InklingOk so I have noticed that in my writing I tend to only use the POV of the main character I am currently writing. This goes so far as omitting things about other main characters in the scene. Basically I write the scene, in my case chapter, exclusively from the POV of that character. I have noticed that this presents some problems with flow and how much information I can disclose without suddenly increasing the POV's or making the scene forced. However in defense, I have noticed this makes me become creative about how, and what information I give. Also it helps create plot ideas that I never would have thought about, though often times I find myself trying very hard not to include another POV. On a side note I find that it creates questions about the characters that I can leave to answer later as the characters progress, I'm hoping that this will help with character progression and intrigue. I was just wondering about everyone's input on the use of POV and how exclusive or inclusive it is. Is any one better, easier to read.
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
A question on POV
- Thread starter ascanius
- Start date
ellianbaker
Dreamer
I've read and written several different POV styles, and each has its merits and downfalls, I think. It also depends on the story (for me, anyway). I've read some novels where the transition from one POV to another was in-scene and smooth, and it worked beautifully, and I've read novels that threw me off with the same technique. Writing-wise, I generally stick with a single POV through a full scene, but, like I said, it depends on the story. (And the characters, sometimes.)
Lord Darkstorm
Sage
3rd person is most accepted pov, and it is definitely a means of not telling the user everything. When you add a dozen pov characters to a story, and neglect to mention a key piece of information one of them knows, you might hear term 'hiding information', since the character knowing it, and you keeping it tends to annoy the reader.
The other thing to keep in mind is that the reader doesn't have to know anything more than the pov character knows. Otherwise there would be no mystery novels.
The other thing to keep in mind is that the reader doesn't have to know anything more than the pov character knows. Otherwise there would be no mystery novels.
I've found that for me, the omniscient point of view works best, because the reader knows everything that's going on everywhere at every moment. It allows you to tell what's going on inside the character's mind, their feelings, etc. It also allows the reader to discover things alongside the characters. This POV also allows you to limit the amount of information the reader gets if you so desire.
Lord Darkstorm
Sage
This is by far the hardest pov style to write. I've only read a couple books where this was done well enough that it wasn't regularly jarring when jumping from one head to another. It also means that you get more reader annoyance when you do with hold information from them. You can go into any head, know anything, but you won't tell the reader? Quick way to piss me off. I know, I've stopped reading books that have done this.
When you write for another person, you have to convince them to trust you to tell the story without belittling or insulting the one reading it. While it might not be intentional on your part, when you make it clear everyone else knows what is going on but the writer isn't going to tell the reader because it isn't the right time...rest assured you are about to loose a reader. If the reader doesn't trust you to tell the story fairly, then they won't read it.
Many a new writer has decided on the god mode of writing thinking it will be easy. Be anywhere, do anything, know or tell whatever you want. The end result is usually bad, and of the published books I've read who have done this, I know of two that did it so well the number of times I had to pause and reread something was less than five. I have read quite a few done this way, and if the story isn't outstanding (which fortunately most of the authors were) then they aren't worth the aggravation. So, if your stories are so good they can overcome the usual lack of ability to properly write in such a pov, then go for it. Most of use aren't that good, and I have to say, most of the writers I have read who have used it, didn't have the ability to do it well either.
If in doubt, use 3rd limited, it's easiest to write, most readers accept it well, and it is easier to keep from annoying your readers withholding information.
TWErvin2
Auror
Writing from one POV (be it first person POV, or 3rd person limited and sticking with one character) can prove challenging in providing 'necessary' information to the reader. Sometimes, however, I've learned that what I feel is 'necessary' isn't necessary to the story, just something I'd like to share with the reader at that moment.
My novel writing has consisted fully of 1st person POV. It's what I tend to enjoy reading most and I find it both interesting and challenging to tell a story to readers using that method. I've written and had short fiction published that used both first person POV and third person limited. I've never attempted omniscient, and generally don't prefer novels that are written using that POV. As was stated above, I think it would be the most difficult to do well, at least for me. I think that 2nd person POV ('you' perspective) is difficult and I've never seen it done successfully as a novel (except for decide yourself adventure books). As an editor at a small ezine, I've seen more than a few attempts with maybe only 1 or maybe 2 over the years being published.
