POV: Third Person Limited vs Omniscient

[thaddeus6th]

It's interesting you say that, as my comedy is very close third (the ultra-short one I made up for my 4,000th post was in first: https://www.sffchronicles.com/threads/552983/#post-1919665), whereas my serious stuff is more distant third.

Mind you, my serious stuff has many POVs, whereas all the Sir Edric stuff (with very rare and brief exceptions) is entirely from his perspective.

 

[Toby Frost]

I can imagine a comedy that worked from the lead character's humorous comments on the world around him (close 3rd), but I think it would be harder to write than the sort of thing that I've been writing. Also, with comedy, the tone can be wry and slightly mocking (Lucky Jim, say) when the POV is pretty close 3rd person.

I went with omniscient 3rd because Smith's world doesn't work to comedy laws of physics (if you get shot, you still die) and because a lot of the humour wouldn't be apparent to the characters. There's a moment in End of Empires where a fortress is under siege from lemming men. As I wrote it, it occurred to me that for the characters, the experience would be terrifying - the reader is in a much better position to appreciate the absurdity of waves of berserk, man-sized rodents with bayonets.

It occurs to me that a writer should probably keep one eye - and only one - on what's selling in their own particular area. The other should be on classic novels, or rather novels that have been proven to work. I think what it's not helpful to look at are "light" novels of 20 years ago that haven't aged terribly well: David Eddings, for instance. While perhaps they are still entertaining, things have moved on.

 

[MWagner]

There’s also the issue of the closeness of the 3rd person. In The First Law, you could change “he” to “I” and it would turn into a first-person narrative almost instantly. Not all close-3rd is like that, and nor, I think, does it have to be. Overall, if you want to write something a lot like A Game of Thrones, this is the way to go. But as Teresa says, it really isn’t everything, not by a very long way. I think writers would be much better off worrying about the quality of their work rather than the closeness of the viewpoint, so long as they stay consistent.

Absolutely. The trend over the last couple decades has been towards 'hot' writing - intensely personal and emotional characterization from inside the skin of the protagonist(s). My sense is this is driven by modern reader's appetite for intense engagement with character, and, in the case of fantasy, the primacy of wish fulfillment among the expectations of the reader. Readers want to be the characters in the fiction. That's why the more detached POV of third-person omniscient often leaves them cold (judging by reviews and comments) .

It's worth remembering that people tend to write what they read. So 3rd person omniscient with an objective narrative voice is becoming alien to the latest generation of readers and writers. I'm guessing it will become increasingly uncommon to see it pulled off well.

 

[Dan Jones]

I can imagine a comedy that worked from the lead character's humorous comments on the world around him (close 3rd)

The only example I can think of that uses that perspective is A Confederacy Of Dunces, which happens to be one of my all-time favourites. So it can work!

 

[thaddeus6th]

Jones, I hope that means you haven't yet read of Sir Edric's antics

 

[Ray McCarthy]

He can't have read Sir Edric.

 

[Phyrebrat]

Absolutely. The trend over the last couple decades has been towards 'hot' writing - intensely personal and emotional characterization from inside the skin of the protagonist(s). My sense is this is driven by modern reader's appetite for intense engagement with character, and, in the case of fantasy, the primacy of wish fulfillment among the expectations of the reader. Readers want to be the characters in the fiction. That's why the more detached POV of third-person omniscient often leaves them cold (judging by reviews and comments)

.

In addition to wish-fulfilment, I think the way western entertainment has become so voyeuristic over the past 15 years with reality shows like Big Brother and the found footage movie genre has influenced this; that there's a part of us that is peeking in on he characters that titilates.

pH

 

[Ray McCarthy]

I was just thinking today that the news, even BBC is very voyeuristic

 

[thaddeus6th]

Ray, I often think that when TV crews shove cameras and microphones in the faces of distraught relatives/friends after a car crash or similar event.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

And it takes up 15 minutes of the news report too.

 

[Phyrebrat]

Ray, I often think that when TV crews shove cameras and microphones in the faces of distraught relatives/friends after a car crash or similar event.

Exactly! I'm sure I've moaned about this before;

We now go to the Isle of Purbeck where Newsy Newsbody is with the family of swept-to-sea teenager Drowny McDrown

'So, can you tell us exactly how you felt when you got the call from the Coastguard that your son/daughter/partner had been found dashed on the rocks?'

It's not news, it's scab-picking

pH

 

[Wanderlog]

My sense is this is driven by modern reader's appetite for intense engagement with character, and, in the case of fantasy, the primacy of wish fulfillment among the expectations of the reader.

I have to disappoint you. As show many researches, the modern reader prefers to read short (or even tiny) pieces of text like those found on Twitter. Reading somewhat long fiction texts is mostly impossible for them. This is the Internet era, dude. The new generation, like.

Seriously, there is no such thing as a "modern reader". This is a spherical cow in the vacuum. All readers are different, and classic books written centuries ago (like "Moby Dick" or Shakespeare's poetry) are still read and liked. There are different generations of readers with different background, and you won't find two identical readers even withing a single generation. Moreover, you can throw away a book when you're young and find out ten or twenty years later that it's indeed exciting.

The most grave error a writer can do is deciding that he knows what a reader wants. No once can know it, even readers themselves. You can open a book you never heard of, read a couple of paragraphs and get lost in a completely new, exciting and totally unfamiliar universe, it's quite typical.

Readers want to be the characters in the fiction.

Not quite so. A man rarely can associate himself with a woman, and vice versa. An astronomer can't fully associate himself with a grunt. A school boy can't imagine how it's possible to be a wise old man. And so on. Take 'Endymion' by Simmons as an example - can a male reader fully associate himself with Aenea?

