I'm very familiar with the main rules for viewpoint - eg, first or third person subjective, omniscient etc.

My question is about something a bit more subtle. I'm writing a new character in first person and someone commented to me that she felt the description in the piece was not entirely as she thought that character would see it.

How much should you feel constrained by this? I felt the description was objective and that she was easily intelligent enough to see it that way. However, she may not have described it that way if her friend asked her afterwards what the place was like.

I know we've had a discussion on WW before (not necessarily in Technique) about whether you can, in a 3rd or 1st person subjective viewpoint, describe things in words the character would not say out loud so long as she would know the words and be familiar enough with them. I suppose this is a bit similar.

As an example, in my first person vp I wrote this:

The carpet in the hallway was dark, and so slimy with mud and beer that the pattern was barely discernible.

The idea was that she would have noticed it, but not necessarily thought about it consciously. Does that mean it's okay for first person, or not?

And on top of that, do you think this particular point is very different whether the narration is first or third person subjective?

Thanks for any thoughts.

Deb

In first person I think I would tend to stick fairly closely to a character's natural vocab and syntax - their voice - and in something like this perhaps go for 'I could hardly see the pattern'. I agree that you might not put things always exactly as she'd say it aloud, but you do lose touch with the character if it's too different. I wonder if the un-characterised-ness of this sentence is not only because she might not use 'discernible', but also because 'was discernible' is passive mood.

With third person I think you've got more leeway to slide into and out of that person's exact voice, even if you don't step right back and have a separate, omniscient viewpoint and voice.

Emma

Thanks Emma - that's very helpful.

I think I might rewrite her in third person, then, because I want to be able to describe things not entirely as she would if speaking, albeit still in her vp (if that makes sense).

Writing her in third will also fit better with the other two vp characters, who are in third. Arguably one of the 3rd person characters is more central to the novel than this one, and it might feel wrong to a reader to have a less central character as the only one in 1st.

Much appreciated.

Deb


<Added>

Having said that, I don't think the tone of the description actually clashes with her character, since she's supposed to be a well-educated and thoughtful person.

No, I agree, it doesn't sound as if it clashes with her character, more that something more colloquial is more characterful, if you see what I mean...

But I think your decision to give it a go in 3rd could be really interesting and helpful.

Emma

Thanks...

Deb

Deb, the only fiction where I remember a subsidiary character working in POV1 where the main characters were in POV3 is The Mermaids Singing by Val Mcdermid (translated into Wire In The Blood for TV) where the POV1 character is the baddie, and the reader is forcibly thrust into his head by the POV. It works because the character is so very different from the others, and sets him even further apart.

Dee

That's really interesting, Dee. This character is very different from the other two, and also is very self-centred, which is why I instinctively felt first person might work well for her.

I'm still wavering about whether I really want to change her. I don't actually want to change her, but need to consider whether I ought to.

Your comments are very helpful. And I think I can imagine how it might work in the book you mention.

In my case, the central action is around two 3rd person viewpoint characters, but their actions have a very bad effect on a man they don't know, who is my 1st person viewpoint character's father. Through her very self-centred haze she sees how it affects him.

I think I might continue to write her in first for the mo. I can always change to 3rd on rewrite. The description is through her eyes, but as she sees it and not as she would necessarily describe it to a friend. She sees it quite clinically, as she sees most things, almost as if she is a detached observer.

I'm not sure if that makes any kind of sense...

Deb

I have a similar problem to this. My novel is written entirely in the first person but in various sections I subtley change the voice so that it deliberately doesn't sound 'natural'.

Essentially it's all to do with the fact that we often 'rewrite' our past or expand and reimagine the past so much so that memory and reality are separate entities. But then I get the horrible feeling that all of it is way too up it's own arse or will be seen that way if it's lost on the reader.

I wonder if it would help to make it more obvious when you're deliberately changing the voice - say by putting it in italics?

I think a bigger worry than people thinking it's up its own arse (and I'm not suggesting at all that yours sounds it) is when people don't actually realise your intention. Underlining that you have a different intention in these passages might make readers think about it more and realise what you're doing.

Just a thought. However, not having read your novel I might be barking up the wrong tree entirely.

Your concept sounds very interesting...

Deb

Hi Deb,

I thought about doing that but as it would cover a lot of sections that it might get tedious. I know that when I've read huge sections that have been italicised it tends to test my patience not to mention giving me eye strain.

I started off repeating some sections written in a slightly different way each time, but I think you can only do this sparingly before it becomes too obvious (not to mention tedious).

It may be slightly easier for the reader taken in context as the book revolves around a character suffering from retrograde amnesia (I know, I know I've tried to avoid all the cliches I can think of) and so it deals with memory, what it is, how reliable and pliable it can be. I've also dropped hints in there about how memory can't always be reliable having just written some scenes where the MCs psychiatrist contradicts what we've been led to believe and there's the slow dawning realisation towards the end that many of the things previously mentioned are not what they seemed.

I think the trouble is I've tried to write something for the reader who likes to think but on the other hand I don't want to completely lose someone who takes it at face value.

Geoff, it sounds really interesting, and from what you've said it sounds as if you've made the right decision not to italicise.

There are plenty of readers out there who do like to think and be challenged, and it sounds as if you've dropped enough clues. How far through it are you?

Deb

This is an interesting q Deb. I have most of my novel written POV third person subjective, but specific sections written third person omniscient narrator. I was advised to change these as the reader felt I'd lapsed, rather than made a deliberate change for a very specific purpose, namely as I needed to present an outside point of view for this strand. Reluctant to change, but how do you signpost that you have done this intentionally and not because you're inconsistent, or , heaven forbid, up your own....

third person subjective, but specific sections written third person omniscient narrator. I was advised to change these as the reader felt I'd lapsed, rather than made a deliberate change for a very specific purpose,

One option would be to integrate the two, rather than separating them, which can be rather a jolt, and the longer you've been in one PoV, the more the jolt. As long as you know how far inside a character's head you are at any given moment, and make sure you take the reader with you when you move elsewhere - to the neutral omniscient PoV, or to another character's head - it'll be fine.

Emma

Sorry Emma, I'm not quite sure what you mean. Can you explain please? Different strands of my novel, set at different times require certain perspectives, specifically an observer's view of the events taking place and happening to the protagonist at one stage, and the protagonist's own perspecitve most of the time.

If you're juggling times, then it could be trickier, I do see. (I was assuming that you were moving between subjective to omniscient 3rd person within the same narrative thread, in which case until about 1950 no one would have thought there was even a problem to be discussed... )

Do you need to mark of the omnisciently-narrated sections more, rather than less, if the reader's not going to be a bit boggled when you switch? Headings of some sort? Italics? (though as discussed they're beastly to read for any lenght of time). Or just make sure that the first couple of sentences of each new section are particularly obviously either subjective or omniscient.

Emma