing the POV will result in some specific literary result. I also am skeptical that choosing the choice of POV will have a predictable effect on any author's work. That is to say, if I choose Deep for my next story, it will necessarily be more <insert claimed virtues here> than if I choose 3rd person limited or any other POV.

As I said before, I really don't care at all regarding any particular author. Choose what works for you. What bugs me are the articles that create this expectation. Here's an example (one of a multitude).

"You’re trying to create the experience, for the readers, of actually being your narrating character."
I get that. This is a perfectly reasonable and clear description of what distinguishes Deep from other 3rd person. But the very next sentence says this.
"As a result, deep third-person finds its greatest strengths when the narrating character provides a unique and vibrant narrative voice, in which everything he experiences or thinks is shown to readers, rather than simply told."

Notice the causative "As a result...." The mere act of choosing creates something. What? It "... provides a unique and vibrant narrative voice..."
No it doesn't. The author is perfectly capapble of providing a dull, disorienting, or even inconsistent voice. There is no uniqueness or vibrancy produced "as a result" of writing Deep. It's that implication of "do this and you'll get that" I am objecting to, and particularly in regard to new writers who might easily be misled into choosing this voice. Because who wouldn't want to choose to be unique and vibrant?

I hear the same sort of thing said about present tense. Oh, the writer tells me, I use present tense to create excitement and make the reader feel the moment. But in doing so, they let themselves off the hook a little bit. Their story is already filled with tension by the mere fact of writing in the present tense. And a good many times, they actually fail to create tension themselves. I actually like it better when the author says they write in the present tense just because they like it better. Same goes for Deep.

 

[Devor]

I think it’s worth suggesting that deep or rather techniques for developing a deeper pov voice are a little more than a POV choice. Let’s say a story is told from the POV of a person who was told the story by the those involved, or by someone who had it happen to them when they were younger, or is just “cooky narrator guy” or some other character outside the story. All the same techniques can be used to establish that narrator’s feelings reacting to the story. You can also use them in omniscient for different characters for example.

So in that regard, simply picking a POV character voice means nothing unless you’re using the tools to establish it. But I do think that POV choice and how deep to go with it is one of the most defining characteristics of a story.

I’m not aware of any significant point in using present tense, except as a gimmick to stand out. The “imminence” effect wears out really fast. I would only use it in dialogue to tell a story within a story, personally.

 

[Alex Reiden]

It's worth considering that many books are not written from just one level of "deepness," and many works, particularly in fantasy when we need to step back for some worldbuilding, will vary how deep and how often the narrator dives into a particular character's head. Full immersion into a character's perspective can become hectic and tiresome for the reader, especially during tense moments.

In my experience deep POV is more of a spectrum than a hard and fast choice, and going deep into POV is best when used as a tool for the occasion rather than a dedicated narrative choice. My opinion of course, but others have told me of books that go fully into deep 3rd-person POV. I just haven't read any myself.

 

[skip.knox]

>I think it’s worth suggesting that deep or rather techniques for developing a deeper pov voice are a little more than a POV choice.
I completely agree.

 

[The Dark One]

I'm not here to argue against Deep. If someone wants to call their 3rd person that, I'm not going to call them out. But it does irk me to see writing advice columns tout these virtues as if they somehow adhere naturally to Deep, or more naturally than to other forms of POV, because I hate to think of new writers taking that nonsense seriously.

The only peculiarity I could detect with Deep is that the narrator takes on the voice of the character, which is what the OP was talking about. And, as the OP pointed out, this can lead to some truly odd juxtapositions. For myself, I try never to take a position that is juxta.

Pretty much my view. I'd never heard of Third Person Deep, but after reading this thread I'm startled to realise it's something I've always done (when writing in 3rd) and simply assumed it was my own unique immersive style.

Once again, the artistic world is stealing my ideas without attribution.

 

[FifthView]

I'm not sure I can add anything valuable to this conversation, but that hasn't stopped me before...

I hear the same sort of thing said about present tense. Oh, the writer tells me, I use present tense to create excitement and make the reader feel the moment. But in doing so, they let themselves off the hook a little bit. Their story is already filled with tension by the mere fact of writing in the present tense. And a good many times, they actually fail to create tension themselves. I actually like it better when the author says they write in the present tense just because they like it better.

I'm fairly in agreement with what I've heard Brandon Sanderson say. Present or past makes little difference because readers get so used to whichever is chosen, and lose themselves in the narrative, they cease to notice which it is. It's a lot like reading tags like "said."

