Point of view

[Demesnedenoir]

Free indirect speech is something I use extensively in my novel, I think part and parcel to the 3rd intimate. I also use direct thought. And achieving the full effect is still something I'm refining/cleaning up stragglers. Which starts to go in another direction in this conversation, LOL.

A third person narrative extensively using the device of free indirect speech helps me as a reader to forget about the outside narrator. I'm able to feel like I'm in the skin of the character, even though the pronoun used in the text is "she" or "he" instead of "I." The narrator is not intruding.

Even with first person narratives, the narrator can intrude. I just read an excerpt on this forum where the first person narrator intruded while telling her own story.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

There is certainly a quality issue. Always is. I don't think 3rd intimate hides the narrator, personally.

I think there really is a type of third-intimate that begins to feel a lot like first person.

However, the difference is that there's also, always, an outside narrator in third, even in third-intimate. The goal of that sort of third intimate is to hide this fact, heh, or create the illusion that there's no outside narrator. Saying, "He was pissed off" begins to feel like someone from the outside telling us about him.

That said, I think that maybe some of this, the whole discussion of closeness in fact, may depend on the general thrust of the narrative, so that occasional minor distancing doesn't leap out at the reader in a way that breaks the closeness.

Edit: I want to describe an example. If I'm really absorbed in the character voice, the narrative, and feel as if I'm seeing the world from his POV, then come upon a line like "He was pissed" in the middle of all that, I don't think it'd break the closeness. It would feel like just another part of the narrative, probably like the character himself telling me that. But maybe if the rest of the writing is weaker, the POV a bit abstract, whatever, that line might be a feather breaking my back, heh.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

I don't think any writer could prolong using subtle facial ticks and stuff to convey emotions without getting tedious and repetitive, dialogue is going to have to carry a lot of the load. But then you have books like Dune, where everybody is trying to hide their thoughts and emotions. I find it amusing just to imagine trying to eliminate the omniscient narrator and shoving in an objective view. heh heh.

Yes to all of this. This is why, though, I think a purely objective writer has a harder time cultivating closeness. Not impossible, just harder.

So as you said, in general day to day interactions we don't have the benifit of mind reading. We do, however, have a lifetimes worth of experience reading body language. We understand facial twitches, eye rolls, shoulder shrugs and any other manner of social actions. My daughter has severe autism, and so does not understand basic social gestures, even as simple as pointing at an object. It means nothing to her.

When watching a movie we can easily become engrossed because we have skilled actors who are well practiced in raising eyebrows, commanding tears at will, charming us with friendly smiles, etc. When we watch a film we can see the difference between a shy smile and an arrogant one. We understand all the emotions and personalities in between.

In fiction, however, it is totally up to the writer to convey all that body language. A skilled writer, who is highly observant in human behaviour will be able to do this. But many of the objective writers I have seen struggle with this. They repeat the same descriptions over and over ad nauseum with very little variation or attention to subtlety. It's exasperating! So while I think it can be done, obviously, in film, with the advantage of real live people appealing to the communication part of our brain adapted to read body language, it is much more challenging for a fiction writer to do well.

 

[Heliotrope]

Omg she just drew attention to it lol!

I'm at the end of the book. She made herself into a cake then ate it, and switched back to first person narrative. Then this little gem happened:

"I mean, I think I know what happened but I'm not sure why. He's abandoned his responsibilities, you know."

"His responsibilities? You mean graduate school?"

"No," said Duncan. "I mean me. What am I going to do?"

"I haven't the faintest idea," I said. I was irritated with him for not wanting to discuss what I was going to do myself. Now that I was thinking of myself in the first person singular again I found my own situation much more interesting than his.

Sigh. I love you Atwood.

 

[Heliotrope]

I don't think any writer could prolong using subtle facial ticks and stuff to convey emotions without getting tedious and repetitive, dialogue is going to have to carry a lot of the load. But then you have books like Dune, where everybody is trying to hide their thoughts and emotions. I find it amusing just to imagine trying to eliminate the omniscient narrator and shoving in an objective view. heh heh.

Good lord can you imagine? Even metaphors are somewhat subjective, so descriptions would have to be completely scientific.

