FYI There should be a heading called 'RANT'

[Rachel Caldecott]

I'm beginning to suspect that this fad for Deep/Close POV is just like the fad for Gluten-free foods. "Eat this and all your health issues will magically disappear". "Write like this and you'll be a best seller". Grrrr. It smacks of fashion... the next "greatest thing" we should all be doing. Agh! What was good enough for Tolkien, CS Lewis and every other writer I like, should be good enough for me.

 

[Kitty]

Yes it was good enough for CS Lewis and his ilk but we don't live in the same times as them. The world has changed. People are bombarded by different forms of information and books are vying with all that for attention. As the world changes so must we as authors adapt in order to get our stories heard.

I used to read a lot of Victorian novels, authors like H Rider Haggard and H G Wells. They often have lengthy preambles before anything interesting happens. If you wrote something like that these days nobody would get beyond the first couple of pages.

This is what the writing craft is all about. Honing our skills to tell our stories in the best and most accessible way we can.

This is why places like Litopia are invaluable.

Put something up in the writing groups and we will be happy to help. The best way to learn to write is to write.

 

[Carol Rose]

I'm afraid I must strongly disagree, @Rachel Caldecott-Thornton. It's not a fad, for one thing. And no, it won't make you an instant best seller, but it will remove the distance between your readers and your POV character, thus making your character more fully developed, and overall making the story stronger. Let me give you an example that might help.

Sally felt her pulse race. She looked at John, unable to tear her gaze away from his face. She realized that everything she’d ever wanted was right here, with him. And as she did, she wondered if he felt the same way.

Nothing grammatically wrong with the sentence, but you’re telling the reader Sally’s emotions, her senses, and her thoughts. We are in Sally’s head. We don’t need to FILTER the emotion, the senses, or the thoughts. And in not doing so, it eliminates the distance and the passive feel of this paragraph.

Sally’s pulse raced, and she was unable to tear her gaze from his face. Everything she’d ever wanted was right here, with him. But what if he didn’t feel the same way?

We’ve used active verbs and removed the distance. The content is the same, but now it has a better sense of immediacy and urgency.

What do I mean by FILTER WORDS? This list:

Are These Filter Words Weakening Your Fiction? - Write It Sideways

Looking at each instance of where you've used one of these and determining whether you can switch it around and remove the distance - the filter - is step one in moving from an omniscient POV to a closer, deeper third-person POV.

Writing in close third is a matter of stepping outside the tendency to TELL the story through your POV - the author's - and instead get right inside that POV character and pretend you are there. In his head. You see what he sees. You feel what he feels. You touch what he touches. You smell what he smells. You hear what he hears, and you taste what he tastes.

Let me give you another example:

It was just an ordinary cat. John had seen a million like it in his lifetime, but something about this one called to him. "Hey, fella. Come over here."

At first, the feline eyed him warily so John squatted down to its level and held out his hand. The cat watched, still unimpressed, but John wasn't giving up. He sat on the pavement, not caring who might walk by and think his behavior odd. Green, feline eyes brightened a bit, and the cat sat up straighter, ears upright, chin lifted.

Ah, here we go. He's curious.

When John slowly extended his hand again, this time the cat inched forward until its cold nose touched John's skin. John slid his hand under the cat's chin, gently stroking the fur the way Whiskers always loved.

This cat could be Whiskers, if not for the coloring. Whiskers had been mostly black with a few white spots sprinkled here and there. This adorable fellow was exactly the opposite. Soft white fur dotted with black on its paws and the tip of its tail. Why is he out here alone? No collar, but that didn't mean anything. He looked well-fed and content, which cats living on their own usually don't.

"What shall I do with you, eh?"

When the cat rubbed his hand, the decision was easy.

Now this time, let's put the distance in there:

An ordinary cat came into John's view. He had seen a million like it in his lifetime, but there was something about this one that seemed to call to him. "Hey, fella. Come over here," he said.

At first, John noticed that the feline eyed him warily, so he squatted down to its level and held out his hand. John saw the cat watching him. It didn't look impressed, but John wasn't going to give up. He sat on the pavement. If anyone waked by and thought his behavior was odd, he didn't care. John noticed that the cat's green eyes brightened a bit, and that he sat up straighter with his ears upright and his chin lifted.

"Ah, here we go," he thought. "He's curious."

When John slowly extended his hand again, this time the cat inched forward until John felt the cat's cold nose touch his skin. John moved his hand under the cat's chin and gently stroked the cat's fur. It reminded him of the way Whiskers always loved to be petted.

