7 Writing Maxims and What to Do with Them

To the recent influx of new followers: Salutations! In your honor, I thought I’d welcome you with a post on the most common writing advice I hear, and whether or not you should actually listen to it. I hope you enjoy your stay at my little corner of the blogoverse.

maxim

Contents:

  1. Kill your darlings
  2. Show, don’t tell
  3. Write what you know
  4. Eliminate adverbs
  5. Avoid purple prose
  6. If you don’t have time to read, you don’t have time to write.
  7. Write with the door closed. Rewrite with the door open.

1. Kill your darlings

I hear this all the time. I also look forward to the movie. The actual quote is “murder your darlings” and comes from Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch’s On the Art of Writing:

“Whenever you feel an impulse to perpetrate a piece of exceptionally fine writing, obey it—whole-heartedly—and delete it before sending your manuscript to press. Murder your darlings.”

Sometimes authors take “kill your darlings” somewhat literally and kill off their favorite characters. If it’s taken completely literally, as suggested by the movie title, then writers would be murderers.

How it’s usually applied: “If I am attached to something I wrote, then I can’t be objective about it, so I won’t cut it out when revising, even though it doesn’t belong.”

Sometimes I’ve seen “kill your darlings” taken to extreme: “If I liked writing this, it must be awful. I’d better cut it out.” Give yourself some credit! If you enjoyed writing it, then someone else might enjoy reading it. However, the question to ask yourself is whether it belongs in this story.

Even Stephen King, whom I will refer to frequently in this post because On Writing is so widely read, used the “kill your darlings” mantra:

“Mostly when I think of pacing, I go back to Elmore Leonard, who explained it so perfectly by saying he just left out the boring parts. This suggests cutting to speed the pace, and that’s what most of us end up having to do (kill your darlings, kill your darlings, even when it breaks your egocentric little scribbler’s heart, kill your darlings)…I got a scribbled comment that changed the way I rewrote my fiction once and forever. Jotted below the machine-generated signature of the editor was this mot: ‘Not bad, but PUFFY. You need to revise for length. Formula: 2nd Draft = 1st Draft – 10%. Good luck.’” —Stephen King (quote taken from here)

What’s interesting is that when Quiller-Couch said “murder your darlings,” he wasn’t talking about being sentimental about good writing, and he wasn’t talking about pacing, either. He was talking about ornamental writing (see #5). So whenever you hear “kill your darlings” or are tempted to use it yourself, swap it out for this instead, which is what people really mean when they quote it:

“Don’t put anything in a story that does not reveal character or advance the action.” —Kurt Vonnegut

Does it have to reveal the character of the protagonist? No, you can characterize even background characters. The Sun Is Also A Star does this with every speaking character. But each of those characters should be relevant to the theme and their actions should affect your main plot.

What’s important: Pacing, character, and action are important. Think of these things when you are revising, and then take out whatever slows down the action or doesn’t reveal character. To help with that, this scene questionnaire from The Script Lab is a great resource worth bookmarking.

Boot it or take it to heart? 

boot Boot the idea that you should get rid of writing that you’re attached to.

heart Take to heart that pacing and character or thematic development trump your sentimental attachment. If a scene is self-serving and not story-serving, take it out. Keep it for a different story or save it for “deleted scenes” you can share with fans on your website or in future printings.

2. Show, don’t tell

The reason this is such a war cry for editors and writing professors is because it’s good advice. A story becomes more resonant with a reader if it’s experienced. If you paint a picture with your words, then the reader has a more intimate connection with your writing than if you just tell them what to feel.

For example, you could tell me that a guy had big, bulgy muscles, or you could describe him throwing a hay bale into the back of his pickup truck, the buttons on his shirt puckering from the stress, revealing a sliver of sweaty skin. And then you’d delete that if you weren’t writing romance, and if you were writing romance, you’d rewrite the whole thing, or at least the “sliver of sweaty skin” part because alliteration is sometimes one of those darlings that points to the writer and takes readers out of the story.

Do you need to tell us that one of your characters is 6’10”? If you want the reader to know that a character is tall, have them duck under a low-hanging chandelier, or have someone else stand next to them at chin-level. Something else to show how tall a character is. Does your world even have feet and inches? Do you want to limit casting options for an adaptation of your work?

How it’s usually applied: it’s better for a reader to feel things for him/herself than be told how to feel.

However, is telling always bad? No. I refer you to “5 situations where it’s better to tell than show in your fiction” on io9 for that information. Just remember your narration style when working information in. You can’t use the example from io9, “Diana was a mutant, but so far the only mutant power she’d manifested was passive-aggressiveness,” no matter how clever it is, if you don’t have a clever narrator, and you can’t reveal anything at all as the narrator if you’re using a Third Person Objective/Cinematic narrator.

