I’ve got my plans for my new book. The only difference between this one and my previous book is I want to try and write it in third person. I tried to get a feel for third person by writing a few short stories. The biggest problem I’m having is switching to the second character's POV without meaning to. Do you have any pointers for writing third person? My next option is to read some of my third person books and study them to see how it's done.
Thanks in advance for any help you can give me.
“And now I’m looking at you,” he said, “and you’re asking me if I still want you, as if I could stop loving you. As if I would want to give up the thing that makes me stronger than anything else ever has. I never dared give much of myself to anyone before – bits of myself to the Lightwoods, to Isabelle and Alec, but it took years to do it – but, Clary, since the first time I saw you, I have belonged to you completely. I still do. If you want me.” ― City of Glass by Cassandra Clare.
Read third person. A lot.
The differences between first and third person are varied. In first person, you have a limited point of view in which you can only see and hear what your main character sees and hears. With third person, that is far from the case. You have third person limited, third person limited omniscient, and third person omniscient. When you read third-person novels, you don't pay much heed to these little nuances. That's where you have to start.
Making the transition from first- to third-person writing can be intimidating. You learn how to style your writing to suit first person, and now you must consider the fact that you may have multiple points-of-view to work with. Some of these will differ from previous narrators. Learning how to make these stand on their own is what you need to learn to do effectively.
Good luck.
I am going to research these differences and see what works best for me. Thank you so much Sam W for your response, it's been very helpful.Originally Posted by Sam W
“And now I’m looking at you,” he said, “and you’re asking me if I still want you, as if I could stop loving you. As if I would want to give up the thing that makes me stronger than anything else ever has. I never dared give much of myself to anyone before – bits of myself to the Lightwoods, to Isabelle and Alec, but it took years to do it – but, Clary, since the first time I saw you, I have belonged to you completely. I still do. If you want me.” ― City of Glass by Cassandra Clare.
Let me see if I can help with that:
Third person limited is a viewpoint where your narrator knows nothing more than what a specific character knows. So, for instance let's say that you have a scene where a character is advancing down a hallway. It stands to reason that said character cannot know what is around the next corner until s/he turns it. With a limited viewpoint, neither can your narrator. It allows a lot of foreshadowing and suspense-building.
Third person limited omniscient is something of a misnomer. By its very definition, omniscient means 'all knowing'. How can you have a limited account of everything? It's difficult, but let me use the aforementioned corridor scene to explain how it works. In this case, you and your narrator still don't know what is around the corner, but the narrator has full knowledge of the character's senses and thoughts. He can hear what they hear. See what they see. Know what they are thinking and feeling. This is impossible with a standard third-person limited viewpoint. It allows you to develop character in a more complete way; something akin to how you would with a first-person narration.
Third person omniscient is self-explanatory. Here, the narrator knows all. What is around the corner, what will happen to the character, and every thought in between. That doesn't necessarily mean the narrator must tell the reader this. It can be written in omniscient while still keeping the suspense of not knowing what awaits around the corner. But essentially what it boils down to is a narrator who knows each character intimately.
Wouldn't a good example for Third person omniscient be "The Scarlet Letter"?
The biggest problem I’m having is switching to the second character's POV without meaning to.
If you're writing from Third Person Limited, you have to always keep in mind that the story is from his point of view. We are only privy to what he knows, what he feels. It's very easy to slip up. Say, for example, you describe a non-POV character as grabbing a "cold mug". This would be inaccurate, since "cold" tells us how it feels to her. The POV character wouldn't be aware of that kind of information, unless it was said to him.
WOW... this has all been so helpful! I like how you've explained it, point by point! Some people don't know how to explain things they mean to say, coming out totally wrong and confusing me more. And some people hit the nail on the head, and you've explained it clear as day. Thank you for that! I thought it was going to be very hard to understand when you mentioned the three different third POV's.
Now, getting it down pat with no slip-ups is going to be difficult, but I'm up for the challenge. I like to learn new things, and this will be a fun project. I think I like Third person limited omniscient, but thinking and doing is a completely different story!
“And now I’m looking at you,” he said, “and you’re asking me if I still want you, as if I could stop loving you. As if I would want to give up the thing that makes me stronger than anything else ever has. I never dared give much of myself to anyone before – bits of myself to the Lightwoods, to Isabelle and Alec, but it took years to do it – but, Clary, since the first time I saw you, I have belonged to you completely. I still do. If you want me.” ― City of Glass by Cassandra Clare.
One way of thinking about it is if you are limiting yourself to a particular character, put yourself behind them. When they see something, hear something, feel something, then that is what you write. When the person next to them feels something, the narration does not put that feeling in. If the main character is looking at the other character when they feel something, then you would write it as the main character sees it, not as the other feels it. In this respect it is very similar to first person, only the narrator is following the pov character instead of in their head.
After thinking things through, I think I'm going to have to go with third person limited. I'd like to try third person limited omniscient, but with that, wouldn't I have to follow both characters when they aren't even together? Telling the story of what they are both going through? Or can you follow one main character and still know the thoughts and feelings of the secondary character?
Thank you all for your help.
