Defining POV - a preference?

[Phyrebrat]

I thought I'd steer this away from my thread about Omni and Third as that's pretty much answered.

But...

I'm a little confused now. I've always thought POV was pretty much etched in stone as to what species it takes. First is First and can only be identified as first, etc etc etc. However there are a spectrum of opinions on the para I posted as to whether it's close 3rd or omni.

So now I'm interested in the discussion of POV identification, specifically between 3rd and omni.

As far as you're concerned, is there leeway in whether or not you personally identify something as third or omni? And could you play, say, with first or second and omni?

What are the indicators you use when reading or writing to decide whether it's omni or 3rd.

Can there be an omni-3rd spectrum? Like a hybrid that isn't experimental?

pH

 

[HareBrain]

Context is important. If I were reading a close-third passage from Tim's POV and this line appeared:

"Tim was the nicest, kindest man anyone could hope to meet"

I'd take is as being Tim's self-opinion. On its own, I'd assume it was the authorial voice.

Also, omni often involves the writer going in close, zooming in and then back out again before zooming in one someone else without an obvious POV break. I think someone on the other thread mentioned Stephen King, who does this a lot.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I've always thought POV was pretty much etched in stone

Like a lot of things to do with the technicalities of writing, it's an ideal.

David Gemmell is one of my favourite authors, and his books are usually written in a close third - but this doesn't stop him pulling back into omni for dramatic effect. I think a lot of writers do this, actually.

Additionally, while we try to avoid head-hopping in the adult science fiction and fantasy genres, it still remains very common in historical fiction. I would even go as far as to say we're much more strict about POV use in the core SF/F genre than most other genres.

Ultimately, try to know what you are doing and why - a lot of aspiring writers will break POV because they don't understand it. But as above, some successful writers will happily do so to ramp up tension in the story - and it tends to work because they tend to know what they're doing.

2c.

 

[The Big Peat]

I think HB nailed it for me. The context is important. And that whole zoom in and zoom out thing is a big tell tale for Omni for me (I'd use Pratchett as an example rather than King) and indeed if you're not doing that, I'd question why someone would be using omni. Gemmell (to use Brian's example) also uses its sparingly in battle scenes.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

For me, it's to do with the how close the voice is to the character's, rather than the narrator's. This morning, in yours, I felt I could sense a narrator's voice, even though the thoughts themselves were close character voices.

But, mostly - it really doesn't matter. POV is not etched in stone.

 

[Phyrebrat]

You guys are - once again - awesomely awse

pHx

 

[The Big Peat]

I'd like to add that somewhere where I've had people questioning my PoV use is when a close narrator gives their opinion of another character's emotional state as if its fact/not explicitly saying its only their opinion.

To me, that's perfectly fine and its something plenty of published authors do. But since I've been called on it a few times, I thought I'd add it as something that can spark people into thinking things have tipped into omniscient - maybe its worthwhile lampshading it a few times early in a story to make people comfortable.

 

[Phyrebrat]

Yep. I do ‘sense’ that people who say that are nit-picking at an irrelevant and fatuous level.

However, I think it’s important to bear in mind that when we post things for crit we’re essentially asking people to find fault with what we’ve written. Sometimes I’ve stopped myself writing certain criticism - or deleting them - when I realise it’s not something I believe, but something I’ve been taught.

I wrote the line last night; ‘she waited for the mindless ball of hair to process her question.’ The POV is on the phone to a vacuous, vapid receptionist.

I could imagine people saying ‘but how did she know what her hair looked like?’ Apart from the fact she’s met the receptionist previously (tho not explicitly clear), she’s also been having an internal dialogue of ‘girls today’ being ‘all orange skin, t**s and teeth.’ I’d argue therefore she could be making assumptions based on her biases, prejudices and so on.

So, context is important.

pH

 

[Mouse]

I'd like to add that somewhere where I've had people questioning my PoV use is when a close narrator gives their opinion of another character's emotional state as if its fact/not explicitly saying its only their opinion.

To me, that's perfectly fine and its something plenty of published authors do. But since I've been called on it a few times, I thought I'd add it as something that can spark people into thinking things have tipped into omniscient - maybe its worthwhile lampshading it a few times early in a story to make people comfortable.

I've had people say this to me too. I usually ignore them.

 

[tinkerdan]

A quote from here::

Third-Person Omniscient Versus Third-Person Limited Point of View

There are two types of third-person point of view. A third-person point of view can be omniscient, in which the narrator knows all of the thoughts and feelings of all of the characters in the story, or it can be limited. If it's limited, the narrator only relates his or her own thoughts, feelings, and knowledge of various situations and other characters. Very often new writers feel most comfortable with first-person, perhaps because it seems familiar, but writing in the third-person actually affords a writer much more freedom in how they tell the story.

::I'm not endorsing this person, it was just the first thing in my search that found what I was looking for.

Anyway they go on to say you need consistency or it confuses the reader.

However, I think if you section it off like new scene it works fine without confusion.
In fact I was thinking that it reminds me of a framing story, story withing a story.
Only in this instance its a POV within a POV.
So maybe we define it as a frame POV.
Though there might already be a name for this...surely.

So there, Shirley it is then.

Anyway it read okay to me as it was; however the question is, was the separation just for the forum here or do you intend to separate it with a break of some sort like an extra line space?

 

[zmunkz]

Like a lot of things to do with the technicalities of writing, it's an ideal.

^this

Fundamentally speaking, POV isn’t inherent in language. These are labels and constructs we’ve added to group related styles, and will therefore never perfectly fit all the data.

 

[Phyrebrat]

^this

Fundamentally speaking, POV isn’t inherent in language. These are labels and constructs we’ve added to group related styles, and will therefore never perfectly fit all the data.

Yup. I agree. I just think sontimes advice on POV is slavishly followed as if commanded from Sinai/Horeb.



pH