What’s important: Giving your reader an experience and keeping your narrator’s voice consistent

Boot it or take it to heart? 

boot Boot the idea that telling is always worse. It’s much better to say that a character opened up a door than go into excruciating detail about the journey to the other side of the room and the way the doorknob feels in her hand.

heart Take to heart that we are more apt to remember experiences than words, so use your words to create an experience for the reader. Also remember that “show, don’t tell” is feedback that should be given only in certain instances—novels still need narration, or else they wouldn’t be novels! “Show, don’t tell” is not a universal rule. It means, “Don’t use abstract words here when you could give concrete evidence.

3. Write what you know

I could write a whole post on this, but I’ll spare us both the time and skip ahead:

Boot it or take it to heart? 

boot Boot any part of this that limits you as a writer. You are a human being, and you know what it’s like to be a human being. Empathize with your characters. Focus on the emotions you and your characters have felt, and use them in your writing.

heart Take to heart that authority is important to readers. If you don’t know something, you can do research, and then you will know. Don’t know what it’s like to be a murderer? You can probably figure that one out using your imagination without actually killing something. Or if you want, you could interview a murderer or read a memoir of one. Just remember that people lie. Don’t know the difference between annuals and perennials? Look it up on Wikipedia, for heaven’s sake. Just remember that Wikipedia lies. And if you’re writing about a culture that isn’t your own, for heaven’s sake, do research, and then humbly ask people from that culture to read your work. Sensitivity readers, unlike usual beta readers, are usually paid for their time because they are coaching you on their life experience.

Some narratives are not yours to tell. Make room for #ownvoices.

4. Eliminate adverbs

Adverbs are guilty until proven innocent. —Howard Ogden

Adverbs aren’t the cause of lazy writing, but they are often a symptom of either redundancy or vagueness. Let’s use dialogue tags as an example.

“Hurry, Bella,” Alice interrupted urgently.

This is an example in redundancy from Stephanie Meyer. First off, “interrupted urgently” is redundant. If you are interrupting, you are being urgent. Second, the dialogue itself (“Hurry”) suggests urgency and an interruption. Third, do we really need to be told that Alice is interrupting urgently, when we could be shown that Alice is urgent with her actions, hopefully with something less cliche than her foot tapping?

Maybe Meyer used so many dialogue tags because she was afraid of vague or boring verbs. Why say “said angrily” when you can say “hissed”? (Want more examples of obtrusive dialogue tags? Look no further. ) Well, when it comes to dialogue tags, less is more. Sorry, Meyer. But in other situations, it is better to go with a more descriptive verb than a verb who lets an adverb pull all the weight. It’s better to say “heaved” than “picked up with difficulty” and it’s better to say “charged” than “ran forcibly.”

“Very” can almost always be eliminated:

Substitute “damn” every time you’re inclined to write “very.” Your editor will delete it, and the writing will be just as it should be. —Mark Twain

This fantastic “10 Mistakes List” lists some “empty adverbs” you should avoid. It also includes a section on showing versus telling.

You don’t have to eliminate all adverbs. But do eliminate ones that intensify a lazy verb as well as the lazy adverbs

Boot it or take it to heart? 

boot Boot the idea that all adverbs are evil. Do examine them to see if they are trying to cover up lazy writing.

heart Take to heart that adverbs are often a sign of redundancy and vagueness. Do a search in your document for “very” and “ly” to find most adverbs and see if they could be improved with better writing, and then go through your work sentence by sentence looking for other signs of redundancy (like two-word prepositions) and vagueness. Ask your Beta readers to look for redundancy and vagueness as well. And read my posts on revising if you’d like to enhance your voice further.

5. Avoid purple prose

“I notice that you use plain, simple language, short words and brief sentences. That is the way to write English—it is the modern way and the best way. Stick to it; don’t let fluff and flowers and verbosity creep in. When you catch an adjective, kill it. No, I don’t mean utterly, but kill most of them—then the rest will be valuable.” —Mark Twain (letter to D. W. Bowser, March 1880)

Writers. Violent, right? First we talk about murdering darlings, then we talk about eliminating adverbs… now adjectives are facing genocide from wordsmiths.

