Deep POV

[ElectricBlue]

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.

I think this catches it, the narrator getting right in close (regardless of the point of view). It's immersing the reader in all aspects of the world, regardless whether it's fantastic or your local shops, by providing grace notes and tiny details that make a scene "pop" (to use an artist's word).

 

[EmilyMiller]

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

There is deep penetration of vaginas in many of my stories. And asses. And mouths.

Em

 

[tenyari]

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.

When I read that I feel like I am being asked to turn to page 157 or 123 as a result of my choice of what John will do.

 

[tenyari]

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.

I rankle against anyone who think first person POV is the easy or lazy route.

My stories would be a LOT easier to tell if I was willing to let the reader see inside of another character's head or even see what was going on 'just over there' beyond the protagonist's perceptions.

To convincingly get inside the head of a character and tell an experience as it occurs to them in a way that reader who comes from a different perspective can still feel and relate to is not at all lazy or easy.

To just list off what is actually happening, and then say "Outside in the hall Jane walked left, Bob walked right. In the room Jamal talked to Carmine and then they came to an agreement" - third person. That's the lazy route. You can just tell and show what's fully going on.

In my stories, if Carmine is my protagonist; I cannot relate any of those details unless Carmine can see them, but still need to find a way to denote that Jane and Bob are off somewhere and find a way to get across what Jamal is getting at - in fact I will often purposefully incorrect state Jamal's intentions and meaning because I can only actually write what Carmine thinks of them or thinks they are. Not what they actually are.

My first huge multi-chapter story took an extra year or two just because of struggling to find ways to relate things that my protagonist - an extremely opinionated young woman with a highly flawed view of the world and of her own nature - well, that she herself was not able to fully grasp.

Finding a way to mislead my reader while in the mind of that character, without frustrating the reader when things did not 'go her way', and to make it look genuine. That is a task and a half.

 

[Euphony]

I rankle against anyone who think first person POV is the easy or lazy route.

It's usually more mischaracterized than actual disparaging of the term.

Most of us naturally think in 1st person so inexperienced authors tend to write in the 1st person which concentrates new author mistakes to the 1st person pov stories.

The "lazy" characterization is 1st is often not a creative choice but default which means it's nuances and conflicts don't get consideration and the mistakes read as such.

More bad writers use 1st person b/c it's very similar in how we naturally think. Those bad writers cause 1st's reputation as "the lazy choice."

Has little to do with the utility of the POV but mostly about those who tend to use, and flub, it.

 

[tenyari]

Most of us naturally think in 1st person so inexperienced authors tend to write in the 1st person which concentrates new author mistakes to the 1st person pov stories.

When I look at amateur writing from things like kids in school it's almost never first person. It's almost always third.

"Jane did this, Bob did that. Spot ran, see spot run."

I never see:"

"I was doing this, looking I noticed that BoB did that. Later, Spot ran past me, and I watched him run by."


When I glance through Erotica on this site and even more so on SoL (which at least my filters keep putting more inexperienced writers in front of me); most of it is third person. There will be a LOT of exposition that is not inside anyone's head. Especially the "Prepper Erotica" that is popular on SoL where I can read page after page about General Macho-Guy and Captain-Bigballs going through supplies of ammo and noting their caliber ratings. All while the protagonist, Major Manly, is not even in the scene.

 

[Lifestyle66]

I rankle against anyone who think first person POV is the easy or lazy route.

My stories would be a LOT easier to tell if I was willing to let the reader see inside of another character's head or even see what was going on 'just over there' beyond the protagonist's perceptions.

To convincingly get inside the head of a character and tell an experience as it occurs to them in a way that reader who comes from a different perspective can still feel and relate to is not at all lazy or easy.

To just list off what is actually happening, and then say "Outside in the hall Jane walked left, Bob walked right. In the room Jamal talked to Carmine and then they came to an agreement" - third person. That's the lazy route. You can just tell and show what's fully going on.

In my stories, if Carmine is my protagonist; I cannot relate any of those details unless Carmine can see them, but still need to find a way to denote that Jane and Bob are off somewhere and find a way to get across what Jamal is getting at - in fact I will often purposefully incorrect state Jamal's intentions and meaning because I can only actually write what Carmine thinks of them or thinks they are. Not what they actually are.