How to choose the POV for me really depends on the story to be told. The main character, conflict and resolution play a big part. But normally, my stories originate as an ideal--an event or bit of dialogue or a situation. Then I create the world where it can take place and then the characters. By the time the characters are thought on, I pretty much know what will work better.
As an editor reading slush, I sometimes come across pieces that I think would've been much better presented using a different POV. Sometimes the 'acrobatics' show in the twists and turns used to tell the story from only one POV. And the mentioned above 'hiding' in omniscient can lead to a thumbs down too, especially with an attempted twist or ironic ending.
Okay, as I look back, I rambled a bit off the main topic...it happens on occasion.
My novel writing has consisted fully of 1st person POV. It's what I tend to enjoy reading most and I find it both interesting and challenging to tell a story to readers using that method. I've written and had short fiction published that used both first person POV and third person limited. I've never attempted omniscient, and generally don't prefer novels that are written using that POV. As was stated above, I think it would be the most difficult to do well, at least for me. I think that 2nd person POV ('you' perspective) is difficult and I've never seen it done successfully as a novel (except for decide yourself adventure books). As an editor at a small ezine, I've seen more than a few attempts with maybe only 1 or maybe 2 over the years being published.
How to choose the POV for me really depends on the story to be told. The main character, conflict and resolution play a big part. But normally, my stories originate as an ideal--an event or bit of dialogue or a situation. Then I create the world where it can take place and then the characters. By the time the characters are thought on, I pretty much know what will work better.
As an editor reading slush, I sometimes come across pieces that I think would've been much better presented using a different POV. Sometimes the 'acrobatics' show in the twists and turns used to tell the story from only one POV. And the mentioned above 'hiding' in omniscient can lead to a thumbs down too, especially with an attempted twist or ironic ending.
Okay, as I look back, I rambled a bit off the main topic...it happens on occasion.
Ravana
Istar
I've used all the normal permutations: first and third person, singular, plural and omniscient; all of them have worked. (Nobody, but nobody, that I've seen, writes in second person–I'm not giving a pass even to "adventure" books: those are third person, with the word "you" substituted in for "he." I'm not even sure it's possible to write second person successfully, and I'm certainly not about to try it.) All depends on the story as to which I use. Don't think I've ever made a deliberate decision at the outset as to which I was going to use; just started writing in whatever seemed natural for the moment–and, on the rare occasion, have changed it from first to third, or vice versa, after I started.
"Omniscient" doesn't necessarily mean the reader has access to everything, only that it's possible for the writer to provide access to it. All "omniscient" really means in this context is that the story isn't told from inside the head of a single character… technically, it should take place as if the reader were present as a witness–without access to any character's thoughts, just the actions such a witness could observe. Which actually makes information almost too easy to "control": you need to make deliberate (and often seemingly unmotivated) changes of scene to introduce information that doesn't take place in view of the main characters, and need to have the characters say what they're thinking–no matter how unlikely the utterance may sometimes be: "As you know…" (ugh!)–in order for the reader to discover this. But as far as "hiding" anything from the reader: don't set up the expectation that you're going to bounce all over the world revealing everything that might have some bearing on the story, and they'll never miss it. Though if you do set up such expectations, don't be surprised if you're taken to task for it if (when!) you leave something important out. You have been warned.
Most books I've seen talked about as "third-person omniscient" are really third-person plural: told from multiple points of view, not always even limited to what's going on in the head of a single character at a time… think LoTR. Science fiction often uses a variation of this with "cut-scenes" interspersed, to provide occasional background or linking information: the earliest (certainly the earliest stand-out) example I can think of is John Brunner's Stand on Zanzibar, though there may be others that predate it. A perhaps more familiar example along similar lines is Dracula, which scatters news articles in amongst the various characters' narrations. Works quite well, in the sense that someone else with a limited viewpoint has to "know" what's being revealed, so a great deal of information can still remain "secret"… though it only works well if you know how to write news stories plausibly.
