Support for Indie Authors discussion
Fun
>
Free Indirect Style & Other POVs
I'm intrigued. Please explain/define etc. Samples?
No it's the same as limited. It follows one character through out the story. It's kind of the equivalent to the first person POV but with the Third. A very popular POV. Probably the most popular one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_in...http://www.shmoop.com/literature-glos...
http://faculty.washington.edu/cbehler...
Like I say. I don't confess to anything other than that I enjoy writing it and reading it.
Here's an example of how I treat it:
It was Ruth who woke the house, Ruth who realised that the aeroplanes flying through the night did not have Fokker engines. Instead they had Vienna engines from the Vienna factory. And why were they flying through the night? Their sounds invaded a happy dream of when Mutter and Vater were alive. A happy dream from before the accident, before living with Tante and her cousins in their crowded Vienna house.
So a traditional enough paragraph, save that the bold is out of step. Traditionally it would need a tag:
"Why were they flying through the night?" wondered Ruth.
or
Ruth wondered why they were flying through the night.
The thing I like about the style is that for the reader the bold could be me (as author) asking a question of the reader; or it could be the narrator (who ever the reader feels the narrator is) asking the question; or it could be Ruth asking a question of the reader; or it could be a direct insight (sans narrator) into Ruth's thoughts. Personally I like the last option - yet each works (or fails to work) as well as the other.
Like I say... I ain't no expert. All I know is what I like.
G.G. wrote: "No it's the same as limited. It follows one character through out the story. It's kind of the equivalent to the first person POV but with the Third. A very popular POV. Probably the most popular one."It's, to my learn by doing mind, kind of a best of both worlds thing. The direct line of first person combined with the larger view that first person kind of sort of struggles with.
I find the whole thing (modes of telling story) very very interesting.
I also happily follow more than one character - which may or may not be a good idea...
Mod
Sure it is. Many authors do it. Just as long as the reader knows from which character the point of view comes. And when you switch points of view, make it obvious who you are switching to.
Dwayne wrote: "Jamie wrote: "I also happily follow more than one character - which may or may not be a good idea...."Sure it is. Many authors do it. Just as long as the reader knows from which character the poi..."
That's the thing though. I like the subtlety of the approach. I like, as a reader, not being lead by the hand. I like reading a Joyce short story and going - whoa, I see what you did there you cleaver man. But as a writer I sure as hell am conscious of not wanting to shake off too many readers. If I lose 25% of my readership that'd be one and a quarter people. Fine for the one - but hard on the person losing the quarter.
It all depends on what your goals are for writing.Just write. Finish things.
G.G. wrote: "No it's the same as limited. It follows one character through out the story. It's kind of the equivalent to the first person POV but with the Third. A very popular POV. Probably the most popular one."I've always used the term "deep third" or "close third" but it sounds like the same thing as "free indirect". However, Jamie mentioned using multiple POVs, in which case that wouldn't work.
In the end, though, it doesn't matter what we call it--as long as it works :)
Jamie wrote: "But as a writer I sure as hell am conscious of not wanting to shake off too many readers. If I lose 25% of my readership that'd be one and a quarter people. Fine for the one - but hard on the person losing the quarter. .."There's always a tradeoff, especially when writing literary or experimental fiction. You can make it more accessible but risk losing some of the literary quality, or you can make it more literary and risk losing some readers.
As Martin said, it depends on your goals.
Ken wrote: "There's always a tradeoff, especially when writing literary or experimental fiction. You can make it more accessible but risk losing some of the literary quality, or you can make it more literary and risk losing some readers...."Just like first person POV, the author can decide to change POV with each chapter. It doesn't limit you to one character.
I enjoy first person, I enjoy the real intimacy of it. I've never been a fan of alternating character pov by chapter though. While all fiction is a cheat - alternating is too much of a cheat for me.In third person I have no difficukty with head hopping even down to within a paragraph - if called for. That's a cheat too - but I don't seem to have a problem with it.
Mod
Dwayne wrote: "Not sure what you mean by "cheat". Style is just style. Whatever works best to tell the story is the style that should be used. I can't see any of it being a "cheat". But, maybe I'm not getting you..."style also depends on your target audience.
Ken wrote: "There's always a tradeoff, especially when writing literary or experimental fiction."
"literary" style i equate to Ivory Tower Syndrome.