My first huge multi-chapter story took an extra year or two just because of struggling to find ways to relate things that my protagonist - an extremely opinionated young woman with a highly flawed view of the world and of her own nature - well, that she herself was not able to fully grasp.

Finding a way to mislead my reader while in the mind of that character, without frustrating the reader when things did not 'go her way', and to make it look genuine. That is a task and a half.

These great communicators here in the Author's Hangout and those some of them aspire to emulate fail to get across ideas due to inventing new words and meanings for words.

POV in writing (IMO) has been about first, second, and third Points of View, as seen from people's eyes and ears. Or at least that's what I thought (amateur that I am).

But NO! Now someone redefines POV with this "Deep POV" term. And there's even an amateur YouTube Video to give a half-assed explanation which doesn't really explain anything about it except "get the reader into their minds".

This new term "Deep POV (upon further research) can be used in ANY POV (first, second, or third) because it has nothing to do with any of those POVs! From what I can tell from those other sources, this is to engage the reader with all senses such as showing the sights, smells, and sounds around the scene, as well as the thoughts of the characters experiencing them. Engage the reader with all feelings to get their head into everything the characters are sensing and feeling in the moment, regardless of the POV of the writing.

But then again, maybe I don't know how to communicate this, either.

 

[djrip]

This new term "Deep POV (upon further research) can be used in ANY POV (first, second, or third) because it has nothing to do with any of those POVs! From what I can tell from those other sources, this is to engage the reader with all senses such as showing the sights, smells, and sounds around the scene, as well as the thoughts of the characters experiencing them.

I think a better term would be 'immersive style.' bringing POV into it is confusing when it has nothing to do with 1st/2nd/3rd.

 

[Euphony]

When I look at amateur writing from things like kids in school it's almost never first person. It's almost always third

Anecdotal. A group lesson for younglings versus adults writing out to tell the story they have in their head aren't particularly the same. (to say nothing of sample size)

On a macro view, writing is the evolution of storytelling so those further down the communication line aren't as reliant on faulty human memory.

People tell there stories most often as *I*. It would seem bizzaro to hear someone at a restaurant telling their story in the 3rd person. "Todd is glad we chose to meet here. Todd has good memories of this place. One time Todd... "

It is natural for people to employ the same manner, 1st, they think in and live in when they are new or casually coming to the page.

Welcome to disagree based on your examples but it doesn't mesh with any of my research or admittedly more casual reading on the topic.

 

[Euphony]

I think a better term would be 'immersive style.' bringing POV into it is confusing when it has nothing to do with 1st/2nd/3rd.

It's less about what the term is but just an agreement across the board to call the thing the same thing.

(I spoke on this earlier in thread) The rebranding to sell more writer help books is silly at best, manipulative and destructive to new writers already having enough on their plates to work out to not need making established things difficult for no reason.

 

[XerXesXu]

An unusually germane topic for AH, but that’s not a bad thing.

I’ve discovered Deep POV and a fifth sub-POV, Cinematic Third. The latter’s a sub-type of 3rdP Om, my narrative POV of choice. It’s ‘objective’ relating only what all the characters see and hear, but not their ‘subjective’ inner thoughts and feelings.

On reflection, I think I opt for 3rd P Om because I write stories about things and themes, not about persons. A protagonist implies an antagonist. Is the antagonist to be a less-developed character? I have multiple characters in multiple locations on both the protagonist and antagonist’s team, some emerge as the main protagonist in some parts, some as the main antagonist, the MC comes and goes depending on what the story requires and depending on the main plot or the subplots.

My understanding is that choice of a close relates to ‘immersion’ a phenomenon which some readers display, the ability to fantasise that they’re in the story. I’ve never experienced that but others do, I would guess that it relates in some way to the ability to fantasise when reading fiction. I always know I’m reading fiction.

I notice users of close POVs often have to use get-outs, one chapter you fantasise you’re the protagonist, the next you fantasise you’re the antagonist. I can’t even conceive how that would work.

I do think Deep POV is real, as a sub-POV of Show. I’ve tried it out, identifying significant passages for a particular character and going ‘deep’ to develop their character. It can be done; but it affects pacing and you have to do it for every protagonist AND antagonist to maintain balance. It’s something to be used judiciously, just as showing v telling must be used judiciously.

 

[KeithD]

When I look at amateur writing from things like kids in school it's almost never first person. It's almost always third.

I agree. I think 3rd person omniscient is the default for most writers.