POV perspectives: are the differences that significant?

[Plathfan]

I recently concluded that the ongoing debate about different points of view is futile. There's no essential difference between them. The last writing exercise showed me that it's difficult to recognize others' styles because style changes according to the story or simply by whim.

Writers strive to give each narrator their own unique voice (except for the gullible, who can only write about themselves in their own voice).

A first-person narrator is often exceptionally discerning. Their ability to get into the heads of everyone around them with remarkable eloquence is not that different from a third-person omniscient narrator.

Third-person narration provides more technical freedom, while a trustworthy first-person voice (untainted by the author) is rare and more demanding.

Ultimately, the choice between POV options is instinctive, and once our minds are set, it is often irreversible.

 

[StillStunned]

I didn't realise there was much of a debate. You choose the right POV for the story, and go with it.

Even if it's the second person.

 

[AlinaX]

Third person makes it easy to switch between characters, and it's a familiar style of narration. I do think, however, that to be honest the author needs a clear understanding in their own head of who the narrator is and when they're telling the story.

Second person is a slightly unnatural form of narration and can be very distracting for the reader. I think because it tries to force the reader to be a character, rather than allowing the reader to identify with a character.

First person is actually quite an honest perspective. It's one person telling a story from their own perspective. Getting into other people's heads requires a lot of observation and speculation, but it's also quite limited because there's so much going on that the narrator is not there to see.

Once you get into tenses, there are other layers to this, different atmospheres created. Third person present tense can be good for stepping outside of the world, making the reader a spectator disconnected from events. Second person present tense can be hypnotic. First person present tense allows the future to be unknown, the possibilities endless.

It's possible to mix first and third, present and perfect, but not (I think) second person.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I didn't realise there was much of a debate. You choose the right POV for the story, and go with it.

Even if it's the second person.

I agree. What debate?

Setting aside second person, which I've rarely seen done well (no, I'm not doing those things you say I am), I'm equally comfortable writing first person pov as I am writing third. I'll often start writing, get a couple of paragraphs in, and think, oh, okay, this one's going to be whichever, and keep going.

The only thing I might move away from is present tense, unless I know ahead of time it's going to be a short story. A long story written in present tense just exhausts me after a while, it's too full on.

 

[KeithD]

There's a difference in the POV used and how it's used. The narrator can provide minimal observation/guidance or the narrator can be a fully involved character in the story--and this can be done in any POV.

 

[lovecraft68]

I find narrators to be unreliable.

 

[Plathfan]

I find narrators to be unreliable.

Now Joan said stoutly, “I never really liked Buddy Willard. He thought he knew everything. He thought he knew everything about women...”

 

[SimonDoom]

I'd go a step further and say that it's a non-debate. Usually it consists of people saying "I like this POV better." Which is fine, but it doesn't establish that one POV is objectively better than the other. There's a great deal of flexibility in any perspective.

The OP makes a great point that the differences in POV are, as a practical matter, lessened because authors so often inject themselves into the first person POV, as opposed to limiting first person POV purely to the perspective of the POV character. It's often subtle. A famous example is Huckleberry Finn, which Twain painstakingly wrote to sound like the POV of an uneducated, backwoods Missouri boy, but enough insights and observations creep into the storytelling that you can tell it's Twain speaking, too, and using Huck as a vehicle for communicating the author's views and observations.

Third person POV can be handled in a way that makes it just as personal and close to the main character's perspective as first person, so I don't think the "impersonal" objection to third person POV holds, but if some people find it that way, they're entitled to their opinion.

 

[TheRedChamber]

Ultimately, the choice between POV options is instinctive, and once our minds are set, it is often irreversible.

As a story develops from a spark to a plot to an outline, at some point one POV or the other seems natural. Sometimes the fact that there are multiple characters pushes you towards third. Sometimes it is clearly so much one characters particular story that first seems natural. Sometimes its still a one character piece but it seems to write from outside that character and have the reader look at them and what they do through third. There's only ever been one story I've written where I had to go back and change once I'd got a few thousand words in. Mostly I agree it is instinctive and not so much irreversible as it is difficult to be that wrong.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

You say that there's no difference ...

I recently concluded that the ongoing debate about different points of view is futile. There's no essential difference between them.

... then you proceed to tell us the difference.

A first-person narrator is often exceptionally discerning. Their ability to get into the heads of everyone around them with remarkable eloquence is not that different from a third-person omniscient narrator.

Third-person narration provides more technical freedom, while a trustworthy first-person voice (untainted by the author) is rare and more demanding.