I mean in the sense that fiction is not fact - thankfully. it cheats - it lets us achieve things that aren't 'real' or actual. It allows the sense of being stuck in traffic for two hours to be conveyed without the need for it to be two hours of reading. I mean cheat in a good way.The cheat of alternating POV allows us into two (or more) heads. Whereas in life we are in our own. The (to me) more intimate first person POV by one character mirrors 'real' in that it's one character. It's still unreal - it's still a cheat, but it is closer to real. Me.. I don't like alternating POV because a first person look into more than one head is too unreal for me - too much of a cheat.
Yet... and I accept this makes no sense (except to me) I've no problem with head hopping in third person - yet that's a very similar cheat to the one I don't like.
I think that it might be that first person allows us to 'become' the protagonist - whereas third person we are more distant - more akin to a watcher / an observer of all. So (for me) it sits better in third person being privy to the thoughts of more than one character - because while I'm invited in from time to time I'm not there for the whole narrative journey. My journey in third person parallels the characters' journeys with the occasional insight into their thoughts - like I'm another car on the same motorway as the characters. Whereas first person I'm in the car.
Does that make sense?
Jamie wrote: "I think that it might be that first person allows us to 'become' the protagonist - whereas third person we are more distant..."i think that third-person and first-person POVs are pretty much equivalent in terms of being able to relate to the MC.
interestingly, in one of my short stories in which I used first-person POV, one of the beta readers said that he thought that the MC was male. b/c he equated "I" to the author, but then later he was "pleasantly" surprised to find out that the MC was female. he said that it was refreshing when the author could write from a different gender's POV.
Alex G wrote: ""literary" style i equate to Ivory Tower Syndrome."They made us do a paper called History and Theory. A truly awful and badly taught paper. Had an argument one day with the lecturer about what makes a [history] book 'good.' I said it needed to be readable - like Tuchman's "The Guns of August." 'cause to me it read like a novel.
No, no, no, no no. Some of the best books were the hardest to read. Some of the most challenging took real effort to turn the page (the lecturer didn't give any examples though).
"Shame they weren't better writers," said I.
Bad, bad, bad, bad thing to say. Turns out that being accessible, being readable, is a sell out - oh it's for the masses and therefore not valid as scholarship.
But as historians, shouldn't we be looking to relay true stories as well as we can?
No, no, no, no, no. What is truth? You can not write truth? Truth is unobtainable?
Looking back that's about when I gave up.
Whenever I hear the phrase "Ivory Tower' I think of that conversation...
Alex G wrote: "Jamie wrote: "I think that it might be that first person allows us to 'become' the protagonist - whereas third person we are more distant..."i think that third-person and first-person POVs are pr..."
Fleming did that in "The Spy Who Loved Me." And got slated for it. He also included some lines and thoughts that reflected his own misogyny as well as the times - but that's another story for which he continues to be slated. James Bond was never told from a woman's POV after that.
There's an on-line seminar thingy coming up about writing a more realistic male voice - sounds a bit counter-intuitive to me. I've written two from two first person POV from a female's POV. Mainly because a male's POV would be such a short story...
I was thinking about my first car. I swapped it when I was nineteen for forty-eight bottles of beer. I should have kept the car. Then some stuff happened. And my wife said something that I missed because I was thinking about my car. The end.
Jamie wrote: "Me.. I don't like alternating POV because a first person look into more than one head is too unreal for me - too much of a cheat.Yet... and I accept this makes no sense (except to me) I've no problem with head hopping in third person - yet that's a very similar cheat to the one I don't like."
Nor does this make much sense to me either. Whether by first person or third, geting into the head of any character, let alone multiple, is an impossibility in the real world. With first person at least you can pretend they are relaying a story to you. To be inside the head, technically, the story needs to be in the second person perspective. Outside of Choose Your Own Adventure, I've only ever tried to read one book like that and I can say it was not pleasant (Half Asleep in Frog Pajamas for the curious).
Regardless, tense and perspective, like most aspects of writing, are personal preferences. There are some who enjoy head hopping and others who don't. Personally, I prefer first person past tense to read because the genres I like tend toward interesting characters with colorful inner dialog. Does that mean I won't read third? Of courae not! I'll even give first person present a chance and that is my least favorite 'spect. To say that one style is superior or more honest than another is simply preference and not definable fact.
Christina wrote: "Jamie wrote: "Me.. I don't like alternating POV because a first person look into more than one head is too unreal for me - too much of a cheat.Yet... and I accept this makes no sense (except to m..."
I read a second person short story the other day. A really short story - might have been nine pages. It was high action and it worked - kind of like the opening sequence to Saving Private Ryan. Longer and less action would have been hard work though. Kind of a kin to reading a play (you exit stage left). A novel would have been impenetrable for me. I enjoyed the read - but the whole time i had in my mind that there's six pages to go... five... four... So it was fun and different and kind of cool and I don;t know if I'll be doing it again in a hurry.
