Forum: Author Hangout

That doesn't break POV rules. It's telling the story through multiple 1st-person POVs. Each chapter is from another 1st-person character's POV.

It wasn't so much that it was violating a standard POV, but that it's using the POV to achieve something more essential than POV to the overall story. But notably, when the narrator (in a separate chapter, of course) instructs the reader about how a specific character (who's not even given a name), then that goes directly against the standard perceptions of 1st-person storytelling.

However, in this book, there is no Table of Contents, as each chapter simply lists the current speaker, but the author does what you're suggesting expertly. Not only does each character have their own voice (even those we'll never near from again) but they have their own mannerisms, quirks, hangups and responses. What's more, it flits between awkward, fumbling, perfectly charming and back to misguided within seconds and it all seems perfectly ordinary and natural. Which is part of the charm, as if they really are all random events, knocking each character onto an entirely new path, unrelated to any other event in their lives.

I'm just fascinated when an entire book is dedicated to one concept, so single-focused, that everything emphasizes the underlying emotional state of the various characters in the book. I certainly could never duplicate it, nor would I ever even consider it myself.

(Plus, in this case, the "I" was hardly ever used, other than when the character was talking to/about themselves, everywhere else, the story's essentially told in 3rd person, so it's more a mix of multiple first-3rd Narrator.

The only POV rule that I knowingly break is, writing in 3rd-limited, I sometimes intentionally slip into omniscient briefly and (hopefully) seamlessly.

Two versions of that I call:
"Meanwhile, back at the ranch,"
and
"Had I but known."

That's how descriptions should be.

And unless it's omniscient, that description might not even be reality. She's described through the POV character's eyes. Unlike an omni narrator, that character can be unreliable. He sees her that way. Someone else might see her a different way.

That's how descriptions should be.

And unless it's omniscient, that description might not even be reality. She's described through the POV character's eyes. Unlike an omni narrator, that character can be unreliable. He sees her that way. Someone else might see her a different way.

That's the whole point. Rather than stating the clearly observable facts (ex: She's 17 and a half, is a senior in high school, wears blue pants and doesn't wear heels), it highlights the small details that crystalize his fascination with her.

Readers simply don't care about those irrelevant details, they want to know who the characters are, and most importantly, what draws them together. That's why readers are so ready to abandon the authors' physical descriptions of their characters, because aside from a few minor plot points, it's largely immaterial to the story.

Another interesting detail, hawking back to the discussions of listing brand names on the Forum years ago, there's another delightful passage:

[On the way to get coffee] We pass four different coffee shops (one of the protagonists is adamant about supporting family owned businesses), most owned by the same national chain. Is there anyone who actually dunks donuts into their coffee?

It's wonderful, she puts down not only national chain, and this one in particular, but she spells out precisely which one it is, without actually quoting the brand name which might trigger legal troubles. It's kinda like a character walking past a famous burger joint and asking whether his date wants a McFrosty. :)

Anyway, I just appreciate seeing when someone successfully smashes the standard assumptions of storytelling, and not only tramples over their remains, but dances among their shards. There's the easy route, and then there's the truly inspired.

Her skin in a warm and glowing brown.

I'm curious - whose typo was that?

AJ

between 1st, 1st limited,

What is 1st limited?

For such a basic question, I turn to the experts of basic questions: Quora:

First Person Omniscient: The author narrates from the perspective of one character, but shares the thoughts of other characters with the reader.

Don't screw this up, I thought, swallowing the lump in my throat. Ask the girl out already.
"You want something?" Becky asked, wondering why I was acting so strangely.

First Person Limited: The author narrates from the perspective of only one character and does not share the thoughts of other characters with the reader.

Don't screw this up, I thought, swallowing the lump in my throat. Ask the girl out already.
"You want something?" Becky asked. She stared at me curiously.

Basically, First-person limited is what most of us think of 'first-person', whereas 1st-person omni is more of the exception. (I was getting the two confused when I made the reference.)

But the other way of thinking of it, is the first-person limited shows only things from the protagonists viewpoint, whereas first-person allows you to jump back and forth, into each character's perspectives between segments/chapters/'books'.

First Person Omniscient:

"The Book Thief" is 1st-person omni with Death being the all-knowing narrator.

Whereas I think of 3rd-person limited and 3rd-person omniscient, I don't for 1st-person. I think of it as 1st-person and 1st-person omniscient. I think the difference is that 1st-person omni is rare whereas there are many 3rd-omni and 3rd-limited stories so there needs to be clarification when talking about them.

But thanks for the clarification

No. It's a metatextual change reflecting a major in-story metaphysical change. The character literally does not have a name anymore, and so even the story itself stops referring to her by name. The sacrifice of her name also brings a major increase in her power, and that's reflected in her promotion to "I" and "me", while the other protagonist remains 3rd limited. It's weird and jarring, and it's meant to be.

I guess I haven't encountered one of those stories yet (or at least, one I haven't thrown into the trash three pages in).

I'm a firm believer in the power of one's defining their own pronouns, but this seems like pushing one's point beyond the scope of the story and holding the reader ransom until they concede to your point about your characters 'value'.

If you insist it's ever been done well, I'll assume there's an example, somewhere, but I'm certainly not about to go looking for one, as it doesn't sound entertaining at all.

Different strokes for different folks, and all that. The idea of an author pulling that off has me cackling with glee.

I like seeing someone try new things. I like seeing rules getting bent, creased, folded over, and turned into a hat by someone who knows the rule cold and exactly how to bend it. I like learning what the actual, rather than merely conventional, boundaries are. I like seeing all the tools (of language, of rhetoric, of creativity) being used in service of telling a story.

I like seeing someone try new things.

That too.

It's always tough trying to hold a book open with one hand while typing with the other.

The authors of stroke stories live with that dilemma.

No, that typo was mine, not the authors.

Thanks.

AJ