"Here is your dessert, ma'am," the waiter said as he thrust the vanilla ice cream into the woman's hands. Her mouth turned up four centimetres on the left side, and the brown eye on the same side matched it. Her hands, however, tremored a half centimetre side to side.

"I hate vanilla."

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Call him Ishmael.

All stories could be written from any POV, but interchangable isn't what I would call it. In the case of Hunger games I have no idea, I've no plan on ever reading the books. But, the key is how the POV changes the feel. And I think 3rd-I can, and does, have some potential crawl-back and forward in the narrative.

I don't know that there is necessarily a narrator apart from the character, but setting that aside, here is the opening of Hunger Games:

Now, if we switch to third (maintaining present tense):



Not a heck of a lot of change required. You have to vary the wording, of course, but in terms of intimacy and what you can show or tell, I don't see much difference here. Maybe with other passages...?

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Now I might have to read that, LOL.

Omg she just drew attention to it lol!

I'm at the end of the book. She made herself into a cake then ate it, and switched back to first person narrative. Then this little gem happened:

"I mean, I think I know what happened but I'm not sure why. He's abandoned his responsibilities, you know."

"His responsibilities? You mean graduate school?"

"No," said Duncan. "I mean me. What am I going to do?"

"I haven't the faintest idea," I said. I was irritated with him for not wanting to discuss what I was going to do myself. Now that I was thinking of myself in the first person singular again I found my own situation much more interesting than his.

Sigh. I love you Atwood.

 

[FifthView]

Cinema certainly has advantages, but prose has advantages also. Probably the biggest advantage of prose is that it actually has these gaps; readers fill in the blanks with their own imaginations. I do think that all the subtle facial tics and such help in movies, but I also think much of that isn't needed in prose. A single cue might stand out. Some actions speak for themselves.

I'd agree with Demesnedenoir that dialogue would probably carry a lot of the work; after all, that's the sneaky way of introducing subjectivity, heh.

I think I've read a lot of prologues that were written in a mostly objective manner. You see a mysterious man going about his business, doing odd things; or, some creature; or, some event happens.

 

[FifthView]

Good lord can you imagine? Even metaphors are somewhat subjective, so descriptions would have to be completely scientific.

"Here is your dessert, ma'am," the waiter said as he thrust the vanilla ice cream into the woman's hands. Her mouth turned up four centimetres on the left side, and the brown eye on the same side matched it. Her hands, however, tremored a half centimetre side to side.

"I hate vanilla."

Your earlier example used "in unison," and I had to think about that one for awhile, heh.

But...it's possible for groups of things to act "in unison." I'm actually not sure how literal the objective has to be, lol; does "literal" have equal meaning with "objective?"

But then, also, our language by nature is rather inexact. Could you say someone grimaced, or is that an interpretation? If something is described as blue-green, will everyone picture that color exactly the same way, or is it a subjective thing? Heh.

I had just written an example of an objective scene and said something like this:

"You're late," she said.

He paused three seconds, then closed the door.

There was more. But then I erased it. Then I saw that you'd mentioned how descriptions might take on a scientific feel. Hah! But science and objectivity actually do have a relationship, y'know. But I wonder if the sciency stuff here is really about being exact rather than objective, i.e. being extremely literal. And that might not be necessary?

 

[Heliotrope]

Of course it's not necessary. I'm being facetious, it's funny because I was going to say exactly what you said ^^^ pretty much everything we say is going to take its own shape in the reader's mind. Thus the wonderful power of language and word being mightier than the sword, etc, etc, etc.

I think, what we might be getting at, with all this POV, show don't tell, cool, warm, subjective, objective banter is "what is important to show, and what is okay to leave up to the imagination?"

You feel emotions and thought can easily be interpreted through actions, dialogue and gestures, and I feel that actions, dialogue, and Gestures can easily be interpreted through thoughts.

Where you might write

"I have never been so disappointed," he whispered, turning his eyes from the boy. The boy kicked the rug but remained silent.

I might write,

I had never been so disappointed and told the boys as much. He remained silent, but kicked the rug. I wished I could join him.

Same thing, but one assumes the thought, while the other assumes the actions.

 

[FifthView]

I think, what we might be getting at, with all this POV, show don't tell, cool, warm, subjective, objective banter is "what is important to show, and what is okay to leave up to the imagination?"

