Perspectives?

[GingerCat1]

I am currently writing my first erotic story and I was wondering if anyone could give me any advice on perspectives in the story?

In my story the perspective has is mostly of the main male character but there are two female characters and I was wondering if it would be okay if 80% of the story was from the perspective of one character and the rest of the story divided by the two other characters?

I mean I want to have the occasional thought from the other two but I am not sure if that is breaking some sort of convention for good writing.

Please help.

 

[PennLady]

There are no rules on perspectives, at least no hard-and-fast ones. If you feel that what you need to say needs to come from another character, then by all means do that. There's nothing saying that a story must be 100% from one character, or equal percentages of multiple ones. I've written stories with a bunch of POVs, and some with just one, and a couple of the multiple POV stories may have just one section from one character, who is then not heard from again.

If you're concerned this will somehow break the flow of the story, perhaps there might be a way to still get this info across from the main character's POV? Maybe he could overheard a conversation? Or someone could tell him something directly?

But like I said, there are no rules. Write what you think works, and then perhaps you can work with an editor or beta reader and see what they think.

 

[hylas_]

I don't think it's particularly common for a (short) story to feature multiple perspectives.

That doesn't mean you can't do it. You can do anything you like.

Just make sure that the shifts in perspective come across clearly. The reader probably isn't expecting them, so they might get confused by the shifts if they're not executed carefully.

 

[GingerCat1]

Thanks a lot for the advice. I have no idea if I will put this story up as right now it is 6500 words but I have no idea if it is any good or not. I like it but I suspect I am writing just for me lol

Anyway thanks for the advice as it was helpful.

 

[sr71plt]

The perspective is called third-person omniscient--the narrator revealing to the reader what's in every character's head. It's still popular in UK writing. Not so much in the United States. In the United States, it's often considered as lazy, one-dimensional, writing making no effort to pull the reader into any revelation discovery for him/herself. If you're going to do it, it might be disconcerting to do it only 20 percent of the time. It's sort of an all or nothing perspective.

 

[SecondCircle]

The OP may be talking about switching perspective totally.

As in, going from one character....

* * * *

... to another.

 

[sr71plt]

The OP may be talking about switching perspective totally.

As in, going from one character....

* * * *

... to another.

Umm, yes. That's called omniscient. I guess it could be done in first person, though. The perspective would be omniscient (know all/tells all), though.

 

[SecondCircle]

Umm, yes. That's called omniscient. I guess it could be done in first person, though. The perspective would be omniscient (know all/tells all), though.

Hmm sorry. Maybe I should have phrased it as a question to the OP.

Are you switching perspectives with breaks

****

Like this?

Or switching mid flow without a break? I've read both ways, the latter being the most confusing to me.

 

[SamScribble]

There are many novels that successfully switch backwards and forwards between the first person narratives of different characters. Muriel Barbery's The Elegance of the Hedgehog is an example). And I have, in the past, written short stories with multiple points of view. But, in order for it to work in the shorter form, I think that it is essential that each 'voice' has something to say that is absolutely critical to the progress and resolution of the story. Otherwise, you're just asking the reader to jump through hoops for no good reason.

 

[slyc_willie]

If the OP is talking about writing third person omniscient, that's one thing. I personally consider it a fairly common practice for stories written in that vein to "head jump" from one character's perspective to another.

If, however, the OP wants to switch a point of view and write all sides in first person, it gets tricky. It can be done, but if not done well it can confuse the reader.

I've mentioned before in other threads (probably on this same basic issue) an erotic thriller called Homme Fatale, written by Paul Mayersberg, which was published in the early nineties. In it, the author writes in first person from the points of view of the two main characters. It's basically told in three parts, if I remember correctly, with the first part told from the male character's point of view, the second by the woman, and the third switching back to the male.

There is a lot written in the section from the woman's point of view which explains what the male character witnessed during his initial part of the story. For instance, in the first part (from the man's point of view) he sees an attractive young woman dragging the lifeless body of another woman down a hotel hallway before dumping it into the laundry chute. In the second part (from the point of view of the woman who had been dragging the body) it is revealed that the entire thing had been staged, and that the "dead body" really wasn't dead after all, just the female character's friend pretending to be so.

It sounds confusing to describe it, but I think Mayersberg handled it pretty well. Essentially, he wrote two different novels with the same plot elements, then spliced them together. This example, however, I think is in the minority. I've seen other novels written from multiple first-person points of view that did not do as well for me.

 

[horrorotica]

I don't think switching perspectives works in many stories. Unless you get the transition right between perspectives you tend to lose the reader (which I find most multi-perspective stories do).

Other perspectives or viewpoints includes: 1st Person (ie from a major characters point of view). The trick to doing this successfully is sticking with it and only writing about what your character sees. hears, and does and not falling into the trap of switching to another character or writing about things it's not possible for the character you're using to see.