Purple prose, or ornamentation, or lofty, flowery language—this is what the great writers will warn you to stay away from. THIS is what Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch was referring to when he said to “murder your darlings”:

To begin with, let me plead that you have been told of one or two things which Style is not; which have little or nothing to do with Style, though sometimes vulgarly mistaken for it. Style, for example, is not—can never be—extraneous Ornament. You remember, may be, the Persian lover whom I quoted to you out of Newman: how to convey his passion he sought a professional letter-writer and purchased a vocabulary charged with ornament, wherewith to attract the fair one as with a basket of jewels. Well, in this extraneous, professional, purchased ornamentation, you have something which Style is not: and if you here require a practical rule of me, I will present you with this: ‘Whenever you feel an impulse to perpetrate a piece of exceptionally fine writing, obey it—whole-heartedly—and delete it before sending your manuscript to press. Murder your darlings.’ (On Style, Wednesday, January 28, 1914)

Why would he say this? Because amateur writers cling to their thesauruses like lovers, believing that an affair with vocabulary will win them the jealousy and affection of others. Unfortunately, it’s often true. Look at the book sales of Eragon. Look at the kinds of politicians people used to vote for.

Many of the most beloved writers of all time write about this subject:

“Prose is architecture, not interior decoration.” ― Ernest Hemingway

“One day I will find the right words, and they will be simple.” —Jack Kerouac

“Any word you have to look up in a thesaurus is the wrong word. There are no exceptions to this rule” —Stephen King

I’ve said before, when mentioning his disdain for writer’s notebooks, that Stephen King must have a better memory than I do, because I often refer to the thesaurus to help me find the word that is at the tip of my tongue. The point is that you don’t use a thesaurus to pick out words you don’t already know. If, though, you are like me, and you find yourself saying “What’s that other word for ‘distracted’? The one where, you know, you can’t focus because you’re concerned with something else? …pulls up thesaurus.com... Oh, yes. Preoccupied.”—If you’re like that, it’s really okay to use a thesaurus. Just be sure you already know what the word means.

And poetic language is beautiful! There’s a time and place for everything. Gorgeous observations are better placed in sections of “sequel” after the more quickly paced “scenes” of action. Don’t stop to write a paragraph on the smell of roses when your main character is being chased by an axe murderer unless you’ve already made room for that silliness in your style leading up to the scene.

Boot it or take it to heart? 

boot Boot the little Stephen King that sits on your shoulder and judges you when you use a thesaurus to help resuscitate your vocabulary.

heart Take to heart that pompous language separates you from your reader. You can use a five-dollar word once or twice, but use diction appropriately for your genre and audience. (Check out my posts on diction here.) Know your genre and what level of poetic language that audience expects.

6. If you don’t have time to read, you don’t have time to write.

If you want to be a writer, you must do two things above all others: read a lot and write a lot. —Stephen King

One thing I learned in my writing classes was that writing is really an ongoing conversation. When you write, you converse with the reader, but you also converse with the writers you’ve been reading. You will never improve as a writer if you aren’t reading. Not just any reading, either. Most magazines and newspapers won’t cut it. Status updates and tweets certainly won’t. Nope, not even blogs. You need to read poetry and good fiction in and outside of your genre.

Read widely and with discrimination. Bad writing is contagious. —P.D. James

Try for a diverse and balanced reading diet: award-winning and bestselling; recently published and old favorites; fiction and nonfiction; poetry and prose; in and out of your genre and age category.

You can’t figure out what “bad writing” is without reading a lot and making that decision for yourself. What kind of writing do you want to emulate? What kind of publisher do you want to work with? What genre and audience do you want to write in and for?

Boot it or take it to heart? 

boot Boot the idea that any reading is good reading.

heart Take to heart that reading is just as important as writing, but don’t let reading nonfiction about writing keep you from writing fiction. Read poetry and fiction that inspires you to write. If you’re just getting started, try Li-Young Lee’s poetry, Letters To A Young Poet by Rainer Maria Rilke, and Interpreter of Maladies by Jhumpa Lahiri. Suggest your favorite things to read in the comments. Join Goodreads and get ideas for books in your genres that way.

7. Write with the door closed. Rewrite with the door open.

This is another Stephen King quote, which I frequently have heard quoted out of context. At first I read it in terms of distraction. Hide yourself in a cave or rent out a hut in the forest when you’re writing, but when you rewrite, embrace the chaos around you. You can tell I work from home and have littles running around. Maybe you read something else into this quote. Anyway, here’s the context:

“Your stuff starts out being just for you, in other words, but then it goes out. Once you know what the story is and get it right — as right as you can, anyway — it belongs to anyone who wants to read it. Or criticize it.”

So basically it’s like Anne Lamott’s Sh*tty First Drafts. Just get out the first draft (Hemingway refers to them as excrement), and then figure out what your story is about. Then rewrite it. THEN let other people help you as you continue rewriting it.