I'd hazard a guess: Deep third, less-deep but still limited third, omniscient third and first person, when written well, will have the same basic but powerful effect upon a reader. The reader gets lost in the narrative, "is there," and ceases to notice which approach the author is using. Or at least, the reader no longer thinks about it consciously. (However, the very first chapter can take some getting-to-know-you if it's written in a style the reader doesn't usually read...)

Heck, this getting lost and being there happens to me when I watch great television shows or movies, and they are cinematic third.

BUT the writerly parts of us, especially when we are consciously doing the writing heh, focuses on these things...So the questions can seem very important, pointed, like thorns or a thicket.

 

[Malik]

My argument is the claims are spurious and even superficial because they are not intrinsic to Deep. No POV can cut back on dialog tags, can bring the reader in close, etc., because it's the *author* who does these things. And they can be done well or poorly in any POV.

Deep isn't going to get the author any further down the road than will any other POV choice, and advice columns that pretend it will are just ... pretending.

I'm with Skip on this one. I'd take it one step further and argue that "Deep POV" doesn't actually exist. What we're talking about is Limited Third Subjective.

Personally, I think Limited Third Subjective/"Deep POV" is faddish and clunky and it gets stale after a couple of pages, the same way that a lot of First Person Subjective does. To be fair, these seem to be the two POVs that fledgling authors most often attempt, so there may be a Sturgeon's Law effect, here.

Moving on, though, we need to remember that choice of POV is a matter of knowing what information you, the author, need your reader to have. Period. The six (that I can think of) first-person POVs and the two (arguably three) third-person POVs, plus framed narrative constructs all convey different information. You have to know what your story is and what it means--what the punchline is, so to speak--so that you can choose the proper POV.

If you're really good, you can move between POVs to a point. Most of us aren't that good. The Art of Racing in the Rain moves between Memoir and Subjective voices in First Person and does it masterfully, giving you exactly as much information as you need to get the story that the author intends you to read.

Often, when a manuscript stalls out or dies on the vine, it's because the author chose the wrong POV. The story peters out because there's nothing else you can say from that angle.

How "deep" (i.e. subjective) you go with each POV is purely stylistic, and the point of your story is the contributing factor to your framing: generally, you start with a wide shot (even in Limited Third, where you write from one character at at time), focusing on thoughts, feelings, and the other mechanics that report the character's relationship to the story. As the scene progresses, you "tighten the lens" by removing these extraneous words and also incorporating subjectivity; i.e., using words and expressions that the character themselves would use to describe the situation.

This subjective voicing is where the Omniscient Third writer gets his mail. In Omniscient Third, this kind of voicing is the equivalent of someone telling you a story with a drink in their hand, doing spot-on impressions. This is how, in Omnisicient Third, you write a scene from multiple perspectives; you do it by mastering multiple voices so that the reader understands instinctively whose eyes they're looking through by the word choices and even their rhythm and sonority. (It also takes a lifetime to refine, but you can't have everything.) C.f. The Princess Bride and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series, which change POV sometimes within the same paragraph, but never lose the reader.

"Deep POV" is removing all of the initial wide lensing and telling the entire story in Limited Third Subjective. Like writing in present tense, it's a straitjacket that narrows your left and right limits. You can view this as a cost, or a benefit. For a short story, it works great, but if you're going to stick to it for a hundred thousand words, you'd better be a freaking master of voice, nuance, and meter. Further, your narrative, your imagery, and the contingencies of your rhetoric need to be focused in such a way that subjective voices convey the meaning that you're going for. Because if you do Limited Third Subjective right, your reader is only going to hear the story from your characters, and never from you. That's a hell of a trick if you can do it.

 

[FifthView]

My pet peeve re: Deep Third?

The assumption that it is automatically a strong, effective, desirable approach for telling a story.

Don't get me wrong. When it works, it works well.

But the simple fact of my being "in the head" of a character a) doesn't mean it's a character's head I want to be in, at least for extended passages and b) doesn't make for a great story all on its own.

One problem is this: Being so deep, I'd better enjoy that character's mind, thoughts, feelings, perspective, etc., because if I don't, I'm putting the book down fast and will never pick it up again. (This factors into first person narratives also.)

But really these considerations affect all storytelling. I need a good story; I need good characters. These are possibly quite subjective, heh.