I really like first person past tense too. Especially for novel length. I've read two first person present tense novels that I liked. (I find present tense kind of like being told what to do - and I'm recalcitrant by nature.) One was by Coetzee - Waiting for the Barbarians. The other a true Indie that I really really really enjoyed and can't fathom why it's not an outrageous success: The Glass Girl
And I like third person too. Years ago I tried to read "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" and battled. I had another go more recently and enjoyed it. Turns out it was me and not Joyce!
Turns out I'd changed as a reader. Glad I did.
Mod
I don't have one of those. Fresh out. I keep forgetting to get one when I go to the store. I'd just add it to my shopping list, but I keep forgetting to write one of those, too.
Mod
Christina wrote: "JTo be inside the head, technically, the story needs to be in the second person perspective..."Second person is the domain of travelogues. There have been fictional travelogues, of course. It's a strange POV to play with.
What would you call it when the narrator is "I" but the narrator is talking to "You?" I started a story idea like this, just as an experiment:
A man's face fills your vision, turned sideways, distorted as if seen through a fisheye lens. I'm seeing through your eyes, of course, hearing through your ears, feeling through your touch.
Micah wrote: "What would you call it when the narrator is "I" but the narrator is talking to "You?""Stuffy.
;p
I guess some might call it second person pov. I'd be inclined to call it first person pov with a real bad case of breaking the fourth wall.
Indirect style as described in Post 5, can be effective and fun to read, if not too early in the story or too often/random. If too early it looks like the author isn't quite grounded in the story/meandering. If too often, the same, and implies the story needs tightening or can dilute the reader's commitment to the characters.
Micah wrote: "I started a story idea like this, just as an experiment..."yes, it is what i would call a quite experimental form. ; )
oh, i know, it's used in the "choose your own adventures" books! those are pretty good.
Alex G wrote: "oh, i know, it's used in the "choose your own adventures" boo..."I associate it with ADVENT: "Throw the bird at the snake", "puff of orange smoke", dwarves and their wicked little knives (or something) etc.
I've never heard of indirect style. I've been accused of writing in elliptical style, though. ;-)
What you can indirect is what I'm using in my book now. I have heard it referred to as "close third."And of course I have problem, as I need to bop out to my villain's POV really briefly (about 500 words or less), and can't figure out how to make it work. I assume I'm cheating, but I can't figure out . . . oh, wait, maybe I just did . . . .
Susan E. Morton wrote: "What you can indirect is what I'm using in my book now. I have heard it referred to as "close third."And of course I have problem, as I need to bop out to my villain's POV really briefly (about 5..."
There are many differences between close third and free indirect - they are, for instance, spelt differently. And that's just the start.
Jamie wrote: "There are many differences between close third and free indirect - they are, for instance, spelt differently. And that's just the start..."That's unquestionably true, but aside from that? I'd be curious to hear the other many differences. :P
From your example, free indirect sounds a little like Ray Bradbury's style of writing. I love it! It's cool to know this POV is an accepted style of writing, I always wondered what it was called :)
G.G. wrote: "Jamie wrote: "There are many differences between close third and free indirect - they are, for instance, spelt differently. And that's just the start..."That's unquestionably true, but aside from..."
i thought that "close third" was Ken's name for "free indirect" ; )
"close" or "deep" third on the surface seems to me to be the same as "free indirect".
it is an elegant style although it does sacrifice some clarity as to who the speaker/thinker of that phrase is. (side note: perhaps italics would alleviate some of that confusion?)
Alex G wrote: "G.G. wrote: "Jamie wrote: "There are many differences between close third and free indirect - they are, for instance, spelt differently. And that's just the start..."That's unquestionably true, b..."
That's the fun part as a reader - guessing at who's words they are
- especially when there's more than one possibility.
Alex G wrote: "G.G. wrote: "Jamie wrote: "There are many differences between close third and free indirect - they are, for instance, spelt differently. And that's just the start..."That's unquestionably true, b..."