 

[intim8]

There are some technical differences in what can reasonably done in each POV, but the more important one is the effect on the reader. Using 1 and 3 as the only legitimate ones to ever tell a good story in, there are gradiations of them. But the choice generally boils down to what balance do you want between the reader's psychic distance to the character and the reader's engagement with events themselves. 3p omnisicent is probably at one extreme, where the reader is more engaged in events than with characters, and 1p the opposite, with close 3p being almost 1p, but with a touch of standoffishness.

Making up my own terms here, I would say that there is 1p documentary, where the narrator is simply relating his story and what he was thinking as it went, and 1p conversational, where the reader is telling you the story, and sometimes breaks, or at least bends the 4th wall. (example: Nudio's Pizza - On The Job Challenge).

Obviously, both engagements exist in any story; it's a matter of how close or distant the reader is to each of them.

And somebody mentioned Twain above, which makes me think of yet another. Maybe call it 1.5p. The narrator is a character himself, who is telling you this story in 1p, kinda, but he is telling a story he is not actually involved in. He's either witnessing it from the sidelines, or as an omnisicent ethereal observer, probably using 3p structures, but with a layer of 1p over it.

 

[Gamblnluck]

A first-person narrator is often exceptionally discerning. Their ability to get into the heads of everyone around them with remarkable eloquence is not that different from a third-person omniscient narrator.

In many ways first person writing makes a better story (and can be easier to write) because the narrator CANNOT get into everybody else's head. He is limited to what he can observe. He can infer that other's are thinking but he does not know until they tell him.
Also, because much of the story is internal dialog, many rules of grammar can be thrown out the window at times.

 

[Gamblnluck]

A first-person narrator is often exceptionally discerning. Their ability to get into the heads of everyone around them with remarkable eloquence is not that different from a third-person omniscient narrator.

In many ways first person writing makes a better story (and can be easier to write) because the narrator CANNOT get into everybody else's head. He is limited to what he can observe. He can infer that other's are thinking but he does not know until they tell him.
Also, because much of the story is internal dialog, many rules of grammar can be thrown out the window at times.

 

[Euphony]

I recently concluded that the ongoing debate about different points of view is futile. There's no essential difference between them. The last writing exercise showed me that it's difficult to recognize others' styles because style changes according to the story or simply by whim.

Writers strive to give each narrator their own unique voice (except for the gullible, who can only write about themselves in their own voice).

A first-person narrator is often exceptionally discerning. Their ability to get into the heads of everyone around them with remarkable eloquence is not that different from a third-person omniscient narrator.

Third-person narration provides more technical freedom, while a trustworthy first-person voice (untainted by the author) is rare and more demanding.

Ultimately, the choice between POV options is instinctive, and once our minds are set, it is often irreversible.

An inability on the part of the writer to leverage the unique tools a specific POV brings to the table says little about the POV and everything about the writer.

Should *most* writers not fret so much about POV nuance and, instead, write what they are most comfortable with (which fledglings will usually write better in b/c they don't trip over themselves as much?) Abso-fucking-lutely yes.

I find the "why bother" camp disingenuous in their "who cares?" argument b/c it assumes what is best for a wide swath of writers could be quick and dirty applied to all.

Bullshit.

There are some INCREDIBLE writers here, "mere" hobbyist among them, that use different pov strengths/weakness to be the pants (pun) off all comers, even those publishing house supported.

The new old hotness is third person deep pov. It's more than just a stylistic choice someone leveraged in the 90s, saw some unique success, and everyone followed suit.

Understanding POV better on the whole came by me shoring up my limited skills by deep diving the concepts/pros/cons of one which shows what it is and contrasts what others are/aren't.

I couldn't suggest this book more highly:

It's not the dry, more technical 80s/early 90s manuals we were spoon fed nor is it a quick and dirty guide to push a few sales (so a little light on substance.) If you come to learn Deep POV more thoroughly like it presents, I'd be baffled if you still thought "POV is all the same."

That said, we all have our best learning styles and commitment to the craft so deeper work like this might not mesh well with you. So here's my lighter guide suggestion. It's not a cash grab/marketing over material type (though cover and series do make you question it) but not as full bore as Rivet or, god help you, soul sucking 90s scene and structure (great book but, ugh) and worse knock offs.

She very much hits the highlights and doesn't explore the depth and psychology as much. It's an excellent starting foothold and certainly substantive enough to make clear POV isn't just a "vibe" (if you aren't entrenched in your belief)

Nuance exists. How important/necessary that nuance is to the writer telling the story they want to tell has a lot to do with how ambitious the writer's ideas and goals are.

No write or wrong, better or worse, good stories come in all forms.

But, assertions what's good for the goose is good for the ganders, no thanks.

I appreciate there are specific tools to do specific jobs. While I'm no wordscraftsman me'self, I am fascinated by hobby tools and respect others very much understand and depend on things I don't understand and would fumble with (making *my* story worse for the try/by not doing to proper work on my part)

 

[Boobytrap73]

I naturally write in first person and I like the ability to get into the narrator's head. The trade off, as someone noted, is the limitation on moving between character's.