You’ll notice he doesn’t say, “Write with the door closed. Open up the door when you’re good and finished.” Rewriting is a process, and though introverts like me hate to admit it, rewriting needs the help of another pair of eyes. We need to get out that first draft, make sure it’s coherent, and then give it to other people—beta readers—to give us feedback so we can rewrite it better. Then we give it to our agents and editors, who give us suggestions. Then we rewrite some more. Then we get published, then the readers get the final product.

Boot it or take it to heart? 

boot Boot people out the door when you are trying to write your first draft. Better yet, try to get away with people having no clue you’re writing something. I’ve heard the more people you talk to about a work, the less likely you are to write it and finish it. Tell your significant other and immediate family, so they don’t think you’re a p*rn addict when you lock yourself in your room with your computer, but try to keep to yourself until you have something to share and rewrite.

heart Take to heart that writing is a community effort, even if you are a self-publishing introvert. No matter how good you are as a writer, you are blind to your mistakes sometimes, and an outsider’s point of view is necessary to bring you up to a greater potential. If you ever want another person to read your work, then you are going to have to involve other people into your rewriting process. Don’t worry, it still belongs to you!

And please don’t think I’m against self-publishing. Absolutely not! I’m against writing without input or editing. Unfortunately it can be hard to tell when independent writers invested in getting outside feedback and when they hit “publish” with editing and proofreading as an afterthought.

Next time: The Myth of Writer’s Block

Further Reading: Kate Brauning’s Twitter thread on showing and telling

Your turn: What other writing maxims have you heard? What are your opinions on these seven?

POV Part 3—e.g. (examples)

POV part 3—examples of omniscient, limited omniscient, and first-person narratives #POV #writing | writelarawrite

Today is my third (and final?) post in a short series on Point of View. First was an introduction to terms. Second, a comparison of the different choices of narration. Now, examples of each type. As always, feel free to ask any questions in the comments!

Contents

  1. First-Person Narrator
  2. Third-Person Omniscient Narrator
  3. Third-Person Limited Narrator, Light
  4. Third-Person Limited Narrator, Deep
  5. Third-Person Cinematic/Objective Narrator

First-Person Narrator

Next morning I awoke, looked out the window and nearly died of fright. My screams brought Atticus from his bathroom half-shaven.
“The world’s endin’, Atticus! Please do something!” I dragged him to the window and pointed.
“No it’s not,” he said. “It’s snowing.”

To Kill a Mockingbird

In first-person narration, the narrator is a character in the story and uses the pronoun “I.” We never see into anyone else’s head, unless there is more than one narrator.  The narrator  is aware of an audience and needs to have a reason to tell the story. As in omniscient narration, the voice of the first-person narrator must be distinct, interesting, and well-crafted.

In first-person movies, we usually hear the thoughts of the narrator but see the character. In fiction, however, the narrator should not be remembering scenes as an out-of-body experience. In other words, there shouldn’t be any filtering.

In this clip from A Christmas Story, we can see Ralphie most of the time, but we can also hear his thoughts and sometimes see from his visual point-of-view.

First person novels: To Kill a Mockingbird, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The Great Gatsby, Bridget Jones’s Diary, Frankenstein, Dracula

Third-Person Omniscient Narrator

There have been five great kisses since 1642 B.C…(before then couples hooked thumbs.) And the precise rating of kisses is a terribly difficult thing, often leading to great controversy…. Well, this one left them all behind.

The Princess Bride

The omniscient narrator knows what is going on in any person’s head at any time, in any place. The narrator is its own voice and can make its own judgments about the characters. It’s the least intimate of the POVs, but the distance can be comic distance, used effectively for humor. This style of narration calls attention to itself (remember, it’s presentational), and it carries the story.  Omniscient narration must be interesting and exceptionally well written. It can have a distinct voice that makes comments, like in the narration at the beginning of 500 Days of Summer, or throughout Amelie.

A fair warning, though. Many people consider omniscient narration to be sloppy or lazy, and “head hopping” is a common mistake made by writers. Unless you are writing comedy or are briefly creating an establishing shot, you might want to consider using Third Person Limited Omniscience.

Third person Omniscient novels: The Princess Bride, parts of The Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia, books by Terry Pratchett and Kurt Vonnegut and Jane Austen

Third-Person Limited Narrator, Light

It was, he thought, the difference between being dragged into the arena to face a battle to the death and walking into the arena with your head held high. Some people, perhaps, would say that there was little to choose between the two ways, but Dumbledore knew—and so do I, thought Harry, with a rush of fierce pride, and so did my parents—that there was all the difference in the world.
― Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Third person limited omniscience, light penetration consists of a neutral narration which sometimes dives into the head of a character (or two or more, but only one per scene—it is limited). This POV is usually replaced by deep penetration during emotionally tense scenes that need to be more fully experienced. In movies, soliloquies are the closest thing to hearing the characters’ thoughts, and Ferris Bueller’s Day Off is full of them.

Third-Person Limited Narrator, Deep

It was stupid, pointless, irritating beyond belief that he still had four days left of being unable to perform magic…
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Marvolo Gaunt’s ring lay on the desk before Dumbledore. It was cracked; the sword of Gryffindor lay beside it.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

I’ve given the two examples above to illustrate different examples of deep penetration in a novel that is primarily light penetration. In the first, the narration is what Harry is feeling, though it doesn’t say, “he thought,” and it stays in third person rather than switching suddenly to first. In the second, we have come from seeing Harry seeing through the pensieve—using filtering words like “Harry saw,” “Harry noticed,” etc.—to seeing the objects for ourselves, without filtering.

Like first person, in third-person deep, we see into someone else’s head and everything is told from his or her point of view, but the narration uses third person pronouns instead of first. This can actually be more intimate than first person, because the reader sort of becomes the POV character. Think of it like having a dream. In a dream, you can be someone else. You know it isn’t you, hence the third-person pronouns, but you still see from someone else’s POV. No filtering is used—no “he thought” or “she thought,” and any separate narrator disappears so that the POV character becomes the narrator.

Imagine a movie like Cloverfield, in which we can also hear the filming character’s thoughts. This is what reading first person or third person deep penetration should look like.

Third-Person Cinematic/Objective Narrator

I can’t really give a short example of an objective point of view, because for all you know, the next line might have a description of someone’s thoughts, and objective narration is characterized by what it isn’t rather than what it is. If you’re reading a suspenseful tale that has a scene featuring the villain or suspect, chances are, that scene is told in objective narration. To see into the mind of the bad guy would give up his motive.

If you really want to see this in practice, compare Voldemort’s scenes in the first few Harry Potter books, in which we/Harry can see into his head, to the first chapter of Deathly Hallows, which is so cinematic, none of the characters are named until after they are physically described. The reader is forced to make guesses and assumptions about the characters, because the narrator is completely silent.

In a cinematic view, we can’t see into anyone’s thoughts, so we rely on our own observations of the characters and their dialogue.

Most movies never go into the brain of a character, which is why this style of narration is called cinematic. So to illustrate, I’ll pick a scene that is painfully, obviously cinematic, from The Hunger Games.

In the books, we see everything from Katniss’s brain. It’s written in first person, present tense, and the effect is immediacy. We hear her thoughts as she has them. In this scene of the movie, the director relies on clunky sports commentary to explain what Katniss may or may not be thinking. It’s insulting to the viewer. The director assumes you aren’t smart enough to figure out what’s going on. If we really couldn’t figure it out, all Katniss had to do would be to mutter, “It’s mined.” Or even, “It’s a minefield.” Or, hey, even, “Well, I declare! I do believe they have taken the mines from under the launch pads and moved them there, to create a booby trap!” It’s not like humans never say anything to themselves aloud. I assume they wanted a sort of pinch point, to remind the audience of the Capitol, and they probably wanted to get Stanley Tucci some more screen time, but UGH.

Here’s how it plays out in the book, and notice how, even though she doesn’t have to, she whispers OUT LOUD:

I realize I’m grinding my teeth in frustration. Foxface has confirmed what I’d already guessed. But what sort of trap have they laid that requires such dexterity? Has so many trigger points? Why did she squeal so as her hands made contact with the earth? You’d have thought … and slowly it begins to dawn on me … you’d have thought the very ground was going to explode.

“It’s mined,” I whisper. That explains everything. The Careers’ willingness to leave their supplies, Foxface’s reaction, the involvement of the boy from District 3, where they have the factories, where they make televisions and automobiles and explosives. But where did he get them? In the supplies? That’s not the sort of weapon the Gamemakers usually provide, given that they like to see the tributes draw blood personally. I slip out of the bushes and cross to one of the round metal plates that lifted the tributes into the arena. The ground around it has been dug up and patted back down. The land mines were disabled after the sixty seconds we stood on the plates, but the boy from District 3 must have managed to reactivate them. I’ve never seen anyone in the Games do that. I bet it came as a shock even to the Gamemakers.

If they really had to have Caesar Flickerman in that scene, he could have explained that second paragraph after Katniss figured it out, giving the backstory, and not insulting both the protagonist and the audience.

But I digress and rant.

That’s about all I have to say on Point of View for the time being. Let me know if you need something more clearly explained, or if you want to know more about another writing topic. I’m open to suggestions!