You feel emotions and thought can easily be interpreted through actions, dialogue and gestures, and I feel that actions, dialogue, and Gestures can easily be interpreted through thoughts.

I suspect that these things in the second statement aren't equivalent, but I worry that going down that rabbit hole might introduce a lot of complexity. But the first statement hits at one central question: What's important to show/tell, what's not?

Where you might write

"I have never been so disappointed," he whispered, turning his eyes from the boy. The boy kicked the rug but remained silent.

I might write,

I had never been so disappointed and told the boys as much. He remained silent, but kicked the rug. I wished I could join him.

You see, here is where the real magic happens.

You can use objective narrative in first person, as you did in the second version above! He remained silent, but kicked the rug. For the POV character, the non-POV character's subjectivity is not observable. The same sort of thing would apply to a close third limited narrative. [I'm assuming no special psychic or magical abilities, heh.]

We can use this in multiple ways, but two potential effects are to create a sense of closeness or distance between the characters.

If the POV character in first or third limited is shown to interpret the body language very easily, this could imply familiarity and closeness.

But if we show the POV character experiencing that other character as some inscrutable cipher, this might imply some distance between them.

There is also the option of having a POV character who is simply an astute observer of other humans, or one who is generally unable to read others or too preoccupied, too self-segregating, to take the time.

I wouldn't go so far as defining the type of closeness or distance. Your first person narrator might actually feel an attachment to the boy, perhaps a closeness of some sort; but this is an adult-child (master-apprentice? teacher-student?) type of relationship, so there might be some distance between them. Similarly, a teenager might feel a great closeness with his first love but misread her, and some chasms existing between them might be bridged later or revealed and split them irrevocably apart.

I would also think that the observed is close to the astute observer, in the way a POV character is close to the reader--even if, of course, this is not a two-way street, heh.

I would view this as a tool among other tools, and how much is applied, how it is applied, and what other things are applied, will make a difference also.

 

[FifthView]

I'll add this: The one small example you gave is not really enough to judge the level of closeness or distance between these two. Just using it as a jumping off point. The narrator saw the boy kick the rug, as we did, and if we are able to infer the boy's subjective state from that, he might be able to infer that also. And we might be able to infer that he can, heh!

But extending this small example, using this consistently with other things to show distance, could increase the sense of distance between them.

Mostly, I think this might be an additive kind of thing, probably subtle.

As with other things, when used poorly, or when objectivity vs subjectivity aren't taken into consideration, this kind of effect might really stick out. For instance, the POV character who seems able to interpret other characters' subjective states, even strangers, instantly in the narrative but shows an absolute incompetence when speaking with them or in actions involving them. Or the Mary Sue type.

 

[Rkcapps]

Okay, all this in-depth discussion on POV, objectivity/subjectivity etc has made me rethink if I'm after closeness (which, for the purpose of my story, I am). Therefore, I should try first person. How's this? Expanding on the first para. Is it just me or does it achieve something the previous paragraph did not i.e. closeness?

"
I ignored the numbing chill in my fingers as I pulled my flat chest into the rough bark of the Muster tree. Only a thin canopy of soggy leaves screened me from the throbbing hum of villagers speaking in huddles, huffing on their cupped hands and stomping their feet.
My heart leapt into my throat, racing, and I choked on a quick prayer that no one notice me, for between the leaves, I glimpsed the familiar bell-shaped emerald robe worn by the approaching sorcerer. Soon I’d be feet away from him, crouched between the fork of trunk and a branch, scratched and bleeding, pressed against the Muster tree bark. Magic was something I had avoided considering ever since a child, but in this moment, for the first time, I wondered - could I blow him over? Or even turn him into a frog? Maybe freeze him on the spot? Open the heavens?
My lips jerked into a grin, but that didn’t prevent the multitude of panicked butterflies from battering my stomach. It was a fantasy. My method for healing wasn’t real magic. Not when compared to the power of a real sorcerer. "

 

[Heliotrope]

I'll add this: The one small example you gave is not really enough to judge the level of closeness or distance between these two. Just using it as a jumping off point. The narrator saw the boy kick the rug, as we did, and if we are able to infer the boy's subjective state from that, he might be able to infer that also. And we might be able to infer that he can, heh!

