Being a Better Writer: Perspectives · 9:35pm Aug 14th, 2015
Perspective. It's important.
I'll be honest, part of me right now simply wants to link that wonderful scene from Pixar's Ratatouille wherein Anton Ego sits down for a meal and orders "perspective." Mostly just because it's a fun scene, and Anton is such a fun character. I mean, his nickname is "The Grim Eater," what's not to love about that?
But ultimately, we're talking about a different type of perspective today. Well, different types, to be more specific. Today's matter comes as consequence of a number of online posts in writer's groups and the like I've seen where younger writers inquire after differences in perspective (some of them not even knowing much more other than that the different types exist) and what those perspectives are used best for. Along with that, I've seen misconceptions (such as there is a "magic-bullet" perspective for certain genre's) and confusion (such as responses that only provide half answers).
So today? I'm diving into perspectives. Nothing fancy, we're simply going to look at each perspective type and talk about it. What makes it tick, how it's used, where you might have seen it or run across it before ... the works.
Like I said, nothing fancy. Let's get to it!
What is a Perspective?
All right, so, we'll start at the beginning (usually the best place to start): What is a perspective?
I think that perhaps the best way to explain it is that the perspective of your story is akin to the lens that your reader will view the story through. In cinema, for example, when a director sits down to create a film, they must decide what will be needed to bring the story to life in the best possible way. Different movies can be shot in different aspects, or with different types of cameras, in order to give the film a different look and scope. For example, a film that is shot with a wide lens, one that would give it a cinematic aspect ratio, would be very different for the audience than one with a smaller aspect ratio (you can check this link for a visual comparison if you're unfamiliar with this concept).
Now, obviously this isn't a 1:1 comparison. Film relies on a number of different things to achieve those differences (film, lens, camera type, etc). But for our purposes, let us consider them one cohesive whole and call it the lens the audience sees the world through. The director has a choice of what "lens" to let the audience view the picture through. Clever and capable directors will often make sure they use this to their advantage, choosing the frame shots of the film or work so that the viewpoint given by their chosen lens amplifies or improves the audience's perspective in the story.
In writing, the perspective that an author chooses performs in a similar manner. Each perspective is a "lens" for the reader to see the world through. Depending on which lens the author chooses to employ, different parts of the story may be more or less apparent for the reader. Focus may shift to different areas, follow different things. In a story, everything that is presented to the reader will be through the lens of the perspective ... which means that a choice between the various types of perspective can have a strong impact indeed on your readers.
What is perspective? It is the viewpoint, the lens, through which all of your reader's interaction with the story will occur. Everything that is presented to them, everything contained in your work, will pass through the lens of perspective before reaching the reader. Which is why making a perspective choice is so important: Whatever "lens" you choose to employ, you're going to need to make sure that it is one that works for both you, the reader, and the story you want to present. Each perspective comes with its own narrative strengths and weaknesses ... however, and I will stress this, this does not mean that one is inherently superior to the other. While different perspectives may bring different strengths and weaknesses to each story, this does not mean that a story cannot be written in another perspective, nor that the story couldn't be done well in that perspective. It simply means that the lens will be different, and that as the writer, you'll need to consider what each perspective will bring to your story.
Additionally, you are not confined to one perspective for the whole of the book. There are stories out there that jump between multiple perspective types between characters (not in the same scene or character, however) during the course of the story. Note, however, that this can be jarring for the reader, and is not often employed or recommended.
But now that we've said all this and established what purpose the perspective holds, let's look at the perspectives themselves.
Third-Person Perspective
Most would agree, I think, that third-person, in its varied forms, is generally the most common perspective found in fiction. Third-person, so named for the act of placing the "lens" outside of the characters, in the shoes of an invisible "third-person" observing the action, is an incredibly common perspective in writing. A good way to think of this form of writing is to—once again—compare it to cinema. Most film is third-person: The camera exists outside of the character's viewpoints, panning around the scene rather than just showing us what happens from the eyes of the primary character. A third-person perspective is going to be similar in that it will follow the characters as that "external view." For example, a third-person account of an event will read like this:
Sam let out a shout, tugging her hand back from the hot metal.
Rather than like this:
I let out a shout of pain as I tugged my hand back, away from the burning hot surface.
That second one is first-person perspective, by the way. We'll get to that in a minute. But do you see the difference, there, even in how you experienced the scene? With a third-person narrative, we're "watching" the action from an outside view, while the other narrative experiences it directly.
