Writing Regarding POV

MasFaqih

Active member
Joined
Apr 10, 2024
Messages
108
Points
28
Hello, iam a fairly new author ,i want to ask ,if its better for supportive character to use 1st perspective in its story,or 3rd perspective,i just realized many novel use 3rd perspective to describe the event for supportive character
 

NOTkaosin21

Active member
Joined
Dec 23, 2022
Messages
35
Points
33
i feel either ones fine as long as you're able to clarify whos speaking or thinking. i prefer to use 3rd person for side characters though
 

RepresentingEnvy

En-Chan Queen Vampy!
Joined
Apr 13, 2022
Messages
5,625
Points
233
It depends on the story. If you are a new author, it's better to learn the basics first. Keep a consistent tense and learn grammar/punctuation. Keeping a consistent perspective would be ideal.

Basically, keep it simple.
 

CSDestroyer

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2024
Messages
38
Points
18
Funny answer: Change perspectives every other sentence.

Serious answer: Depends on the story you want to write. Introspective stories are usually better in the first person. Ones that focus on the environment external to the protagonist, I'd write in the third person.

There's also different levels to third person, too. Third person limited, third person omniscient. First person and third person limited are good for mysteries or situations where you want to keep information from the reader, to have them guessing. I personally rarely, if ever, use third person omniscient.
 

MasFaqih

Active member
Joined
Apr 10, 2024
Messages
108
Points
28
Funny answer: Change perspectives every other sentence.

Serious answer: Depends on the story you want to write. Introspective stories are usually better in the first person. Ones that focus on the environment external to the protagonist, I'd write in the third person.

There's also different levels to third person, too. Third person limited, third person omniscient. First person and third person limited are good for mysteries or situations where you want to keep information from the reader, to have them guessing. I personally rarely, if ever, use third person omniscient.
Can u give me an example for what its like to use third person omniscient
 

KuruKinaar

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2023
Messages
60
Points
18
Everyone has their own preference! Whatever feels natural and best for you to write is what you should do :D
I personally love third person, it's what I feel I am best at writing. I feel I can give more detail, see more, and do more.
 

MasFaqih

Active member
Joined
Apr 10, 2024
Messages
108
Points
28
Everyone has their own preference! Whatever feels natural and best for you to write is what you should do :D
I personally love third person, it's what I feel I am best at writing. I feel I can give more detail, see more, and do more.
I use 1st perspective for supportive character but i think its a bit weird like having multiple mc,so i tried to change it to 3rd one
 

Bloodbath_Voracity

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 22, 2021
Messages
28
Points
53
I
Hello, iam a fairly new author ,i want to ask ,if its better for supportive character to use 1st perspective in its story,or 3rd perspective,i just realized many novel use 3rd perspective to describe the event for supportive character
I'm sure you can use whatever. It's up to you and whatever you're scheming. But for consistency, choose one.
This is where you ask yourself the purpose of those characters? Why do you need their POV?

World building? Character development?

Is your story plot driven or character driven? If it's the former, best to use 3rd pov; If it's the latter, use 1st POV because it's closer to the psyche of your characters. Which is important because character driven stories depends heavily to the character development of the characters.
 

MasFaqih

Active member
Joined
Apr 10, 2024
Messages
108
Points
28
I

I'm sure you can use whatever. It's up to you and whatever you're scheming. But for consistency, choose one.
This is where you ask yourself the purpose of those characters? Why do you need their POV?

World building? Character development?

Is your story plot driven or character driven? If it's the former, best to use 3rd pov; If it's the latter, use 1st POV because it's closer to the psyche of your characters. Which is important because character driven stories depends heavily to the character development of the characters.
Iam sorry,can u explain what is plot driven and character driven?
 

Story_Marc

Share your fun!
Joined
Jul 23, 2022
Messages
435
Points
108
Iam sorry,can u explain what is plot driven and character driven?

If they don't, I will when I get home. I've been meaning to make an episode on this soon anyway.

Though anybody who says you should pick 1st inherently for character doesn't know the full extent of their tools. Indirect internal dialogue is a thing, people!
 

Story_Marc

Share your fun!
Joined
Jul 23, 2022
Messages
435
Points
108
Okay, so here are some excerpts I have from a book on the topic. Hopefully this helps in the meantime, until I break it down in my own words that simplify everything.

This is from Character vs. Plot

MUSIC AND LYRICS: TWO TYPES OF NOVELISTS
Nothing changed about Irving Berlin’s tune when he wrote the lyrics. But it wasn’t until words were added that it became something magical.

Often a piece of writing can be brilliant in one area but lacking in another. Until that other area can be improved, the project will remain “a dead failure.”

This is just as true in writing fiction as it is in writing music.

I believe there are two types of novelists, i.e., two archetypes into which all fiction writers may be grouped. On the one hand you have those for whom plot ideas come naturally. On the other, you have those for whom characters arise with ease.