“And now I’m looking at you,” he said, “and you’re asking me if I still want you, as if I could stop loving you. As if I would want to give up the thing that makes me stronger than anything else ever has. I never dared give much of myself to anyone before – bits of myself to the Lightwoods, to Isabelle and Alec, but it took years to do it – but, Clary, since the first time I saw you, I have belonged to you completely. I still do. If you want me.” ― City of Glass by Cassandra Clare.
My story is largely third-person limited, but I have four or five exceptions (over the span of about 140,000 words). I don't really like it, but these are scenes that are rather important, and the main character simply isn't present for them. Is this acceptable? I know I've read first-person stories that feel crippled simply because nothing can happen if the main character isn't there, and I don't want my story to have that feel.
There's a difference between a narrator and a viewpoint character. So long as you don't 'head-hop', i.e. change from the thoughts of one character to another mid-scene, there's no reason why you can't introduce a new scene with a new character.
Sam W: Perfect. Thanks!
Gamer_2K4: I wish I knew the answer to your question. Does it flow into the characters thoughts easily? Or would the reader be like "WTF? Who's thoughts are these?".
“And now I’m looking at you,” he said, “and you’re asking me if I still want you, as if I could stop loving you. As if I would want to give up the thing that makes me stronger than anything else ever has. I never dared give much of myself to anyone before – bits of myself to the Lightwoods, to Isabelle and Alec, but it took years to do it – but, Clary, since the first time I saw you, I have belonged to you completely. I still do. If you want me.” ― City of Glass by Cassandra Clare.
No, the scenes are very definitely set before any thoughts or conversation occur. My story is a science fiction novel with a lot of combat, and sometimes things simply happen in two places at once. One of the scenes in question takes us from the main character fighting outside of his base to a secondary character trying to repel invaders that have gotten inside. That particular invasion has rather strong implications for the rest of the story, so I wanted to show it instead of merely referencing it later.
Another instance has a person requesting improved equipment from one of the leaders. It's a personal exchange, so the protagonist isn't there, but I wanted to establish both the attitude of the commander and the particulars of the equipment in question. We also see that character leave and return, so it's obvious that there's been a perspective shift.
Honestly, the scenes with the altered perspectives generally come from my "sample scenes" that I'd write when I was still feeling everything out (that is, before I knew how I would be writing the rest of the story). I know I could describe the scenes if I ended up changing perspective, but once I've already "shown," I really don't want to go back to "telling."
Gamer_2K4, I guess you could go by what Sam W said here. That should apply to your story, I think. lol. Sorry, I wish I was more help. I am trying to get the hang of it myself. Just going by what you're telling me, it sounds like it should work. If it flows and the reader isn't left confused, wondering why the scene has changed into another characters POV. I've gotten confused with books like that before. Cassandra Clare's CITY OF BONES confused the heck out of me at the beginning. It's written in third person and kept switching from character to charcter. It definitely got better as it went on. And Stephanie Meyer's THE HOST was very confusing at the beginning with different characters thoughts. It was written in first person though. There were a lot of people I know that couldn't get through the first chapter of that book because of it. I don't know if that helps. Just saying you should do it smoothly I guess, so we're not having to re-read paragrahs trying to figure out who's head we're in.
“And now I’m looking at you,” he said, “and you’re asking me if I still want you, as if I could stop loving you. As if I would want to give up the thing that makes me stronger than anything else ever has. I never dared give much of myself to anyone before – bits of myself to the Lightwoods, to Isabelle and Alec, but it took years to do it – but, Clary, since the first time I saw you, I have belonged to you completely. I still do. If you want me.” ― City of Glass by Cassandra Clare.
Readers do not have to 'see' every event. Events can happen and never be shown, only discussed afterward. Point of view is a tool. While at first we need to learn how to write in one, they also provide a set of rules for how a story is told. To have a single character pov for all but two scenes, you will find not acceptable to most people. If you have more than on pov in the story and they change periodically, then there isn't a problem. You have to stay consistent with yourself, or you only cause confusion for the reader. Also, what we think important, isn't always important. Is being shown a battle scene inside important because you want to show it? Could the important parts that the reader needs to know be provided through a conversation after the battle between the characters?
Communication of the story is what you are trying to achieve. POV is the methods that it is done with. There are rules to each one, and different aspects on how they are used. Part of the story design is figuring out which pov will work best for your story. If you are going to tell 90% or more of your story from one pov character, then the 10% should be changed so it's 100% from that character. I do think showing is a good thing in story telling, but you can't show things that don't happen on the stage we are looking at, and things can happen off stage that the reader doesn't see but will find out when the character finds out. Nothing wrong with that. I would feel rather limited if nothing could happen unless the reader was there to see it...I think that would just about kill the mystery books, not having the ability to have a mystery.
POV is a tool to be used, and I count on the fact that things are going on outside of the pov of the main character(s), things I can use against them whenever needed, or surprise them with, and I don't write mystery stories.
If you want a good explanation of POV and don't mind spending a few dollars, Description by Monica Wood has one of the best I have read. She gave a decent amount of time to explaining the in's and out of the different pov styles and some of the reasons to use them. Understanding pov as tool over just as the form of perspective will help you use it in ways to improve your story.
Sorry Sunny, that wasn't as much your question. I hope it might help you as well.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks