Fantasy Aficionados discussion
Discussions about books
>
Point of view in books
date
newest »
newest »
Erica, this is something that I have been thinking about for a while now. When I first joined GR, I don't think that I'd ever thought about it. It was only after I started reviewing the books I read on GR that I started to actually put thought into it... but I'm undecided as to which I prefer. There are pros and cons to each. Wall-o-text commence.... NOW.
1st person: I think it can work, but only if it's done well, and only if the reader can cope with being inside the narrator's head for the length of a book (or series).
I enjoyed the first few Sookie Stackhouse books, but then they just started to irritate me. Sookie made no sense to me, I didn't understand her, I didn't like her, and so being in her head for twelve thousand books in a seemingly never-ending series was too much for me, and I opted out.
On the other hand, Jim Butcher's Dresden series is one that I LOVE because it's first person. I don't think it'd work if it wasn't. Being in Harry's head is what makes us (or me) love him because we can know him as intimately as he knows himself - perhaps even more. Or maybe that's just me again. ;)
I don't like reading in 1st/Present tense though. It's too close to 2nd person - which is surely only second to removing fingernails with rusty pliers as a torture technique. I didn't get to it, but apparently there was a 2nd person section in the book I just abandoned. I'm glad that I missed that. And the 2nd person sections in The Night Circus made me want to ice-pick my own face. Not least of which because I hate circuses, and I intensely hated the attempt to draw me into it and make me a part of it. DO NOT WANT. >_<
I will read in 1st/present, but only if it fits the book - I think too often writers try to make it work because they don't know how else to write what they want to say, and it just doesn't fit.
One thing that comes with writing in 1st/Past tense though, is the knowledge or assumption that the narrator is safe at the end. I've read a few books where this isn't the case, and I feel as though I liked them, but I can't think of an example off the top of my head.
3rd person limited is my favorite, because it's like the best of both worlds. You get the inside-the-head perspective of the limited narration, but 3rd person also gives more of an external perspective too. Maybe filtered to an extent, but I like not having the narrator explain their interpretation to me, if that makes sense.
3rd person omniscient can sometimes feel to distant and tell-y to me. The book I'm reading now feels like this, and it's frustrating. But when done well, it's good.
Wow. Becky said it really well. :)I tend to enjoy 1st person books for several reasons - not the least of which is the assumption of HEA. Which I like. Being in the heads of people allows the snarky comments to be thought rather than verbalized - which seems to me is typically more often the case. I mean, I think snarky thoughts all the time, but I tend to verbalize them rarely. Snark is wonderful in abstract - not necessarily in person to person contact. :)
I tend to dislike 3rd person omniscient because I tire of the character jumping. And, I really dislike it when the books cover several different povs. Two, or even three, I can tolerate. These books also tend to be more descriptive. My eyes start to glaze over with too much description. :)
My favorite is first person limited, and I'm attracted to books that feature multiple POVs. First person is hit and miss for me. I think, like Becky said above, it depends entirely on how much I like the narrator. One of my main frustrations with the Hunger Games series, for example, is that Katniss was so detached and unaware of half of what was going on--I really wanted to get someone else's perspective on the story, and single-character, first person prevents that. For first person to work for me, it has to be more than a gimmick. I want to be feel like the narrator is trying to have a dialog with the reader, if that makes sense.
Becky, I'm with you on the 2nd person PoV - why anyone would ever want to use that is beyond me. As a reader I think I prefer 3rd person limited as well (which is what I meant in my original post rather than 3rd omniscient, sorry!), but I'll deal with anything as long as it's done well.Good to see that I'm not the only one who thinks about this sort of stuff though. =)
I almost always think the plot suffers from multiple POVs. In fact, frequently I hate them. I feel is makes the narrative more disjointed, and frequently its a shortcut for knowing how to narrate and plot something. It's as if, instead of writing one coherent point of view someone says, "how do I build suspense?" "I know! I'll have someone else do something that will imply a crash course with the first point of view!" Week's second Shadow Book is particularly bad at this--I even counted--most POV don't last any longer than 3-5 pages. I understand a possible reasoning might be the desire to show more complexity in the world, or more experiences, but to me, it usually fragments the story beyond redemption. It also starts to take on an "outline" feel.
I've been wondering if it has a connection to our tv/film-mediated engagement, and that we are so used to rapid change that some readers expect it, that a book that doesn't is therefore 'boring.' Just a few thoughts on it.
I agree with you to a point regarding the character jumping of 3rd/Omniscient, Sonja. It can just get messy. No delineation, no rhyme or reason to the jumps, etc. I don't like that either. It's too easy to detract from the book this way than add to it. However, there are exceptions, and I think when they are done well, they are done amazingly well. JK Rowling's Casual Vacancy is one, though it's not fantasy. The narrative constantly shifts around, but it's done so seamlessly and so well that I didn't even notice until mid-way through, when Ann Patchett mentioned it during her interview with JK Rowling (I attended while reading the book.) It was like a light flicked on and I suddenly knew what was so different about it. I loved the way it flowed around to each of the town's citizens.
/plug ;)
I agree with Becks for the most part. But I'm willing to like it all if its done well. As Becks said, 1st person requires you to like the character and if I hate the character...it makes no difference how well it's written.My favorite tends to be 3rd person limited but I never really care unless the book bothers me. Then I start to rip the book to shreds because I'm not invested in the story.
I can be super picky so I make honest attempts not to take notes when I read for reviewing. I try to allow myself to get to the end of the book and then decide how I feel based on the book as a whole. Otherwise I'm pulling out textbooks and drawing correlations and...no one wants that, lol.
MrsJoseph wrote: "I agree with Becks for the most part. But I'm willing to like it all if its done well."Yes, exactly.
Also, I think certain stories demand certain points of view. In my anthology, I didn't stop to think "This is third person omniscient" I just wrote it the way the story wanted to be written. As a result, there is a variety of POV from story to story.
I do think I've read some books and felt like I was being pushed out of the story because the POV or the tense was making me feel outside of the action. I don't think I've ever felt TOO included by first person. Maybe that's just me. I think if its done right, you never notice the POV. Or else you just think its appropriate.
I did have someone critique an early draft of a story that I didn't end up using anyhow, but they correctly pointed out that I had unintentionally done a POV shift in a clumsy way.
I think you have be consistent. And good. and then it doesn't matter.
I definitely prefer third person to first, and I just dislike second in person, unless it's one of those 'choose your own adventure books'. I've sort of had to get used to first, though, because it's become so prevalent, though I do dislike how it limits what we see and, also, as has been said, if I don't like the person then it's just awful.I couldn't stand Sookie's voice, for instance, and never made it past the first book.
Of course, if I don't like the protag then it doesn't really matter if it's first or third, but it does seem more annoying in first.
As for third limit or omniscient - I'm not sure I have a preference. I guess I like a sort of limited omniscience. *grins*
What I mean is one where we mostly follow one or two people, but can occasionally have glimpses into other important things.
As for multiple POVs, it depends. I read a book recently, one of the Ketty Jay books, which does a lot of POV jumping, and I like it. It's a way to find out about all the characters on the ship, and not just Frey. I sort of see it like a TV series which has a main protag, but then has eipsodes which will focus on the lives of the other characters from time to time.
I think if that book was just Frey it would be annoying. Partially because a lot would happen off-stage, and partially 'cause Frey's the most annoying character. :>
But there are some books that have so many jumps it gets really jarring and/or annoying. Or they spend a lot of time in each head, and if there are some heads I like better than others, which there invariably will be, then I languish over the POVs I don't like, longing to get back to one I do like.
I think, ultimately, it often comes down, though, to whether I like the person's head I'm in, whether it's first person or third.
Also, I'm not a fan of when the narrator is clearly a narrator telling a story, especially when they address the audience.
I've seen it done a few times where it worked, but a lot of other times where it felt twee and pretentious.
I don't really mind what POV is used as long as it's well-written, I like the story, and I understand what's going on. At first, I wasn't sure what was meant by second person, since I'd never seen it in books. But I looked it up, and I think it would really annoy me.
I enjoy both first and third person narratives. First person gives more detail on what one character sees, plus more insights as to what they're thinking. It also forces an author to 'show' what other characters are thinking or feeling, rather than 'telling.' The only time I haven't liked first person is when it switches to another character. THAT is jarring. You expect one person, and you get someone else, who might be vastly different in personality and temperament. That bugs me. But otherwise, I usually enjoy first person narratives.
Third person gives the author a chance to explore things more objectively. You can see, when reading, what other characters are thinking and feeling. You're not limited to what one character sees. It's also easier, I think to switch from focusing on one character to another, because you're not so firmly entrenched in one character's head.
I don't tend to like omniscience in the narratives I read, but there are some that I've liked, and have been done well. SO I guess, for me, it's all about how well the author writes, and if the story itself appeals to me.
I prefer past tense, too, by the way. Present tense throws me off so much it's not even funny. That wouldn't keep me from enjoying a book, but I generally dislike it.
Hmm, interesting. When I write I have lately stuck to third person personal, because it's very effective. Like a camera sitting on a character's shoulder or in her head. However, sometimes a story does call for two or three POVs, and this calls for juggling.
I prefer to write from a variable third person limited viewpoint.I did two drafts of my first novel in third person omniscient, and it was clunky and bloated. Then a writer friend suggested switching to third person limited. Changing the novel's point of view was a massive chore, but it brought out the best form of the story. Made the MS a lot leaner, too.
The pros:
-Telling the story through one character at a time builds a rapport with the reader.
-Limiting the perspective to one character per scene creates tension and allows for twists without cheating.
-Having one window on the world at a time forces you to use more creative and efficient description.
-Better than first person narration for handling ensemble casts while keeping most of the intimacy.
The cons:
-Confines description to the current character's perspective.
-Limits exposition to what the current character thinks and hears.
-Switching to another character's POV can only be done between chapters (or between scenes if absolutely necessary) to avoid jarring transitions.
On the whole I don't really consider these cons because they just force me to work smarter.
Except so many don't. I think plot coherency is often lost--after all, most characters don't have identical goals. If you are worldbuilding as well, where's the consistency? The only one I've seen do this well recently is Wool Omnibus, which has jumped pov in each section of the book, but we've gotten an extensive orientation in the preceding section to character and setting.
There's probably a better way to say this, but I personally don't get bogged down in POV when I write. I start writing the story, and something organic comes out of the voice or the plot of the story. In fact, once the story starts, I can't imagine changing the POV because its so integral to how THAT story needs to be told that I don't see how I could alter that and stay true to the tale. I guess this is why I"m a "pantzer" rather than a plotter. The story comes to me. In fact sometimes it wrestles me to the ground and forces me to go somewhere I never thought of.
That's what makes this discussion interesting to me. I've never felt like POV was a choice I could make. the POV is the story. Maybe that's what makes me naive about being a writer, or maybe that's what makes me stronger about being a writer.
Since I make my living as a graphic artist, illustrator, I have the same experience with a visual piece I'm working on. There's a thing we refer to as a "happy accident". where the medium does something you didn't originally intend (like if you're working with watercolors and the wash runs the wrong way) and then you sit back and think "damn, that's better than what I was going to do."
Happy accident.
lol, I've waxed way too philosophic about this.
I doubt if readers think very much of it; certainly there are quite good and popular books in all voices and tenses. It's the kind of things that writers gnaw on, but nobody else much cares. Have you read WOLF HALL by Hilary Mantel?
Erica wrote: "Does anyone have any views on the point of view used in a book? I'm asking because back when I first started reading Fantasy, pretty much everything was third person omniscient, but these days firs..."I have enjoyed books from both 1st and 3rd person. I don't have a favourite style however when a skilled writer is able to successfully switch between different POVs without interrupting the flow of the story it is, for me at least, the best kind of literature out there. Two authors who can do this are Isabel Allende for example in The House of the Spirits and Charles de Lint in The Onion Girl
I don't much like 1st person narratives, especially 1st person present tense. It seems contrived and artificial, somehow. If it's 3rd person, though, I prefer to have multiple POVs, unless it's a fairly short book. It seems a waste to have the flexibility of 3rd person, and yet limit it to just one POV. But that's just a slight preference. A good author can make anything work effectively, and I've enjoyed books with all the different variants (except 2nd person - never encountered that).I read one recently that had two protagonists, one written in 1st person, and the other in 3rd person, and the difference was amazing. I was so much more sympathetic towards the 1st person protagonist, I felt much more 'in her head'.
Interesting discussion.
Probably one of the best examples of the proper use of second person was a story I read so long ago I've forgotten the title or the author. It was a short story in a scifi anthology. The first part of the story was third person, (view spoiler) It was probably one of the more intriguing stories I've read, but alas, I'm 54 and I read it when I was 12 or 14 (can't remember) so the title, author and anthology are lost to me.
John wrote: "Probably one of the best examples of the proper use of second person was a story I read so long ago I've forgotten the title or the author. It was a short story in a scifi anthology. The first par..."
That sounds kind of spooky. o.0 But interesting. If you ever remember the title or author (or anthology), you should let me know. :) I might be interested in reading that.
I did a blog post on this yesterday, if anyone's interested. You can find my blog on my author page. I'd post a link, but I'm not sure that's allowed under the rules?(Don't want to fall foul of the mods!)
My favorite is 3rd person limited. Like many here, I dislike omniscient and I dislike jumping from head to head. Some authors make the transition inside the same paragraph - which is particularly annoying. But a couple POVs in one novel is okay. In fact, that's how I'm writing my new novel, with 3 POVs, but the switch is always a new chapter. It allows for a wider scope of the story, compared to a single POV.
I have no real favorite in POV. As long as the story is done well, I'm fine. I like multiple POVs and seeing how the plots connect, and how one person might be thinking one thing while another is doing the complete opposite. I also like seeing the worldbuilding through different sets of eyes. What may be beautiful to one may be an atrocity to another. I also like the idea that some use to show magic or some other skill from differing PoVs, say an apprentice's versus a teacher's view versus someone who lacks any such ability. Or the different and conflicting views on politics, religions etc.Lately, also, and I blame this primarily on my reading mostly ebooks now ever since my daughter was born four years ago, I seem to enjoy books with shorter chapters more. Kinda like some of those really short chapters Rothfuss can have, or Patterson's short chapters. Even if the book is long, it makes it FEEL as if it's moving along. In a recent survey I read, quite a few who read primarily from phones/ereaders/tablets feel the same.
As long as the author isn't headhopping and keeps each character to their own scene/chapter, and tells an engaging story with a good plot, characters, some bad ass magic and battles, I'm usually all in.
I tend to prefer 3rd person limited as well. I don't mind multiple POVs, if done well it's a nice way of pointing out everyone experiences things differently. I even like 2nd person if it's done well, which admittedly seems hard to do. My favourite Chuck Palahniuk book is Diary, which is written in 2nd person.
I'm not nuts about a visible omniscient narrator, although there have been exceptions there as well (Catherynne M Valente's Palimpsest springs to mind).
I am tinkering for the first time with multiple POV, and am working hard to avoid headhopping, which I agree can be totally annoying.
Brenda wrote: "I am tinkering for the first time with multiple POV, and am working hard to avoid headhopping, which I agree can be totally annoying."I imagine it is hard to do without headhopping.
The worst I've ever read showed the same incident but in 3-4 different POVs back to back. I was SO ANNOYED.
The best I ever read dedicated the majority (or the entirety) of a chapter to that POV. One I read segued from one POV to another by having one character contact/speak to another. That one was well done, too. (not sure if I explained that well)
In Leviathan Wakes, James S.A. Corey (or Daniel Abraham as he is known on other book covers) jumps between 2 POVs. I really liked the way he did it. He would follow one POV until it overlapped with the other's and then showed what the other was thinking at the same time. Not pages and pages of the same incident, but enough to get the POV. I found it fascinating to see the inner workings of 2 different brains.Too often, however, I get whiplash. A page of this POV, a page of that, then another page of a totally different one. I don't spend enough time with one POV to feel a connection to the character.
One thing I DON'T like which is when something is purportedly a journal or diary written by one character, and as the journal progresses, it starts becoming a third party limited of other characters.I've seen this a couple of times. You're supposed to not notice that the diary morphs into the a story but I always think "It's Jeb's diary, how does he know what Nathan is thinking?"
There are romance novels which are famously awful for headhopping during sex scenes. I cannot imagine anything more disturbing.I am deriving a good deal of mileage from the different views different people take of things. Person A is swimming and thinking about cardiovascular health; person B watching him sees the ill-fitting swimsuit and the pasty skin in the pool.
John wrote: "One thing I DON'T like which is when something is purportedly a journal or diary written by one character, and as the journal progresses, it starts becoming a third party limited of other character..."I hardly ever read diary type books for that reason.
Brenda wrote: "There are romance novels which are famously awful for headhopping during sex scenes. I cannot imagine anything more disturbing."YES. O_o
Snarktastic Sonja wrote: "In Leviathan Wakes, James S.A. Corey (or Daniel Abraham as he is known on other book covers) jumps between 2 POVs. I really liked the way he did it. He would follow one POV until it overlapped with..."Sounds like an interesting technique. I have that book on my TBR list.
MrsJoseph wrote: "The worst I've ever read showed the same incident but in 3-4 different POVs back to back. I was SO ANNOYED...."Someone seriously did that? o.o
MrsJoseph wrote: "The worst I've ever read showed the same incident but in 3-4 different POVs back to back. I was SO ANNOYED."Yes. While I don't mind some POV switching, I don't need to see the same event from multiple people.
L.Y. wrote: "MrsJoseph wrote: "The worst I've ever read showed the same incident but in 3-4 different POVs back to back. I was SO ANNOYED...."Someone seriously did that? o.o"
Yeah, it was the most annoying thing I could think of.
The heroine of the book had been kidnapped and the author decided to give the reader 3-4 different POVs of how those people learned she had been kidnapped. BUt they all did the same thing. It was a rainbow of "OMG! Where is she?! She's not here! She's not there! We found her car! OMG! You wimmin stay here while us guys go find her!"
Wash, rinse, repeat.
*stab self in eyeball*
Colleen wrote: "MrsJoseph wrote: "The worst I've ever read showed the same incident but in 3-4 different POVs back to back. I was SO ANNOYED."Yes. While I don't mind some POV switching, I don't need to see the s..."
well, it can be done WELL, as in Kurasawa's Roshomon where a brutal attack is told from different points of view, in a trial, so that you realize everyone perceives it diffferently.
But that's classic cinema.
I think in writing this could also be done, but it would be a herculean effort to do it right.
I'm adding my vote to 3rd person limited. Yes, I HATE romance novels that headhop every other paragraph or worse in the same paragraph! I prefer there to be at least a good chunk of a chapter to stay in one person's POV, because it can be disorientating to switch around a lot.I'm not as big a fan of 1st person. It can be done well, particularly if the viewpoint character has the personality or tone to make it interesting. Too often these days, however, I just see it as lazy writing. Writers have to remember if they're in 1st person that they are limited to what that one person knows or sees. Sometimes I think that limits the story. (Divergent was one such book where I felt this way.)
