Deep POV

[ElectricBlue]

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.

I use first person and third person both, to suit MY purposes in writing, as I choose. You do you, but stop telling other writers they are wrong. This whole thread is about writer's tools - why would you use only one hammer?

You vehemence sounds to me that you're the blinkered one. Perhaps your experience is a little... limited?

 

[MrHereWriting]

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

Once you do, you can move onto deeper point-of-view and once you grasp that concept, you're ready for deepest point-of-view.

 

[SimonDoom]

It's amusing, and simultaneously a bit sad, how people dig in their heels and get antagonistic about an issue like this. This is the kind of topic that is EXACTLY why this forum exists--to share notes about the craft of writing. There's no absolute right or wrong. But we can learn from one another. To me it's clear that many people don't understand what "deep third person/close third person/free indirect style" even is, so it's a good thing to discuss it to get clarity so people can make informed decisions about what style they want to choose.

Don't get hung up on labels. "Deep POV" may sound pretentious or New-Agey. It's not. It's been around a long time, and it's been used successfully in countless stories. Focus on its methods and practices, not the label, and then make an informed decision whether you want to use it or not.

 

[Lifestyle66]

Once you do, you can move onto deeper point-of-view and once you grasp that concept, you're ready for deepest point-of-view.

If you really want your reader to get immersed in the head of the character, BE that character with first-person. Hopping in and out of the character's mind seems ... like trying to justify some other agenda or reasoning. It's seems like saying: Here's what I'm thinking. Then the author steps out to say, now here's why he might be thinking that. It's almost like a lazier form of first-person, in the author not wanting to spend the time to build the character's history for why they think that way.

 

[ElectricBlue]

If you really want your reader to get immersed in the head of the character, BE that character with first-person. Hopping in and out of the character's mind seems ... like trying to justify some other agenda or reasoning. It's seems like saying: Here's what I'm thinking. Then the author steps out to say, now here's why he might be thinking that. It's almost like a lazier form of first-person, in the author not wanting to spend the time to build the character's history for why they think that way.

There you go, stating something as an absolute. Read Simon's (simultaneous) post.

I can tell you (because readers tell me) that you can be just as intimate using a third person narrative. You should try it sometime, rather than insult writers by saying they're lazy. Maybe it simply means you don't know how to do it. You've got the same blinkered view as the other guy I responded to - but what would I know, because hey, I'm lazy. Open your mind up, don't close it.

 

[MrHereWriting]

If you really want your reader to get immersed in the head of the character, BE that character with first-person. Hopping in and out of the character's mind seems ... like trying to justify some other agenda or reasoning. It's seems like saying: Here's what I'm thinking. Then the author steps out to say, now here's why he might be thinking that. It's almost like a lazier form of first-person, in the author not wanting to spend the time to build the character's history for why they think that way.

I was having a laugh, but things like this make me laugh.

Deep point-of-view, shallow point-of-view, or wall-eyed point-of-view, whatever, the only one that matters is the one you're currently using.

 

[SimonDoom]

If you really want your reader to get immersed in the head of the character, BE that character with first-person. Hopping in and out of the character's mind seems ... like trying to justify some other agenda or reasoning. It's seems like saying: Here's what I'm thinking. Then the author steps out to say, now here's why he might be thinking that. It's almost like a lazier form of first-person, in the author not wanting to spend the time to build the character's history for why they think that way.

You're being silly to describe something as lazy when the reality over the last 200 years of English and American literature is that it's been tried by the very best writers and worked so often. One's own logic must give way to reality. The reality is that there are many ways to write a story, many different POV techniques, and there's no absolute right or wrong.

 

[TheRedChamber]

For specifically erotic writing one thing I've found personally is that..

Close Third works better (for me) at writing a fun couple where both man and woman are equally important to the story/hotness. You might be standing behind one specifically for the whole story, but the fact that you're using given names for both doesn't unduly emphasis the MC.

On the other hand I find First Person works better for me erotically when, for example, we have the stunning female character come and rock the relatively bland male POV MCs world. Or in other words it works well for self-insert porn.


Obviously it can also work for other reasons especially if your MC is going to be a highly uniquely voiced narrator.

