I love all three of these guys. I seriously can listen to them for hours. The dynamics between complimentary and contrasting themes of ideas is beautiful
for me The Hunger Games was a cautionary tale in POV. the first book worked with first person because we were mostly alone with Katniss and it helped us connect with her. By Mockingjay the first person POV was annoying because Katniss was away from most of the action and we had more characters that we wanted to get to know but we were only able to see them through Katniss's eyes.
That's exactly what I've always thought. We were very close to Katniss in The Hunger Games, but in Mockingjay we felt distant from the actual plot. I don't exactly know what Collins should (or could) have done differently, because that first book is so good, and it's not like the others are *awful*, but the restricted POV held them back for sure.
You are better than most in teaching people, and I think you're very good at keeping our interest. I always find some information in your videos I can incorporate in my own writing. Anyway, if you have time to answer, I would love your expanded viewpoint on omniscient writing. I'm "old school," Tolkien being my first inspiration. He wrote from an omniscient point of view but sometimes also brilliantly went into his characters' heads in some depth. So, we could say it was omniscient and third-person limited at the same time. I love that way of writing/reading since it also allows the writer to portray landscapes and backstories (in moderation and vaguely embedded in the narrative). How is that viewed in current literal fiction? That would be two narrative styles in one.
I feel the term "Head-Hopping" applies to when a perspective shift within a scene produces a negative, un-cohesive effect; i.e., done poorly. Frank Herbert's omniscient mode in the novel "Dune" is an example of how it can be done.
I am writing a scifi short story in 3rd POV close. Act 1 uses this POV, where Act 2 has inner monologue for the majority of the act. The 3rd and final act will is planned to be back to the 3rd POV close. With that being said, I am now wondering if because the 2nd act will be mostly inner monologue, if the entire story should be revised to just 1st POV instead.
In my experience, short story readers tend to expect a single POV. Even novelettes and novellas mostly stick with 1 POV. Only novel writers incorporate multiple POVs. Still, there are no writing rules, only guidelines. I have found it helpful to follow the guidelines until I feel I have enough skill with a technique to try pushing the boundaries.
I think that the most well known examples of second person done well are actually in epistolary novels such as Dracula. Or does that not count as second person?
My WIP is a YA Horror - I wrote in in 3rd person limited with multiple POVs - Recently after discussing it with a group someone suggested writing in 1st person with multiple POVs - I started re-writing it in first person and do like the couple of scenes that I re-wrote - however am now worried that maybe I should stay in 3rd because of the genre. Have you seen this genre in 1st with multiple? Would you suggest to stay in 3rd or do the first POV?
For my own part, one of the best-executed examples of First-person POV is the Bobiverse series by Dennis E. Taylor. You do have to make sure you listen the introduction for each chapter to understand which clone is talking, but I found it a very easy thing to follow.
Question: My preferred POV is "3rd Person EXTREMELY limited." I do not naval gaze. I will never voice a character's inner thoughts. My prose is a camera. Must I, then, be attached to a single character, or can I disembody that "camera" as one might in a scene in TV of movies. For example, I showed my main character coming home from work, then his neighbor dealing with his own crisis sitting on the picnic table in the parking lot of the apartment building they both live in. My main character went inside, but the scene with picnic-table-guy continued for a few paragraphs. I don't consider this head hopping because I was never in a head to begin with. Am I wrong?
I think it depends on how you handle the transitions. Cinema has the advantage of a literal camera. The audience can see every scene change immediately. As KMW mentioned, section breaks and chapter breaks provide a visual clue that something has changed. It almost sounds to me as if you are writing omniscient, which I equate with a cinematic style. What books have you read that use the POV you want? Those might be excellent guides to how to use this POV most effectively.
Thank you for this very informative video! I'm curious what POV you would consider The Lord of the Rings to be? Would that be Third Person Omniscient or Deep Third Person?
LOTR has sections (if I remember correctly) that are in omniscient, but most of it is written from various limited third-person POVs (Sam's, Frodo's, etc.).
![[ ออกกอง ] วัยหนุ่ม 2544 โลกหลังลูกกรง..ทัวร์กองถ่ายหนังใน "คุกของจริง" | JUSTดูIT.](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vB--aOkZCpw/mqdefault.jpg)
I love all three of these guys. I seriously can listen to them for hours. The dynamics between complimentary and contrasting themes of ideas is beautiful
for me The Hunger Games was a cautionary tale in POV. the first book worked with first person because we were mostly alone with Katniss and it helped us connect with her. By Mockingjay the first person POV was annoying because Katniss was away from most of the action and we had more characters that we wanted to get to know but we were only able to see them through Katniss's eyes.
