Deep POV

[thomas1965]

I just read a book about deep POV and I wonder if someone has used deep POV in their own story?

 

[TarnishedPenny]

I am unfamiliar with the term. Might you describe it, please?

 

[SirBurnInside]

"Deep POV is a style of fiction writing that aims to remove all the psychic or narrative distance between the reader and the character so the reader feels as if they're immersed in the story. By removing the author/narrator voice, the reader takes a vicarious emotional journey along with the point-of-view character."

That is what it said when I just looked it up online.

An interesting concept but I'm not sure I'm a good enough author to pull that sort of thing off personally!

 

[thomas1965]

I am unfamiliar with the term. Might you describe it, please?

"The term Point of View is defined as a position from which something is considered or evaluated, a standpoint, or a place of perception. In fiction writing, the position from which anything is considered in any given scene should be the character through whose head we are viewing events. That character’s psyche—his or her very soul—is the standpoint from which everything else in the scene is presented and evaluated.
Rivet Your Readers with Deep Point of View by Jill Elizabeth Nelson"

 

[ElectricBlue]

Sounds the same as close or limited third person narrative, where the narrator is in very close to one character, or one character at a time, thus getting much the same intimacy or immediacy as a first person narrative.

I use it a lot, readers seem to appreciate it. They should be immersed in the story, I'd have thought.

 

[SyleusSnow]

Yeah, it's essentially close third person. I try to achieve it in my writing.

Brandon McNulty explains it pretty well:

 

[SimonDoom]

Another term for is the "free indirect style." I use it, or try to use it, for many of my stories told in third person limited POV. It has many advantages.

Here's an example:

Non-Deep POV: John rounded the corner and saw the pizza place. He wondered, "Should I get a sausage or a pepperoni slice?" He had been disappointed the last time he'd been there.

Deep POV: John rounded the corner. The pizza place loomed ahead. Should he get a sausage or pepperoni slice? The previous trip had been disappointing.

The character's internal thoughts merge with the narrator's narration. Get rid of dialogue tags for internal thoughts. The narration IS, pretty much, just the internal thoughts and observations of the character. It's a lot like first person POV this way, but it has more flexibility because sometimes you can stray a bit beyond what the character alone can observe, and you can switch from one person's POV to another's from time to time.

Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice is a classic early example of a story told mostly in this style. For most of the book (but not all of it) the narration follows Jane's point of view. A contemporary style would be Michael Connolly's Bosch detective stories, where we see and experience almost everything through the main character, Harry Bosch.

 

[Lifestyle66]

I'm still trying to grasp this "deep POV" concept.

It seems to me that if you want to remove the author and narrator's influence and get the reader more involved in seeing, hearing, and feeling the character, the best way would be to use a pure first-person POV.

But I've heard other "more experienced" writers/authors here disparage first-person as a newbie's lazy way of writing (probably learned from their college creative writing professor's critiques). So, I guess someone had to invent a new term.

In Simon's example above, I might write:
"When I rounded the corner, the pizza place sign caught my attention. I was drawn to it, wondering if I should give it another try with a sausage or a pepperoni slice. It was rather disappointing the last time I went there. So, perhaps not. Or maybe ..."

 

[djrip]

Sounds like someone needed to give close 3rd a new name so they could market their take on it.

 

[NotWise]

I don't find the idea of a "Deep" POV to be very appealing.

The Deep POV seems intended to immerse the reader in the characters' thoughts, ideas, motivations. I think that's great if you're writing philosophy, or if those thoughts, ideas, and motivations are the focus of the story. I don't think I've written anything for Lit that fits those descriptions.

Instead, I want the readers immersed in the characters' world and their actions. I have no problem with giving clues to the characters' thought processes, but I mostly want readers to understand the characters like they would understand people they meet in real life, from their actions and reactions, and from a few small clues about how they think or feel.

That's one opinion. We all pick our own roads.

 

[djrip]

Another term for is the "free indirect style." I use it, or try to use it, for many of my stories told in third person limited POV. It has many advantages.

Here's an example:

Non-Deep POV: John rounded the corner and saw the pizza place. He wondered, "Should I get a sausage or a pepperoni slice?" He had been disappointed the last time he'd been there.

Deep POV: John rounded the corner. The pizza place loomed ahead. Should he get a sausage or pepperoni slice? The previous trip had been disappointing.

The character's internal thoughts merge with the narrator's narration. Get rid of dialogue tags for internal thoughts. The narration IS, pretty much, just the internal thoughts and observations of the character. It's a lot like first person POV this way, but it has more flexibility because sometimes you can stray a bit beyond what the character alone can observe, and you can switch from one person's POV to another's from time to time.

Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice is a classic early example of a story told mostly in this style. For most of the book (but not all of it) the narration follows Jane's point of view. A contemporary style would be Michael Connolly's Bosch detective stories, where we see and experience almost everything through the main character, Harry Bosch.

