In keeping with the Back to Basics month on dA, I've had a few of my writer friends say they'd like some clarity on which POV to choose while putting a story together. In that vein, this is an attempt to help them with their artistic struggle, and shed some light on what POV is and how to choose one.

All that being said, it's important to note that POV is writer's discretion. It's about your story. Whichever perspective gives the story the light, the insight, the flavor the author wants it to have will ultimately be the deciding factor on which POV to choose. Each has advantages, and disadvantages; knowing what they are and how to best capitalize on them might help you, as a writer, decide how to frame your story and get your message across the way you want it to.

Sounds pretty easy, doesn't it?

Well ... yes and no. Like I said, there are advantages and disadvantages to each type of POV, so it's a matter of being careful to choose just the right method of leading the reader through the story as you, the author, intended it to be viewed.

All that disclaimer aside, it's still writer's discretion, but let's talk about the different POVs and what some of those pros and cons are.

Definitions

All right, let's get the definition out of the way. First of all, I have to say, none of the information you're about to read is original to me. I've chugged amazing amounts of material down my throat on this topic trying to come up with something meaningful and helpful, and with a little luck, I've learned some stuff along the way, but I have to give credit where it's due. And it's due here, and over here, here, here, and of course, here. So, you can research for yourself and see what you find, and whether you agree with what I've said here will be your discretion ... just like deciding on the POV.

Okay, all that said, what does POV mean?

For starters, "POV", in this context, means "Point of View". It is, in a nutshell, the "camera" through which the story is viewed. According to this source:

Defined:

• It’s the person’s perspective who is telling the story, whether that person is in the story or not.


• It’s the narrator’s relationship to the plot of the story.


• When done well, good POV allows for the continuous dream of fiction.


• It’s whose senses each scene is filtered through.


• “Viewpoint is the spot from which you see a story. It’s the position and perspective you occupy in order to best savor a fictional experience. Ordinarily, that vantage point is inside somebody’s skin.” Dwight V. Swain


• Penelope Stokes in Writing and Selling the Christian Novel aptly describes viewpoint as the character who holds a movie camera. "Only what that camera can see is what the viewpoint character can see. If a heroine’s facing away from the door with her iPod blaring, she cannot see Drake burst through the door behind her. Only-only-only what the camera lens can see is what the POV character describes."

So, it's the point of view from which the story is told.

There are several different kinds, too.

There's first, second, and third person; there's omniscient and limited omniscient. There are other variations also, but for modern fiction writers, these are the major categories.

Let's start with First Person, and move from there.

First Person narrative

According to Wikipedia, First-person narrative is:

... used somewhat frequently. The first-person point of view sacrifices omniscience and omnipresence for a greater intimacy with one character. It allows the reader to see what the focus character is thinking; it also allows that character to be further developed through his own style in telling the story. First-person narrations may be told like third person ones; on the other hand, the narrator may be conscious of telling the story to a given audience, perhaps at a given place and time, for a given reason. In extreme cases, the first-person narration may be told as a story within a story, with the narrator appearing as a character in the frame story.

In a first person narrative, the narrator is a character in the story. This character takes actions, makes judgments and has opinions and biases. In this case the narrator gives and withholds information based on its own viewing of events. It is an important task for the reader to determine as much as possible about the character of the narrator in order to decide what "really" happens. This type of narrator is usually noticeable for its ubiquitous use of the first-person pronoun, "I".

So, the first-person narrator is a character involved in the story. The reader can only see events through the eyes of this character, and is subject to all the weaknesses and misconceptions and opinions and other baggage the character is carrying around. We, the readers, are in the mind of the narrator, and experience everything they do. And nothing they don't. Nothing.

The advantage of first-person narrative is an intimacy with the narrator unattainable in any other POV. The reader is right with the character, every step of the way. S/he can't hear, see or feel the things outside their own scope, and so there's a comradery, a binding, with the character narrating, so the reader should like that character -- a lot -- or the book's going back on the shelf and won't be read. But if the reader identifies with the narrator, there's a unity between them that's not achievable with any other POV. Good stuff. And, there's an immediacy to the narrative that's tough to duplicate in other POV narrative styles, too.

The disadvantage, however, is that the story is only visible through the eyes of the narrator. It's not a flexible POV at all. If a conversation is taking place in another room, you're left out of it along with the narrator. So revealing all the necessary information to the reader, and exposing motives and actions and experiences of other characters, can become a little tricky.

And, the events can't be interpreted outside the filters of the narrating character. The reader's stuck with your narrator, so if your narrator stinks or has bad breath and is a jerk, guess what?

It's also sort of weird, when you stop and think about it, to have a character recount all the dialog -- enough to fill a novel -- if it's a first-person narrative. I mean, who recounts every word of every conversation by every participant when they're telling a story? I've met a few people like this in my life, and they're the ones at parties and social gatherings being avoided by everyone else.

Still, it's a lot of fun to write in first-person, and it's a great way to keep the "cards" of your story -- as well as your readers -- close to your vest.

Second Person narrative

Once in a great while, someone writes a novel in the second person. It's not done often, because it is hard, hard, hard to manage, and do well.