As a reader, my least favorite voice is when the author jumps between first and second person (You pulled off your shirt. I unhooked your bra. You . . . I. . . .).

Goal for this summer: Write a story in third person. Maybe.

~BT73

 

[intim8]

In my pantsing, it sometimes happens that I start a story in one POV, but then as the story and characters start to gel in my head, or when I discover that The Story is a different angle on it than I initially imagined, I will go back and switch POV. I don't really think about why in much detail, just "feel" it. Though sometimes there will be a clear reason for it, particularly if there's been a shift in what I see as the theme or central conflict of the story.

Goal for this summer: Write a story in third person. Maybe.

It's worth doing. It's an easier mode, for one, and the one that a lot of new writers naturally start in. And having more arrows in the quiver is always a good thing. I say "easier" but there are whole levels of nuance, subtlety, and trickery that can be done in it that can't be done in 1p.

 

[StillStunned]

It's worth doing. It's an easier mode, for one, and the one that a lot of new writers naturally start in. And having more arrows in the quiver is always a good thing. I say "easier" but there are whole levels of nuance, subtlety, and trickery that can be done in it that can't be done in 1p.

One of the big risks is head-hopping. I've seen too many instances, even by professional writers, where they try to get around "show, don't tell", by hopping to another POV for one sentence mid-paragraph.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

One of the big risks is head-hopping. I've seen too many instances, even by professional writers, where they try to get around "show, don't tell", by hopping to another POV for one sentence mid-paragraph.

I've heard the advice a couple of times "never head hop." Well, of course you can head hop. It's a powerful technique to tell a story from different sides. You just have to be careful to make each hop very clear. Hopping heads at the beginning of a chapter, for instance.

 

[StillStunned]

I've heard the advice a couple of times "never head hop." Well, of course you can head hop. It's a powerful technique to tell a story from different sides. You just have to be careful to make each hop very clear. Hopping heads at the beginning of a chapter, for instance.

As I understand it, head-hopping is switching from one POV to another within the same paragraph, or section. It's fine to use multiple POVs, as long as they're clearly distinct, like you say.

I'm referring to things like, "John remembered Mary's face, even though she'd been gone ten years. Bob saw a flash of deep sorrow in his eyes. John swallowed and forced the memories down."

Even that might just about be acceptable if you're using third-person omniscient consistently. But don't pretend to use a close third person and sprinkle in different points of view.

 

[SimonDoom]

I've heard the advice a couple of times "never head hop." Well, of course you can head hop. It's a powerful technique to tell a story from different sides. You just have to be careful to make each hop very clear. Hopping heads at the beginning of a chapter, for instance.

Totally agree with this. My most popular story (just passed 1.9 million views) is a mom-son incest story where I switch back and forth between the POV of mom and son, frequently, and I think it works. I think in this particular case (not in every story, but in this one) it heightens the eroticism. The key, as you say, is to "make each hop very clear." If you do that, then hop away. It can work.

 

[AG31]

I'm a little confused about the use of POV. There's the obvious 1st, 2nd and 3rd person mode of speech. But is POV the proper term when you want to talk about whether the story is from a male or female POV?

 

[ElectricBlue]

I'm a little confused about the use of POV. There's the obvious 1st, 2nd and 3rd person mode of speech. But is POV the proper term when you want to talk about whether the story is from a male or female POV?

That too, but to a lesser degree. The discussion here is the grammatical one: first person, third person, as narrative techniques.

 

[AG31]

the grammatical one

Thanks. I love clarity!

 

[MediocreAuthor]

I have heard some very negative critiques in this forum about "third person omniscient" POV. The claim is that it's too broad, and it jerks the reader around too much, hopping from one mind to another.

I can understand this idea, but I did notice that Dune is actually written that way, and it's both very popular and well written.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

For anyone else wondering what 'deep POV' was:
"What Is Deep Point of View?
Deep point of view is a way of writing fiction in third-person limited that silences the narrative voice and takes the reader directly into a character’s mind. While third-person limited writing attaches to a single character and refers to them by their name or pronouns, deep POV takes it one step further—eliminating filter words and writing as the character instead of about them. For example, consider the following sentence:

He peered out the window. “Are they coming for me?” he wondered as he listened to the sound of distant hoofbeats.

The above could be written in deep POV as follows:

He peered out the window. Were they coming for him? Hoofbeats rumbled in the distance.

Not a phrase I'd heard before, thank you @Euphony , but summarises the typical difference between my first and final drafts (whether in 1st or 3rd person, so I'm not sure why it's called a POV).