That's exactly what I've always thought. We were very close to Katniss in The Hunger Games, but in Mockingjay we felt distant from the actual plot. I don't exactly know what Collins should (or could) have done differently, because that first book is so good, and it's not like the others are *awful*, but the restricted POV held them back for sure.
You are better than most in teaching people, and I think you're very good at keeping our interest. I always find some information in your videos I can incorporate in my own writing.
Anyway, if you have time to answer, I would love your expanded viewpoint on omniscient writing. I'm "old school," Tolkien being my first inspiration. He wrote from an omniscient point of view but sometimes also brilliantly went into his characters' heads in some depth. So, we could say it was omniscient and third-person limited at the same time. I love that way of writing/reading since it also allows the writer to portray landscapes and backstories (in moderation and vaguely embedded in the narrative). How is that viewed in current literal fiction? That would be two narrative styles in one.
Yes, I agree to this view of how Tolkien used POV in LOTR.
I feel the term "Head-Hopping" applies to when a perspective shift within a scene produces a negative, un-cohesive effect; i.e., done poorly. Frank Herbert's omniscient mode in the novel "Dune" is an example of how it can be done.
I am writing a scifi short story in 3rd POV close. Act 1 uses this POV, where Act 2 has inner monologue for the majority of the act. The 3rd and final act will is planned to be back to the 3rd POV close.
With that being said, I am now wondering if because the 2nd act will be mostly inner monologue, if the entire story should be revised to just 1st POV instead.
Good question and similar to my own (above)
In my experience, short story readers tend to expect a single POV. Even novelettes and novellas mostly stick with 1 POV. Only novel writers incorporate multiple POVs. Still, there are no writing rules, only guidelines. I have found it helpful to follow the guidelines until I feel I have enough skill with a technique to try pushing the boundaries.
I think that the most well known examples of second person done well are actually in epistolary novels such as Dracula. Or does that not count as second person?
My WIP is a YA Horror - I wrote in in 3rd person limited with multiple POVs - Recently after discussing it with a group someone suggested writing in 1st person with multiple POVs - I started re-writing it in first person and do like the couple of scenes that I re-wrote - however am now worried that maybe I should stay in 3rd because of the genre. Have you seen this genre in 1st with multiple? Would you suggest to stay in 3rd or do the first POV?
It's not a genre I'm super-familiar with, but I would definitely take a strong cue from whatever is most popular in stories such as this.
@@KMWeilandAuthor Thank you for the feedback.
For my own part, one of the best-executed examples of First-person POV is the Bobiverse series by Dennis E. Taylor. You do have to make sure you listen the introduction for each chapter to understand which clone is talking, but I found it a very easy thing to follow.
Question:
My preferred POV is "3rd Person EXTREMELY limited." I do not naval gaze. I will never voice a character's inner thoughts. My prose is a camera. Must I, then, be attached to a single character, or can I disembody that "camera" as one might in a scene in TV of movies. For example, I showed my main character coming home from work, then his neighbor dealing with his own crisis sitting on the picnic table in the parking lot of the apartment building they both live in. My main character went inside, but the scene with picnic-table-guy continued for a few paragraphs. I don't consider this head hopping because I was never in a head to begin with. Am I wrong?
I think it depends on how you handle the transitions. Cinema has the advantage of a literal camera. The audience can see every scene change immediately. As KMW mentioned, section breaks and chapter breaks provide a visual clue that something has changed. It almost sounds to me as if you are writing omniscient, which I equate with a cinematic style. What books have you read that use the POV you want? Those might be excellent guides to how to use this POV most effectively.
Sounds like you're attempting omniscient. If done with clarity and intention, it's perfectly acceptable.
Yeah that’s not third person limited. Third person limited specifically filters through a single character’s experience.
Thank you for this very informative video! I'm curious what POV you would consider The Lord of the Rings to be? Would that be Third Person Omniscient or Deep Third Person?
LOTR has sections (if I remember correctly) that are in omniscient, but most of it is written from various limited third-person POVs (Sam's, Frodo's, etc.).