This is when you're telling the reader what THEY did, saw, experienced, etc. I think of it as "the bossy POV", because you're dictating what's happening to your reader. Push 'em around a little, y'know?

When it IS done well, it can put the reader right in the middle of the action, and involve them. This could even be more effective than the first-person narrative in immediacy and intimacy. I mean, what's more immediate and intimate than being a character in the story? This was the idea behind the "Choose Your Own Adventure" series of children's books. Decisions are made by the reader and they're led to various parts of the book according to those decisions.

In general, though, it's not done and is very difficult to do well in a serious work. So it's hard to give you the pros and cons here, because it's rare.

Think instruction manuals, textbooks, and technical procedures and documents as the majority of literature in this POV. *Yawn*

Third Person narrative

Okay, this is the big 'un. There's so much involved with it, I could spend a long time writing about -- and practicing -- this one. But, you'd get bored and annoyed and never finish reading what I've written, and flit off to read something else, probably written in the third-person narrative. Entire books have been written on POV, and I don't intend to write one of those here, so I'll keep this as brief as possible.

In the third-person narrative, the narrator is NOT involved in the story, is NOT one of the characters, and lets the reader in on events, and the heads (thoughts, motivations, inner workings and musings) of other characters. They disclose what we need to know when we need to know it. It's through this outside speaker or voice that we, the readers, learn about the characters involved in the story events.

The third-person narrator comes in a couple of flavors, and that adds to the complexity of the topic. The plot thickens, so to speak.

Rather than beat my head against the keyboard trying to come up with a suitable summation for this, I'll use this one, which is pretty good:

"Omniscient and Limited Omniscient Points of View
A narrator who knows everything about all the characters is all knowing, or omniscient.

A narrator whose knowledge is limited to one character, either major or minor, has a limited omniscient point of view.

As you read a piece of fiction think about these things:

How does the point of view affect your responses to the characters? How is your response influenced by how much the narrator knows and how objective he or she is? First person narrators are not always trustworthy. It is up to you to determine what is the truth and what is not."

So, if the narration is poking into and out of the thoughts and minds and motives of ALL the characters, that's omniscient.

If the narration centers around one central character, but is poking into and out of the thoughts, motives and mind of that character, that bad-boy's a limited omniscient POV.

It's a simple distinction, but not so easy to carry off all the time. There might be something going on in the noodle of one of the other characters, but because the narrator is limited omniscient, there's no real device for revealing that except through actions and experiences as unfolded in the story. It's not quite as limiting as first-person, but can be binding in itself. The upside, however, is that the POV character can be switched at the end of a scene or chapter. You can then crawl inside someone else's gray matter and reveal the story from that perspective. Almost as limber as the carnival contortionist.

In third-person, the advantage is that greater flexibility to move and flow within the story and characters. In third-person omniscient especially, where the whole cast is available to the writer. The author can take the reader where s/he wants them to go, show them what s/he wants them to see, and isn't (as) limited in revealing things when necessary.

The ability to juggle multiple subplots and twisty, turny stories like a Twister State Champ is another plus. Building suspense is a piece of cake when you can switch POVs at will, and it masks "head-hopping" too. ("Head-hopping" is NOT a game for an orgy, it's another term for POV shifting -- you know, moving from one character's POV to another and revealing what's in their cranial cavities.) There's a nice added dimension to the story this way, and sometimes, the reader's experience is enhanced for it.

But the drawback is the distance created between the reader and characters. There is a necessary removal, a higher-level view of the story, that can remove some of the viceral, intimate, immediate responses provided by other POV narratives. The writer can reveal more, but in order to do so stands at a greater distance from the story, and some of that gritty, down-in-the-muck feel is removed from the reader too.

Another drawback? Getting lazy. The writer can become complacent about character development this way. It's not hard to lose sight of letting the reader get to know -- and thereby become involved with -- characters by shifting POVs and writing short scenes with lots of different characters in them.

And, it's easy to beat the reader over the head with information in this POV, too. That is, distrust of the reader is indicated in the writer giving the necessary information out like Halloween candy instead of letting the reader get it from the story.

So, despite it's strong appeal, there are disadvantages to being the omniscient writer too. Who knew?

So, Which Do I Use?

Well, like I said at outset, it's really up to you. But, to help you down that path, this site has a list of ten questions to ask yourself to figure out which one will be best suited for you. I've reproduced it here for your amusement:

10 questions you can ask in determining a POV for a novel.

1. Who do you want the reader to identify with?


2. Whose story is this? And who is best qualified to tell it?


3. Will there be multiple POVs, and if so, how many? Why?


4. What type of voicing do you want the main POV character to have? Can you create other, credible voicings?


5. Should you defy convention and jump to omniscient? Second person?


6. Does the story need secrets?


7. Will suspense be heightened with another POV?


8. Which character can best portray the main theme of your novel? If it’s another character, then you may end up with that character preaching your message to your POV character.


9. When determining whether a secondary POV is needed, ask: Does the reader absolutely need to know this information, and would the main POV character be able to impart it?


10. Which POV unfolds the story best?

So, there you have it. I hope this helps answer some of the questions surrounding POV, and which is best, how to use them, their advantages and disadvantages. And, if nothing else, you had something to read so you could pass the time, right?

See ya next time.