Telling more than the viewpoint character knows

[Steerpike]

I got into a discussion on this in another forum, where someone criticized a new writer for having a first-person narrative that gives information the POV character can't know. The criticism boiled down to "you can't do that."

I don't know about the rest of you, but I've seen it done a lot in established literature over the years. Take a line from To Kill A Mockingbird, which I think everyone will agree is an established and well-respected piece of fiction:

"Put on your coat," Atticus said dreamily, so I didn't hear."

(Thanks to Mckk at writingforums.org for finding this example; particularly since he was the one arguing against doing it)

Scout is narrating in first person and relating something she didn't hear. There are many examples of this in literature. It doesn't bother me, though I guess it rubs some people wrong. Is anyone else bothered by such things?

 

[Ireth]

Ordinarily that would irritate me, but I think the TKAM example is a bit of a unique case. Scout is relating the events as they happened in years past, so it makes sense that she might have had the gaps in her knowledge filled in at a later point.

 

[Steerpike]

Maybe. Though it strains my credulity a bit to think that particular detail with Atticus would ever have been related to her. But it doesn't bother me. Fiction is an art form. Narrative is an artifice. Authors should feel free to do a lot with it.

 

[Butterfly]

I don't feel it's one of those you must never ever do things. But it is something to be careful with. It can, after all, be used as a copout for somethings, especially if it's a big reveal. Kind of like a cheat to write in something rather than to do the work to build up to it without feeding it into the background of the story.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

"Put on your coat," Atticus said dreamily, so I didn't hear."

In this case, is Atticus talking to the POV or another character? If memory serves, it's a victim. It's been a long time since I've read this work.

If said to another character, couldn't this sentence be translated differently and in a way that doesn't break POV?

Translation:
"Put on you coat," Atticus said. He didn't want me to hear his words, but I did.

Either way, I doubt it would bother me much unless the practice was rampant. Here and there, for effect, no problem. Do it a more than a little and I'm gonna take notice in a negative way.

 

[Penpilot]

It wouldn't bother me. I probably wouldn't have even noticed, and if I did, I'd shrug and move on. At worst, it's a minor break in POV that doesn't affect the plot. Now, if stuff like this is littered through out the book, it might get distracting. If it's a major plot point, I think I'd have a greater issue with it.

As for "You can't do that," the rest of the statement should read "until you do it." When writing there are lots of little happy accidents that break rules, but just work. But on the flipside, I'd warn know the rules before you break them.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

Actually as an epic fantasy writer this is one of the banes of my life. When you divide parties up into individuals, send them all over the place with varying levels of communications between them and everyone else, and word travels at different rates eg pigeon, rider, magic, knowing who knows what and when is incredibly complex. I think I get it right thanks to the timelines I build as I write, but strangely that leads to another problem.

Often the reader knows who the enemy is or what he's done and one group does too. But another group is still off wandering on their journey with no idea and talking about things that the reader now knows to be false. And I keep wondering if the readers at that point aren't sitting there wondering - why does he think that?

Cheers, Greg.

 

[wordwalker]

But another group is still off wandering on their journey with no idea and talking about things that the reader now knows to be false. And I keep wondering if the readers at that point aren't sitting there wondering - why does he think that?

They ought to know why he's thinking that: because it's thrilling.

For myself, I'm a one-POV purist --which leads to my not writing more sprawling fantasy, I admit-- and I'll point to my own piece on the subject to make my case for it: In Praise of a One-Lane Street.

I know the bigger the world gets, the more coordinating there is to keep track of, especially if magic means only some people are limited by horse-level news rates. But all the same, every one of those blind spots is a chance to slant things in terms of how the current character sees things, and pile on the ominousness of what the reader knows they're walking into. Or set up reader and character both with what you didn't quite hint at before, that turns out to justify the upcoming shocker.

(Yes, there are other methods, and they all work. And things like Mockingbird's fudging can do a lot to add layers and clarity, and they do it with minimal delay. But for those of us out for suspense, we want to take more time to follow our own rules.)

 

[TWErvin2]

I wrote Flank Hawk (fantasy) and Relic Tech (Science Fiction) in first person POV.

However, I used what I called Chapter Starts, which were written in third person POV.

In Flank Hawk, the two storylines (first person POV/Third Person POV) merged about 2/3 of the way through the novel.
In Relic Tech, the 3rd person POV is used to relay information to the reader which is relevant to the storyline, most of it the POV character would know, but it wouldn't be appropriate to relate it in the context of the story.

Most readers don't seem to mind, and a fair number have relayed that it definitely added to the quality of the story.