Is one better than the other? No. But third-person narrative does bring some strong strengths to it. Because your "lens" is an invisible camera that is (relatively) unconstrained, use of a third-person perspective can allow an author to present more of a world than another perspective type would. For example, in a third-person story, the "camera" can be aimed somewhere other than your title characters, lingering on an element of scenery or focusing on something behind the hero, for example.
Now, I must admit I've lied slightly. Earlier I said we could compare a third-person narrative to cinema ... and that's not entirely accurate. It can be, but that actually is only similar to one kind of third-person narrative: The omniscient third-person narrator. An omniscient third-person narrative is one that has no restrictions on where that camera can go. It can zip up close to a character and snoop at their thoughts, or it can pull back and view an entire scene. An omniscient narrator can be likened to a documentary or a hollywood movie: actual narration is not restricted in any way. It can present character's thoughts and ideas. It can inform of what someone is feeling. It also isn't constrained by any one character's surroundings or perspective.
Omniscient third-person, at least in my own experience, used to be much more popular than it is today. It's generally a common starting point for a lot of young writers, as it allows them to present a story in a manner similar to a film: Here's the establishing shot, here's a full view of the entire combat arena where all the action is taking place, here's what the characters are thinking as they have a giant battle ... The camera is free to move all around, which makes things easy on the writer, at least, since they can simply move from spot to spot and scene to scene without too much worry. You want to know what happened here? The author will take you there.
But it does come with drawbacks. It's hard to make an omniscient third-person narrative where there is mystery involved, for example, which is why many omniscient narratives tend to limit themselves in a few select ways. Omniscience allows the author to tell the reader anything, but when the reader can know anything, it can sometimes be hard to construct certain narratives or keep the reader in the dark. Omission of vital information, for example, becomes quite obvious in an omniscient story.
Additionally, omniscient narratives also have the ability to get into anyone's mind ... but at the cost of sometimes making the interactions feel a little ... impersonal. Which is why some omniscient third-person viewpoints can read a bit like a documentary, slightly clinical of their subjects and material.
Anyway, like I said, the omniscient third-person seems to be less popular these days than it's successor, the limited third-person narrative. Where the omniscient third-person is like a Hollywood production, the camera zipping around the action to show as much as possible, the limited third-person perspective is more akin to the similarly described third-person video game. Where before the "lens" could move where it chose, a limited third-person is tied to one character at a time. The "view" can move around, but only in a limited space around that character. The reader can see the character's thoughts and ideas, but only for the current viewpoint character.
Like omniscient, this has advantages and disadvantages in storytelling. Don't be fooled into thinking that "limited" means the tools it gives you are restricted in some manner, limited third-person can be a very powerful tool that allows one to counteract the weaknesses of omniscient. First of all, the information offered by the narrative is much more restricted, as it is focused on one specific area. This can be a very good thing, as it can serve the reader and create a more tense or expectant narrative. It's also more personal. In an omniscient narrative, a large battle in which one of the main characters sees a dropship with a friend onboard crash may not pack the same punch, as an omniscient narrative has little reason to hesitate for more than a few moments before running the camera to the site of the crash. A limited viewpoint, however, forces the camera to stay with the character who witnessed the crash and follow them as they work their way to the crash site.
Is that good? Well, for some stories yes, for others, no. However, as I said earlier, third-person limited is by far and above the current popular choice of narratives. It gives us a closer view of the action, allows readers to be more personable with a character or small set of characters. It doesn't jump between heads, but limits itself to one character at a time. For example, in Colony the three primary characters each have chapters where one of them is the focal point of the third-person limited camera. During their chapters, everything is from that perspective: Only their thoughts are directly in the text, show comes from their perspective, etc. An omniscient form of Colony wouldn't have that, but instead mix all their thoughts and access everything at the same time.
Right, now, there's one more form of third-person narrative to discuss: Third-Person Objective, or as I like to think of it, third-person retelling. I don't have as much to say about this one, since it isn't seen quite as often as the other two, but the easiest way to think of it is as third-person narrative that is being told to you by an outside party (or an involved party some time later). This is the kind of story you could, once again, get with a documentary or a news report, sort of like in omniscient, but unlike omniscient, may only follow the tellers knowledge and understanding.
Where this differs from limited is that the one telling the story is not, at the moment of the telling, involved in the events. Think of, if it helps, as an older character (say a background character) retelling the sequence of events. They since might have found additional information to supplement their story, allowing them to jump between characters and scenes, but the story still comes from them as the primary source.