"Omniscient" doesn't necessarily mean the reader has access to everything, only that it's possible for the writer to provide access to it. All "omniscient" really means in this context is that the story isn't told from inside the head of a single character… technically, it should take place as if the reader were present as a witness–without access to any character's thoughts, just the actions such a witness could observe. Which actually makes information almost too easy to "control": you need to make deliberate (and often seemingly unmotivated) changes of scene to introduce information that doesn't take place in view of the main characters, and need to have the characters say what they're thinking–no matter how unlikely the utterance may sometimes be: "As you know…" (ugh!)–in order for the reader to discover this. But as far as "hiding" anything from the reader: don't set up the expectation that you're going to bounce all over the world revealing everything that might have some bearing on the story, and they'll never miss it. Though if you do set up such expectations, don't be surprised if you're taken to task for it if (when!) you leave something important out. You have been warned.
Most books I've seen talked about as "third-person omniscient" are really third-person plural: told from multiple points of view, not always even limited to what's going on in the head of a single character at a time… think LoTR. Science fiction often uses a variation of this with "cut-scenes" interspersed, to provide occasional background or linking information: the earliest (certainly the earliest stand-out) example I can think of is John Brunner's Stand on Zanzibar, though there may be others that predate it. A perhaps more familiar example along similar lines is Dracula, which scatters news articles in amongst the various characters' narrations. Works quite well, in the sense that someone else with a limited viewpoint has to "know" what's being revealed, so a great deal of information can still remain "secret"… though it only works well if you know how to write news stories plausibly.
Last edited by a moderator:
Benjamin Clayborne
Auror
Charles Stross has done it twice, in Halting State and Rule 34.
I've seen second person used successfully a number of times. Nick Sagan uses it nicely for one viewpoint character in his book Edenborn. Also, Charles Stross uses it in his Hugo-nominated work Halting State. I know I've come across a few other instances of it in novels where it worked just fine, and I've seen a number of short stories that employ it to one extent or another. It is probably the most difficult POV to pull off successfully, but I think it can work.
Ravana
Istar
I'll have to see if I can find them. I honestly can't wrap my head around it working, but I'm always willing to be proven wrong.
- Thread starter
- #11
You bring up a relative point for me and character thoughts. Thus far I have used character thought, but I tend to use them in a way where the character could have said them out loud instead of just thinking them. For example. "that was stupid of me." She thought, but without the quotes and in italics. Any thoughts on this method. Or do you mean instances such as. Tommy thought about going to school or staying home to get some much needed sleep before studying for the exam. Now that I think of it I tend to use both. I can see where not using thoughts such as the proceeding sentence would be very difficult to show. I mean how the heck to you show internal conflict about anything, especially about a certain topic."Omniscient" doesn't necessarily mean the reader has access to everything, only that it's possible for the writer to provide access to it. All "omniscient" really means in this context is that the story isn't told from inside the head of a single character… technically, it should take place as if the reader were present as a witness–without access to any character's thoughts, just the actions such a witness could observe. Which actually makes information almost too easy to "control": you need to make deliberate (and often seemingly unmotivated) changes of scene to introduce information that doesn't take place in view of the main characters, and need to have the characters say what they're thinking–no matter how unlikely the utterance may sometimes be: "As you know…" (ugh!)–in order for the reader to discover this. But as far as "hiding" anything from the reader: don't set up the expectation that you're going to bounce all over the world revealing everything that might have some bearing on the story, and they'll never miss it. Though if you do set up such expectations, don't be surprised if you're taken to task for it if (when!) you leave something important out. You have been warned.
Last edited by a moderator:
It seems that often it is not effective. Maybe that is why you see it so rarely in published work. In most cases where I've seen it in writing groups or on writing forums, it was not well done.
Benjamin Clayborne
Auror
It's a little jarring at first, but I got used to it pretty quick in both Halting State and Rule 34. I don't think there's really much point in doing it; psychologically it didn't feel any different than if he'd used third-person.
Last edited:
Interesting about Rule 34. I didn't realize Stross had done this twice. It would be interesting to hear his own rationale for doing so.