Plot-first novelists think of story ideas all day long. Theirs are the fabulous books in which many exciting things happen. The focus tends to be on the events occurring in the story rather than on the characters, and usually, lots of things blow up. I know about this kind of novelist because I’m one of them.

Character-first novelists are those writers who are endlessly fascinated by what makes people tick. The fictional people they create are rich, engaging, believable, and compelling. You feel that those people truly exist.

The problem is that each kind of novelist is usually as awful at the one thing as she is terrific at the other thing. The plot-first novelist tends to create characters who are flat, unrealistic stereotypes: cardboard cutouts who, despite different moods, agendas, genders, and occupations, seem eerily similar to one another — and the author’s personality. The character-first novelist produces wonderfully vibrant characters — but often has no idea what to make these interesting people do. Rarely do you see a novelist who is naturally good at both. I have never met one.

What’s a writer to do?

In music, people solve this dilemma by finding a partner who is good at what the other is weak in. So you get Rogers & Hammerstein, Gilbert & Sullivan, Lerner & Loewe, Menken & Ashman, Berstein & Sondheim, and Webber & Rice. One brings the music and the other brings the lyrics. While it works
great for music, it’s a bit more cumbersome when writing fiction.

There have been examples of novelists cowriting successful books. Stephen King and Peter Straub, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, and Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman come to mind. The bestselling Left Behind series was written by coauthors Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins. LaHaye supplied the theological leadership and left most of the actual writing to Jenkins.

By and large, though, writing a novel is a solitary thing. It is an effort most often engaged in by an individual author sitting alone at her laptop dreaming the most incredible dream.

From that, we go to this part on character-driven...

CHARACTER-FIRST WRITERS
A novelist with a talent for creating marvelous characters will populate her book with fascinating people and sparkling dialogue, and that should satisfy any reader. Right? Don’t we come to fiction to meet interesting characters we’d like to get to know in detail?

Following that theory, we get long, tedious passages like this:

“So ye think it’s all destined, do ye? A man has no free choice at all?” He rubbed at his mouth with
the back of his hand. “And when ye chose to come, for Brianna, and then again, for her and the
wean — it wasna your choice at all, aye? Ye were meant to do it?”
“I — ” Roger stopped, hands clenched on his thighs. The smell of the Gloriana’s bilges seemed
suddenly to rise above the scent of burning wood. Then he relaxed, and gave a short laugh. “Hell
of a time to get philosophical, isn’t it?”
“Aye, well,” Fraser spoke quite mildly. “It’s only that I may not have another time.” Before Roger
could expostulate, he went on. “If there is nay free choice … then there is neither sin nor
redemption, aye? … We chose — Claire and I. We wouldna do murder. We wouldna shed the
blood of one man; but does the blood of Culloden then rest on us? We wouldna commit the sin —
but does the sin find us, still?”
“Of course not.” Roger rose to his feet, restless, and stood poking the fire. “What happened at
Culloden — it wasn’t your fault, how could it be? All the men who took part in that — Murry,
Cumberland, all the chiefs … it was not any one man’s doing!”
“So ye think it is all meant? We’re doomed or saved from the moment of birth, and not a thing can
change it? And you a minister’s son!” Fraser gave a dry sort of chuckle.
“Yes,” Roger said, feeling at once awkward and unaccountably angry. “I mean no, I don’t think
that. It’s only … well, if something’s already happened one way, how can it happen another way?”
“It’s only you that thinks it’s happened,” Fraser pointed out.
“I don’t think it, I know!”
“Mmphm. Aye, because ye’ve come from the other side of it; it’s behind you. So perhaps you
couldna change something — but I could, because it’s still ahead of me?”
— Diana Gabaldon,The Fiery Cross

On the one hand, it seems okay. It’s a good exchange. There’s a strong feeling for distinctiveness between the two characters. Some snappy banter. But … nothing happens. Yakety-yak-yak.

It might seem unfair for me to lift a random page of dialogue and expect it to have pyrotechnics or at least a good bar fight. But this goes on through the entire book. Read this from an Amazon reader’s review of the book quoted above:

As I was reading this book, I was trying to figure out why it was so tedious and hard to get through. I am an avid reader. I read every night. I feel that if I can get through a James Michener novel I can get through anything. … One problem apparent to me was that there were no feelings of “I can’t put it down, what happens next? I can’t turn the page fast enough” in this book. … So what was it then? ... the plot? Maybe that was the whole problem. The plot was poor and boring, almost nonexistent.

Ouch. Space does not permit me to include long passages from this novel in which the characters are dealing with the minutia of everyday life, including potty training a child, brewing coffee, and noticing the many kinds of weeds found in a forest. According to another reviewer, “The remainder of the book is filled with excruciating and repetitive (albeit generally well-written) detail about mundane aspects of the main characters’ lives over a very short and largely uneventful span of time.”

In other words, good characters — good writing, even — but nothing happens. It’s a snoozer. That’s what you get when you score A+ for your characters but get an F for plot.

