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

[BWFoster78]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Does: "Realization dawned in his eyes."

differ substantially from: "His eyes went wide."

 

[Ireth]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.