The other thing is that when in third you can be a little flexible about how 'close' you are at any moment. You can do little rule breaking things like 'Tony would never admit he had a drinking problem, so he blamed it on not having enough sleep' - Your are technically slipping out of close third here but sometimes it works nicely.

 

[thomas1965]

I think Deep POV has nothing to do with 1st or 3rd person POV.
You can write 1st person POV in a shallow way by telling instead of showing.

 

[neuroparenthetical]

I use first person and third person both, to suit MY purposes in writing, as I choose. You do you, but stop telling other writers they are wrong. This whole thread is about writer's tools - why would you use only one hammer?

You vehemence sounds to me that you're the blinkered one. Perhaps your experience is a little... limited?

Yes yes, passion and an actual argument are so uncool. You're so attacked by them. I'm threatening your ability to write how you want. I must be less educated and less experienced than you. Clearly that's something we can settle on the internet, until I engage, at which point you'll flip to declaring that of course we can't.

My experience with your brand of faux-maturity is nigh-limitless. As I recall, you're the same guy who retreated to appealing to Literotica.com vote scores to shut me down in another thread about similar issues. Can we just skip to the part where your dad can beat up my dad, or do we have to go through the entire exhausting script first? My dad's not getting any younger, after all.

 

[Lifestyle66]

... rather than insult writers by saying they're lazy. Maybe it simply means you don't know how to do it. You've got the same blinkered view as the other guy I responded to - but what would I know, because hey, I'm lazy. Open your mind up, don't close it.

You're being silly to describe something as lazy when the reality over the last 200 years of English and American literature is that it's been tried by the very best writers and worked so often. One's own logic must give way to reality. The reality is that there are many ways to write a story, many different POV techniques, and there's no absolute right or wrong.

If you READ what I said before, try to comprehend where I'M coming from!

The Know-it-all PROS here on LitE get their shit thrown back at them when they call my version of writing "lazy".

It's WRITING! Get the fuck over it, and try to appreciate what others are trying to do!

I guess it's a never-ending circle, when some shithead here starts the insults.

 

[SimonDoom]

If you READ what I said before, try to comprehend where I'M coming from!

The Know-it-all PROS here on LitE get their shit thrown back at them when they call my version of writing "lazy".

It's WRITING! Get the fuck over it, and try to appreciate what others are trying to do!

I guess it's a never-ending circle, when some shithead here starts the insults.

I never said you're lazy. You used the word lazy to describe a writing style that's been used successfully by many great (and not-so-great) writers for over 200 years. You were the one slinging insults, not me. I don't know of any "know-it-all pros" here. That certainly doesn't describe me. I'm a hobby writer. There are people in this forum offering their experience and their tips, for whatever they are worth. You're free to take or leave their input as you see fit. It's perfectly OK if people take different approaches to writing. It gets irksome when people dig in their heels about their methods because, frankly, they're just not informed about other ways of doing things. That's where a forum like this can be useful, as long as people open their minds and don't take things personally.

 

[SirBurnInside]

Nobody is ever going to accuse me of being a great author. I didn't go to college, have never done a creative writing course and got only a C in both English Literature and Language in my GCSE exams at school, so as you can see my qualifications to speak on the best use of the many and varied perspectives are underwhelming to say the least. Probably it's more true to say none existent, lol.

I use a lot of 1st person in my stories, why? Because I find it more enjoyable to write from that perspective, that is the extent of my thinking on the subject if I'm honest.

Is my style simplistic? Yes, of course it is, I know it and so do plenty of the readers who view what I publish here on Lit, and yet they give me half decent ratings on the whole anyway, because I'd hope they understand I'm not a world class professional author, I'm just an amateur putting out fantasy tales for people to enjoy on a free erotic story website.

I greatly admire those on Lit who are far above and beyond my league in terms of the quality of their storytelling. You have insights into the more deeper complexities and nuances of writing than I'll ever have, and your stories will rightly be considered superior to my modest efforts, but I do think that sometimes people can forget that not everyone has the same skill set to write a certain way, and not every reader wants to read stories written in a certain style anyway.

There are plenty of readers who want to get really deeply involved in the characters lives, experience their innermost feelings and motivations and follow their journey intimately like it's their own. But on the other hand, there are plenty who are just as happy to read a far less detailed, more simplistic account of the same basic plot.