In reality, readers want to find themselves in a new interesting world and watch characters they like. If they can fully or partially associated themselves with the protagonist or secondary characters, it'd be great. But even if they can't, they can still find the book interesting and impressive.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

As show many researches, the modern reader prefers to read short (or even tiny) pieces of text like those found on Twitter. Reading somewhat long fiction texts is mostly impossible for them

These are not real readers. Reading books in the past was a very minority activity. There are more literate people today, but not all read books.
If you look at books 50 years ago they were smaller. On average maybe half the size.

 

[Toby Frost]

My suspicion is that, at least in fantasy, a lot of people want to read soap opera. Many, many pages – that way you know you’re getting your money’s worth – and lots and lots of characters in a fairly predictable pre-gunpowder setting, generally based on medieval Europe. A definite ending, or even the promise of one, isn’t required. And, on some level, they want deep emotional involvement, or at least to see a lot of emotions on the page, which is easier to do with a close 3rd viewpoint than a more distant one. In a good book, this leads to strong characters. In a less-good book, it leads to a lot of weeping, cartoon villainy and “feels” (I suspect that, after displaying some kind of prejudice, the worst sin in the modern world is not to be continuously emotional). The narrator’s voice is generally very minor, whereas in older books the narrator could intrude a lot more.

 

[MWagner]

Seriously, there is no such thing as a "modern reader". This is a spherical cow in the vacuum. All readers are different, and classic books written centuries ago (like "Moby Dick" or Shakespeare's poetry) are still read and liked. There are different generations of readers with different background, and you won't find two identical readers even withing a single generation. Moreover, you can throw away a book when you're young and find out ten or twenty years later that it's indeed exciting.

And yet there are people whose jobs it is to pluck out a manuscript among hundreds and decide to spend a bunch of money to publish and market it in the hopes of turning a profit. And while they have nowhere near to a 100 per cent success rate, I'm confident they manage a better success rate than randomly grabbing books out of the slush pile would earn.

There is such a thing as genre markets in fiction. In the aggregate, there are things a market likes and things it isn't interested in. I wouldn't lay odds on an fantasy novel that had no characters under the age of 40 making it onto the bestseller list. We see a lot of books about young wizards and warriors becoming legends because there's an appetite for that kind of story, even if it is isn't shared by every reader.

The reason genres exist at all is because readers tend to have expectations, and those expectations can be identified. The demographics of Mystery readers differs from those of Fantasy readers. The kinds of stories that tend to be told in the two genres differ. The protagonists and settings differ. Many readers do not like to stray far from what they're familiar with.

The most grave error a writer can do is deciding that he knows what a reader wants. No once can know it, even readers themselves. You can open a book you never heard of, read a couple of paragraphs and get lost in a completely new, exciting and totally unfamiliar universe, it's quite typical.

There's a difference between what one person may or may not do, and what a population of people are likely to do. I'm personally not interested in checking off a laundry list of popular tropes in my WIP. But I'm also aware that if I completely ignore the tastes and expectations of readers in the genre I'm writing for, I'm unlikely to find a publisher, or an audience. Some of my favourite books (the Dying Earth, the Broken Sword, Glorianna) would make not a ripple in the fantasy market today (if they could even find a publisher), just as I doubt the readers of 1980 would embrace the Name of the Wind. Tastes and expectations do change in a population over time.

 

[Wanderlog]

These are not real readers. Reading books in the past was a very minority activity. There are more literate people today, but not all read books. If you look at books 50 years ago they were smaller. On average maybe half the size.

Ray, it was a joke on my part. Of course, everything you said is true, I don't argue that.

However, every joke is only partially a joke. I can't but admit that, being used to reading long novels, I sometime notice that I can't finish reading a long article because I become tired with it. Several of my friends (well over thirty and forty) admitted the same thing. In the end, the Internet influences everyone.

And yet there are people whose jobs it is to pluck out a manuscript among hundreds and decide to spend a bunch of money to publish and market it in the hopes of turning a profit.

Ah, here is the key point: money and profit. However, this point I don't intend to discuss as it would be completely off topic here.

The reason genres exist at all is because readers tend to have expectations

I have to strongly disagree. Genres exists only because it's easier for publishers to sold books with tags glued on them. It can be proved by a very simple fact: there are different genre system in different countries, so the classification adopted in the US, for example, is incomprehensible for readers on my distant planet, and vice versa.

Did you read 'Tomminockers' by Stephen King? What is it - SF or a mystic thriller? Meanwhile, it's one of the best King's books.

Tastes and expectations do change in a population over time.

True. The problem is, no one really knows those tastes and expectations. We have only statements made by book publishers and the publishing policies they follow, nothing more. Even worse, publishers often try to form those tastes to make bigger profit.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

, I sometime notice that I can't finish reading a long article because I become tired with it.

Me too. But I think usually that's because it's rubbish.

 

[Phyrebrat]

Maybe this supports the genre argument; The Tommyknockers is widely known as King's messiest work.

pH

 

[Wanderlog]

The Tommyknockers is widely known as King's messiest work.

I personally don't know it and don't care about it at all. It's my favorite King's novel. However, I believe that this book wouldn't have been published if not for King's general popularity. Doesn't fit withing the strict limits of a single genre, and that's it.

 

[Phyrebrat]

I personally don't know it and don't care about it at all. It's my favorite King's novel. However, I believe that this book wouldn't have been published if not for King's general popularity. Doesn't fit withing the strict limits of a single genre, and that's it.

Which is my point.