You walk into the dark room and hear murmuring in the corner. You have to squint through the gloom to see the woman huddled in the corner. Her hair hangs in her face as she rocks back and forth, whispering to herself. It sounds like she is saying the same thing over and over again. Heart pounding, you walk closer, palms starting to sweat. You swallow. Your throat is dry. Your eyes are too wide as you creep closer, closer, closer. Now you can see her well enough. Her hair is lank, greasy as it hangs in her face. Her skin is filthy. Her long, white nightgown is torn, hiked up over her thighs. She hugs her knees to her chest, rocking, chanting. You crouch down to hear her better. As your face becomes level with hers, she snaps her head up and glares at you. She screams what she's been chanting this whole time:
"You're in second person!"
Ha! That was fun. Okay. So, you get the idea. Point of View has nothing to do with what character the reader views the story from. People often mistake perspective for point of view. An understandable mistake, but a huge one. When reading a novel, the reader is presented with numerous perspectives, often times. One bounces from the mind of character to character as the plot unfolds. This bounce is a bounce of perspective, a shifting of minds, of how we view the story.
Point of view, however, has nothing to do with perspective. Well, not nothing, but very little. Point of view has to do with the voice of the story. The scene above is second person point of view. This is where the writer uses "You" as the subject of the actions. One often finds these stories in the "Choose Your Own Adventure" books where "you" get to decide which way the plot is headed. Often writers use the second person point of view (POV) to make a point. It's best not to use second person POV in this case, however. If one has started with third person POV (I'll explain in a minute) then one must stick to third person POV. I started with second person POV because it is the least common way of writing, however, it is the most misused.
Second Person POV can be very effective if one is writing a story where the reader becomes part of the action. This throws the reader into the story. However, it is difficult to use because the writer has a lot of assumptions to make about his audience. The writer has to determine how the reader might react in certain situations or the writer loses the reader. This is why this POV isn't as popular because it's more difficult to manipulate the reader's emotions with this voice.
Third Person POV is one of the most common forms of writing. This is where the main nouns are "he, she, it, they, one..." and so on. There is no "I." There is no "You." Essays are written in third person. Most novels are written in third person. Most publishers prefer third person. The reader is experiencing the actions of a character or group of characters as if outside that group.
Third person has varying degrees of omniscience. Omniscience has to do with how much the narrator knows. Limited omniscience means the narrator knows very little, if anything, about the thoughts and feelings of the characters. The narrator is simply observing and reporting. This is how I wrote Women Scorned. Throughout most of that book, the reader/narrator knows very little of what the characters think and feel. However, there are many stories out there (Stephen King does this a lot) where the narrator knows every detail about every character. The narrator knows what they think and feel and why they think and feel this way. My book, Breaking Threshholds, was written in this way. It was very difficult to turn this book into a screenplay (thought I did this successfully) because of all the thought writing involved in the book.
Now, when using omniscience, there are several techniques writers can use. I prefer to use something called "free indirect discourse." Jane Austen was one of the first writers to utilize this very effective tool. This is where the narrator's voice suddenly becomes the thoughts of the character without adding the tag, "he thought." For example:
Amanda walked into a grocery store. The stupid clerks scanned customers' articles without seeming to give a shit that she existed. Did she exist? She looked down at her shoes. They were there. Stupid black shoes. Her toes hurt. She wiggled them. Yes. She existed. Like anyone in this store cared.
This is using free indirect discourse. The character's attitude and thoughts are shown throughout the paragraph without me needing to explain this. The reader understands. I love using this tool in my writing. Another way to write this, however, is without the free indirect discourse:
Amanda walked into the grocery store. The clerks scanned customer's articles. She thought they were all stupid, that they didn't care that she existed. She wondered if she existed. She looked down at her shoes. She hated these shoes, thought they were stupid. She wiggled her sore toes. Since she could feel the pain, since she could see them wiggle, she thought she existed. But, she didn't think anyone in this store cared.
Free indirect discourse gets at the thougths and feelings of a character more effectively than using the tags. Sure, the sentences and phrases are more clipped because it is exemplifying the thought process. But it throws the reader into the story far more efficiently.
Lastly, I would like to address First Person POV. I have a pet peave with this particular POV. First person is when the narrator is one of the characters in the story. It's written as "I." Memiors are written in first person. The Twilight series and the Vampire Chronicles from Anne Rice are written in first person. There are numerous books and short stories written with this voice. Delores Claiborn, by Stephen King, is one of my favorites written in this way. The pet peave I have, however, is that it seems often times the writer forgets that when a story is in first person, this means the character is telling the story to someone or something (journal). The language needs to reflect this. It isn't going to be as smooth and eloquent as a third person story because most people don't talk or write like that. Writers forget that this character is either talking or writing in a book.
Questions that need to be asked for first person to be effective: Why is this character telling the story; what do they hope to achieve by telling it? And who are they telling it to? I love first person when done effectively because the narrator can't be trusted. With third person, you can take the information given to you at face value because the narrator has no stake in the story, nothing to gain by telling it. It's just "the narrator." However, in first person, the character has a reason for telling the story. Their motives behind what they say goes a long way in revealing who the character is and what happened.
For example, in Interview with the Vampire, Louis is attempting to explain how lonely and awful it is to be a vampire. He is trying to convince the reporter that his eternal life sucks (pun intended). But what happens? The writer sees the glamour of being a vampire, sees the beauty, is lulled by this exotic new life and wants it. Louis has failed to make his point, but the reader understands the point he's trying to make, even if he doesn't agree.
I have seen stories, however, (and I won't say which), where the first person was used out of laziness. The writer uses it, but not in the right way. It's never clear what the character's reasons are for telling the story and it's not clear who the audience is. When it's first person, present tense, I cringe. A writer should never say, "I walk into the room. He grabs me and I scream." Is this person talking like this in real life? Because that's how it sounds. I imagine this person walking arround narrating their life as it happens and I automatically hate this person. How irritating. First person should almost always be in past tense, the character telling of things that have happened in the past. And be leary of writing a story where it's first person but the character dies at the end. This opens questions that, unless answered, don't work. If the person dies, then the reader wonders how this story came to be. Did the character write it from beyond the grave? There's no other way it could've happened? I've written stories in this way, but made it clear that, yes, it was from beyond the grave. And it can be done in present tense as well, but the writer has to make sure they are doing it that way for a reason.
If the writer wants present tense, the best POV to use (unless there's a damn good reason to use otherwise) is the third person. She walks into the room and screams when the masked man grabs her. Ah. Better. I didn't even like writing that scene above in first person. I cringe, I tells ya! CRINGE.
Okay. I'm done for today. I've got lots to take care of but felt an urge to write something new regarding technique.
Thanks for reading. If you have questions on POV or have any comments on this, feel free to contact me.
Until then, read some good books and, if you're in Northern Cali, enjoy the rain for the next couple days.
"You're in second person!"
Ha! That was fun. Okay. So, you get the idea. Point of View has nothing to do with what character the reader views the story from. People often mistake perspective for point of view. An understandable mistake, but a huge one. When reading a novel, the reader is presented with numerous perspectives, often times. One bounces from the mind of character to character as the plot unfolds. This bounce is a bounce of perspective, a shifting of minds, of how we view the story.
Point of view, however, has nothing to do with perspective. Well, not nothing, but very little. Point of view has to do with the voice of the story. The scene above is second person point of view. This is where the writer uses "You" as the subject of the actions. One often finds these stories in the "Choose Your Own Adventure" books where "you" get to decide which way the plot is headed. Often writers use the second person point of view (POV) to make a point. It's best not to use second person POV in this case, however. If one has started with third person POV (I'll explain in a minute) then one must stick to third person POV. I started with second person POV because it is the least common way of writing, however, it is the most misused.
Second Person POV can be very effective if one is writing a story where the reader becomes part of the action. This throws the reader into the story. However, it is difficult to use because the writer has a lot of assumptions to make about his audience. The writer has to determine how the reader might react in certain situations or the writer loses the reader. This is why this POV isn't as popular because it's more difficult to manipulate the reader's emotions with this voice.
Third Person POV is one of the most common forms of writing. This is where the main nouns are "he, she, it, they, one..." and so on. There is no "I." There is no "You." Essays are written in third person. Most novels are written in third person. Most publishers prefer third person. The reader is experiencing the actions of a character or group of characters as if outside that group.
