Another Point of View
Most folks understand the difference between first-person and third-person narration. First person is much of how my blog is written. I am “speaking” to my readers. I have an opinion and share my experiences. In that sense, I only express the stuff in my own head and give my own account of details.
Second-person narration is rare, as it includes the reader as a character who is involved in the story. If you haven’t read such a work, you should explore Bright Lights, Big City by Jay McInerney. Did you see what happened, there? It just happened again!.Second-person uses “you” to address the audience. It is uncommon because it is difficult to maintain throughout the story, and can be uncomfortable for readers.
Third-person is exactly that: a third, unseen and unnamed narrator who describes the scene and relays the dialogue. The third person can be “omniscient”, knowing everything that’s happening in the story and in each character’s thoughts, and provides information that the characters do not know. This all-knowing, all-seeing form of narration tells the reader not only what’s happening, but how every character thinks and feels about it. I’m learning, however, that this type of writing can be displeasing to many audiences. Let me explain:
Enter the “Point of View”. Most readers, myself included, expect a narration, even though it is in third-person, to be from a particular character’s viewpoint.
For example, in my first chapter, beyond the posted excerpt, I have a silent argument going on between two figures. Imagine a room with multiple people. Two of them want to shout at each other without letting the rest of the group know, so they use facial expressions, glares, and gestures, like a shoulder shrug, to communicate. If the narration tells the reader what thoughts are going through BOTH minds, the reader may be confused as to whose point of view this particular section of the story is in. It’s subtle, but disturbing, since knowing another’s thoughts is not what most people can do. (I’m thinking of Mel Gibson after trying on pantyhose in “What Women Want”).
Correctly written, we would know the thoughts of a first character, and see the gestures of the second. We would understand the first character’s interpretation of the gestures rather than know the thoughts of the second. This puts the entire scene into only one point of view; the first character’s. When written with this focus, we can only be in one figure’s head at a time; only see what that person sees; only feel what that person feels. It resonates with most people’s normal existence.
The point of view may change with each scene or with each chapter. It may remain the same throughout an entire book. Regardless, whichever point of view is written, the reader only gains the perspective of the one focus player.
Some books have the same scene written over and over, each from a different character’s point of view. The reader gains new insights with each retelling of the event. This lends itself well to mysteries and suspense novels, when some crucial element or clue is overlooked or misinterpreted by the string of interviewees, each telling the same tale from a different perspective.
There are some instances when the omniscient narration is effective. In those cases, the narrator is a character with an opinion. An example of this: The Book Thief, written by Markus Zusak. In this work, the narrator is Death: a compassionate observer of human suffering.
So, here I am. Not only working to incorporate strong plot points and defining character arcs, but making sure each scene is written in a specific point of view. While I’m at it, I’m pondering the various writing genres. I’ll expound on the “what” and “why” of that next time.
Until then, I hope you enjoy dissecting a great book. Thank you for your interest and support.