Prepared by: Rhéal Nadeau
Posted on: February 9, 2003
Reposted on: March 27, 2005
Point of View (POV) is an integral part of
writing, but one which is
often
misunderstood or misused.
What are the different POV options?
First of all, who is telling the story?
First-person: Told using "I" - the
narrator is directly involved in
the action
(either as the protagonist, the main character, or as a secondary
character
witnessing and reporting the story - think of Dr. Watson in the
Sherlock
Holmes stories, for example.) Obviously, this narration is limited to
what
that one character knows, sees, or experiences (though of course, that
character can, for example, obtain extra information from someone
else.)
Second-person: Told using "you", trying to
put the reader in the
centre of the
story. Seldom used, and even more seldom used convincingly. See Jay
McInerney's Bright Lights, Big City for an example of a successful
novel
written using second person.
Third-person: Told using he/she/they, by
an external observer.
I am currently reading Stephen King's
collection of short story,
"Everything's
Eventual". Some of the stories are in first person, some in third. For
example, the opening story is about a man, paralysed by a snake bite,
who is
mistaken for dead and brought to the autopsy room. Another is about a
man
brought to an interrogation room in a South American dictatorship. The
first
story is told in first person, and would (in my opinion) be very hard
to pull
off in third person. Conversely, the second story is told in third
person,
which makes sense to me because it maintains the suspense as to whether
the
character makes it out or not. Think about how the choice of viewpoint
would
affect how these stories, and others, are told.
Next, how much does that narrator know or
reveal?
Objective: the narrator sees the story
from the outside, having no
access to the thoughts or emotions of any of the characters, reporting
only
through dialogue and actions.
Limited: the narrator has full access to a
single character, and
knows all
that this one character knows (but not anything this character doesn't
know or
experience.)
Omniscient: the narrator is god-like and
can access all characters.
Note that different people use different
names or descriptions for
those POVs,
and it's not always clear even using a single definition what POV is
actually
being used. In Barbara Kingsolver's The Poisonwood Bible, the narration
shifts
from character to character between chapters (alternating between a
group of
sisters, with occasional insertions from the mother) - but each chapter
is
strictly told from the POV of that one character, and the other
characters in
the story (most notably the father) are only seen through those
viewpoints. So
is that story omniscient, or sequentially limited?
Each option has its advantages and
disadvantages. Omniscient
provides the most
information, but can lose unity - the reader can be distracted by POV
shifts,
or feel less engaged because there's not as much emphasis on a single
central
character. Limited creates a stronger link with a single character, and
can
help the reader feel involved. Objective can be used to create
distance, or to
allow the reader more room for interpretation.
POV is covered in many writing resources,
including Web sites such
as
http://www.qcc.mass.edu/booth/255/ptview/index.htm
.
All too often, I suspect, writers don't
ask themselves which POV to
use, but
simply start writing in whatever POV seems most appropriate at that
moment. (I
confess I do this - and like many writers, tend to default to a single
POV in
all my stories, in my case first person.) A potential problem here is
that if
the writer is not well aware of what POV the story is in, the POV may
shift
unexpectedly - from limited to omniscient, for example, or from first
to third
(note that many highly successful writers shift between first person
and third
person omniscient within the same story. Obviously, they get away with
it, but
it can be very distracting, and at times it feels like the author is
cheating,
playing sleight-of-hand games with the reader.) For example, there is
no
question about the popularity of Diana Gabaldon's Outlander series -
but many
readers dislike her sudden switches between the dominant first person
narration
to third person.
So, which is the best POV to use? There is
no rule, of course, and
different
POVs will work best in different stories. The best way to learn this is
to
experiment - which is the purpose of this exercise.
So here is the exercise:
Write the same scene twice, using two
different POVs. Choose any two
you want
(no restrictions - if you want to try writing a scene in second-person
omniscient, then go right ahead. You can even do both versions in
first-person
or third-person limited, but using different POV characters, though I
suggest
having two different ones from objective, limited, and omniscient.) The
scene
should involve a secret or hidden information - the POV you use will
affect how
that information can be revealed (or even *if* it can be revealed.)
Tell us the POV for each version, so
critics can check how well you
conformed
to that POV.
You may find that the scenes diverge:
because things are presented
differently, our perception of the characters and of the scene may
shift, so
things may progress differently. This is fine, within the scope of this
exercise.
Each version should be no more than 300
words.
Have fun!
Addendum
Posted on: February 10, 2003
I guess I forgot to include instructions
on what to look for when
critiquing.
It's not simply a question of saying "this version worked best" - it's
not a
contest, after all.
First off, when writing a critiquing, see
how well the piece sticks
to the
stated point of view. For example, I've seen submissions labelled first
person
that slipped into third, and vice versa. Is the information consistent
with
the point of view used, if we're in a limited viewpoint? If in
omniscient, are
transitions between characters smooth or jarring?
Then, if one version works better, then
*why* do you think it does,
in this
case? Remember - the goal is not to pick the best point of view;
there's no
such thing. The goal is to learn the differences, that advantages and
drawbacks of each.
Rhéal Nadeau's wrap-up
Posted on: February 15, 2003
Wow, quite a week! I was thinking this
might be a slow week, since
this is a
difficult topic, but people certainly rose to the challenge! The
submissions
have shown both the richness, and the complexity, of the various
point-of-view
choices.
Some of the submitters nailed their chosen
POVs, others clearly were
struggling
more - I hope everyone learned something, though, which is the purpose
of the
exercise. (If we were all perfect writers, we wouldn't need this list,
after
all!)
Certainly, the submissions and critiques
showed how many different
ways there
are to tell a story, and how the choice of POV can provide both
opportunities
and limitations, thus shaping how the story can be told and how it will
unfold.
To be honest, my favourite submissions
were the ones where the two
versions
came out different, showing a different picture (even if describing the
same
scene); in some of the submissions where the two versions were
equivalent and
presented the same information, I kept getting the feeling that the
selected
POVs weren't being exploited properly, that opportunities were being
missed.
I hope we all learned something about POV,
and that in future, even
if we
continue to have a favourite POV to use, we will give more thought to
which POV
to use for a given piece of writing (and having made that choice, that
we will
be better able to stick to it, and take advantage of the opportunities
it
offers.)
(Oh, by the way, I had forgotten about the
distinction between
reporter and
participant POVs - I'll have to check up on those, as they address one
aspect
of point-of-view I have been struggling to find a way to express. If
anyone
has a good reference on those, I would love to know about it!)
Rhéal Nadeau
Web site created by
Rhéal Nadeau and
the administrators of the Internet Writing Workshop.
Modified by Gayle Surrette.