This reminds me of William Gibson's style of 'eyeball punches,' quick sharp details generally expanding outward from the character, from skittering amphetamine tabs to grubby pink prosthetic arms to static skies. No explanation, just there with the character, seeing what they see, figuring it out as you go.

 

[thomas1965]

I don't find the idea of a "Deep" POV to be very appealing.

The Deep POV seems intended to immerse the reader in the characters' thoughts, ideas, motivations. I think that's great if you're writing philosophy, or if those thoughts, ideas, and motivations are the focus of the story. I don't think I've written anything for Lit that fits those descriptions.

Instead, I want the readers immersed in the characters' world and their actions. I have no problem with giving clues to the characters' thought processes, but I mostly want readers to understand the characters like they would understand people they meet in real life, from their actions and reactions, and from a few small clues about how they think or feel.

That's one opinion. We all pick our own roads.

I think it's more about feelings and emotions.
Instead of telling the reader that she was upset after meeting her boss you would let the reader experience it through her.
Asshole!Fuck him! Why can't he listen?

 

[SimonDoom]

I don't find the idea of a "Deep" POV to be very appealing.

The Deep POV seems intended to immerse the reader in the characters' thoughts, ideas, motivations. I think that's great if you're writing philosophy, or if those thoughts, ideas, and motivations are the focus of the story. I don't think I've written anything for Lit that fits those descriptions.

Instead, I want the readers immersed in the characters' world and their actions. I have no problem with giving clues to the characters' thought processes, but I mostly want readers to understand the characters like they would understand people they meet in real life, from their actions and reactions, and from a few small clues about how they think or feel.

That's one opinion. We all pick our own roads.

That's not it at all. There's nothing philosophical about it. It's just a matter of merging narration with the POV character's thoughts, so the narration comes across as what the POV character is experiencing as opposed to being told by an invisible person in the sky. It can work with any style of fiction. If your POV character is a man of action, then he's going to narrate what he observes and his thoughts about what he's experiencing and what he's going to do next.

 

[NotWise]

That's not it at all. There's nothing philosophical about it. It's just a matter of merging narration with the POV character's thoughts, so the narration comes across as what the POV character is experiencing as opposed to being told by an invisible person in the sky. It can work with any style of fiction. If your POV character is a man of action, then he's going to narrate what he observes and his thoughts about what he's experiencing and what he's going to do next.

No. If my POV character is a man of action I'm not going to waste the readers' time by going into his deepest thoughts. I'm going to give them stimulus and response.

Deep POV wouldn't be innately philosophical, but if you wanted to incorporate philosophy into your fiction, then a deep POV is probably how you'd do it.

 

[alohadave]

No. If my POV character is a man of action I'm not going to waste the readers' time by going into his deepest thoughts. I'm going to give them stimulus and response.

Men of action don't have thoughts?

It's not about deepest thoughts. It can be what they are feeling about the current situation, observations, assessments of their opponents, etc.

It has nothing to do with philosophical musings. You don't need to write paragraphs about their state of mind. A simple sentence can be enough.

 

[NotWise]

Men of action don't have thoughts?

It's not about deepest thoughts. It can be what they are feeling about the current situation, observations, assessments of their opponents, etc.

It has nothing to do with philosophical musings. You don't need to write paragraphs about their state of mind. A simple sentence can be enough.

I'm not going to slow down an action scene by inserting the character's thoughts and observations about his situation. It's about action.

 

[ColetteJulie]

James Joyce?

 

[Euphony]

Another term for is the "free indirect style."

In all my skill work, I've never come across something so seemingly universal (at least prolific) that so many "teaching authors" are quick to coin their own term.

Free Indirect Discourse
Free Indirect Style
Deep POV
Deep 3rd person

or my most head-scratching favorite: "Omniscient Intracranial"

I know Lit is slow to change, especially as it's social relevance as waning (much as radio serials lost innovation as they lost audience) but literary scholars/critics don't need to wind their own sails so damn hard.

As for the actual technique, certainly a fan but it's a tool to be used properly like any other. YES, it's pretty dag multipurpose as tools go but it's being framed as a siren's call fix all by many (ah... blog culture, what you did downstream to the craft discussion) which is overselling it a bit.

Even as the key ingredient in many story recipes it is, you can use it too much or at the wrong time and kill the cooking chemistry.

Finding teaching sources addressing that mini-reality with actionable ideas/concepts to try to help you find your personal balance is far more difficult.

 

[SimonDoom]

As for the actual technique, certainly a fan but it's a tool to be used properly like any other. YES, it's pretty dag multipurpose as tools go but it's being framed as a siren's call fix all by many (ah... blog culture, what you did downstream to the craft discussion) which is overselling it a bit.

I don't think anybody disagrees with that. It's a tool and a method, but it's not a necessity or a cure-all. People are curious about it, and I find it works for me.

 

[KeithD]

*shrug*

 

[Euphony]

I don't think anybody disagrees with that. It's a tool and a method, but it's not a necessity or a cure-all. People are curious about it, and I find it works for me.

