POV Trends

[Ned Marcus]

Have you heard of second person? I was entertained with choose your own adventures, from the perspective of you. I think you call it, second person. It is uncomfortable to read in first person, maybe, second person?

I know your question's not directed at me, but I've tried writing in second person recently. It's harder to write successfully. Not sure I'll write many more.

 

[JBCrowson]

I certainly use multiple POV. I'm not sure what would make a POV deep v shallow? Does deep mean describing the unspoken thoughts and feelings of characters? - I would have thought that was near universal. Not sure what omniscient POV means either

Would 1) count as deep; 2) as omniscient; 3) as multiple ?

1) John woke, stretched, and farted. Bill's absence and the delicious smell from outside the tent suggested a breakfast of bacon was nearly ready.

2) Bill was outside the tent cooking bacon when John awoke.

3) John awoke, "where's Bill," he thought, letting out a satisfying fart.
Outside the tent Bill smiled as he cooked, "John's gonna love this, if the lazy swine ever wakes up," he thought to himself.

 

[pmmg]

Well, the question that follow is, is anyone not writing in 3rd limited, and are they having success?

 

[pmmg]

I have heard of 2nd, and have read some of these choose your own adventure books. That seems the best place to use it. Maybe one day I will write one.

 

[The Dark One]

Iain Banks made good use of second person in his novel Complicity. It was mainly told in first though, with scenes involving the killer/bad guy in second.

 

[Rexenm]

2) Bill was outside the tent cooking bacon when John awoke.

I like this one. It is easy to make bacon when camping, and hash browns. Clicking your fingers, whilst humming a tune. Whistling or flipping a buck, doing some heel clicks. Beatboxing, swaying your knees and hand, in church. Eating your fist. Whatever third person is, it seems like a lot of fun, but why not omnipresent?

 

[Ned Marcus]

Well, the question that follow is, is anyone not writing in 3rd limited, and are they having succes

How do you measure success? I've written first-person stories I've been happy with (and one's been well reviewed), but I'm not sitting on a beach in a tropical paradise drinking cocktails.

 

[pmmg]

First person tends to be a close pov, does it not?

 

[Ned Marcus]

First person tends to be a close pov, does it not?

Yes. For some stories it's perfect.

 

[Prince of Spires]

I challenge you to find a book that’s recently been written in omniscient POV that has sold well.

The Lies of Locke Lamora, by Scott Lynch.

Though it's worth nothing that Lord of the Rings is omniscient, and that's still one of the best selling fantasy novels. Same with Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy and many Terry Pratchett novels.

The questions of POV is simply how deep do you get into someone's head. Omniscient means that you can be in anyones head at any time. Deep 3rd limited means that not only are you inside a single person's head for a given scene (which is 3rd limited), but you're so deep in his head, that you're not getting an outside narator. The difference is roughly:
3rd limited:
- He thought the sky was green
Deep 3rd:
- The sky was green
Omniscient:
- Jack thought the sky was green. To Randy it looked more pink.

Deep POV works well because it gets the reader inside a character's head, making it easier to sympathise and care. When done well it creates a very immersive story. Of course, if you're telling a less character focussed story and more a plot focussed story, then it's not as needed.

 

[Devor]

In my view, POV is not just a trend. Modern novels aren't just competing with each other but with television, movies, video games, and webcomics. What do novels have to compete with those? Character voice. Novels can get you deep inside someone's head. Visuals can't. Trying to stand out with a novel that doesn't get you deep into a character's head is going to be difficult, and there's no reason to think this "trend" is ever going to reverse.

Otherwise why would I read a story as a novel when I can find a similar plot in a movie with visuals and powerful acting and a full team of writers who have ramped up the drama?

There are other answers to that question. Your story could just be that new and amazing. Even today the number of fantasy epics in film is pretty slim because they are damn pricey. Rules fall apart with comedy. And it's entirely possible to have a deep character voice in an omniscient POV - it used to be common, in fact, that the narrator was some tertiary character telling the story after the fact.

"If John could have smelled that bacon, I do imagine that he would've popped out of bed, energized for the crisis he was about to face, but alas, his own putrid fart must have covered that delicious smell.... when the crisis came, he was still quite asleep. Bill, on the other hand, was too busy with fixing his bacon to notice what was lurking in the woods behind him..."

^ It's not as intimate as what readers tend to be looking for. And film sometimes gets the same effect with a voiceover ("Lady Whistledown" in Bridgerton). Still, I do think it's an example of where there might be an opening to do something with a novel that other media cannot.

But none of these are going to be as simple and reliable as a deep POV. There are some bad plots, settings, writing, and characters in books that still do well because they understand how to capture a strong character voice. That character voice is the reason most people are reading.

So deepening that voice, capturing the thoughts and feelings of John and Bill or whoever else is out there, is really the number one thing writers should be working on, unless they have some totally brilliant other solution that nobody else will be able to pull off.

 

[Prince of Spires]

Trying to stand out with a novel that doesn't get you deep into a character's head is going to be difficult, and there's no reason to think this "trend" is ever going to reverse.

Otherwise why would I read a story as a novel when I can find a similar plot in a movie with visuals and powerful acting and a full team of writers who have ramped up the drama?

That character voice is the reason most people are reading.

Those are some very broad, generalistic statements, that aren't completely true in my opinion.

Don't get me wrong, if you can get a deep POV, with an interesting character voice, then that can be a great book that people might read and enjoy. But that is far from the only reason people read books. Not by a long shot.

The Lies of Locke Lamora I mentioned earlier is a great, and very well selling, recent book that has great characters and a lovely story. It however doesn't have a Deep POV. It's more omniscient than anything else. Lord of the Rings is still selling well (and presumably being read if people buy it), without having a Deep POV. I personally think most of Brandon Sanderson's novels don't qualify as Deep POV. They're third limited for sure. And you get into the viewpoint character's head. But that's just regular 3rd limited. That isn't specifically Deep POV.

People read for lots of reasons. Character voice is one of them. But interesting plot is just as good a reason. So is great setting. Or author voice (I like Raymond E. Feist's style, and he has neither very deep POV's, amazing setting, or surprising plots). Or any of another million reasons.