First-Person Perspective
Where third-person relies on an external "lens" to show the reader the world, a first-person narration is, as expected, confined to a single viewpoint: The direct viewpoint of a character.This is the type of story where you see a scene from one character's eyes, and that character's eyes only. The reader gets to read that character's thoughts, sensations, feelings ... everything ... but only for that viewpoint character. The only impressions of other characters come from the viewpoint, the only things they see they have to be looking at, etc. Going back to games, it may help to think of this perspective as the same lens/camera a first-person game might offer. Your reader is going to see the world through the eyes of the character, and only through those eyes.
While this might seem very limiting, many great stories make use of first-person perspective. Mysteries, for example, especially Detective Noir works, benefit greatly for a first-person perspective, as they allow the reader to be in the mind of the detective, experiencing the world through their shoes. Other types of stories with heavy visceral elements (survival, struggle, etc) can also benefit from the personal perspective that first-person brings.
Now, you actually do have a choice as to what kind of first-person narrative. You can, for example, roll with first-person limited, which is what most do. This is the classic first-person narrative, and it's exactly like it sounds: first-person, real-time-in-their-head, and that's all you get. Only what they know at the moment (and from before) and what's happening around them.
A good way to think of this one could also be to consider it first-person present (regardless of written in present or past tense) as it covers a story happening as the reader reads. The perspective only shows what the character knows, sees, and experiences through the story.
However, there is another type of first-person perspective, that of first-person objective. Which, as you might guess from the name, is a lot like third-person objective. It shares the same similar mechanic in that it is sort of a retelling, so again, you could call it that instead of objective.
Regardless, it isn't going to be too dissimilar from a first-person limited with the exception that the one doing the retelling and narration may have outside information. This information will still be presented in first-person, but will step outside the limited scope. For example, where a first-person limited story could have this scenario—
Mr. Harris shut the door in my face, ending the discussion. I heard the porch creak as he shifted his weight, and then the heavy sound of his footsteps moving across the aged planks.
—a first-person objective could be like this:
Mr. Harris shut the door in my face, ending the discussion. From my perspective inside at the time, I couldn't see the look on his face, but my neighbor later told me that he had waited for a moment, shifting his weight and lighting a cigarette right on my porch before turning and leaving. And Mr. Harris never smoked unless he was nervous.
Subtle, but at the same time, distinct from one another.
Second-Person Perspective
The last and final perspective, and without a doubt the least used. In fact, an author can go their entire life and never use this perspective. Why? Well, because it just isn't that useful most of the time.
Simply put, second-person perspective is similar to first-person, except that it directly places the reader in the story by substituting "you" for "I." And that's just about it. It's a story that informs the reader that they are the primary character, and then moves them through said story.
Now, of all the perspectives we've talked about today, second-person is perhaps the most hit-or-miss. This perspective saw its greatest success with the classic Choose Your Own Adventure style of book, which placed the reader in the shoes of the main character on a quest of one kind or another. Occasionally you will also see it in a short story. But other than that? You won't see much of this perspective, nor will you likely use it often. Because a second-person perspective invariably runs afoul of problems outside of either a short work or the choose-your-own-adventure style story, the largest of which is that you, the author, need to predict what your reader will think, how they will react, and what they will do. And while some short stories can pull this off for common elements, doing so in a full work is hard. Even harder when you consider everything that a character needs to experience. For example, what sex is that main character going to be? Is that important to the story? Will you have to specify it? Or will you leave it to the reader (as it is "them")? But what happens when those two things come into conflict?
Second-person perspective, as a result, is a neat trick ... but generally doesn't amount to much more. There are too many hurdles, too many pitfalls. Even savvy, experienced writers avoid the second-person perspective, and with good reason. While it's nice to know it is there, you probably won't find yourself using it often.
Last Thoughts and Advice
So, those are the different types of perspective authors and writers will choose from when putting together their work. But there's one last question that I feel deserves an answer, one asked by a lot of young writers: how?
First of all, practice makes the difference. This is why writing classes can be so helpful. They'll force you outside of your comfort zone and push you to write in different styles and perspectives. If you want to learn how to write a specific style, start doing it! Sit down and put pen to paper or fingers to keyboard, and see what you bring to it!
Second, when it comes to your story, do consider what kind of perspective will be most valuable for the type of story you want to tell. What "lens" will best focus on the themes, ideas, and elements you want to present? What will different perspectives do for the reader?