John realized that this cat could be Whiskers, except that Whiskers had been mostly black with a few white spots sprinkled here and there. This cat's coloring was exactly the opposite. He had soft white fur that was dotted with black on its paws and the tip of its tail. John wondered why the cat was out here alone. He didn't have on a collar, but that might not mean anything. He looked well-fed and content. Cat's living on their own usually don't look like that.

"What shall I do with you, eh?" he asked.

When the cat rubbed John's hand, his decision was easy to make.

******

We used a lot more words to add that distance, including some unnecessary dialogue tags and a lot of "that" sprinkled in there. If you read it out loud, it's easier to spot the distance in the second example. We're TELLING the reader what John notices, sees, thinks, felt, is reminded of, realizes, and wonders. We've used an omniscient POV in the second example. We're looking down on the scene, describing it.

I hope this makes sense, and I hope it helps.

 

[Barbara]

I'm afraid I must strongly disagree, @Rachel Caldecott-Thornton. It's not a fad, for one thing. And no, it won't make you an instant best seller, but it will remove the distance between your readers and your POV character, thus making your character more fully developed, and overall making the story stronger. Let me give you an example that might help.

Sally felt her pulse race. She looked at John, unable to tear her gaze away from his face. She realized that everything she’d ever wanted was right here, with him. And as she did, she wondered if he felt the same way.

Nothing grammatically wrong with the sentence, but you’re telling the reader Sally’s emotions, her senses, and her thoughts. We are in Sally’s head. We don’t need to FILTER the emotion, the senses, or the thoughts. And in not doing so, it eliminates the distance and the passive feel of this paragraph.

Sally’s pulse raced, and she was unable to tear her gaze from his face. Everything she’d ever wanted was right here, with him. But what if he didn’t feel the same way?

We’ve used active verbs and removed the distance. The content is the same, but now it has a better sense of immediacy and urgency.

What do I mean by FILTER WORDS? This list:

Are These Filter Words Weakening Your Fiction? - Write It Sideways

Looking at each instance of where you've used one of these and determining whether you can switch it around and remove the distance - the filter - is step one in moving from an omniscient POV to a closer, deeper third-person POV.

Writing in close third is a matter of stepping outside the tendency to TELL the story through your POV - the author's - and instead get right inside that POV character and pretend you are there. In his head. You see what he sees. You feel what he feels. You touch what he touches. You smell what he smells. You hear what he hears, and you taste what he tastes.

Let me give you another example:

It was just an ordinary cat. John had seen a million like it in his lifetime, but something about this one called to him. "Hey, fella. Come over here."

At first, the feline eyed him warily so John squatted down to its level and held out his hand. The cat watched, still unimpressed, but John wasn't giving up. He sat on the pavement, not caring who might walk by and think his behavior odd. Green, feline eyes brightened a bit, and the cat sat up straighter, ears upright, chin lifted.

Ah, here we go. He's curious.

When John slowly extended his hand again, this time the cat inched forward until its cold nose touched John's skin. John slid his hand under the cat's chin, gently stroking the fur the way Whiskers always loved.

This cat could be Whiskers, if not for the coloring. Whiskers had been mostly black with a few white spots sprinkled here and there. This adorable fellow was exactly the opposite. Soft white fur dotted with black on its paws and the tip of its tail. Why is he out here alone? No collar, but that didn't mean anything. He looked well-fed and content, which cats living on their own usually don't.

"What shall I do with you, eh?"

When the cat rubbed his hand, the decision was easy.

Now this time, let's put the distance in there:

An ordinary cat came into John's view. He had seen a million like it in his lifetime, but there was something about this one that seemed to call to him. "Hey, fella. Come over here," he said.

At first, John noticed that the feline eyed him warily, so he squatted down to its level and held out his hand. John saw the cat watching him. It didn't look impressed, but John wasn't going to give up. He sat on the pavement. If anyone waked by and thought his behavior was odd, he didn't care. John noticed that the cat's green eyes brightened a bit, and that he sat up straighter with his ears upright and his chin lifted.

"Ah, here we go," he thought. "He's curious."

When John slowly extended his hand again, this time the cat inched forward until John felt the cat's cold nose touch his skin. John moved his hand under the cat's chin and gently stroked the cat's fur. It reminded him of the way Whiskers always loved to be petted.

John realized that this cat could be Whiskers, except that Whiskers had been mostly black with a few white spots sprinkled here and there. This cat's coloring was exactly the opposite. He had soft white fur that was dotted with black on its paws and the tip of its tail. John wondered why the cat was out here alone. He didn't have on a collar, but that might not mean anything. He looked well-fed and content. Cat's living on their own usually don't look like that.

"What shall I do with you, eh?" he asked.