Have you felt that way about your own writing? You know you’ve got great characters and some terrific scenes, but you have this lingering foreboding that nothing is happening. Worse, you don’t know what to do about it. You think maybe a subplot or a kidnapping or … I know: a new character! Even as you think it, you realize you’re grasping at straws. So your book gets longer and longer but never seems to find its way home.

On the flip side to plot-driven (which I'd argue far more of webfiction writers fall into, including this flaw...

PLOT-FIRST WRITERS
On the other hand, maybe you’re a plot-first writer. You never have a problem driving your plot home. In fact, you probably drive over any actual character who dares try to arise from the bubbling asphalt of your story. Plot firsters steamroll their way from plot point to plot point, cloning characters on the copy machine in the sky and cracking the whip to make them do whatever it is the plot needs them to do next.

What do we get when we score an A+ for plot and an F for characters?

We get Cliffhanger and Mission to Mars and The Transporter 2. And we get the character named Levine in Michael Crichton’s Jurassic Park sequel, The Lost World.

For pages, this character goes on and on about the sanctity of maintaining a pristine environment in the lost world. And he is a meticulous scientist. For instance, we get this commentary from the narrator:

The truth was that Levine — brilliant and fastidious — was drawn to the past, to the world that no longer existed. And he studied this world with obsessive intensity. He was famous for his photographic memory, his arrogance, his sharp tongue, and the unconcealed pleasure he took in
pointing out the errors of colleagues. As a colleague once said, “Levine never forgets a bone — and he never lets you forget it, either.”

Field researchers disliked Levine, and he returned the sentiment. He was at heart a man of detail, a
cataloguer of animal life, and he was happiest poring over museum collections.
— Michael Crichton, The Lost World

Fastidious. Critical of others for their sloppiness. Okay, that works as a partial character sketch. But ask yourself, would that person do the following:

Thorne shrugged. He still saw nothing. Standing behind him, Levine began to eat a power bar.

Preoccupied with holding the binoculars, he dropped the wrapper on the floor of the hide. Bits of paper fluttered to the ground below.

“How are those things?” Arby said.

“Okay. A little sugary.”

“Got any more?” he said.

Levine rummaged in his pockets and gave him one. Arby broke it in half, and gave half to Kelly.

He began to unwrap his half, carefully folding the paper, putting it neatly in his pocket.”
— Michael Crichton, The Lost World

Levine did what? This wild-eyed scientist/activist, whose only semblance of an actual personality was that he was obsessed with keeping man’s impact on nature to nil, drops a candy wrapper to the ground? It’s incredible. It’s unconscionable. It’s completely wrong for that character.

But, you know, the author needed a reason for the dinos to eat him.

That’s why this is called character-serving plot. It’s such an egregious example of character-serving plot that I use it as my prime example whenever I teach at conferences. Who cares that this character would never do such a thing? The plot must be serviced!

Do all your characters feel pretty much like you? Oh, I know that every character we write is, in a sense, a manifestation of ourselves, but that’s not what I’m talking about. It’s not enough that your characters differ from you in terms of gender or motive or background or race or externals like that. Do you have this sense that your characters are either just like you — in how they talk, think, etc. — or are mere stereotypes?


Here’s a test: If you refer to your characters as “the girl,” “the boss,” “the fat guy,” and “the villain,” you might be a plot firster. If you accidentally switched the names of two of your characters and no one could tell the difference, you might be a plot-first novelist. If you find yourself able to, with little effort, make it Fred who defuses the bomb instead of Mike, you might be a plot firster.

But who cares, right? It’s a great story. People will be entertained. They’ll never guess what’s going to happen, but when they find out they’ll feel like it was the right call. What more can anyone ask? Certainly there are plenty of successful novelists and filmmakers who create stories that are all about plot. First Blood, anyone?

You hear a higher music, though. You’re not content to write cardboard characters or you wouldn’t be reading this book. Though you sense it will be difficult to create characters as wonderful as your plots, you realize your fiction could achieve another level entirely if you did, so you’re willing to give it a try.

I used to be far more plot-driven. I've worked hard for years to improve my character writing skills. Strength with plot and character is important to take your story to the top, but I'd also say focus on whatever you want at the end of the day. Whatever makes you happy and gets you to your goal.

Also, putting all this into my own more concise words is one reason I prefer to just make videos, especially when I can grab my own examples. But I didn't want to ignore this either. I hope this has helped you out!
 

Story_Marc

Share your fun!
Joined
Jul 23, 2022
Messages
435
Points
108
I'm also going to add this because it helps me not go off on a whole thing about how "write 1st person for character" is incomplete advice. Just use internalization if you're going to do 3rd person with character. Character matters no matter what, 3rd or 1st. See what I showcase here in this one on internalization when breaking down prose:


I'm not saying 1st person shouldn't be used, but... Sigh... I'll get around to that video in a week or two. This is something I need to stop putting off anyway.
 
Top