Last, and this is more for the act of writing itself, think of your characters. If you're going to be doing first or third-person limited, you're going to be inside their lives. Show their experiences, and give the reader a taste of their experience.
So ...
... let's summarize. Perspective choice is the choosing of a "lens" that your readers will view the story you create through. Each comes with advantages and disadvantages. Third-person perspectives follow characters externally, while first-person perspectives do so with an internal perspective. Second-person puts the reader themselves in the shoes of an internal perspective.
So, now you know. The only thing left to do? Practice, and polish that lens.
One thing that I think is worth mentioning is that the first person perspective is the best suited f you want to utilize an Unreliable Narrator, when the character in question is either actively lying to the audience or their sanity has been otherwise compromised. Even beyond cheesy "in an asylum all along" twists, there's a lot of compelling stuff that can be used with the trope.
These days I pretty much just stick to third-limited though. Have a few story ideas ear marked as first person, should give it a whirl again sometime.
Hate second person. Aside from some really silly ones on the side, the majority of Second-Person perspective stories on this site alone are Romance, usually stepping into Sex. Yeah... nope
I do prefer limited over omniscient, because of how closer we can get to characters, how we can see the character's possible flawed thought process, and things as such.
What do you think is the largest number of perspectives a writer can juggle before the story gets convoluted?
3320847
# of characters = Author skill * length of story
Thanks for the blogpost! I hadn't really given this subject that much thought before now.
That said, I think Tastes Like Heresy is first-person objective, while its sequel, Desert Spice, is first-person limited switching between characters at scene breaks. Is it even still considered first-person when you have that many perspective shifts?
I seem to have a thing for writing things in first person. Maybe it's because I have an easier time of conveying what one character is feeling and experiencing that way, and that helps me communicate their character to the reader. Still, I think I have a couple stories on back burners that are third-person of one variety or another...
3320927
Ok, then what do you find as the best story with the most PoV swaps out of curiosity? Tried WoT but couldn't get past several characters of whom I despised.
3320847
Second person is hard to write in, but it can be rewarding. Like in my story I used second person for a chase/capture scene and I used that perspective to instil fear and panic. When I asked some people to read it before putting it up, they said that they were on their seats and they could feel the adriniline pumping. When I asked why, they told me that they felt like they were part of the action. I left gender a mystery then it was easier for them to place themselves into the story.
Getting people invested into a character and then switch to a first person limited, you make a connection to the character because you experianced it with the character. You feel more invested in the character and you also know his reasons for reacting to certain stimuli. Not saying that this is the only way to make a deep connection to a character, but it does make a very unique connection.
-Equinox_
3321351
Well, Phoenix_Dragon's A New Way has at least four perspective shifts between the characters going around doing things that the others can't see.
Nictis, Sky, Cara, Chirrup. There's probably more I haven't thought about.
The Powers of Harmony also have a few perspective shifts near the later chapters due to the plot events.
I put in "length of story" because, obviously, a short story 2K words long with 3 perspective shifts is going to be downright confusing unless you clearly define what the heck is happening.
3321391
The problem that comes with that for me is trying to capture feelings and emotions of a person, and instilling it in the reader. A lot of times I read things of that sort and I go, "That's not what I'd do in that scenario", and that causes me to become frustrated. I'm sure an author can pull it off for a section of their audience, but I'm pretty sure that you can't have one that applies to everyone.
3321494
I'll give it a shot when I have time. Still have yet to find a good way to dig into Viking's novels without having to download extra stuff to read the darn things.
*looks sheepish*
3321523
Shameless Self Promotion: My main fic technically has nearly a different characeter's PoV every chapter
3320218
You can actually do an unreliable narrator in third-person limited and objective as well. It's definitely not as common, because it's slightly trickier than first-person to pull off, but don't feel that the only way to do an unstable narrator is in first-person. Crud, I doubt it'd be impossible to do in omniscient first-person either (and if you want a direct example of this in action, check my story Carry On, which is very much an unstable narrator for the first few chapters).
3320847
Aside from Choose Your Own Adventure, the only good second-person story I can ever recall reading was a very short story about a magic duel wherein the reader was one of the participants ... but it worked because they awoke tied to a chair, and then discovered that the life you'd had was nothing more than a magic illusion, part of hiding from the duel until you could lure someone out. It was amusing and an effective way of overcoming the hurdles of second-person.
That's the only one. Ever. Also, one of maybe three I've ever actually read in a published work.