When the cat rubbed John's hand, his decision was easy to make.

******

We used a lot more words to add that distance, including some unnecessary dialogue tags and a lot of "that" sprinkled in there. If you read it out loud, it's easier to spot the distance in the second example. We're TELLING the reader what John notices, sees, thinks, felt, is reminded of, realizes, and wonders. We've used an omniscient POV in the second example. We're looking down on the scene, describing it.

I hope this makes sense, and I hope it helps.

Really informative @Carol Rose . Thank you for this.

 

[AgentPete]

... and now there is a "Rant!" prefix... thxs for suggestion

 

[Rachel Caldecott]

Thank you, Carol Rose. Very well put. I was just having a childish temper tantrum. It is a difficult skill to master. I will battle on (probably screaming and hissing all the way). Barbara (and the delightfully named RainbowNerdAlix)have both already seen my first attempt, but I've been working on it again, so I might share, as Kitty suggested, and get advice from you all.

I will probably try applying it more to my new work, rather than completely rewrite the completed novel (the one Pete looked at on Sunday). Having said that, I'll probably rethink that stance after the next load of responses from agents. If they give me a unanimous, 'No, go away' I might try to change the writing style and go deep.

 

[Rachel Caldecott]

... and now there is a "Rant!" prefix... thxs for suggestion

Now if only all our leaders would be so wise Thanks Pete <3

 

[Deleted member 604]

@Rachel Caldecott-Thornton your very welcome.
And yes @Carol Rose is the very wise woman
I see Agent Pete does reply to his Litopian's then LOL @AgentPete - Its fine, he's too busy filming cinematography for LONDON and eating chocolate anyway
Looking forward to his latest addition this Sunday with no chocolate this time I hope, as it gave him a tickle in his throat but didn't stop him from giggling though which was both appealing and amusing to be honest

 

[Rachel Caldecott]

@Rachel Caldecott-Thornton your very welcome.
And yes @Carol Rose is the very wise woman
I see Agent Pete does reply to his Litopian's then LOL @AgentPete - Its fine, he's too busy filming cinematography for LONDON and eating chocolate anyway
Looking forward to his latest addition this Sunday with no chocolate this time I hope, as it gave him a tickle in his throat but didn't stop him from giggling though which was appealing and amusing to be honest

And, as my husband said, makes him sound slightly stoned

 

[Katie-Ellen]

Ladies! Play nice. He also has a day job.

 

[Rachel Caldecott]

Ladies! Play nice. He also has a day job.

Don't get me wrong. I think Pete is an absolute star! We all do. And we are all aware that he doesn't have to do this pop-up thing for us at all. I've found, when I've had him critique my work, that my immediate reaction is grumble, grumble, grumble. Then I think about what he's said and realise that he is totally spot on. Uncannily spot on. (Actually, nothing uncanny about it, he does actually know what he's talking about).

 

[Carol Rose]

Thanks, @Katie-Ellen Hazeldine

 

[Rachel Caldecott]

... and now there is a "Rant!" prefix... thxs for suggestion

That was quick. It's like rubbing the lamp and getting what I wish for. Could I have another go and suggest that perhaps you fill my bank account?

 

[Amber]

I sort of understand what you're saying. There were things I read when I was younger that were immersive and I loved it. I had all the time in the world and I could be hooked by something small and subtle. I'd still read those sorts of things now but it would have to really be worth it. I'd have to see something unique in the opening pages. It could be a small thing but the reality would be, is the small thing that speaks to me going to be something that would speak to the majority of people? I don't know. I don't think anyone can afford to be too subtle.

Maybe one year I'll read all the classics and learn to appreciate that type of writing again. But I'd have to be very disciplined about it and not so much force myself but really work at it.

How people write changes when how we live and think changes. We expect to find out what the point of anything is immediately. It's not enough for it to be mildly interesting or even interesting anymore. Hopefully there's still room for all kinds of different types of writing. I'd hate to think there's only one way to do it. For example, I think filter words have their place. Sometimes.

I bet sometimes is a filter word.

 

[Rich.]

I'm late to the party, and I don't want to muddy the waters, but...

The whole issue of narrative distance through POV is another tool in the box. In modern commercial fiction, close-3rd is de rigueur, but that doesn't mean all contemporary books, or even all contemporary commercial books, are written this way (although most are). You only have to step a little way outside the super commercial to find books that use variable narrative distance as a story-telling device. That is to say, there are plenty of modern novels that play with narrative distance while telling their stories. N K Jemisin's The Fifth Season springs to mind (it's science-fantasy, won the Hugo award in 2016, has sold goodness knows how many copies, and is currently being adapted for TV).