I can't read 2nd person. It's just too invasive.
I won't say that I've never tried to rewrite a scene from another character's point of view, simply for my own enjoyment, but to actually stick that in a book? And not once, but four times? Yeah, that'd annoy the hell out of me as well. What book was it? I'll know to avoid it then... :p
I refuse to say on the grounds that it may incriminate me. :-D
One of the things that can get me if it's not done well are two corresponding characters, when they see the same event, but for one it has happened. Then the other begins in the middle of what has already happened. When it's done badly, I go, but, but ... I didn't know time travel could happen.
I read this one book, The Glass Books of the Dream Eaters, and it's biggest flaw, imo, is that it did that thing where the same events were shown through different people's perspectives. In great detail.I liked being in the three people's heads. We learned about each of them individually, and I liked that aspect of it. And, often times, they weren't together, so it made sense to split up the perspective.
But when things started coming together, I really did not need the expansive details of each person's perspective. It didn't really add much to the story, imo, but it did drag it down a lot.
Red wrote: " I read an interview with them where they mentioned that in Leviathan Wakes, each of them was responsible for one of the two POVs. They did say which one is which -- but I didn't need them to. If you've ever read another Abraham book, you can pick out which one he wrote immediately.I really liked that style for a collaboration. It prevented that jarring feeling you sometimes get where a character does or says something that makes you go 'Hmm, no -- that's not the ____ I know from chapter X.'."
Thank you! I've actually put off reading Leviathan Wakes because the only co-authored book I've really loved is Good Omens, but if they took a POV each, that sounds like something I might enjoy.
MrsJoseph wrote: "L.Y. wrote: "MrsJoseph wrote: "The worst I've ever read showed the same incident but in 3-4 different POVs back to back. I was SO ANNOYED...."Someone seriously did that? o.o"
Yeah, it was the mo..."
Now I want to know which one it is, too. :P As in, avoid for life the book with this title...
If they had different reactions, I could see maybe a few different POV. But the same reaction for four? No. Just, no. That's excessive.
MrsJoseph wrote: "Brenda wrote: "I am tinkering for the first time with multiple POV, and am working hard to avoid headhopping, which I agree can be totally annoying."I imagine it is hard to do without headhopping..."
That sounds awful. I tried writing my book in 2nd person at one point. Within half a chapter, I knew it wasn't going to work. I'm curious to see if anyone has ever pulled off 2nd person viewpoint.
I agree with others on 1st. If the narrator is likeable, then it tends to be good.
3rd person semi remains my favorite, though.
Second person is more of a gimmick than a real writing style. I don't like 3rd person omniscient. It creates a writing style that tends to lack focus. I prefer to write in 3rd person limited following one character's viewpoint at a time, then switching scenes for another character.
Maybe I'm just not overly bright, but I find myself getting confused when a story abruptly switches POV. I have come to believe that a story should flow and I shouldn't have to re-read a sentence or paragraph to understand what just happened, with the rare exception of times when surprise is intentional. The same rule goes for grammer and punctuation. I read for fun-if I want puzzles, I'll pick up a crossword.
Fantasy Aficionados
Books mentioned in this topic
Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch (other topics)The Glass Books of the Dream Eaters (other topics)
Leviathan Wakes (other topics)
Diary (other topics)
Palimpsest (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
James S.A. Corey (other topics)Daniel Abraham (other topics)
Isabel Allende (other topics)
Charles de Lint (other topics)
When I first started reading a book that was first person (I think it was Robin Hobb's Assassin's Apprentice) I actually was a little taken aback by it, and it took me a few pages to get used to it. Has anyone else felt the same? Does it matter to anyone? Would you stop reading a book if you didn't like the point of view used?
I still don't like present tense writing either - I much prefer my books to be past tense.