In the work by Nick Sagan I mentioned above, I think the use of second person was effective. It was only for one viewpoint character, and the way in which it was done worked nicely with respect to the character and that character's role in the story. In many ways, the use of second person characterized that particular character in a way that would have been hard to duplicate with third person. And the fact that this character was the only character not in third person POV served to further distinguish and characterize the character with respect to all of the others.
When it comes to using second person for an entire work, I'm not sure what is really gained by it. As Stross shows, it can be done effectively, but as you say there doesn't seem to be much point to doing it.
Ravana
Istar
I use both–and usually have to be very careful, because I'll pretty much automatically use both in the same story, from the same character. I'm not sure how good a practice that is (well, okay, it can't exactly be bad practice, considering how often I've seen it), but it usually feels wrong to me to be switching back and forth in my own writing. Making the decision on which to use at a given point may be the most difficult thing I do, in terms of what things are "difficult" for me.
It's possible to show internal conflict through actions (that old "show, don't tell" advice), or to contain it in dialog… but, yeah, it's a lot harder. Depends on the requirements of the story how much of this you actually need to include; you might surprise yourself, in trying to eliminate it or find other ways to express it, just how little is required some times.
One interesting "halfway" exercise you can try: make all the character's thoughts "internal dialog," expressed in italics as if being spoken. If nothing else, it will show you how often you normally use expressions such as "He thought [X]"–which may in turn lead to some promising ways to trim off excess verbiage. Even if you decide you don't like the method, you'll probably learn something in the process.
Last edited by a moderator:
I haven't read it, but it doesn't sound like it's actually written in 2nd person. Typically you actually need to be trying to persuade or talk to your audience directly. I imagine it would look like a series of letters, speeches, persuasive essays, editorials... a manifesto.
I believe it can be done, and done well, but I think there's only one genre in which it could really work at a novel's length. That's Historical Fiction. If you were writing about events people were a little familiar with, I think it might be compelling to read things like, "You uncle was just arrested, the fool drank from the wrong waterfountain, and now you need to go see him..." or "Haven't you heard from your husband Freddie? I'm so worried for you, I've been checking the casualties list every day..."
I believe you could write a whole book as if the reader were a character in the story, kind of like Link in the old games, where he never speaks so that you can feel like people are talking straight to you (in fact, aren't most roleplaying video games in 2nd person?). I just think you'd have to write in a world people are familiar with.
Come to think of it . . . doesn't LOTR enter the free domain soon-ish? You could probably write a piece set in Middle Earth.
Last edited:
Halting State is definitely in second person. I haven't read Rule 34.
It would really help me if you could elaborate on how that's accomplished. The Wikipedia article isn't very clear.
Last edited:
The second person uses second-person pronouns like "you" and "your." It can also use the imperative with respect to verbs.
An example is Nathaniel Hawthorne's story "The Haunted Mind." Nathaniel Hawthorne's short story: The Haunted Mind
An example is Nathaniel Hawthorne's story "The Haunted Mind." Nathaniel Hawthorne's short story: The Haunted Mind
I said earlier that I didn't think it sounded like Halting State was written in the second person, and I sort of meant that I had the impression it was written kind of like this piece that you've quoted. At least from quickly skimming the story, during which I might have missed something, I don't see many of the distinctive elements you'd expect to see in a 2nd person work. It reads much as a regular story, substituting "you" for a character's name. I'm going to agree somewhat with Ravana when she says she won't even give a pass to those Adventure Books for the same reason. 2nd Person perspective should probably be divided along those lines, much like 3rd Person Limited, Plural and Omniscient. A true 2nd Person point of view should really be addressed directly to the reader, and ought to be separated from a 2nd Person style which simply uses "you" in a weak effort to connect.
I recently read Dracula, which is written in a series of diary entries and correspondence. There are letters which begin "Dear Whomever," followed by a few pleasantries, but then quickly devolve into the typical narration very similar to what you'd expect to see in a novel. I've never seen a story which takes full advantage of the 2nd Person POV. There's never exhortation, you never properly feel like a character in the story, and the full potential of the 2nd Person POV has just never been reached in a novel, in my opinion.
Last edited:
