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

[wordwalker]

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.)

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]

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]

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.)



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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?"