2nd person perspective where the story is told from the view point of a minor character. Not used much in modern literature but used widely in the past.

Omniscient perspective where the story is not told by any one of the characters, but is rather commented on by a god-like, omnipotent being who can choose to dip into the head of any of the characters and reveal things that have occurred in the past or which will happen in the future. It is essential that each character have a distinctive voice so that the reader is never confused about who he is listening to at the moment.

The bottom line is that in a short story you have limited time to develop a complex perspective so until you feel confident in your writing I suggest you start out with the first-person perspective as it's easier to do in a short story.

 

[TeHDruiD]

I personally feel like the story from one point of view becomes boring and dull. I believe your idea of multiple points of view add for excitement and mystery. Every good story has multiple stories that lead into one and I feel the more complex you are in that aspect, the better it will be. Especially considering in the end they're all going to end up at the same place, so it's fun and enthralling to follow their different paths up to that point

 

[horrorotica]

I personally feel like the story from one point of view becomes boring and dull. I believe your idea of multiple points of view add for excitement and mystery. Every good story has multiple stories that lead into one and I feel the more complex you are in that aspect, the better it will be. Especially considering in the end they're all going to end up at the same place, so it's fun and enthralling to follow their different paths up to that point

Which is fine if you are an experienced writer but the OPer here is a new writer so they should start out with an easier format and then grow into using more complex forms once they have mastered the simpler ones. 1st person perspective stories are not boring at all if done well and it's kind of flippant for you to say it is.

 

[PennLady]

I don't think switching perspectives works in many stories. Unless you get the transition right between perspectives you tend to lose the reader (which I find most multi-perspective stories do).

I'd have to disagree, if only because I've read so many books in third-person omniscient (3PO ). I don't think it's a big deal, although I agree that the transition should be clear. However, in my experience, authors tend to switch POVs when they move to a new scene, so 3PO is not hard to follow. I think when it does get hard to follow, or tedious, is when there are multiple characters' POVs within the same scene, and the author goes back and forth. I've read that Larry McMurtry does this, but I haven't read any of his stuff.

I've written multi-perspective stories, and no one has ever complained about being lost. Now, this may not be the perspective you like, and that's fine; I'm not usually crazy about first-person POV.

Other perspectives or viewpoints includes: 1st Person (ie from a major characters point of view). The trick to doing this successfully is sticking with it and only writing about what your character sees. hears, and does and not falling into the trap of switching to another character or writing about things it's not possible for the character you're using to see.

Well, first-person is the use of "I," so that the narrator tells the story. The narrator may be a major character, or they may not, although in my experience they usually are. Usually I find that the "I" is in fact the protagonist.

Here's a link to info about first person POV: http://fictionwriting.about.com/od/glossary/g/firstperson.htm

2nd person perspective where the story is told from the view point of a minor character. Not used much in modern literature but used widely in the past.

Second person is when a story addresses the reader with "you." I've found at least anecdotally that most people don't care for this. There's also some confusion when a story is written in an I/you format (which would be first-person), such as:

I find you looking at books in the library. I wait until you look at me.

Again, it doesn't seem to be a very popular method with readers and probably works best if you are writing for a friend and keep it between you. Or in the Choose Your Own Adventure books.

A link: http://fictionwriting.about.com/od/glossary/g/secondperson.htm

Omniscient perspective where the story is not told by any one of the characters, but is rather commented on by a god-like, omnipotent being who can choose to dip into the head of any of the characters and reveal things that have occurred in the past or which will happen in the future. It is essential that each character have a distinctive voice so that the reader is never confused about who he is listening to at the moment.

http://fictionwriting.about.com/od/glossary/g/3rdperson.htm

I don't see 3PO as a method for commenting on the action, although I guess you can see it that way. Nor do I think the time frame has much to do with it. Again, I've written multi-perspective stories, and it had nothing to do with the me saying what went on before or would happen later.

Third person is telling the story using objective pronouns like he or she, and the author can then tell the reader what any character is thinking. To me, it's a matter of describing what happened, and then describing the characters' actions and reactions. I think it works best if you do a scene from character A's POV, then move to B, then either on to C or back to A. As was said earlier, make sure the switch is clear, but I don't think that's hard to do.

For another example, I've read a lot of Nora Roberts, and she mostly writes 3PO, and will switch POV within scenes, but I've never been lost. Sometimes, especially in her "In Death" series, she'll tell most of the book in 3PO, but have the bad guy's parts in first-person. You can mix.

The bottom line is that in a short story you have limited time to develop a complex perspective so until you feel confident in your writing I suggest you start out with the first-person perspective as it's easier to do in a short story.

I'll disagree here, if only due to personal experience. My first story was third person, mostly from two POVs, with a little from a third. I didn't write a first-person story until last year, and then another this year. I don't think either is more difficult; all POV choices have pros and cons. You should pick what works best for your story, and that may mean trying one, then realizing you need something different.

