Forum: Author Hangout

However, there is a problem with it. The last sentence, Jay's thoughts, should either be in italics or the "I" should be "he."

It's a mess either way.

The principal walked towards me. I trembled. What did I do wrong this time?

vs

The principal walked towards him. He trembled. What did he do wrong this time?

Both are horrific, and that constant current viewpoint shtick some writers do is so annoying, it is hard to tell which would be worse.

I suppose it might be less horrible in context.
You know, when it is surrounded by even more horrible writing so it pales by comparison.

Sorry. I'll see my way out.

The principal walked towards me. I trembled. What did I do wrong this time?

That's first-person. Deep POV is third.

That's first-person. Deep POV is third.

These two statements seem to be incompatible to me.

In 1st-person, the narrator is telling a story of what happened (is happening) to him. In 3rd-limited deep POV, the reader is the character. Living the story through the character, not being told what the character saw, smelled, heard, felt, etc.

I once read an article using "Silence of the Lambs" as an example. I forget the example, but instead of the reader being told the character jumped, the person actually jumped reading it as if it were happening to him. The reader was really immersed in the story.

"the reader is the character" is not compatible with third person narration.

Okay, saying the reader is the character is not literally correct. That's 2nd POV. But in deep POV, the reader is living the story through the character without a narrator between them.

I don't think it's asking too much for us to say what we mean and mean what we say.

Or intimate what we don't explicitly say. The whole premise here is NOT saying "the character jumped". Instead, we're supposed to goose the readers with a feather (tres kinky).

But, in Switch's defense, I don't think it's fair to blame him for what other author's claim. He's merely reporting the facts, as he understood them from the (supposedly) single book he read on the topic.

If it's third person point of view, there is still a narrator between them, no matter how much you try to minimize the narration.

Only when you are not in "deep" mode. Just like you don't show all the time (you tell when appropriate), reading a story 100% in deep POV would be tiring (and extremely long).

If it's third person point of view, there is still a narrator between them

This is from an article I just found googling https://www.standoutbooks.com/deep-pov/:

In the most extreme form of deep point of view, you're writing as the character; the narrator disappears almost entirely.

Also from the article:

Beth Hill of The Editor's Blog explains, "Deep POV is a fairly new option for writers. It's only become popular in the last 20–40 years, but it's made itself strongly known and keenly felt… much of current fiction is written using this viewpoint."

Deep point of view is a technique that tears down the wall between the reader and the point-of-view character. It aims to remove every obstacle standing in the way of the reader experiencing everything the character experiences.

There are several aspects of writing deep point of view that account for the difference:

- Limiting tags with dialogue and internal thought,
- Avoiding filter words like heard, felt, watched,
- Replacing the narrator's voice with the character's voice,
- Showing over telling.

Unlike other approaches to point of view, deep point of view – in most cases – should not be used consistently throughout the story. I hope you noticed from the sample passage that this tool makes a scene more intense, more immediate. It's supposed to do that, but imagine reading an entire book in deep point of view. You'd be emotionally exhausted by the end!

Use deep point of view with intention, picking and choosing scenes that are best served by this close-up view. How long and how often you use this tool is up to you; the point is, be discerning.

In the most extreme form of deep point of view, you're writing as the character; the narrator disappears almost entirely.

So, no "he indicated", "she waved her hand" or even, "he drew his gun"? I can't recall ANY Narratorless 3rd POV stories!

But your example does a much better job of indicating how Deep POV works, though ... it seems the same techniques would apply in whichever POV an author chooses.

If it's third person point of view, there is still a narrator between them, no matter how much you try to minimize the narration.

Again, the idea is that the Narrator is standing between the narrator and the action, relating what's happening. Just as in past tense, the narrator is relating what happened, long ago. The narrator needed even have been present to witness the events. Now that's distance from the action! ("I heard, from a friend of a close relative's cousin ...").

But in deep POV, the reader is living the story through the character without a narrator between them.

That's the objective in ALL stories. How you get there, though, is open to question. As far as I can tell, 3rd-limited deep POV is simply one (or a few more) individual's opinion.

You stick strictly to what the main character senses (sees, hears, smells) and thinks.

That's 3rd-limited. You can only tell the reader what the POV character knows, sees, hears, thinks, feels, etc. The scene is told from the POV character's perspective, just like 1st-person.

The difference between regular limited and deep is how you write it.

That's first-person. Deep POV is third.

I'd have expected 1st, as many writers insist that everyone MUST write in 1st to 'involve the reader'. Is that a strict requirement of the basic concept, or just one author's personal views?

Again, I'd prefer a book which analyzed which techniques to apply to the various POVs, to make them all deeper.

to the various POVs, to make them all deeper.

The more the narrator is involved, the less deeper.

rewrite 1st person present tense story to 3rd person past.

Why not just use 3rd person present tense, as it will do that for you?

1st present: "The door slam shut. There's nowhere to hide. I..."

I wrote a lot of 1st person present tense and third person present tense, and I'd write that as:

1st Person Present: On hearing the door slam shut I look around, and see there's no where for me to hide. I ....

3rd Person Present: On hearing the door slam shut Fred looks around, and sees there's no where to hide. He ...

3rd Person Past: Fred heard the door slam shut so he looked around, but he saw there was no where to hide. He ...

I don't see how what you write as 3rd deep adds anything more than what is in either the 3rd Person Present or 3rd Person Past in my examples above.

I don't see how what you write as 3rd deep adds anything more than what is in either the 3rd Person Present or 3rd Person Past in my examples above.

I'm confused by that. I get the idea of getting the reader to jump, rather than saying "He jumped", but without someone saying "The door slammed shut", then why would anyone jump at all? Without a narrator, either 1st or 3rd, then how to you trigger new events? As far as I can determine, the story just shifts to ALL dialogue with no observational or narrated events.

But, clearly, I'd need to purchase several books before finally finding the relevant examples on page 98.

"The door slammed shut", then why would anyone jump at all? Without a narrator, either 1st or 3rd, then how to you trigger new events?

"The door slammed shut" is not the narrator telling the reader.

Okay, you're going to ask, "Then who's telling the reader the door slammed shut?" It's the words the author uses to convey the story. We think of the author as a narrator, but he's not. He's writing a story. The narrator is telling a story. Very subtle, but there's a difference.

Okay, you're going to ask, "Then who's telling the reader the door slammed shut?" It's the words the author uses to convey the story. We think of the author as a narrator, but he's not. He's writing a story. The narrator is telling a story. Very subtle, but there's a difference.

So, the assertion that "Deep POV" skips the narrator is mere quibbling? That there IS a narrator, but he's not the typical in-your-face (unseen) individual telling the story, it's merely 'observations' from on high?

I hate to break it to you, but that's the definition of narration, while the entire concept of the narrator/storyteller being a particular character is a relatively recent innovation in fiction.

So, again the entire "Deep" framework is:
- Show, not Tell
- Keep the vital scenes SHORT, otherwise the 'deep' framework is meaningless, and
- Minimize the 3rd wall (i.e. DON'T 'talk' to the reader, explaining what's happening, but do what we're all supposed to as writers, investing the time to make it interesting.

Once again, the whole "Deep POV" seems to be a couple sentence idea, you can purchase for $26 a shot. There doesn't seem to be any actual meat in the entire overpriced meal!

JMHO, of course. But, you're merely confirming what I always surmised about the field, that it's entirely a one-trick pony being promoted as an entire circus festival. While you can ride a semi-lame pony, it still ain't no elephant parade down Main Street.

Again, the central idea has merit, and is a vital element of decent literature, but the authors seem intent on burying the fact that it's an obvious single line of advice, hiding as an 'all new way of writing'. Nah, it really ain't!

3rd Person Past: Fred heard the door slam shut so ...

I don't see how what you write as 3rd deep adds anything more

The way I understand it, in your example the reader is seeing Fred hearing the door slamming shut. In "deep," the reader hears the door slamming shut… is more immersed in the story.

In "deep," the reader hears the door slamming shut… is more immersed in the story.

Again, I understand the concept, it's the execution that I'm not grasping. If there is NO narrator, than who provides the observations? In first person, it's the 1st person narrator. In third, it could be built into the dialogue, but is typically the narrator who applies it.

While it's best to not SAY "Steven slammed on door", someone still needs to note that the door was slammed.

I think that's the point we're all stumbling over.

If there is NO narrator, than who provides the observations?

When you're watching a movie, there's no narrator telling you what's happening. You see it. In a novel, the author uses words for you to see what's happening.

And that's called narration.

No. There is no narrator.

Deep point of view is a way of writing fiction in third-person limited that silences the narrative voice and takes the reader directly into a character's mind.

If that person is correct, I don't write in deep 3rd-limited. It's the same article that I said made a mistake with the pronoun (or not using italics). According to this guy, in deep 3rd you write it in the voice of the POV character.

While third-person limited writing attaches to a single character and refers to them by their name or pronouns, deep POV takes it one step further—elminiating filter words and writing as the character instead of about them.

Use the character's voice instead of the narrative voice. With deep third-person POV, you're cutting out the middleman and getting information right from the source—your POV character. When you shift into this perspective, the narrative voice suddenly feels like an author intrusion which distracts the reader and pulls them out of the moment. Be sure to write from your character's mind.

This is the article I quoted from: https://www.masterclass.com/articles/how-to-write-deep-pov#how-to-write-in-deep-point-of-view

If that person is correct, I don't write in deep 3rd-limited.

Okay, maybe I do write in deep because here's an example from a different article on the subject: https://theeditorsblog.net/2011/11/16/deep-pov-whats-so-deep-about-it/

Third-person—

He was lost, Thomas thought. Lost and certain someone followed him.

Third-person deep POV—

He was lost. Lost and certain someone followed him.

Third-person—

He was lost, Thomas thought. Lost and certain someone followed him.

Third-person deep POV—

He was lost. Lost and certain someone followed him.

Once more, the same old advice authors have always given. Don't Tell readers what the character's think! Nothing new here at all, just a couple new over-hyped terms with a $20+ price tag.

Nothing new here at all,

Actually it is relatively new. It's just that you're familiar with it. See my history in my last post.

I just went back to editing my WIP. I was about to start reading the chapter I'm up to and went to the last line of the previous chapter to get my bearings. The last line of the previous chapter is:

Charity was fuming. Her fists clenched and unclenched. Damn Pete Wheelson!

That's Deep POV. "Damn Pete Wheelson" is what the POV character (Charity) is thinking. The reader is inside her head during this scene. And it's not in italics. I'm not showing her thoughts. I'm stating what she's thinking.

When you're watching a movie, there's no narrator telling you what's happening. You see it. In a novel, the author uses words for you to see what's happening.

Oh, you can still very much have narration through point of view in a movie. It just takes a different form.

First is the first person, classically used in Film Noir where the protagonist actually narrates the story as it is acted out.

Then you have the classic Third Person, where the camera follows the action. This is the "classic" way movies are presented.

Then you have "Third Person Omniscient" (or "God View"). This may be in a movie that covers many POV characters or groups, like say an epic war movie, or even Lord of the Rings, which bounces between many main storylines. Or even in Shawshank Redemption, where the narrator is not even the protagonist, but tells their story.

Which is ironic, as the narrator of that movie later on did play God.

It's just that in film, most people do not seem to notice this even when it is in action.

When you're watching a movie, there's no narrator telling you what's happening. You see it. In a novel, the author uses words for you to see what's happening.

Not to pick on you, but it's the same old argument, only it used to be "plays", rather than "movies". The basic concept never changes, it's only a failed novelist hoping to cash in on an old concept, without putting ANY additional work into the idea other than cloaking it in new terminology.

Again, we've beat this poor horse to death, as I keep repeating the same point. I asked the initial question, thinking there was no point to purchasing the books (which I've avoided for years), as it's merely a rehash of old ideas. So I hate to keep piling on, at your expense, but your attempts to 'explain' the concept merely highlight how barren the marketing behind it is.

@Dominons Son

And that's called narration.

It's also called "fiction", the narration is assumed. The movie analogy is merely empty promises, as it still takes work to make the concept pan out.

They are just throwing a bunch of jargon around it to hide what it really is.

Or, to hide the fact that this particular emperor has no clothes, and none to sell, despite all the marketing hype.

In my (perhaps hopelessly simplistic) understanding put bluntly, deep 3rd person is what you get when you mechanically rewrite 1st person present tense story to 3rd person past. Perhaps, because of that one critical episode you want readers to learn stuff 1st present couldn't possibly present.

From my (current) understanding, in most of these Deep POV stories, the whole story is in 3rd person, so there's no 'transferring' from 1st to 3rd. My issue, is I can't see how Deep POV would be restricted to ONLY 3rd, or 1st, or even (gasp) 2nd. It's simply ANOTHER technique, which any author can apply any way they desire.

My initial question was whether the various books on Deep POV offered anything worthwhile, and from the sounds of it, it's simply more 'show not tell', taken to a slight extreme during short passages.

it's simply more 'show not tell

Very much so (in my opinion)

I found this example that I think is good:

"Jay was terrified of the principal. She always yelled at him during recess when he wasn't doing anything wrong." Now consider this version of the line rewritten in deep POV: "The principal walked towards Jay. He trembled. What did I do wrong this time?"

However, there is a problem with it. The last sentence, Jay's thoughts, should either be in italics or the "I" should be "he."

Not to mention the "She always yelled", which also distances readers, rather than the more active real-life examples in dialogue. Another alternative is "Jay trembled as Principal Jones approached, glancing around for an escape." There are multiple distancing words and filler phrases. But again, that's not so much POV as simply editing, not relying on telling but showing what's happening.

What's more, telling is often preferable, rather than including another dozen pages simply to avoid quick summaries between related events.

Thanks, Switch, as that answers my question. But I agree with Reluctant_Sir. The links keep showing up in Amazon's 'Recent Searches' and the associated 'Similar Items' lists, but as I've long suspected, the books are unlikely to provide actual suggestions, just more "Do this, not that!" generalities.

"Jay trembled as Principal Jones approached, glancing around for an escape."

That cracked me up! I was trying to figure out why the Principal was looking for an escape. Who is really afraid here?

to me, what's been said about Deep POV sounds like trying to merge 1st person and third person, or to justify such a merger.