The great thing about Lit, and the myriad of authors of differing abilities and motivations, is the site caters to all, and allows for people with wildly differing opinions on what is the best or worst way to construct a story to thrive and find their audience, even if they'll never agree.

 

[Lifestyle66]

I never said you're lazy. You used the word lazy to describe a writing style that's been used successfully by many great (and not-so-great) writers for over 200 years. You were the one slinging insults, not me. I don't know of any "know-it-all pros" here. That certainly doesn't describe me. I'm a hobby writer. There are people in this forum offering their experience and their tips, for whatever they are worth. You're free to take or leave their input as you see fit. It's perfectly OK if people take different approaches to writing. It gets irksome when people dig in their heels about their methods because, frankly, they're just not informed about other ways of doing things. That's where a forum like this can be useful, as long as people open their minds and don't take things personally.

As I SAID, if you read what I posted earlier: "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)."

More than one author in the AH has described MY (first-person) writing as "lazy". Now you're suggesting that YOU'VE never experienced such "know-it-alls", and I must be mistaken? Then you and two others jump in with personal insults, when I responded about this writing style in general in kind.

You wrote two samples of the "pizza place", trying to show the difference between deep POV and non-deep. I still didn't see the difference between those two in your example to require a unique or subtle descriptor of a writing style. So, I added a comment essentially showing that same example in first-person, which I thought is a better way to get into that character's head.

But we all come back here to reply from our own experience from shitty treatment by others.

 

[XerXesXu]

I’ve watched the video and searched the internet and my take is that ‘Deep POV’ boils down to ‘Deep Showing’ at strategic moments. Whatever POV you write in you use judgment in balancing ‘telling’ and ‘showing’, but the ‘Deep POV’ suggestion is that you may choose to ‘Show’ in greater depth at strategic moments. How do you identify those moments? How do you achieve greater depth in your ‘showing’? There are a few suggestions.

It’s not something I’ve given thought before, but will now. I write in 3rd Person Omniscient.

 

[Euphony]

That's where a forum like this can be useful, as long as people open their minds and don't take things personally.

I'm unsure whether you have better experiences here or just a healthier frame of mind in your interactions but my experiences have come up way short in the "open, creative, constructive discussion of the literary craft" here.

So much so, this quote of yours,

This is the kind of topic that is EXACTLY why this forum exists--to share notes about the craft of writing. There's no absolute right or wrong. But we can learn from one another.

caused a serious rumination on what this place is, what is could be, and where my attitude helps or hurts in that goal.

It feels like panning for gold. You find just enough dust and tiny nuggets to keep you at it but not enough to sustain you/justify your efforts.

Such a shame b/c there are so many here with actionable knowledge who can help you live unwind some of the tricker knots of lit craft but we can't get out of our own way or others interject killing everyone's already wavering helping motivation.

 

[SimonDoom]

As I SAID, if you read what I posted earlier: "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)."

More than one author in the AH has described MY (first-person) writing as "lazy". Now you're suggesting that YOU'VE never experienced such "know-it-alls", and I must be mistaken? Then you and two others jump in with personal insults, when I responded about this writing style in general in kind.

Let's be crystal clear about this. I did not personally insult you, in any way, shape, or form. I called your use of the term "lazy" in describing a writing style "silly." My response was directed at what you said, not you as a person, so it was not a personal insult. I have not personally attacked you, so don't accuse me of that.

There's nothing wrong with disagreement and a spirited debate in this forum. If I say something you disagree with, feel free to tell me you disagree and say why. I have no objection to that whatsoever. Just don't call me names, accuse me of bad faith, sling obscenities at me, or mischaracterize what I say. I will do the same for you and for others.

With regard to your point about first person, this is my point. There's no right or wrong, and there's no serious or unserious way to write. If you personally prefer first-person POV, that's fine.

I think it's fair to call it "lazy," though, when people make uninformed statements comparing first-person POV and third-person POV that suggest they don't read much. I'm not accusing you of that. I don't specifically remember your comments about it. But I've seen people write silly things about this or that POV being obviously better than the other, and those comments suggest their experience with reading is limited, because if you have any experience reading you know that many great stories have been written in first person and in many variations of third person as well. Far more published fiction and "classic" fiction is written in third person POV than in first person POV. That doesn't mean it's right. It means it's a legitimate and worthwhile option.