Playing with narrative distance works very well in large-canvass stories with multiple characters. It's the literary equivalent of a camera's zoom lens. Let me show you what I mean:

The swallows flew high against the moon. They did so every night at 4am. But that wasn't the weirdest thing about Foxley Avenue. The weirdest thing was the people who lived there. And the weirdest among them was Nzuki, who lived in the cracked house at the end.

Rain hammered at Nzuki's tiny window. She shifted under the duvet, wishing the rain would drown the swallows. She hated the thrice-damned swallows.

"Thrice-damned, bewitched and tainted beasts!" Talking aloud again, wasn't she? "Wasn't she?" Devil-touched creatures. "That's all I need!"

Nzuki threw off the duvet and stomped to the bathroom. The mirror was still cracked, much like the house, and the garage, and her freekin' mind. She still looked good though. Still had that magic sparkle in her smile. She opened the cabinet, flinging her reflection towards the window and the thrice-damned, bewitched, tainted, rain-loving swallows. She probably shouldn't have told them it was cool to fly at night. Probably shouldn't have given them raincoats.

*​

The first paragraph was an omniscient narrator. The second paragraph was that same narrator beginning to use the character's diction, and therefore bringing us closer to Nzuki. The third and fourth paragraphs are close-3rd on Nzuki – her diction, her thoughts. For the rest of the scene I'd stay with Nzuki.

Of course, to use this technique, there needs to be a reason that serves the story. But it's not so uncommon, despite the apparent inviolability of close-3rd in modern writing.

A final point. If you do use this kind of technique, it's important to realise that the omniscient narrator is not you, the author. You, the author, should remain invisible, unless you're writing a memoir. The omniscient narrator is another character, just like any of the others. You need never explain who the narrator is or why they are telling the story. But it'll certainly help if you know.

In summary, close 3rd-person POV is a tool, a favoured tool to be sure (particularly in straight-up commercial fiction), a tool that should be mastered, but a tool nonetheless. And not the only one.

 

[Rachel Caldecott]

Thanks Rich. Thanks also for telling me about The Fifth Season, which I've just now gone an bought.

 

[Charles Ott]

I was an amateur actor for a while, and became familiar with the emotions that "had to play to the back balconies." In fiction, of course, you're right under the reader's nose. But I still like the idea of using a "movie camera" POV that can move around to show the characters' faces in close-up. If your characters are good enough actors, so to speak, their facial expressions will tell you what they're thinking and you shouldn't have to get inside their heads at all. IMHO, the story moves faster when you write it that way, too.

 

[Rich.]

Thanks Rich. Thanks also for telling me about The Fifth Season, which I've just now gone an bought.

It's a great book. I do hope you like it!

--

If your characters are good enough actors, so to speak, their facial expressions will tell you what they're thinking and you shouldn't have to get inside their heads at all. IMHO, the story moves faster when you write it that way, too.

Chuck Palahniuk, he of Fight Club fame, would certainly agree with you. It's the minimalist school of thinking. I like it, but I wouldn't write it. Getting inside a character's head is, for me, the one thing written stories can do that film, TV and theatre can't (unless you admit voice-over).

It's all horses for courses, mind you.

 

[Tim James]

It's all horses for courses, mind you.

Quite right.
There is definitely an expectation for close-3rd in a lot of popular (for popular read highly commercial) fiction these days.
But some genre, for example epic SciFi and Fantasy where you are dealing with lots of characters and unfamiliar worlds, lend themselves better to the omniscient voice. A narrative that goes in close for the energetic and emotional scenes and zooms back out for a more general view when there is less going on can produce a very readable book, in my view.

 

[Charles Ott]

"It's all horses for courses, mind you."
Now see, that's an expression I don't think I've ever heard in America. Thanks!

 

[Rich.]

Horses for courses -- is that a British expression then? I had no idea. What would be the American equivalent?

 

[Rachel Caldecott]

I like the different idiomatic expressions that you get when you shift country. Like the expression he wants to have his cake and eat it too. The Italians say, that he wants the barrel full and his wife drunk. Or, (UK) you've made your bed, now lie in it, becomes in Italy, you wanted a bike, so peddle!

But back to my problem of the close 3rd person POV. I'm having a go a fiddling with the manuscript. The first chapter (which was written recently as a new beginning) is the one most in need of a rewrite. I think (as @Barbara says) I get more into my stride later on, and the book and POV flows better.

 

[Charles Ott]

Horses for courses -- is that a British expression then? I had no idea. What would be the American equivalent?

