Point of view

[FifthView]

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.

I'd not thought much about first person omniscient until Sanderson mentioned it in a podcast once.

Typically, it feels like that opening you posted. The first person narrator is narrating at some distance from events that happened in the past and already knows all the details due to 20/20 hindsight.

I suppose it could be pulled off in a present sense also if the narrator happens to be an omniscient sort, like a god or godlike AI.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Yeah, could be done. A writer could have a lot of fun with that.

I'd not thought much about first person omniscient until Sanderson mentioned it in a podcast once.

Typically, it feels like that opening you posted. The first person narrator is narrating at some distance from events that happened in the past and already knows all the details due to 20/20 hindsight.

I suppose it could be pulled off in a present sense also if the narrator happens to be an omniscient sort, like a god or godlike AI.

 

[FifthView]

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.

I wrote all that because I didn't want my own comments to seem as if they're an argument that one is better than the other.

But the problem is that I'm also not comfortable with the "anything and everything is always and forever A-ok no matter what" kind of view. The difficulty in this case is that ultimately I have a bias, a special appreciation of some things, that's impossible to ignore but also not entirely visible: At what point do my views express a personal taste and not an objective evaluation? Heh.

This is one of the ages-long philosophical questions: Whether true objectivity, vis-a-vis human perception and cognition, is even possible. But I'm not going to go there now because I doubt we can answer it here for all time.

But I'll bring this back to the subject of writing fiction. A limited POV inherently has a tinge of subjectivity because, outside looking in, we know that the character's view is limited, it is his own. Is it a correct view, or is the character also biased? This raises the question of whether we are dealing with an unreliable narrator. Simultaneously, we have the question to ask ourselves: whether we trust this narrator implicitly, in which case closeness is the likely result, or hold ourselves a little distant from the narrator.

Overt subjectivity in the narration pushes this point, brings that last question forward.

This...

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

...includes an objective view of that boy. Also, the narrator, in saying he wishes he could join the boy, implies an evaluation of that objective view of the boy. Cumulatively, this, for me, builds a bit of trust in the narrator's ability to view things as they really are, heh.

What if we went with something else instead:

I had never been so disappointed and told the boy as much. He remained silent, but kicked the rug petulantly. An overgrown toddler throwing a tantrum; I knew my words would do no good. The boy was hopeless.

—Well, you might trust this evaluation or not, depending on other things you've previously revealed in the story and about the man and boy and the trust you've already built for this narrator. But that question is still raised, if only slightly, as compared with the other. In my biased opinion, heh.

More broadly...I think this effect shades the issues of telling, author-intrusion, and the like. Do we trust the narrator? I also think that objectively worded descriptions are more often taken at face value.

 

[FifthView]

Yeah, could be done. A writer could have a lot of fun with that.

Yeah, I'd already started picturing how the narrative might go, when I wrote that, heh, and the kind of story I might need.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Yeah, my first thought immediately turns to a 1stOm where the Om turns out not to be trustworthy, heh heh.

Yeah, I'd already started picturing how the narrative might go, when I wrote that, heh, and the kind of story I might need.

 

[Steerpike]

I'd not thought much about first person omniscient until Sanderson mentioned it in a podcast once.

Typically, it feels like that opening you posted. The first person narrator is narrating at some distance from events that happened in the past and already knows all the details due to 20/20 hindsight.

I suppose it could be pulled off in a present sense also if the narrator happens to be an omniscient sort, like a god or godlike AI.

Yes, these are good points. And this narrator is looking back on past events--I've certainly see that kind of omniscience before. Maybe it is the way it is written. There is a scene break, and we're basically back in time. A flashback. The narrator is observing two people he will come to know, but hasn't met yet:

"I see her sitting alone by the sea, reading a newspaper and eating an apple; or int he vestibule of the Cecil Hotel, among the dusty palms, dressed in a sheath of silver, holding her magnificent fur at her back as a peasant holds his coat--her long forefinger hooked through the tag. Nessim has stopped at the door of the ballroom, which is flooded with light and music. He has missed her. Under the palm, in a deep alcove, sit a couple of old men playing chess. Justine has stopped to watch them. She knows nothing of the game, but the aura of stillness and concentration which brims the alcove fascinates her."

Looking at the bolded parts, the narrator is giving information he couldn't have had at the time. I suppose the most reasonable explanation is now that he is looking back in time he sees these people in a way that he didn't at the time, and understands them better. It just struck me as unusual as written--because this short scene is written more like a flashback, transporting the reader and narrator back to a certain time and place, but not confined by that time and place.

But yes, it is the narrator looking back. He knows things now, by virtue of hindsight, that he didn't know at the time.

 

[Daelhar]

Hello! I feel like third person is just as much "in the moment". It does pop, and you are still able to incorporate her thoughts, driving the feeling. I feel like what you have is just as effective as what you think you should.

 

[Michael K. Eidson]

Pssst, OP, if you want more feedback on your follow-up question, it seems you may need to post a new question to another thread, since this one has taken on a life of its own.

 

[FifthView]

I think that posting it in Showcase would be a good idea, maybe asking for the specific feedback there. Focusing on one bit of writing is somewhat different than asking the more general question about POV and closeness, especially because a range of other issues might come into play.

Pssst, OP, if you want more feedback on your follow-up question, it seems you may need to post a new question to another thread, since this one has taken on a life of its own.

 

[Rkcapps]

I'd really like that sorta thing in showcase FV.

 

[R Snyder]

1st or 3rd is bigger than what will make a paragraph pop. My bigger issue with the stories (long format) I tend to write is that 1st doesn't cut it for getting all the information in that's needed. Multi-POV, for instance. I need the reader to know things the character doesn't to achieve what I'm gunning for. So, first off, you have to ask whether the novel will work from 1st POV. What you gain can be offset by what you lose.

Also, you can make your third pop more (maybe) if you rethink the question marks, narrate in more certain terms to drum tension. Get the reader more into the scene.

Coming late to this question (again) but I think your response is a very good one. The thought that I would add is I don't see how it's possible to progress so far into a story before having this thought about pov. I'm not saying one has to outline or approach this (writing a story) in a structured manner, but you must know your main character(s) pretty early on. I've encountered this problem with specific scenes or events -- from whose perspective is it more powerful, but not an entire story.

 

[Steerpike]

Coming late to this question (again) but I think your response is a very good one. The thought that I would add is I don't see how it's possible to progress so far into a story before having this thought about pov. I'm not saying one has to outline or approach this (writing a story) in a structured manner, but you must know your main character(s) pretty early on. I've encountered this problem with specific scenes or events -- from whose perspective is it more powerful, but not an entire story.

Not much difference between first and close third in this regard. You typically use a POV shift to get the information in. Omniscient third makes it easy. Maybe you could even have an omniscient first if writing about past events.