But extending this small example, using this consistently with other things to show distance, could increase the sense of distance between them.

Mostly, I think this might be an additive kind of thing, probably subtle.

As with other things, when used poorly, or when objectivity vs subjectivity aren't taken into consideration, this kind of effect might really stick out. For instance, the POV character who seems able to interpret other characters' subjective states, even strangers, instantly in the narrative but shows an absolute incompetence when speaking with them or in actions involving them. Or the Mary Sue type.

The example wasn't about the rug kicking, it was about the disappointment.

(* but interesting how I focussed on the emotion in the scene and you focussed on the action.)

In one we saw the disappointment through dialogue and actions, but we have to infer his thoughts.

"I've never been so disappointed," I said, turning my eyes from the child.

In the other we saw it through only thoughts, and had to infer the actions and dialogue.

I had never been so disappointed and told the boy as much.

So in the first example we see the character being disappointed throughout the dialogie and actions, but are not explicitly told thoughts.

In the second we are explicitly told his thoughts and feelings, but have to infer the actions from "I told the boy as much".

One is the head of the POV, the other is objective. Both are first person narrative.

 

[FifthView]

The example wasn't about the rug kicking, it was about the disappointment.

Yeah, I knew the example was about that. I took it in a different direction. In part this is because the fact that the same general thing can be written many ways goes without saying? (Or does it? Ah, inference....)

(* but interesting how I focussed on the emotion in the scene and you focussed on the action.)

I think the question of what is most important to show or tell depends somewhat on an author's goal for the story and personal style or voice. I don't know if these are the only things to be considered, but they'll play a major role.

In one we saw the disappointment through dialogue and actions, but we have to infer his thoughts.

"I've never been so disappointed," I said, turning my eyes from the child.

I don't think this is true, or not quite apt for an example.

In both cases, this and your subjective view, the character is telling his disappointment. We don't exactly have to infer that; it's explicit.

In this one, he's telling the child. In the other, he's telling us, the reader, directly. But he's telling in either case.

In the first one, the narrator (who is not the character) is essentially telling us that the character told the child this. And in the second one, the narrator (who is the character) is telling us that he told the child these thoughts. Heh.

In the other we saw it through only thoughts, and had to infer the actions and dialogue.

I had never been so disappointed and told the boy as much.

In this case, the speech isn't explicit. We don't know if he said to the boy...

I've never been so disappointed
Never in my life have I been this disappointed
I'm more disappointed in you than I've ever been

—there are quite a number of possibilities for what the actual speech was. We might infer from "as much" that it's the first of these; but "as much" may simply be pointing at the general gist, so it could be any of these or others. I'd say the important thing, were an outside narrator to comment upon this, is, "The narrator communicated his disappointment to the kid."

Are there just as many possibilities for the thoughts in the first example as there are for the actual speech in this example? I think probably not. So, it's not a great comparison. A better comparison would be the boy kicking the rug: What are the boy's thoughts/emotions, exactly? But this same question could be applied to both of your examples, heh.

For me, all this kinda folds back into my earlier comment that these things may not be equivalent.

I think it depends on the kind of subjective thing we are talking about. Some emotional and mental states have no sharp definition; they're vague sorts of things, unlike objects being active. So leaving a reader to infer those states, filling in that blank with their imaginations, may be easier, given that the target isn't something that needs specificity. Like that boy kicking the rug: What's he really feeling? Possibly, multiple things, all commingling to create a general attitude and disposition. If asking readers to give a one-word answer to that question, you might get different answers. Kid's disappointed with himself. Kid's frustrated. Kid's embarrassed. Well, there's some angst; and maybe that's all that we need to know, or any of these work.

But a specific thought—I'm going to betray this man—might be a different kind of subjective thing that requires a sharper aim. Leaving that to inference can actually work great in a story, leaving a reader on pins and needles. But if you want the reader to know that thought, you might need to make it explicit or at least provide some action or activity that all but shouts it.