No, 1st-person has a narrator. The 1st-person character is telling the story. He's the narrator.

3rd-person deep (also called close) POV is showing to the extreme. No narrator. No telling.

to me, what's been said about Deep POV sounds like trying to merge 1st person and third person, or to justify such a merger.

It's not so much merging the two, as picking the limitations of each. ;)

Still, aside from the idea of LIMITING show and tell, I still can't tell what Deep POV offers that hasn't been endlessly discussed already (by every single author since the 1950s).

Still, aside from the idea of LIMITING show and tell, I still can't tell what Deep POV offers that hasn't been endlessly discussed already (by every single author since the 1950s).

Agreed. Maybe what they're trying to do is translate a film script into a something you can read as a story. Me, I'll settle for how I write now and leave it at that instead of trying to analyse what everyone else is doing.

That summarizes (yeah it's long) the history of how fiction was written and where we are today. The rest of the article is a good example of how to write Deep-POV. I won't bother copying it here. I just thought the history was good to reflect on.

See, that single summary is worth more than ALL the books on "Deep POV", and costs a fraction (at the traditional 2 cents for his opinion) of what these supposed 'experts' are trying to peddle.

Trust me, even as novice, struggling no-name authors, we're all aware of how styles change over time. Some of us adapt more than others, while others prefer comfortable attire that better suits their storytelling lifestyle, but these books are only selling smoke and mirrors, not actual techniques we need to study endlessly and learn. We've ALWAYS known what's necessary to 'writer gooder', we're just not that proficient yet.

The question was whether the details of the books was worth the investment, not whether the underlying concept has meaning. But we're ALL familiar with he idea: keep vital passages short, avoid incessant telling, and keep the pace fast and punchy.

Again, I'm not critiquing YOUR explanation, I'm questioning the VALUE of the various books detailing "Deep POV". As far as I can tell, this detailed summary incorporates the entire thing.

As far as I can tell, this detailed summary incorporates the entire thing.

Read the article. There was more to the history. I condensed it. And it's somewhat humorous. And read what I didn't copy — what "deep" is and how to write it. Her example is spot on and she breaks it down (dissects it) a little at a time.

In Deep POV, one moment you're following the narration, the next moment you've been hopped into the head of a character

It's not narration like from a narrator. In fiction, it's either dialogue or narration (prose). That narration simply paints a picture of what's happening around the POV character, using words.

Do readers really like such confusing interchanges

If you read genre fiction, you're probably reading it and not finding it confusing. It probably seems natural because you're not looking for it and dissecting the way the author is writing the story.

If you read genre fiction

Pretty much every dead-tree novel I read meets the definition of 'genre fiction'. I'm aware of narrators occasionally dropping into the heads of characters but not for the purpose of Deep POV.

I'm reading a novel at the moment, one of the Ren Bryce stories by Alex Barclay. The narrator drops into the head of Ren Bryce to reveal that her private thoughts are often very different to her public facade as a result of being off her bipolar meds. The characters thoughts are italicised, something one of the articles says shouldn't happen for Deep POV.

AJ

thoughts are italicised, something one of the articles says shouldn't happen for Deep POV.

Remember, it's not never. I italicize thoughts too. I'm not always in deep mode. Authors are given tools to use. That's all Deep POV is. Where it fits, use it. Where it doesn't, don't.

I've just checked two more novels, by Sara Paretsky and Karin Slaughter (spot a trend here?).

The Paretsky has no semblance of Deep POV.

The Slaughter frequently eschews dialogue tags by bookending dialogue with tagged actions. It occasionally hops into the head of protagonists to tell you what they're thinking, but those bits are in italics. I don't believe that meets the requirements of Deep POV.

AJ

I don't believe that meets the requirements of Deep POV.

I'm not arguing to use Deep POV. I was responding to Crumbly's question about what it is.

If nothing else, I've learnt something new today - I'd never heard of Deep POV before. But I'm not convinced it's as widely used in genre fiction as you seem to think.

AJ

I'm not convinced it's as widely used in genre fiction as you seem to think.

I repeated what I read in the articles. It's also called a "close" POV, btw.

The link to the "Free Resource Hub" is:

Thanks. Discussing the development of ideas and techniques with other writers seems more fruitful than purchasing books on Deep POV. At least they're working towards a common goal rather than padding a 1 paragraph book with tons of bloat.

Discussing the development of ideas and techniques with other writers seems more fruitful

Not here.

Let me know if the resource is useful.

Not here.

Alas, we traditionally get caught up and entangled in the occasional misphrasing, never coming back to the surface as the basic discussion drowns from a lack of oxygen, as we continually rehash the same points, over and over.

That's why I prefer either discussions among more experienced professional authors, or open discussions (like Quorum's) as they don't get so bogged down on the details.