I personally feel like the story from one point of view becomes boring and dull. I believe your idea of multiple points of view add for excitement and mystery. Every good story has multiple stories that lead into one and I feel the more complex you are in that aspect, the better it will be. Especially considering in the end they're all going to end up at the same place, so it's fun and enthralling to follow their different paths up to that point

Well, that depends on the story. I find that I generally like to know what all the characters are thinking in a story, so I prefer 3PO to first-person. However, I do have a couple of stories that are 3PL -- third person limited, i.e., third person but only from one character's POV -- and I don't think they are any worse than any other story. It was just what worked to tell that story.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Switching POV in 1st person...I have done this. The first book/story I wrote was all 1st person told by many different voices, but I labeled the switch in perceptive. i.e. Walker Brigade

**** Max Jones

blah, blah, blah.

**** Becky Latham

blah, blah, blah

**** Admiral David

blah, blah, blah.

All transitions were done at a scene break. Never had a complaint about it. In fact several of my readers stated they enjoyed the way I transitioned from POV to POV.

 

[SecondCircle]

You kinda highlighted the intent of my earlier question PL. I've read 3PO (god I hate that droid) where there are breaks in the scenes, where one scene is this person

****

And the next scene is this person. I've actually done it with first person, giving POVs strictly from one character at a time, without revealing all about the story. That's beside the point though and a different matter.

Then I have read 3PO (grrr) where its all in one scene, or every scene across the whole story. I think of it as you have one character, and his thoughts and perspectives, then it shifts to others and theirs. I've seen it work like a "camera" method. This is where we read from Bob's POV when he's sitting with his buddies outside on the porch. Bob goes in to answer the phone, yet our "camera" stays with his friends Joe and Bartholomew, and switches to their perspective. Or simply Joe's. Or just Bartholomew. No scene break, but you're head jumping still, and knowing all from several POV's.

The latter often gets more confusing to me, or IMO, just doesn't read too well. Scene breaks, or at least really obvious switches in character, work better I think.

...One thing that troubles me about 3PO (AARRGHH!) is that it is commonly accepted that it's more "revealing" to the story if we bounce from head to head. This is a bit misunderstood, to me. As the reader, we are allowed to know more because we get more "input" from different heads about the events taking place. But this sometimes is misread so that we think we are going to know more about the plot because of the different POV's.

I don't think that's the case at all. It can be, but that doesn't make the idea concrete. If it's written well, all you are getting is the view of different people, and not more revealing information on everything. The author can still keep certain elements under wraps. I don't think any of that makes this style of writing lazy or uninspired. You just gotta know how to use it.

 

[sr71plt]

3rd person omniscient is quite legitimate (although, as I noted before, frowned on in the U.S. system as lazy writing and meant for lazy readers--which sometimes, yes, is what the reader is looking for), but, in relationship to the OP's question, it's disconcerting if it isn't done that way uniformly across the work--not just in 20 percent of it. It leads to a "what the hell is this all of a sudden?" reaction from a reader even when the reader doesn't know enough about perspective to know what different "thing" has hit him/her.

The 20 percent approach would work best with the distinct section breaks some have suggested. It's a statement that something is changing.

 

[PennLady]

3rd person omniscient is quite legitimate (although, as I noted before, frowned on in the U.S. system as lazy writing and meant for lazy readers--which sometimes, yes, is what the reader is looking for), but, in relationship to the OP's question, it's disconcerting if it isn't done that way uniformly across the work--not just in 20 percent of it. It leads to a "what the hell is this all of a sudden?" reaction from a reader even when the reader doesn't know enough about perspective to know what different "thing" has hit him/her.

The 20 percent approach would work best with the distinct section breaks some have suggested. It's a statement that something is changing.

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Are you saying that US publishers think authors should write third-person limited? That is, the whole story in third person, but from one character's POV? I don't understand why they would object to multiple characters' POVs. A lot of books I read are written this way. Not all, but quite a few.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Are you saying that US publishers think authors should write third-person limited? That is, the whole story in third person, but from one character's POV? I don't understand why they would object to multiple characters' POVs. A lot of books I read are written this way. Not all, but quite a few.

They lean in that direction, yes. More the creative writing programs than the publishers, though, which means the better writers are shying away from third-person omniscient. The current thrust is to keep the reader with you by keeping the reader's mind engaged in trying to figure things out on her/his own. Third-person omniscient lays it all out for the reader, making the reader more of an observer than a participant. There still are U.S. publishers intentionally publishing for what they see as readers who don't want to be involved in the book--just want it all laid out for them to observe--but the driving force is the creative writing programs taking the more promising writers and bending them toward pulling the reader into the process more. That means being in only one head and the reader being guided along to assess what's in the heads of the other characters.