 

[Euphony]

Let's...

I don't want to get in the middle of the disagreement here other than to say that odd attribution to me picks at my brain a little.

Sure it was accidental or Lit wonkiness so no quarrels but I did want to address it.

I'm for open, supportive discourse on even the minutia of the craft. It's how we get better.

 

[thomas1965]

I’ve watched the video and searched the internet and my take is that ‘Deep POV’ boils down to ‘Deep Showing’ at strategic moments. Whatever POV you write in you use judgment in balancing ‘telling’ and ‘showing’, but the ‘Deep POV’ suggestion is that you may choose to ‘Show’ in greater depth at strategic moments. How do you identify those moments? How do you achieve greater depth in your ‘showing’? There are a few suggestions.

It’s not something I’ve given thought before, but will now. I write in 3rd Person Omniscient.

I think deep POV means more than just showing. In deep POV the reader experiences everything(thoughts, smeels sounds, tastes, emotions) through the character not through an invisible narrator. Ideally there is no narrator telling you that the character smelled fried bacon and got hungry.

 

[Lifestyle66]

I don't want to get in the middle of the disagreement here other than to say that odd attribution to me picks at my brain a little.

Sure it was accidental or Lit wonkiness so no quarrels but I did want to address it.

I'm for open, supportive discourse on even the minutia of the craft. It's how we get better.

He shouldn't take it so personal, because he admits I'm just being "silly".

LOL, These "silly" Wordsmiths, shouldn't take things so seriously!

 

[SimonDoom]

I don't want to get in the middle of the disagreement here other than to say that odd attribution to me picks at my brain a little.

Sure it was accidental or Lit wonkiness so no quarrels but I did want to address it.

I'm for open, supportive discourse on even the minutia of the craft. It's how we get better.

It was accidental. That comment was not directed at you. My error.

 

[Euphony]

It was accidental. That comment was not directed at you. My error.

Thanks for the clarity to put my admittedly overactive brain to rest.

Now to the topic at hand...

This POV has come up semi-frequently in discussions here lately enough that I finally broke down and reviewed my knowledge to see if there's some new developments inciting these discussions. (also to keep me from Dunning Kruger-ing myself)

There weren't.

What I did notice in the research, "helping writers" authors especially is the selling of it as a panecia for all POV stumbling blocks which, while a multifaceted tool, it is not.

Even the author's text on the subject reads as a sales job, the height of which being all the name rebranding for a centuries old (and long mastered) literary device.

It must move ebooks b/c it's been the case over a number of authors and help books.

My pivot is on character POV/knowledge limitation, how I will use that to my own effect or how I will work around it to suit my thematic goals.

I tend to write a broader cast of characters (b/c that is where my writing needs the most help; keeping all parties relevant and interesting) so FID is used far more often than not but that has zero bearing on its overarching utility.

I use a paintbrush over a roller b/c I work more on canvases than walls. I imagine trying to repaint the outside of my house would suck immeasurably.

 

[alohadave]

It must move ebooks b/c it's been the case over a number of authors and help books.

Best way to sell something is to tell prospects that it'll make their life better.

 

[ElectricBlue]

It feels like panning for gold. You find just enough dust and tiny nuggets to keep you at it but not enough to sustain you/justify your efforts.

Such a shame b/c there are so many here with actionable knowledge who can help you live unwind some of the tricker knots of lit craft but we can't get out of our own way or others interject killing everyone's already wavering helping motivation.

There's a ton of good advice here, and thoughtful comments, alongside the bollocks and bravado. Your contributions, for example, are always thoughtful, with something to say. Keep panning, the world needs more bright things .

 

[Euphony]

There's a ton of good advice here, and thoughtful comments, alongside the bollocks and bravado. Your contributions, for example, are always thoughtful, with something to say. Keep panning, the world needs more bright things .

Thanks. I do try, most of the time, though it is from a sense of selfishness as I have a deep need to get better and a protective nature towards others who show a similar affliction.