thoughts about POV

[snycock]

So, I know that third person omniscient POV means that you can be inside the head of every character in the story. But does it mean you HAVE to be

Comments

[t_verano]

I so much love to think about why writing works and why it doesn't, but I don't think I can comment even semi-intelligently here. I tend to get (sometimes deliriously) analytical on the micro level -- words that work, patterns, sentence structures, rhythms; how the tiny building blocks might work to add emotional connection or reveal something without feeling like exposition, that kind of thing. Analyzing bigger stuff, like POV -- not sure I can do that. (Also, I get what first person is, I think -- the rest of the names/categories are pretty much Greek to me. Even in the kinds of short fics where I might play around with POV I never have much of an idea of what category the POV would fit under

[snycock]

I guess I meant just the primary characters, not every single person in the room/setting, because, yeah, that would be a bit overwhelming

[t_verano]

Mab really does the 'in different heads' things beautifully, yes.

I'm glad the story you talked about *is* considered to have a combination of POVs -- technical things (not to mention grammar rules) drive me batty when they don't seem to make sense, and a combination makes sense to me for what you described.

Gradually I may absorb some POV terminology :-) -- I/you/he 1-2-3 seems pretty straightforward, thanks!

Re the last paragraph of your comment: Off the top of my head I can only think of disorienting not-so-good!fic examples of a mostly-one, only-occasionally-the-other POV like that. Balance might have something to with it? Not necessarily how much time you spend in each character's head, but that switching to the "other" head isn't a convenient (or mistake-caused) one-off, instead is part of a pattern of occasional deliberate moments from that POV?

Ack, I don't know. But it's certainly interesting to think about! :-)

[snycock]

I've started to think that it has to do with relevance to the plot/story... that you might be in one character's head until you need to be in the other one, or in the one whose processing most of what's going on, but it might switch at some point.

I love talking about things like this. It's one of the things I liked about my class, although that was also all online, and I kind of missed being able to have a live discussion. :-)

[lisafeld]

I don't think you have to. Jane Austen writes omniscient, for example, and will sometimes tell you why Lizzy's parents married even though Lizzy doesn't necessarily know. But we never know what the boys are thinking, or Kitty, etc. But that was also before things got more codified. I think if you're using a device like showing what EVERYONE feels about a particular event, then it becomes disjointed if someone who is critical to the plot is left out of the POV switch. But even there, Fowler uses first person plural for the present action (third singular limited in the flashbacks) in Jane Austen Book Club and never gives us Grigg's POV, and that ends up telling us something significant about his place (or lack thereof) in the group.

And you know my feelings about "Bullet in the Brain," anyway. :) Wolff likes breaking all the rules, the question is whether it pays off.

[snycock]

Yeah, as I've been thinking about it and about some of the comments folks have made, I've started to see that it's more about being in the right people's heads rather than just everyone - in Bullet, we don't need to know the thoughts of the robber and the other people in the bank, because Anders is really the only person whose reactions are important.

I actually liked Bullet in the Brain, I was just frustrated that we got asked this question and then never had resolution or even a discussion about it. But Wolff is certainly not alone in liking to break the rules... :-)

[lisafeld]

In terms of the good fic/bad fic question, it really has to do with set-up. If you establish in the first couple of paragraphs that there is going to be deliberate shifting of POV, or omniscience or what-have-you, then the reader knows that's a conscious choice and goes with it. If you suddenly start adding it in the middle of a scene or paragraph later in the story, without so much as a scene break to put us in a new character's head, then it feels accidental and clumsy. Think of the beginning of Pride and Prejudice; the first sentence lets us know what "everybody" knows, so we're open to omniscience, even if we're mostly in Lizzy's head.

[snycock]

That makes a lot of sense - POV shifts like that seem to be most jarring to me when they haven't been set up in advance, or when they seem to come out of nowhere after an extended period of limited POV.

(still haven't read Pride and Prejudice...*hangs head in shame*)

[lisafeld]

For shame! Clearly we've got to do something about this. :)

[tehomet]

In terms of the good fic/bad fic question, it really has to do with set-up. If you establish in the first couple of paragraphs that there is going to be deliberate shifting of POV, or omniscience or what-have-you, then the reader knows that's a conscious choice and goes with it. If you suddenly start adding it in the middle of a scene or paragraph later in the story, without so much as a scene break to put us in a new character's head, then it feels accidental and clumsy. Think of the beginning of Pride and Prejudice; the first sentence lets us know what "everybody" knows, so we're open to omniscience, even if we're mostly in Lizzy's head.

lisafeld took the words out of my mouth. :)

[snycock]

:-) What she said makes a lot of sense; having to set it up at the start so the reader isn't surprised when other POVs come in later.

That's actually helpful to me in terms of thinking about how to write it, so I might try writing something in omniscient for class this semester and see if I can make it work.