As far as the largest number of perspectives, that's really up to the author and the readers. I'm reading the Seven Suns Saga right now, for example, and it has something like twenty viewpoint characters (third-person limited). Granted, it's a seven book series, and each chapter is only around 1500-2000 words, sometimes less. Which is a change from how Wheel of Time handles it, where it has about the same number of characters, but will give three or four basically a mini-novel (with rise, fall, and climax) inside each book and then give the other characters select chapters. And then there's books which never return to a viewpoint again, and tell a story from dozens of character's views.
Convoluted? Yes. Arguably, all of them are, though. I'd have to agree with AppleTank in that it has a lot to do with the skill of the author. As it does length of the story ... though I could see some tricks being utilized to make it a bit more approachable in a shorter work.
Number of perspectives is a really, really tricky aspect to get write. Sanderson was surprised when people complained about the number of perspectives in his first book because there were only three, rotating with each chapter. What he found after doing some research into it was that unhappy readers either didn't like one of the three characters or were confused by the timeline (as it would sometimes overlap between chapters rather than being straight and linear). Jordan had issues with the WoT with people disliking certain characters or wanting to read about other characters just flat out wanting to skip whole thirds of his books because they didn't want to read about someone.
So I guess what I'm saying is that there's a definite aspect of Author Skill * Length to it, but there's some other elements as well, such as the audience. Juggling multiple perspectives is a tricky thing.
3321127
Yeah, you called both of those correctly. Also, a perspective will always be a perspective regardless of how many shifts you have at points. First-person is still first-person. Obviously if your third-person limited is jumping midscene over and over again you may as well go omniscient, though, since that many changes while being limited would just become very disorienting (you don't have that problem, btw).
3321391
That sounds completely jarring. You jumped into second person just for a chase and then went back to first-person limited? That completely shatters the concept of the primary character. To me that sounds a bit like a mess, like those movies that randomly dive into the first-person camera because they saw it somewhere else and thought it looked cool, but really aren't sure how or where to use it. Especially in the same scene, you should not be pulling perspective switches (especially with the same character) barring a very experienced, specific reason.
In fact, I'm certain enough of this that I'd assert that if you went back and rewrote that random second-person scene to be first-person, you would have more favorable feedback.
3321351
And ... there's one of the issue with perspective shifts. Readers can hate having to read other characters. Crud, there are readers who will reject whole works because one perspective followed a character that wasn't the character they wanted it to follow some of the time.
3321607
Sorry, I explained that perspective shift poorly. I'll explain in cinema so I don't use a term incorrectly.
The prolog starts with a oversweeping shot of the badlands, while a bit of exposition is given establish it in the story. We then zoom into the caverns that lie below the surface where we fallow the wandering of a lone traveller. In second person we see them comming up to a large gate. Where they soon discover that they are not alone. While still in second person we see them make a futile attempt to escape. After capture they are sceld into a cocoon. Go back to omniposit narrator, where we do a time lapse (more explosition). Sneek peak at main characters, but only mentioned in passing. Then a fade to black. The second chapter starts with a first person limited veiw.
I won't say anything else or that would lead to spoilers for the story. But, really this recap of the story isn't doing it any justice. And so far I've got plenty of positive feedback for the story, even from non-bronies. The only negative one I can think of is those people that only dislike for the use of an OC. And I already have rewrites thought out, mostly to flesh out the setting. But waiting for more chapters to rewrite.
-Equinox
Something else that just occurred to me: Different perspectives sometimes require different kinds of writing tricks. For example, while it's useful to italicize the main character's thoughts that are being retold during first-person objective in order to differentiate them from the viewpoint character's editorial as they retell the story, there's really no need for such a construct in first-person limited. That said, I should go edit some chapters in Desert Spice.
3321351
David Brin's Uplift novels are rife with perspective swaps. In fact, new chapters are marked by the name of the entity whose perspective is being portrayed therein. Since it's so clear whose chapter it is, it's never confusing. It's also my favorite series of books in the history of ever. I'd recommend starting on Startide Rising, which focuses on a ship piloted by sapient uplifted dolphins trying to escape from a toxic planet out from under a galaxy's worth of aliens fighting over them, all the while trying to learn more about the place they've stopped for repairs on.
3321391
That is an intriguing method, and one I'd never thought of. It might also work to have a sort of cold open (like on Doctor Who) featuring something happen to the everyman stand-in for the reader, and then swap over to the main character with your perspective of choice. Or you could return to that second-person everyman every-so-often for interludes throughout a story...
3321607
Thanks for the education! And now I have another entry for the list of problems I don't have.