Probably nothing that would translate exactly. We might say "Different strokes for different folks" or "Whatever floats your boat" or just "Suit yourself." Or a pidgin-German phrase that we used when I was in the Army in Germany (that would have been 1967) -- "mox nix."

 

[Rich.]

I like the different idiomatic expressions that you get when you shift country. Like the expression he wants to have his cake and eat it too. The Italians say, that he wants the barrel full and his wife drunk. Or, (UK) you've made your bed, now lie in it, becomes in Italy, you wanted a bike, so peddle!

Brilliant. I'm fascinated by this sort of thing as well. Here in Spain you don't pull someone's leg but rather you take their hair. It's the milk! means it's really good (it's the shit!). And to have a blast is to pass it pipe (that last one has a really tortured etymology).

But back to my problem of the close 3rd person POV. I'm having a go a fiddling with the manuscript. The first chapter (which was written recently as a new beginning) is the one most in need of a rewrite. I think (as @Barbara says) I get more into my stride later on, and the book and POV flows better.

The important thing is that you feel in control. In a first draft, I never do.

--

Probably nothing that would translate exactly. We might say "Different strokes for different folks" ...

I think that nails it.

Or a pidgin-German phrase that we used when I was in the Army in Germany (that would have been 1967) -- "mox nix."

Said like it sounds? Do you know what the original German was/meant?

 

[Charles Ott]

I suppose the German was "machts nichts" but I'm totally guessing here. The phrase "mox nix" means "it doesn't matter" or "whatever." As long as I'm here, though, let me mention another item of Army slang in 1967. In the Army, "uptight" meant "totally prepared and not worried." Example: "--They're coming around for inspection! --It's okay, I'm uptight." In fact, the Army published a magazine for the troops with the title "Uptight." Of course, back in the States in those years, "uptight" meant "anxious," exactly the opposite.

 

[Barbara]

I suppose the German was "machts nichts" but I'm totally guessing here. The phrase "mox nix" means "it doesn't matter" or "whatever." As long as I'm here, though, let me mention another item of Army slang in 1967. In the Army, "uptight" meant "totally prepared and not worried." Example: "--They're coming around for inspection! --It's okay, I'm uptight." In fact, the Army published a magazine for the troops with the title "Uptight." Of course, back in the States in those years, "uptight" meant "anxious," exactly the opposite.

Yep, 'macht nichts' means 'doesn't matter'. Where in Germany were you stationed @Charles Ott? Ramstein? Stuttgard? Speng?

 

[Rich.]

In the Army, "uptight" meant "totally prepared and not worried." ... Of course, back in the States in those years, "uptight" meant "anxious," exactly the opposite.

That's interesting. It makes me think of Uptight (Everything's Alright) by Stevie Wonder. I've never given the lyrics to that song much thought before, but his use of uptight is clearly positive. The song was from 1966, so I wonder if uptight had a positive meaning outside the army as well – at least in some circles.

 

[Charles Ott]

Yep, 'macht nichts' means 'doesn't matter'. Where in Germany were you stationed @Charles Ott? Ramstein? Stuttgard? Speng?

Barbara -- I was in Gelnhausen. I wish I had pictures from those days -- we lived in old Nazi barracks (very nicely built of brick -- they were planning for the long run!) which had bas-reliefs over the doors depicting the heroic development of the German people, starting from heroic cavemen on the left, then heroic knights and peasants, and ending with heroic soldiers in coal-scuttle helmets on the right. The other thing about Gelnhausen is that it's built in a valley of the river Kinzig. Frederick Barbarossa's old imperial headquarters were on an island in the middle of the river, providing a natural moat. However, the ground was pretty soggy there. The rest of the medieval town is still there, but Frederick's castle has been sinking all these centuries and was about eight feet high when I was there. Someday, I've got to use that in a fantasy story! Later I went to Vietnam, but that's another story.

 

[Barbara]

Barbara -- I was in Gelnhausen. I wish I had pictures from those days -- we lived in old Nazi barracks (very nicely built of brick -- they were planning for the long run!) which had bas-reliefs over the doors depicting the heroic development of the German people, starting from heroic cavemen on the left, then heroic knights and peasants, and ending with heroic soldiers in coal-scuttle helmets on the right. The other thing about Gelnhausen is that it's built in a valley of the river Kinzig. Frederick Barbarossa's old imperial headquarters were on an island in the middle of the river, providing a natural moat. However, the ground was pretty soggy there. The rest of the medieval town is still there, but Frederick's castle has been sinking all these centuries and was about eight feet high when I was there. Someday, I've got to use that in a fantasy story! Later I went to Vietnam, but that's another story.

Wow, I bet you have some stories to tell. I work with US soldiers. I have tons of respect for you guys.