Just as a movie camera cannot film anything beyond its scope, or outside of its field of view, your POV narrator cannot know, and therefor cannot tell the reader, anything that he or she does not know. This presents a challenge, because sometimes it’s very tempting to try to sneak in information beyond the scope of the POV.
POV limitations include the direct physical layout; i.e. the POV character cannot see what is happening behind her, as well as abstract information; i.e. the POV character cannot know the villain’s intent, unless she has learned of it directly and the reader knows this.
Why is it so important to keep POV consistent? Because, like an ameteur video where the camera is shaking and pointed at random things, with cut-off frames, wide when it should be zoomed in, or panned out when it should be zoomed in, an inconsistent POV makes it difficult for the reader to follow the story. Like a camera, the POV directs the readers attention to exactly what you, the writer/director, want them to be looking at. If you’re not sure where the reader should be looking, the reader will be lost.
A lot of novice writers, myself once, and occasionally still, included, break POV either because they don’t have a clear understanding of which POV they are using, or because they mistakenly think that because they’ve decided to use omniscient POV “Anything goes.”
Omniscient POV is the only POV where you can safely move the camera from character to character and pan out to speak from the author’s voice. However, poorly managed omniscient POV ends up just looking sloppy. If you choose to write in omniscient POV, you still have to carefully consider the effect on the reader. The story is told by the author-as-narrator who knows everything, but it is still possible to step out of this POV and jar the reader.
To demonstrate this, I’m going to take a passage from Dream of a Vast Blue Cavern and rewrite it in a different POV. Here it is in badly written omniscient:
“I swore an oath to protect you,” Glace said. Stasia was determined to help hold the line, and if she did so she would die. “If you will not come, I must carry you.” He reached forward and placed his strong hands on her shoulders.
“Don’t,” she hissed. Glace didn’t understand that if he interrupted her, the Flames would incinerate them all.
“The city,” Larc said, tears filling her eyes. “Oh, Ancestors, look at the city, Stasia.”
Stasia kept her gaze on the Flames, creeping closer to the shore. Behind her, the city was burning. Not just a building here or there–the whole city.
The problem with this scene is that we’re not sure who to relate to in this moment. Three different characters, experiencing three different emotions. It’s too much for the reader to follow. We’re also not sure where to look. Are we looking from Glace’s position behind Stasia at her back? Or from Stasia’s position out over the Flames? Or from Larc’s position looking back at the city? And who is looking at Larc, seeing the tears in her eyes? There is too much going on, and the reader gets lost.
An omniscient POV, while it allows the narrator to know the thoughts of all of the characters, doesn’t necessarily mean that the narrator will be in all of the character’s heads at once. It also doesn’t mean that characters can know things that they wouldn’t naturally know. In this example, both Stasia and Glace have thoughts where they make definitive statements about each other’s thoughts, which they could not possibly know for sure.
Here is the same scene written again, in passable omniscient:
The city was burning. Not just a building here or there–the whole city. Glace and Stasia, intent on the Flames over the lake creeping closer to the shore, did not see it, but Larc looked over her shoulder.
“The city,” she said softly. “Oh, Ancestors, look at the city, Stasia.”
“I swore an oath to protect you,” Glace said, ignoring Larc and keeping his own gaze relentlessly focussed on Stasia’s back. “If you will not come, I must carry you.” He reached forward and placed his strong hands on Stasia’s shoulders.
“Don’t,” Stasia hissed, thinking of her father–was he in there, trapped in one of the burning buildings? “If I release my cold, they may incinerate us all.”
This is a little better than the first, because we are better oriented. The POV starts omniscient, with a wide-shot of the burning city and the Flames on the lake, and ends up inside Stasia’s emotions. We know that Glace’s gaze is relentless, but we’re not deep in his thoughts before we transition to Stasia’s.
Because total omniscient doesn’t fit my own personal storytelling method, I choose to write in limited third person. I like it because I can get deeper into character. In this version, we are in Stasia’s POV. Here is how the scene actually appears in Dream of a Vast Blue Cavern:
“I swore an oath to protect you,” Glace said. “If you will not come, I must carry you.” She felt his strong hands on her shoulders.
“Don’t,” she hissed. “If I release my cold, they may incinerate us all.”
“The city,” Larc said softly. “Oh, Ancestors, look at the city, Stasia.”
She turned for a brief moment, holding her cold front tightly before her. The Flames crept closer. Behind, the city was burning. Not just a building here or there–the whole city.
“Father,” she whispered.
And, of course, nobody’s perfect. There is still a small break in POV in this example. In the last paragraph, “The Flames crept closer” is impossible for Stasia to see if she has turned to look at the city. How would I fix this, if I could go back?
I’d probably change it to:
She turned for a brief moment, holding her cold front tightly before her. The air from the lake grew warmer. Behind, the city was burning. Not just a building here or there–the whole city.
With this change, I’ve still indicated that the danger in front of Stasia is increasing, without showing something that is impossible to see from her view.
In order to know whether or not your POV is working, hand your draft over to your writing group or second readers. Because inconsistencies in POV have such a jarring effect on the reader, your readers will be able to find them for you.
To fix problems with POV, you have to really look at the scene purely from one character’s vantage. What does my POV character know and see and sense? To fix the problems, find a way to convey the information without breaking POV. Often you can infer or show information in a way that it seems natural to the reader.
For further examples of POV breaks and how to resolve them, pick up Jame’s Scott Bell’s Revision and Self-Editing. It’s a great resource with some really detailed examples.
Tomorrow, we have an exciting guest post from Amanda June Hagarty, 101 TIWIK #27: What Does Character Driven Actually Mean?
This post is part of a series of 101 Things I Wish I’d Known Before I Wrote My First Book. Start reading the series at the beginning.
If you’re enjoying this series, please sign up for my email newsletter for a monthly update on appearances, book releases, giveaways, special deals, and a blog round-up!
One thought on “101 TIWIK #26: POV III, Fixing It”