Write Lara Write | Comparing and Contrasting different Points of View #writing

POV Part 2—v.s. (compare and contrast)

Write Lara Write | Comparing and Contrasting different Points of View #writing

Today is my second in a short series on Point of View. First was an introduction to terms. Now, a comparison of the different choices of narration. Coming up next, examples of each type. As always, feel free to ask any questions in the comments!

Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. First Person
  3. Third Person Omniscient
  4. Third Person Limited Omniscient
  5. Third Person Objective/Cinematic

Introduction

For each of the categories below, I’ll talk about pronouns used for the protagonist; the “number of heads,” that is, the number of POV characters; intimacy, or how connected the reader feels to the characters;  whether the narration style is presentational or representationalif the story or the writing style is more crucial; and in which circumstances you should use each (Should you use it?).

First Person

Pronouns: I, we, me, my, us, our

Number of heads: Just one, the “I” talking. Other chapters might feature a different “I,” though.

Intimacy: Pretty intimate. We feel like we are reading a diary or listening to a friend telling a story. But limited third can be even more intimate, as you’ll see below.

Presentational vs representational: A bit of both. A first-person narrator is aware of the audience and speaks to the audience, which can make it presentational. But if it’s presented in the form of a diary or an interview, it also represents real life, so it feels less fictional.

Story vs. Style: The voice of the narrator is more important than what’s going on in the story. It’s crucial that the writing style is intriguing, interesting, or amusing. The plot of the story doesn’t matter as much as what’s going on in the narrator’s head. One of my guilty pleasures is the Georgia Nicolson diary series by Louise Rennison. There are ten books, and each book has exactly the same plot. But Georgia’s voice never ceases to make me howl with laughter, to the point of abdominal pain, so I own all the books, and have read the first book several times.

Should you use it? First person will work better for you if you have a history in acting. You need to become the character and find his or her voice, not just replicate your own. I could listen to Benedict Cumberbatch read the back of a cereal box and be hanging on his every word. Because he has a great voice. If you can 1) take a menial task and 2) make it interesting and not boring for 3) readers that aren’t on your Christmas list, then you could probably write first person successfully. Just don’t include the cereal boxes in your manuscript.

Another thing to remember about first person is that if the narrator wasn’t physically present for an event, it can only be depicted through after-the-fact dialogue, or seeing it on the news, or some other way of portraying the action. If it’s an important scene, the narrator HAS to be present for it, or the reader will feel cheated. If it’s not an important scene, consider summarizing. If it’s important but the narrator is unconscious or dead, then you’re going to have to switch narrators.

Third Person Omniscient

Pronouns: he, she, it, they, his, hers, her, their, theirs, him, them

Number of heads: limitless. Omniscient means “all-knowing,” so an omniscient narrator can see into everyone’s thoughts. Omniscient narrators are also omnipresent, so they can go to any time or place. If you’re trying to establish a setting by using people as texture, then you can consider starting with omniscient and segue into limited omniscient.

Intimacy: Omniscient is the least intimate. The more heads the narrator jumps into, the weaker the connection the reader has with anyone. However, in comedy, you might want that comic distance.

Presentational vs representational: Omniscient narration is the most presentational. In real life, there’s no way you can see into everyone’s thoughts. (You aren’t Bruce Almighty.) Since it’s presentational, your narrator needs to be just as well crafted as a first-person narrator. The narrator can have a neutral point of view, but the writing style still needs to be interesting.

Story vs. Style: The reason to write omniscient is to see into other’s heads. If you’re going into more than one head, then the story has to carry the reader through the transition, or else the narrator does. You’ve got to have a fantastic story or an incredible narrator to justify not focusing on one character.

Should you use it? If you’re hilarious, yes. If not, just pick one or two heads and go with limited omniscience. Epic fantasy can sometimes get away with omniscience, but the most successful bits of epic fantasy are told in limited third. Readers want to get attached to characters. Let them.

Third Person Limited Omniscient

Pronouns: he, she, it, they, his, hers, her, their, theirs, him, them

Number of heads: Just one per scene, but technically limitless.

Intimacy: The more time we spend in a character’s head, the more intimate it gets. Which means the fewer the POV characters, the better. Remember in part 1 when I talked about filtering and deep vs light penetration? Limited third person allows the reader to experience things not just as a friend of the protagonist, like in first person, but as the protagonist. I talk a bit more about it in part 3.

Presentational vs representational: A limited omniscient third person narrator is the least presentational apart from the cinematic narrator. It is generally neutral about the characters in the novel and will disappear during the deep penetration scenes.