Third person has varying degrees of omniscience. Omniscience has to do with how much the narrator knows. Limited omniscience means the narrator knows very little, if anything, about the thoughts and feelings of the characters. The narrator is simply observing and reporting. This is how I wrote Women Scorned. Throughout most of that book, the reader/narrator knows very little of what the characters think and feel. However, there are many stories out there (Stephen King does this a lot) where the narrator knows every detail about every character. The narrator knows what they think and feel and why they think and feel this way. My book, Breaking Threshholds, was written in this way. It was very difficult to turn this book into a screenplay (thought I did this successfully) because of all the thought writing involved in the book.
Now, when using omniscience, there are several techniques writers can use. I prefer to use something called "free indirect discourse." Jane Austen was one of the first writers to utilize this very effective tool. This is where the narrator's voice suddenly becomes the thoughts of the character without adding the tag, "he thought." For example:
Amanda walked into a grocery store. The stupid clerks scanned customers' articles without seeming to give a shit that she existed. Did she exist? She looked down at her shoes. They were there. Stupid black shoes. Her toes hurt. She wiggled them. Yes. She existed. Like anyone in this store cared.
This is using free indirect discourse. The character's attitude and thoughts are shown throughout the paragraph without me needing to explain this. The reader understands. I love using this tool in my writing. Another way to write this, however, is without the free indirect discourse:
Amanda walked into the grocery store. The clerks scanned customer's articles. She thought they were all stupid, that they didn't care that she existed. She wondered if she existed. She looked down at her shoes. She hated these shoes, thought they were stupid. She wiggled her sore toes. Since she could feel the pain, since she could see them wiggle, she thought she existed. But, she didn't think anyone in this store cared.
Free indirect discourse gets at the thougths and feelings of a character more effectively than using the tags. Sure, the sentences and phrases are more clipped because it is exemplifying the thought process. But it throws the reader into the story far more efficiently.
Lastly, I would like to address First Person POV. I have a pet peave with this particular POV. First person is when the narrator is one of the characters in the story. It's written as "I." Memiors are written in first person. The Twilight series and the Vampire Chronicles from Anne Rice are written in first person. There are numerous books and short stories written with this voice. Delores Claiborn, by Stephen King, is one of my favorites written in this way. The pet peave I have, however, is that it seems often times the writer forgets that when a story is in first person, this means the character is telling the story to someone or something (journal). The language needs to reflect this. It isn't going to be as smooth and eloquent as a third person story because most people don't talk or write like that. Writers forget that this character is either talking or writing in a book.
Questions that need to be asked for first person to be effective: Why is this character telling the story; what do they hope to achieve by telling it? And who are they telling it to? I love first person when done effectively because the narrator can't be trusted. With third person, you can take the information given to you at face value because the narrator has no stake in the story, nothing to gain by telling it. It's just "the narrator." However, in first person, the character has a reason for telling the story. Their motives behind what they say goes a long way in revealing who the character is and what happened.
For example, in Interview with the Vampire, Louis is attempting to explain how lonely and awful it is to be a vampire. He is trying to convince the reporter that his eternal life sucks (pun intended). But what happens? The writer sees the glamour of being a vampire, sees the beauty, is lulled by this exotic new life and wants it. Louis has failed to make his point, but the reader understands the point he's trying to make, even if he doesn't agree.
I have seen stories, however, (and I won't say which), where the first person was used out of laziness. The writer uses it, but not in the right way. It's never clear what the character's reasons are for telling the story and it's not clear who the audience is. When it's first person, present tense, I cringe. A writer should never say, "I walk into the room. He grabs me and I scream." Is this person talking like this in real life? Because that's how it sounds. I imagine this person walking arround narrating their life as it happens and I automatically hate this person. How irritating. First person should almost always be in past tense, the character telling of things that have happened in the past. And be leary of writing a story where it's first person but the character dies at the end. This opens questions that, unless answered, don't work. If the person dies, then the reader wonders how this story came to be. Did the character write it from beyond the grave? There's no other way it could've happened? I've written stories in this way, but made it clear that, yes, it was from beyond the grave. And it can be done in present tense as well, but the writer has to make sure they are doing it that way for a reason.
If the writer wants present tense, the best POV to use (unless there's a damn good reason to use otherwise) is the third person. She walks into the room and screams when the masked man grabs her. Ah. Better. I didn't even like writing that scene above in first person. I cringe, I tells ya! CRINGE.
Okay. I'm done for today. I've got lots to take care of but felt an urge to write something new regarding technique.
Thanks for reading. If you have questions on POV or have any comments on this, feel free to contact me.
Until then, read some good books and, if you're in Northern Cali, enjoy the rain for the next couple days.