So it can be done. Mine is just one method--a variation I picked up reading Steven Brust, and modified it to my needs.

 

[BWFoster78]

Thinking through your question, Steerpike, here's what I come up with:

You can do anything you want to do as long as it works (defined as, imo, it benefits you more than it hurts you). Therefore, if it works to break POV, you can.

The question then becomes, how can you tell if breaking POV works or not. I like to start by going back to the theory, which leads us to this question: what is the advantage of keeping POV in the first place.

The concept of a deep POV is to put the reader deep inside the head of the character so that the reader can, hopefully, experience the story as the character. If you're going for this style, it seems to me that any small break can throw the reader out of the character's head. Therefore the benefit you get from breaking it would have to be pretty darn big to justify risking the reader having the stop and say, "What the heck just happened?"

If you're in a looser POV, it seems to me that the you're not risking as much since the reader is in the story more than in the character's head. If there's a legitimate benefit, there's no real issue in breaking the POV.

We've posted a lot in the past about reading as a reader vs. reading as a writer. I will say that there is a legitimate danger in breaking POV even for, I think, the casual reader. I read an otherwise well-written scifi novel a couple of years back, and the writer decided to head hop in the middle of a scene. That choice completely threw me out of the scene. I literally had to stop, back up, and reread. Granted, one such sequence isn't going to ruin a book, but it was enough of a negative that I still remember the event clearly.

 

[Ireth]

Often the reader knows who the enemy is or what he's done and one group does too. But another group is still off wandering on their journey with no idea and talking about things that the reader now knows to be false. And I keep wondering if the readers at that point aren't sitting there wondering - why does he think that?

That sort of thing is called situational irony, I think. It's the same effect as when you're watching a horror movie and the girl is about to go into a room that you know the killer is in, and all you can do is yell at the screen, "No, no you moron, don't go in there!" Or when it's largely believed a certain character is dead, but then you read his POV when he's somewhere far off and alive, and when you go back to the ones who think he's dead, you want to grab them by the shoulders and yell "He's alive!"

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

Nice, TW! This is your second post today that makes me feel like I'm going in a good direction: short chapters, with third-person chapter intros before I go into a character's POV.

I find the chapter starts are good for setting the scene in ways that would come off as an unnatural narrative from the POV character.


To answer SP, I would try to avoid my FPOV character from knowing another character's thought, but I narrate in present tense. In past tense, you're looking back and may have figured things out.

To Kill a Mockingbird is a great story anyway, so if I caught that "error" and did feel it was an error, I'd likely forgive it and read on.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

Thank's Ireth. At last I have a name for my frustration!

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Chessie]

I struggle with this myself because I WANT to do it. *snicker* My work in progress features two pov characters but the woman is a bit more perceptive/intuitive than her husband. So with her, there are scenes which give the reader slightly more information than just her twisted view...because she's sensitive anyway. But as Brian mentioned above, I have no idea if its really going to help anything or hinder the story for readers. Guess I'll find that out when it goes through editing.

But as a reader, I can't say I've really noticed this and if I have, its not sticking in my memory. I think it would be fine so long as it doesn't happen all the time, because that could get very annoying.

 

[The Dark One]

All three of my published books feature multiple POVs - usually one 1st person and several 3rd person (for whenever the MC is not present). I've never had a complaint and it's a really effective way of imparting knowledge to the reader that the MC doesn't have.

Surprised it's not used more regularly to be honest.

 

[Fyri]

I love doing and reading this. For me, it's never been a question of if its allowed or not. Isn't fantasy writing a form of creative writing? Are there really any rules or are they merely guidelines? When I do this, situational irony, I usually will switch to a different character's point of veiw, but if done right, one can also successfully create this feeling/suspence within the unknowing character's point of veiw. I.e. "Put your coat on." Atticus said dreamily, so I didn't hear.

In this case the MC has told us something that they actually didn't know. It simply happened and it is either important or nice for the reader to know, but the MC is actually completely unaware of the event taking place.

This technique is among my favorite things in writing. Symbolism, foreshadowing, and irony.

 

[Steerpike]

Yeah, I'm fine with it too. Doesn't bother me at all if an author does this, so long as it is done effectively. But I'm not put off by things like tense or POV as a reader. As far as I'm concerned, anything goes.

 

[The Dark One]

My first editor was worried by my approach because he thought it irregular. He admitted that it worked but was worried readers might struggle with it. No-one ever did. And compare that with someone like Irvine Welsh...a really popular author who uses multiple 1st person POVs and doesn't even bother letting you know who is speaking. The reader has to work it out for himself!