Story vs. Style: Because the narrator is pretty neutral in tone, story is more important with limited third person. However, the voices of each of the POV characters still need to be distinct during deep penetration scenes.

Should you use it? Limited Third Person is the novel standard because it’s the best of all worlds. It allows you to pick more than one POV character if necessary. But please, don’t give every secondary and tertiary character their own few paragraphs in the spotlight. It’s annoying. Writers using limited omniscience third person effectively will limit the omniscience and the number of persons involved.

Third Person Objective/Cinematic

Pronouns: he, she, it, they, his, hers, her, their, theirs, him, them

Number of heads: Zero. Any thoughts and emotions have to be shown through speech or actions. The narrator is silent and objective.

Intimacy: While this doesn’t sound very intimate, because we never see anybody’s thoughts, it’s as intimate as you can get with people in real life. Readers feel connected to the characters because they get to know them by their words and actions, not by the perception of a narrator. We never get into Darcy’s head, but how many people have fallen in love with Mr. Darcy?

Presentational vs representational: Representational, for the above.

Story vs. Style: It’s difficult to do objective narration well, without boring your readers to death. It really is showing versus telling. Nobody tells the reader what to think of certain characters, the reader has to figure them all out, even the protagonist. Things have to happen to the characters in order for them react, so story is important. But figuring out how to flesh out all of the characters while not commenting on them might take some figuring.

Should you use it? If you’re the next Hemingway, go for it. He did it. Whether he was successful or not is up to the readers. But if it doesn’t work for you, try writing limited third person instead of blowing your brains out.

Actually I’m reading a book right now that is written in first person, but the love interest had been written in an objective way for the first part of the book. And it’s spectacular. The protagonist mentioned what she observed this guy doing, and what he said, but she never commented on him or his actions. I was able to get to know him apart from her opinions. And that meant that I, as reader, was able to “fall in love” at the same time as the protagonist. Of course, later on, she realizes that she loves him, and then starts describing him from a biased point of view, but until that point, any opinions were completely my own. What a refreshing change from the books that assume you have to like a character just because the narrator keeps telling you to! Bottom line: experiment with objective storytelling, showing who a character is rather than telling what he is.

Read Part Three: Examples of the Different POVs.

POV Part 1—intro (Person)


POV part 1—introduction to person | writelarawrite

From Writing Fiction: A Guide to Narrative Craft by Janet Burroway:

“[Point of view] ultimately concerns the relationship among writer, characters, and reader. Who speaks? To whom? In what form? At what distance from the action?”

Today is my first in a short series on Point of View. First, an introduction to terms. Next, a comparison of the different choices of narration. Then, examples of each type. As always, feel free to ask any questions in the comments!

Contents

  1. Pronouns
  2. First Person
  3. Third Person
  4. Presentational and Representational
  5. Penetration and Filtering
  6. Combining POVs

Pronouns

Pronouns are words that we use in place of nouns so we don’t sound tediously repetitive and so we can tell the difference between ourselves and others. First person pronouns refer to ourselves—I, me, my, we, us, our. Second person pronouns are directed at someone or a group of people—you, your (singular and plural). Third person pronouns refer to someone else—he, she, it, him, her, they, them, their, his, its.

Most books are written in third person. The protagonist (main character) is he or she or it or they. Many are written in first person, with the narrator being the “I” talking. This is more common in YA novels. Very few are written in second person, but choose-your-own-ending books and some short fiction will be written in second person. Recipes and directions are written in second person, and so are advertisements, so writing with “you” as the protagonist comes off feeling commercial.

First- and third-person narratives can be divided further. Note, the following terms for categories have been borrowed from Janet Burroway’s Writing Fiction: A Guide to Narrative Craft. I recommend picking up a copy of the book for a reference if you want to know more than what I’ll be posting in the next week. The following information is a summary of her sections of point of view, mixed with other knowledge I’ve picked up over time.

First Person

There are two types of first person:

  • Central narration
  • Peripheral narration

In central narration, the protagonist is the narrator. The narrator is present for every action, and the action revolves around him or her. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is written with a first person, central narration.

Less common, but still prevalent, is peripheral narration, in which the narrator is not the protagonist, but is attached to the protagonist enough to tell a story about him or her. Examples of peripheral narrators are Nick Carraway in The Great Gatsby and Dr. Watson in the Sherlock Holmes stories.

Third Person

There are three types of third person narration: omniscient, limited omniscient, and objective or cinematic narration.

An omniscient narrator is not limited by time, place, or person. It can jump into the minds of any person, can sum up the history of 500 years in a few lines, and can change from place to place. Because the omniscient narrator is attached to no single person in particular, it is detached from everyone. Think of a person with few friends but hundreds of acquaintances. Or a politician, because omniscient narrators also call attention to themselves.

