Maintaining a close point of view

Before you get to the meat of this post, Kathleen Bolton and Therese Walsh, a couple of writers who blog on "the craft and business of genre fiction" at Writer Unboxed, are publishing part two of an interview with yours truly on Friday, March 3. For what it's worth.

---

Much of modern fiction is written in the close third person point of view. At least, many of the writers I see work from try to do that. But they often "slip" in subtle ways.

To maintain a close third person point of view, the narrative can contain nothing that a character CANNOT directly see, hear, taste, feel, or know. In other words, just like you and me in real life. We're all prisoners inside our own heads.

• When we're talking with someone, we can't know what they're thinking -- unless they tell us.
• When we see someone do something, we can't know their motive -- unless they tell us.
• If we're asleep or knocked unconscious or shot dead, the narrative in our point of view can't then show what happens to us. I have seen that, though.

Now, there are actually no "rules" in fiction, so writers can and do stray from this guideline all the time.

No rules, but there are effects. Consider why you might want a close third person point of view. It's to involve your reader with your protagonist. To create an emotional bond, some form of caring. Why? If the reader cares about a character, they're a whole lot more likely to care about what happens. And motivated to turn the page.

More than that, the closer you can bring a reader to a character, the tighter the emotional connection and involvement, and the closer you bring a reader to experiencing the story rather than just reading information. That, fellow writers, is the goal of a good storyteller.

If that's true, then slipping away from the close third person has the effect of distancing the reader from a character. Of taking her out of the mind and heart of the protagonist. Of disconnecting.

I want to show you some pov slips that occurred in writing samples that have been sent to me, changed a little to keep it anonymous. They seem innocuous, but I believe they have their effect.

Perhaps at first glance there's nothing wrong with this narrative:

She felt radiant, and her brown eyes glistened with happy tears.

Here's the slip:

She felt radiant, and her brown eyes glistened with happy tears.

Because we're in the woman's pov, she can't see her eyes glisten. That's impossible.
From a storytelling point of view, the reader is forced to take a step back from the character. Because only from outside the character's point of view can it be perceived that her brown eyes glisten.Maybe an arm's length away?

One other thing that's a point of view glitch -- mentioning the color of her eyes. Once again, she can't see the color and, while she certainly knows the color of her eyes, who ever thinks about the color of their eyes when they're crying? Not me. Not anyone.

How to get this image across without stepping out of her point of view? Well, you can say something such as "tears welled in her eyes. True, we don't necessarily "see" glistening, but is that key? The reader will fill that stuff in because they know what tears in eyes look like. Basically, all the reader is trying to do here is show the reader that the character is tearing.

I know this seems like a small thing, but the effect is cumulative. A phrase such as this is given from a point of view of the character. It pulls the reader out of the identification with the character that is so necessary for making a reader care about what happens enough to want to keep reading.

I know this seems like a small thing, but the effect is cumulative. "Her brown eyes glistened" is the author's point of view, and that pulls the reader out of the identification with the character that is so necessary for making a reader care about what happens enough to want to keep reading.

Here's another pov slip, where the author intrudes. It's from within the head of a bad guy.

Stephenson looked down on the woman who slept unaware of the evil presence standing only yards from her tranquil slumber.

Because we're in Stephenson's point of view, he would not be standing there thinking of himself as an "evil presence." This is the author intruding, trying to characterize him. I don't think the bad guys in novels go around thinking of themselves as evil, anyway. Sound motivation for antagonists gives them the point of view that they're doing the right or necessary thing, not something for purposes of evil.

What about this one?

She fell to the floor,  her eyes wide and panicked.

Yes, this is a subtle, tiny thing. But we're supposed to be inside her head. Where do you have to be in order to see if someone's eyes are wide and panicked? Standing next to them, right? Unless she's standing next to herself, she can't see what her eyes look like.

The author is doing the right thing in terms of trying to use action to convey emotion, and the description does that. But it's emotion as perceived from outside the character, not inside.

Here's another little one:

George spoke in a calm voice.

This characterization of his voice is as perceived from outside the character's mind, as heard by an objective observer. True, you can make a character aware of what his voice sounds like, i.e. "His voice sounded calm to his ears." But that's not what this author has done here.

So how can this writer get "calm voice" across without stepping out of point of view. One method is the one above, where he is listening to the quality of his voice. But that wasn't the intent of this narrative. It was to communicate the way the character was delivering his words. From inside the character's mind, it would be something like:

George kept his voice calm and casual.

For what it's worth.

Questions? Comments?

Ray

Free edit in exchange for posting permission. You send a sample that you have questions about and of which you'd like an edit. I won't post it without your permission. Please attach samples as documents to your email.

ARCHIVES .

© 2006 Ray Rhamey

Comments

[Janine]

Nice interview! And a good post today too.

Question - what if the writer wants to use a more middle to distant 3rd person POV for the express reason of being able to say -

He's a hunk, she thought, leaning her elbow on the bar and twirling the olive in her martini.

Is this also permissible? Is it more important to stay in one consistent POV (close or distant) OR to just get in close and stay close?

Thanks.