Narrator & viewpoint character - Writers Forum

The Backward OX · 07-21-2008, 05:45 AM

I have just read the quote below.

Could you perhaps do the same, then answer the question that follows:

“Third person limited, since you are limiting yourself to a single character, shares some of the same limitations of first person. However, since the narrator has his own voice that may be different than the viewpoint character, it is a bit less claustrophobic than first person.”

Q: Can you explain to me by way of an example how the narrator and the viewpoint character differ?

In other words, write some fiction for me that does what the quote sets out.

Thank you.

lin · 07-21-2008, 09:13 AM

Forgive me if I don't take the time to write you a story just because you have a question.

How about an example. The film "Shawshank Redemption": the viewpoint character is played by Tim Robbins. The narrating character is played by Morgan Freeman.

That, like the Sheflock/Watson thing is an extreme example of CHARACTERS.

But more simply, the book is narrated by the writer. The viewpoint can be that of a character.

The narrator's voice might be colorless and transparent. It might have a style, tone or diction very different from the character who is actually running around seeing things and having things happen to him, who might talk like a street urchin while the narrator sounds like a college professor.

Actually, the EXCEPTION to that would be first person, where the narrative voice of the book is that of the character.

Ilasir Maroa · 07-21-2008, 12:52 PM

I'm not writing you a story either, NTO. Why? Because it is pointless.

"Voice" is the tone, attitude, and style of the narrator.

"Third person" means the story is told from a non-character point of view.

"Limited" means nothing more than that the book only describes what a specific character can sense, the "perspective".

There is, by the way, no such thing as a "viewpoint character". POV has nothing to do with specific characters, but only the pronouns by which the characters are referred to. I personally use the term "perspective" character. The story is told from the "perspective" of a character(or none), and the reader is the one POV matters to.

The fact that a story is "Third-person POV, from the perspective of (insertcharacterhere)", does not require a certain voice; the narrator can use any voice they choose.

If "Michael" is a seven-year old boy, and the narrator says:

"Michael saw an enourmous abstract painting dominating the ball-room", then obviously, the narrator is not "Michael".

Michael might say:

"Mommy! Look at all the colors!" That's his voice, not the narrator's.

lin · 07-21-2008, 08:20 PM

Obviously there ARE such things as "viewpoint characters". It's kind of what "limited third person" is all about.

And that person can speak. And can have a very different voice from the narrator.

And in fact, that character can carry the story's narrative voice.

Ilasir Maroa · 07-21-2008, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lin

Obviously there ARE such things as "viewpoint characters". It's kind of what "limited third person" is all about.

And that person can speak. And can have a very different voice from the narrator.

And in fact, that character can carry the story's narrative voice.

Excuse me for being so unclear, Lin-sensei. I did not intentionally disagree with anything you've said.

Dawnstorm · 07-22-2008, 01:20 AM

1. First Person:

"I had left the umbrella at home, so of course it was going to rain."

Whose theory is it that leaving umbrellas at home is related to the occurrance of rain?

The narrator's. The I-who-tells-the-story, not the I-who-lived-the-story-back-then.

2. "He had left the umbrella at home, so of course it was going to rain."

Whose theory now?

It's not so simple any more:

2. a) If we have third person with a discernible narrator, it's the narrator's. The character may or may not have a theory on this; we don't know.

2. b) If the viewpoint is third-limited (a rather recent - late 19th Century - technique) it's the character who's getting wet who holds that theory.

So, 2.a) could read: "Poor John. Poor, silly John. He had left the umbrella behind, so of course it was going to rain."

Most readers, I suppose, would read the Poor-John stuff as a narrator condescending on his charactar rather than an expression of self-pity on account of the viewpoint character. Thus you do not have third-limited here.

2.b), on the other hand, could read: "Rain. Shit. Well, what did he think? He had left the umbrella behind, so of course it was going to rain."

Here, readers will be more likely to read this as the narrator channeling the character than being over-the-top emotional about poor John getting wet. So the "shit" belongs to the character, not to the narrator. This, in turn, influences how we read the "of course" later on.

(There are other words in there that need attribution, but are less obvious. Take, for example, "the umbrella". Who knows what umbrella we're talking about?

Analysing point-of-view is piece-work; far more complicated than writing or reading it. That's, I suppose, why people get away with telling you that "head hopping" is confusing for "the reader". It's very hard to disprove with arguments; and the fact that you can follow what's on the page just fine doesn't count - not on the interweb. Oops, I suppose you didn't want a rule-rant. Never mind me. Nothing to see. Don't cross the yellow tape...)

The Backward OX · 07-22-2008, 01:48 AM

Umm . . . in your example, who was the "I-who-lived-the-story-back-then.", then?

SevenWritez · 07-22-2008, 02:31 AM

Ox, read Junot Diaz's The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao. It is a great novel that does what you ask. And if awards are any incentive, the title was this years recipient of the Pulitzer Award.

Mike C · 07-22-2008, 05:43 AM

First person: you're living it, and telling it through your own eyes.

I approached the corner warily, not sure what to expect.

Third person limited: You're the narrator, following the guy around, looking over his shoulder, telling his story as you see it.

He crept towards the corner. A look of fear crossed his face as he prepared for the unknown.

as opposed to...

Third person omniscient: You're god. You sit on a cloud, observing all the characters, telling the story from whatever angle you please.

Roger crept towards the corner, expecting trouble, the bullet between the eyes that Tarquin had promised him. Little did he realise that Tarquin was sat in a diner fifteen miles away, reading a newspaper and sipping a latté.

The Backward OX · 07-22-2008, 05:55 AM

er . . .

Mike C · 07-22-2008, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Backward OX

er . . .

That's ok. To er is human.

Ilasir Maroa · 07-22-2008, 10:26 AM

Don't forget Th

rd person focused omniscent.

Dawnstorm · 07-22-2008, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Backward OX

Umm . . . in your example, who was the "I-who-lived-the-story-back-then.", then?

Yesterday, I left the umbrella at home and got wet.

Now, I'm telling you about it.

Yesterday's me = "I-who-lived-the-story-back-then". Now-me = "I-who-tell-you-the-story-right-now." Same person, but different points of view. Google "narrating I" and "experiencing I", if you like official terms.

The Backward OX · 07-22-2008, 04:57 PM

I had posted a similar question in an earlier thread. I was confused by the replies then, I am confused by the replies now. Especially with Ilasir saying there’s no such thing as a viewpoint character and Wiki telling me there is.
I wonder if it might not be simpler for anyone with an idea and itchy fingers to simply write it, and forget all this pointy-headed rot that I’ve been seeking to have explained?

lin · 07-22-2008, 05:55 PM

That whole "whose theory" thing just muddies the water of already trashed, polluted and pissed in by many pissants subject.

Just stick to first person omniscient and you can do no wrong.