 

[PennLady]

They lean in that direction, yes. More the creative writing programs than the publishers, though, which means the better writers are shying away from third-person omniscient. The current thrust is to keep the reader with you by keeping the reader's mind engaged in trying to figure things out on her/his own. Third-person omniscient lays it all out for the reader, making the reader more of an observer than a participant. There still are U.S. publishers intentionally publishing for what they see as readers who don't want to be involved in the book--just want it all laid out for them to observe--but the driving force is the creative writing programs taking the more promising writers and bending them toward pulling the reader into the process more. That means being in only one head and the reader being guided along to assess what's in the heads of the other characters.

Huh. That's kind of ... dumb, to my way of thinking. And I disagree that it makes the reader more of an observer. I mean, in that sense, the reader is always an observer (except in second* person, I guess) of what's happening. At least to me. I get more vested in 3PO stories, I think, because I find out more about multiple characters directly, so I care more about them.

*edited

 

[sr71plt]

Huh. That's kind of ... dumb, to my way of thinking. And I disagree that it makes the reader more of an observer. I mean, in that sense, the reader is always an observer (except in third person, I guess) of what's happening. At least to me. I get more vested in 3PO stories, I think, because I find out more about multiple characters directly, so I care more about them.

That goes right with the thread title, then. You can have your perspective if you like.

 

[daniwilliams]

I personally like the voice of third person limited, but it's hard to tell a complete story from a single perspective, and the longer the story is the more true that becomes. You'll often have scenes you need to show where the main character just isn't present - or maybe you're writing an ensemble piece without one person that is the "real" protagonist.

Therefore I wrote my last one (a story in 3 parts, about 28000 words total) mostly alternating between two characters' perspectives, and integrating three others at key points - the introduction, the conclusion, and one other section near the end where it seemed to fit.

I have been thinking for a long time of writing a novel where each chapter is named for the character whose perspective it's told from. Then I happened to start reading the George Martin "Fire and Ice" books (i.e. Game of Thrones), and that's exactly what he does.

If you use this basic switching-perspectives approach, I think you need to send some clear signals to the reader about what's happening. Visual breaks of some sort are very helpful. I tend to use them anyway as breathers and to indicate significant time-lapses or scene-changes; they can work just as well for switching to a new limited perspective.

 

[SecondCircle]

I've seen many cases where 3PO makes the reader an observer, and through the eyes of several characters things are spilled out before the reader.

But I just don't think its always the case. It may be viewed that way generally, but I think its a misconception. I still think it's possible to tell a tale from several points of view without spilling the story out before the reader. Without having the reader know more than the characters themselves.

 

[PennLady]

I personally like the voice of third person limited, but it's hard to tell a complete story from a single perspective, and the longer the story is the more true that becomes. You'll often have scenes you need to show where the main character just isn't present - or maybe you're writing an ensemble piece without one person that is the "real" protagonist.

That's what I was thinking. My first long story, a were novel called "Exiled," was told with multiple POVs and I don't think I could do it with just one. I could perhaps excise a couple of things but other info I feel I need and if I don't use another character's POV, then there's going to be a lot of explanation which will get boring.

I have been thinking for a long time of writing a novel where each chapter is named for the character whose perspective it's told from. Then I happened to start reading the George Martin "Fire and Ice" books (i.e. Game of Thrones), and that's exactly what he does.

Indeed, and that's a fine example. I was thinking of something like Stephen King's "The Stand," as well. I have read so many books with multiple POVs and it's never been a problem. When I hear that publishers want to change this or whatever, it strikes me that they are trying to fix a problem that may not exist.

If you use this basic switching-perspectives approach, I think you need to send some clear signals to the reader about what's happening. Visual breaks of some sort are very helpful. I tend to use them anyway as breathers and to indicate significant time-lapses or scene-changes; they can work just as well for switching to a new limited perspective.

Visual breaks, like blank lines or a line of asterisks or whatever between scenes, are probably the best and easiest. Still, I've read scenes where you start with one character, and then there's a transition, and then it's the other and there's no problem in following it.

But I just don't think its always the case. It may be viewed that way generally, but I think its a misconception. I still think it's possible to tell a tale from several points of view without spilling the story out before the reader. Without having the reader know more than the characters themselves.

Well, the reader may not know more than all the characters together, but the reader will probably know more than any one given character. Which to me, still isn't a problem and doesn't mean the reader is lazy.

 

[PayDay]

I've seen many cases where 3PO makes the reader an observer, and through the eyes of several characters things are spilled out before the reader.

But I just don't think its always the case. It may be viewed that way generally, but I think its a misconception. I still think it's possible to tell a tale from several points of view without spilling the story out before the reader. Without having the reader know more than the characters themselves.

Thanks.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again::

3rd person Metaphoric. iWin.