Exactly, but since Jamie seems to think differently, I'd love to have his point of view on it and what are supposed to be the difference between the two POVs aside from the spelling. :P
And no... close or deep should not lead to wonder who the speaker is unless you mean, is it the author or the character. In that case, yes Italic is a good way to remedy the problem,
Mod
I prefer the word "illusion" myself. It doesn't sound quite so negative. But, I do see where you're coming from.
one thing i think that i'd like to throw out there( and hope it sticks to the point and not feel kinda just tacked on) is that i think we're too focused on what's this and that are called, and works best etc etc. to me, the important thing is what works best for the story. sometimes it's first person sometimes it's close third, or free indirect, or one and the same. they can all come from the same author (i've experimented with a bit of everything that's been discussed), and it's always come down to what feels more natural to the story and how it evolves as it grows.
just my two cents on the matter ^^
Mod
I completely agree, Michael. There is no one style that's better than another. It's nice to know and understand them, the way they can effect the story, etc. but none are better than any other and it's up to the author to determine which one(s) work best in the story.
I'm working on a novel right now that transitions between first and third person, shifts the focus from one character to another, just about anything I can cram in there. I like to tell people that since the main character is an artist, I want to stylize the hell out of the book.
oh i completely agree with understanding the different things, the pros and cons. just as i read through it, it seemed to delve into a sort of overall best kinda one upping thing. i could be wrong and misread some things haha but yeah. my book that's nearing release has a variety of povs, and (i'm hoping) styles to kinda just keep the reader from being bored with each story after story. and especially when in anthologies, i try to mix things up just to challenge myself and be creative haha. most times the stories just take on a life of it's own and style/pov kinda goes with the flow for me lol
Dwayne- that really sounds interesting. difficult as hell, but interesting to see how you pull it all off
Mod
We'll just say... it's nothing new. I'm using tricks I learned by reading other novels written this way.
Dwayne wrote: "Michael wrote: "Dwayne- that really sounds interesting. difficult as hell, but interesting to see how you pull it all off"We'll just say... it's nothing new. I'm using tricks I learned by reading..."
well imitation is the best form of flattery ^_^
Michael wrote: "one thing i think that i'd like to throw out there( and hope it sticks to the point and not feel kinda just tacked on) is that i think we're too focused on what's this and that are called, and work..."I agree. I've written 3 books, each in a different pov. One style of pov is not more grand than the next. Whatever will tell my story most effectively is the pov I use.
Michael wrote: "one thing i think that i'd like to throw out there( and hope it sticks to the point and not feel kinda just tacked on) is that i think we're too focused on what's this and that are called, and work..."Thumbs up icon.
Im more partial to third (limited and omniscent) and not a huge fan of first (used to write first but no longer - got sick of it.)Free indirect sounds like third limited but im not quite sure where the differences are.
I havent read a second person novel in 2 decades and they were primarily choose your own adventures lolz. That sounds like a challenge...
G.G. wrote: "Alex G wrote: "G.G. wrote: "Jamie wrote: "There are many differences between close third and free indirect - they are, for instance, spelt differently. And that's just the start..."That's unquest..."
I was being facitious - I really have no idea of the difference, 'cept the spelling - and they're pronounced different too...
Jamie wrote: "I was being facitious - I really have no idea of the difference, 'cept the spelling - and they're pronounced different too..."That's because there is none. :)
K.P. wrote: "Im more partial to third (limited and omniscent) and not a huge fan of first (used to write first but no longer - got sick of it.)Free indirect sounds like third limited but im not quite sure wher..."
I think there are good stories in all POVs. It all depends on how the author does it. Of course, if you're talking about preferences.
For me, if I'm undecided with a book, I'll often choose the one who is first person POV and from a male perspective. There's nothing like a great male protagonist. :) However, if I need to choose before first with female, or third limited with male, I'd probably go with the latter. :P
G.G. wrote: "Jamie wrote: "I was being facitious - I really have no idea of the difference, 'cept the spelling - and they're pronounced different too..."That's because there is none. :)"
When I go online and look up Free Indirect Style, most of the references say "Close third, or Free Indirect Style..." so it looks like most people seem to think they are the same thing, so I agree with GG.
Support for Indie Authors
Books mentioned in this topic
Doppelgangster (other topics)Hunting and Gathering (other topics)
The Glass Girl (other topics)
Half Asleep in Frog Pajamas (other topics)
I've written a couple or three short stories using, in part, free indirect style.
I've found it enjoyable to write - and I've enjoyed blurring the line between author / narration / character's thoughts / character's speech.
I can't particularly claim commercial or critical success (few sales, fewer ratings) - or that what I am doing matches with what the deep thinkers on the subject regard as epitomising the technique.
What I can say is that I enjoy writing it and enjoy reading it too. I enjoy the freedom of it.
Turns out I also really enjoy discussions on writing - and I'm wondering if anyone wants to discuss...
So form an orderly queue if you do.
Cheers.
Jamie.