A limited omniscient narrator can see into the mind of just one character at a time. It may switch to a different character in a new scene or chapter, but it sticks to one person. Think of a parrot sitting on the shoulder of a pirate. It sees what that pirate sees, and the pirate might speak his thoughts aloud to the parrot, for no one else to hear. The parrot can then land on somebody else’s shoulder and have a similar relationship. This parrot may or may not share the views of the pirate, and might speak differently. Likewise the narrator’s voice can be separate from the POV character. (I’ll get more into limited omniscient narration and its subcategories in the next post).

An objective or cinematic narrator is neutral and never sees into anyone’s mind. Think of a fly on a wall, observing what is going on. Or a Vulcan journalist, that has no emotional connection to any of the characters in order to have a bias. Feelings and motivations of the characters can only be gleaned from their actions and dialogue.

Presentational and Representational

(These terms are borrowed from Characters and Viewpoint, an insightful read by a now infamous author.) “Presentational” and “representational” are related to how visible the narrator is in fiction. Representation pretends to be real—it represents real life. The narrator is invisible. Presentation acknowledges it isn’t real—it presents the story to the reader. The narrator has a distinct voice and may interfere with or comment on the story as it happens. The narrator in Stranger than Fiction isn’t just presentational, she’s present in the story.

It’s difficult to use movies as examples for the presentational/representational dichotomy, because like theatre, nearly all movies are presentational, whether they have a narrator or not. They might have some similarities to real life, if they are a mockumentary or are first-person filmed (like Cloverfield or The Blair Witch Project). But movies are generally unrealistic in form, which is why adding in representational elements like shaky-cam or lens flares can sometimes seem awkward and out of place. It’s presentation masquerading as representation.

So when we are talking about presentational or representational fiction, we’re talking about what the narrator is doing. Is the narrator saying, “I present to you, THIS STORY”? Or is the narrator silent? Usually these terms are only applied to third-person narrators, because first-person narrators are both. Sort of.

Penetration and Filtering

I know.

penetrate

But Card distinguishes between light penetration and deep penetration when talking about Third Person limited omniscience. If you’ve ever taken a writing class or read about strengthening your fiction, you’ve probably heard of filtering. (Actually, I thought I’d written a post about it, but not yet, apparently.) If you’re using filtering language, then the reader is experiencing the character experiencing something.

If you read, “Abraham Lincoln saw snowflakes out the window,” you’re probably picturing a window with snowflakes falling down, the view slightly obstructed by the president’s trademark stovepipe hat. But if you read, “Abraham Lincoln went to the window. Snowflakes were falling and sticking to the glass,” you see Mr. President going to the window, and then you see what he is seeing, for yourself. The first example was light penetration. The second was deep penetration.

But you can eliminate all filtering and still have light penetration. Light penetration just means you aren’t inside the brain of a character all the time. The narrator shows up and gives you a bit of a break. With deep penetration, every thought is that of the protagonist. It’s like you’ve switched to first person, but the pronouns are still third person. Save deep penetration for intense scenes—remove the narrator and replace it with the unfiltered thoughts of the protagonist. When the scene is over, then you can bring the narrator in again. (I’ll illustrate this more in Part 3. Feel free to ask questions if I’m being confusing or vague!)

Combining POVs

You can combine these POVs in a single work. You could tell a frame story, starting out in third person, and then have one of the characters tell most of the novel in first person, concluding again in third person once the story is finished (The Rime of the Ancient Mariner). Or you can switch back and forth between first and third, telling two different stories simultaneously (Tamar: A Novel of Espionage, Passion, and Betrayal).

However, if you do switch between different points of view, your section headings should alert the reader to a change, and you might consider using different tenses for each section, to further separate the two. In both examples given above, the more recent story was written in present tense (I am, he is) and the older story was written in past tense (he was, they went).

If you write the entire novel in first person but from different points of view of different characters, you might have some use past tense and some use present, like in The Poisonwood Bible.

Sound weird to write in present tense? People do it all the time when telling their own stories:

So I’m sitting in this bar, minding my own business, when this guy comes up to me and says, “Hey! You look just like Lisa Loeb!” And then he starts singing. “You say, I only hear what I want to. Youuuuu…saaaay…I only hear what I want to.” He doesn’t know the rest of the song, just that line.

Just remember, CONSISTENCY IS KEY. Tone, objectivity, and viewpoint need to remain consistent per scene. Unless you are extremely gifted and are writing spectacular omniscient narration, no head-hopping!

Read Part Two: Comparison of Different POVs.