Agreed. Plenty understand it but, and admittedly I'm compiling my landscape "read" across the spectrum of sources: academic and plenty of blog silliness, there is a bit of marketing FID as a bit of a cure all/take an anti-biotic as a "just in case."

1st person really gets blasted in the process.

1st is great and superior when you want it's advantages and understand/work around its limitations.

Maybe most authors internalized this concept to the point even thinking on it is a bit ridiculous. Perhaps I verbalize it b/c I need to keep it in mindset b/c I've been exposed to a lot of well-intentioned "helpers" that oversell the hell out of FID/3rd Close to where it's easy to fall into the "just go with FID" trap when, rarely, it's not the best choice.

Overused FID or even just copycats are mentally draining when you get stuck in a run of having to read them.

 

[djrip]

In all my skill work, I've never come across something so seemingly universal (at least prolific) that so many "teaching authors" are quick to coin their own term.

Free Indirect Discourse
Free Indirect Style
Deep POV
Deep 3rd person

Exactly. It can be useful to discuss POV and stuff like showing vs telling. But do we need to give these long established concepts a new name every time someone wants to talk about them? Yes I like showing over telling, and I like a close 3rd POV that gets into the character's thoughts and lets the reader experience the character's world from their perspective. But this is not a new concept and doesn't need a new term.

 

[Euphony]

Exactly. It can be useful to discuss POV and stuff like showing vs telling. But do we need to give these long established concepts a new name every time someone wants to talk about them? Yes I like showing over telling, and I like a close 3rd POV that gets into the character's thoughts and lets the reader experience the character's world from their perspective. But this is not a new concept and doesn't need a new term.

I'm with you. If Flaubert (in Madam Bovary) and Jane Austen in most of her works had it figured out, we really don't need all these reimaginings/rebrandings.

I can't imagine trying to learn the concept as a beginner if you have to unravel all those extra knots first.

 

[neuroparenthetical]

Sounds the same as close or limited third person narrative, where the narrator is in very close to one character, or one character at a time, thus getting much the same intimacy or immediacy as a first person narrative.

I use it a lot, readers seem to appreciate it. They should be immersed in the story, I'd have thought.

I honestly have no idea why one wouldn't just use first-person narration in that case. Third-person-whatever (where the "whatever" stands for "tee hee, not really though!") basically puts a third-person narrator, a first-person narrator, and potentially both the past and present tense into a goddamn blender and creates a confusion/absurdity shitshake for zero net gain. On top of that, many writers toss (usually italicized) inner thoughts into the mix, which begs the question all over again. They're using a technique specifically designed to let a third-person narrator poke around inside a character's head without ceding their narrative duties... but they've already tossed that character's head into the fucking narration blender along with everything else.

"John was so profoundly sick and tired of all of this bullshit. So sick of this shit, he thought to himself. It really was the worst. He walked to the store like an asshole and then saw some other asshole who's just standing here next to him like an asshole. Great. This asshole. That's what he thought, anyway. He didn't know. Maybe he was the asshole. Wouldn't it make sense for all the assholes to congregate at the same store? It was weird it didn't sell butt plugs, in that case. He chuckled. Butt plugs. Heh."

Christ almighty. Doing it right and doing it wrong are virtually indistinguishable from each other, and it all reads as parody.

In my experience, the approach exacerbates every single difficulty a writer has with the English language and storytelling. Good writers can make it work, but I just don't know why they bother. First-person narration and present-tense narration are both right there.

It's like people are so addicted to the trappings of third-person narration and the narrative past tense that it never even occurs to them to use the more appropriate tools for the job.

 

[Euphony]

Doing it right and doing it wrong are virtually indistinguishable from each other, and it all reads as parody.

What are most authorial choices but (assumed) problem solving through tool(s)?

Every tool, used wrong has its purpose or indispensableness misjudged when applied ignorantly and bluntly. (like using the wrong end of a wrench to hammer)

Most of the disdain for 1st is in response to all those bad teachers and habits in creative writing classes over the decades. Just as some hammer "FID" is the fix all and the way these days, so too did many suggest "1st is the fix all and the way" back then.

Examples abound of misguided/misunderstanding writers applying 1st person religiously to only violate the key tenet of having the full depth of the character's soul at your disposal at the cost of limitation of knowing anything beyond what they can reasonably know themselves.

Quasi-1st "omniscience" was (and still can be found) everywhere. So, in fixing the immediate problem with a different tool but not fixing their methods, they basically just substituted different problems instead of solving the unbalanced equation.

3rd FID, done well, is indispensable in a huge swath of use cases. But F me if many authors won't slow down a bit and consider their SPECIFIC use case and, if it is the right choice, how to apply it properly not ham-handedly.

It's like FIDs broad "access" is considered a fix all infallible solution for everything. Why not just bolt it on/throw it in the mix? What harm could that do?

Lots.