You might say that some actions are mostly irrelevant or unimportant. The narrator's exact speech to the boy doesn't matter in your first-person account. And I think that's true. The disappointment is the key thing. However, I would say that a reader might have some bit of speech run through his head in a flash, or might not, but he's not as likely to look for it, heh. Whereas, if you are showing objective events, objects and persons being active, I'd say this is more likely to provoke curiosity about subjective states like emotions and thoughts. This is that MRU discussion from before: provide the stimulus, then a reader wants to know its significance. A reader might be more curious about subjective things left untold than about relatively unimportant objective details left untold. Not always, of course, but generally. Anyway, this is why I think the two might not be equivalent:

In the second we are explicitly told his thoughts and feelings, but have to infer the actions from "I told the boy as much".

—a reader might simply not infer, but just stop on "told" there, and might not be curious about the specifics. [And the exact specifics of actions and objects might be impossible to deduce.]

 

[Michael K. Eidson]

New version:

I ignored the numbing chill in my fingers as I pulled my flat chest into the rough bark of the Muster tree. Only a thin canopy of soggy leaves screened me from the throbbing hum of villagers speaking in huddles, huffing on their cupped hands and stomping their feet.

My heart leapt into my throat, racing, and I choked on a quick prayer that no one notice me, for between the leaves, I glimpsed the familiar bell-shaped emerald robe worn by the approaching sorcerer. Soon I’d be feet away from him, crouched between the fork of trunk and a branch, scratched and bleeding, pressed against the Muster tree bark. Magic was something I had avoided considering ever since a child, but in this moment, for the first time, I wondered - could I blow him over? Or even turn him into a frog? Maybe freeze him on the spot? Open the heavens?

My lips jerked into a grin, but that didn’t prevent the multitude of panicked butterflies from battering my stomach. It was a fantasy. My method for healing wasn’t real magic. Not when compared to the power of a real sorcerer.

Original:

Tizania clung to the thick trunk of The Muster Tree. Soggy leaves screened her from the throbbing hum of the gathered crowd. Her heart thumped. If she hid here, perhaps the sorcerer might skip her until next year? What were the chances? Nil, nil and none again. Not with her luck. Jelly fingers barely suctioned her to the tree. What if she possessed magic? Her kind of healing wasn’t considered magic, was it? She despised magic but the fact no one had been chosen at a Syphon Day ceremony in twenty years did not prevent a multitude of panicked butterflies popping in her stomach.

My thoughts:

In the new version, we lose the character's name, but okay, that can come later. We also lose a definite awareness of her gender. Males or females can either one be flat-chested. There's an opportunity to reveal the gender in the new version in the phrase "ever since a child," which could instead say, "ever since a little girl," without changing the style.

If she's ignoring the numbing chill in her fingers, why is she mentioning it? Saying that she is ignoring the chill seems like an attempt to convey how she feels about it, but it's at odds with the meaning of the word "ignore."

The first sentence of the second paragraph of the new version gives the reaction of the character before the motivation.

"Soon I'd be feet away from him" sounds more appropriate coming from the person who is moving.

How does she feel about being scratched and bleeding? If you're after closeness, it might help for her to share more of her feelings. The way it's written, it's as though being scratched and bleeding is scarcely a concern; it's just a fact.

At the end of the second paragraph, you're giving her thoughts about magic, but still hiding what she feels about it.

In the third paragraph, we see a reaction -- the grin -- without really knowing what it is in response to. Is it in response to her thoughts at the end of the second paragraph? Then maybe it should go at the end of the second paragraph. And then the panic comes, in response to what? Is it in response to the thoughts that are stated after the mention of panic? Then once again, we have reaction before motivation.

There's more than POV to consider here, imo.

 

[Heliotrope]

What I love about chatting with you, Fifth View, is that I can never skim read your posts or give short answers lol.

I have a busy day today, my family and I are getting ready to live like gypsys touring across Canada in our trailer for three weeks, but I will get back to unpacking that response tonight

 

[FifthView]

Don't worry about it.

Truth is, I'm always skimming over mine later and thinking I'd rather write smaller to-the-point comments.

I'll add: I like digging down, exploring these things, and often looking at length at various little parts in isolation, but so much about any of this is "it depends." For instance, almost everything we write will have both subjective narration and objective narration (kinda why I mentioned the objective line in your first-person example), so for me it's not so much about promoting only one approach over the other for the sake of some aesthetic purity, heh. We can apply these things however we want. I might be stating my case by going on at length, but it's not a case I feel I have to win, if that makes sense.

What I love about chatting with you, Fifth View, is that I can never skim read your posts or give short answers lol.

I have a busy day today, my family and I are getting ready to live like gypsys touring across Canada in our trailer for three weeks, but I will get back to unpacking that response tonight

 

[Heliotrope]

Yeah, I knew the example was about that. I took it in a different direction. In part this is because the fact that the same general thing can be written many ways goes without saying? (Or does it? Ah, inference....)


I think the question of what is most important to show or tell depends somewhat on an author's goal for the story and personal style or voice. I don't know if these are the only things to be considered, but they'll play a major role.



I don't think this is true, or not quite apt for an example.

In both cases, this and your subjective view, the character is telling his disappointment. We don't exactly have to infer that; it's explicit.

In this one, he's telling the child. In the other, he's telling us, the reader, directly. But he's telling in either case.

In the first one, the narrator (who is not the character) is essentially telling us that the character told the child this. And in the second one, the narrator (who is the character) is telling us that he told the child these thoughts. Heh.



In this case, the speech isn't explicit. We don't know if he said to the boy...

I've never been so disappointed
Never in my life have I been this disappointed
I'm more disappointed in you than I've ever been

–there are quite a number of possibilities for what the actual speech was. We might infer from "as much" that it's the first of these; but "as much" may simply be pointing at the general gist, so it could be any of these or others. I'd say the important thing, were an outside narrator to comment upon this, is, "The narrator communicated his disappointment to the kid."

Are there just as many possibilities for the thoughts in the first example as there are for the actual speech in this example? I think probably not. So, it's not a great comparison. A better comparison would be the boy kicking the rug: What are the boy's thoughts/emotions, exactly? But this same question could be applied to both of your examples, heh.

For me, all this kinda folds back into my earlier comment that these things may not be equivalent.

I think it depends on the kind of subjective thing we are talking about. Some emotional and mental states have no sharp definition; they're vague sorts of things, unlike objects being active. So leaving a reader to infer those states, filling in that blank with their imaginations, may be easier, given that the target isn't something that needs specificity. Like that boy kicking the rug: What's he really feeling? Possibly, multiple things, all commingling to create a general attitude and disposition. If asking readers to give a one-word answer to that question, you might get different answers. Kid's disappointed with himself. Kid's frustrated. Kid's embarrassed. Well, there's some angst; and maybe that's all that we need to know, or any of these work.

But a specific thought–I'm going to betray this man–might be a different kind of subjective thing that requires a sharper aim. Leaving that to inference can actually work great in a story, leaving a reader on pins and needles. But if you want the reader to know that thought, you might need to make it explicit or at least provide some action or activity that all but shouts it.

You might say that some actions are mostly irrelevant or unimportant. The narrator's exact speech to the boy doesn't matter in your first-person account. And I think that's true. The disappointment is the key thing. However, I would say that a reader might have some bit of speech run through his head in a flash, or might not, but he's not as likely to look for it, heh. Whereas, if you are showing objective events, objects and persons being active, I'd say this is more likely to provoke curiosity about subjective states like emotions and thoughts. This is that MRU discussion from before: provide the stimulus, then a reader wants to know its significance. A reader might be more curious about subjective things left untold than about relatively unimportant objective details left untold. Not always, of course, but generally. Anyway, this is why I think the two might not be equivalent:



–a reader might simply not infer, but just stop on "told" there, and might not be curious about the specifics. [And the exact specifics of actions and objects might be impossible to deduce.]

Yes, I never intended to say one was better than the other. Sorry. I meant exactly this ^^ actually. That it doesn't matter. Both leave it up to the imagination of the reader in different ways, and both ways are totally acceptable and get the same message across. Writing requires, at any given time, an objective and subjective view, and a combination of telling and showing.

As far as how this relates to the discussion (lol) a lot of this stuff about POV and showing and telling is intertwined with writer style and voice (I think). The stuff the writer intuitively tries to show, and what the writer knows he/she can simply tell.

 

[Steerpike]

I quoted an opening in another thread, and as the novel progresses the narrator occasionally falls into what seems to be a first person omniscient POV. Not sure I've seen that before. Thinking.