Author: author author
Date:   05-30-07 22:09

It is puzzling to me that there are no agreed upon definitions in types of point of view in professional writing.

I spoke to some writers about the difference between third person limited subjective and third person limited objective and they had never heard of the distinction. There were some highly experienced/educated writers in the group.

Someone, somewhere must have a list with agreed upon definitions. Every list I look at is different. I imagine writing teachers teach this.

Writers are a very literate population and must have put together a few words somewhere along the line to describe all the variations of POV.

Any help?

Author: Steven Labri
Date:   05-31-07 07:21

Agreed. It is puzzling.

Third person, limited
Third person, omniscient
Third person, dramatic
Third person, objective
Third-person interpretation
Third person, narrative

Whatever. Sometimes I think education gets in the way of writing and writers.

I write as my mind sees it. Call it what you will, however it will be interesting to see the responses posted here.

Author: M. Lee
Date:   05-31-07 08:58

"Whatever. Sometimes I think education gets in the way of writing and writers."

Yep.

Author: author author
Date:   05-31-07 09:29

It is a contradiction really. Writers can be the most critical of POV but when pressed cannot define it.

The industry goal:

Writers/Agents/Editors read a novel in which POV is integrated in such a way that they do not think about POV.

Anything goes as long as "it works".

However, "it works" is subjective.

I have seen novels rejected out of hand by professionals in the first sentence for one word being out of the POV assumed by the reviewer.

Author: R. Radish
Date:   05-31-07 10:17

>>there are no agreed upon definitions in types of point of view in professional writing.

Sure there are:
--First person
--Second person
--Third person

I've heard rumors of Fourth and Fifth person, but so far there's no empirical evidence.

Semi-seriously, don't be too academic about it--wrong approach. Writing isn't a science; it's one of the Humanities. An Art. Looking for certainty in a field like this brings confusion.

So invent your own pov. My favorite is third person, diminished subjective, augmented objective, with a suspended third and flatted fifth. On a very carefully tuned instrument.

>>Agreed. It is puzzling.
>>Third person, limited
>>Third person, omniscient
>>Third person, dramatic
>>Third person, objective
>>Third-person interpretation
>>Third person, narrative

...and:
Interior Monlongue, Dramatic Monologue, Letter Narration, Diary Narration, Subjective Narration, Detached Autobiography, Memoir or Observed Narration, Biography or Anonymous Narration, Anonymous Narration Dual Character Point-of-View, Anonymous Narration Multiple Character Point-of-View, Anonymous Narration No Character Point-of-view.

...and in what sense do we mean "point-of-view" anyway?

http://www.amazon.com/Points-View-Revised-James-Moffett/dp/0451628721/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-7164658-7896952?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180620992&sr=8-1

Author: Mike Morey
Date:   05-31-07 10:45

Saw a comedian who was describing his novel-in-progress, which he's writing in fifth-person. He begins every sentence with:

This friend of mine, whose brother knows this guy...

Author: author author
Date:   05-31-07 10:56

Radish,

Thanks for the book reference. I'll look for it.

POV = Whose senses communicate the story?

I would think that your classifications should work and they do for most readers.

Writing professionals and critics, however, appear to want to see extremely straightforward 1st, 2nd, 3rd. If they see anything out of that strict format, they are critical of it, even if it is accepted by the general reader.

I guess what everyone on the forum here is telling me is make a choice. Conform to the strict POV definitions, do whatever I want and fail to publish or keep looking until I find and editor/agent intelligent enough to understand what I am doing.

It is a very daunting and disappointing artistic choice to make because some top agents are so uninformed.

Author: john palmer
Date:   05-31-07 11:23

There are three POVs - count 'em, three: first, second and third person, though genuine second is such a rarity that I have only seen it exactly once, so for all practical purposes there is first and third -- two POVs. Third can be limited to the deisred extent, so that's another matter.

Two POVs, one of which can be limited if desired.

That's all there is.

Interior Monlongue and Letter Narration or Diary Narration, etc. are all first person narratation, for instance.

The rest of it is fussing instead of writing, which makes them...wait for it...third person very, very limited indeed.

Hah!

Author: Steven Labri
Date:   05-31-07 13:17

Good points JP.

The truth is as stated by EH:

"All good books are alike in that they are truer if they had really happened, and after you are finished reading one you will feel that it all belongs to you; the good and the bad, the ecstasy, the remorse and the sorrow, the people and the places and how the weather was. If you can get so that you can give that to people, then you are a writer. "

If one can accomplish this, it doesn't matter their choice of POV.

Author: M. Lee
Date:   05-31-07 13:23

That cracked me up, John.

Author: Joe Zeff
Date:   05-31-07 14:50

All good books are alike; all bad books are bad in their own, unique way.

Author: John Sharp
Date:   05-31-07 15:01

Writing isn't about templates. Creativity trumps all, and style molds all. Besides basic grammar (which, in English, can mean next-to-nothing), you shouldnt be writing from definitions, etc. Like an above poster said, "It works" works. I'm sure there are plenty of authors who don't know what Present Progressive, Future Perfect, etc. tenses are and can string words together to say what they want.

I'm rambling now.

On point of view, use what you need to get the job done that fits your style. If we make definitions for everything, we'll lose the ability to do anything that isn't a definition.

Author: Joe Moore
Date:   05-31-07 15:10

We all need to consider the comfort and enjoyment of the reader’s experience. If the audience is used to reading contemporary fiction written in first or third person, and suddenly they’re thrown a curve, they might be tempted to give up out of annoyance, put the book down and move on. Then no amount of artistic endeavor will save the book.

Author: Chuck Shaw
Date:   05-31-07 16:38

I think you missed an important distinction. A writer is not the same as a critic, even if he / she is the same person.

The writer is familiar with the creative process that moved the concept from neurons to newsprint (OK, so it's a little forced-So What?).

All the critic sees is the end result. If you can write well enough only the most unimaginative editor (or reader) will stop reading to nit-pick.

An editor once remarked (in my hearing, not to me) that he knew something wouldn't fly when he started noticing grammar, syntax and the other 'mechanical issues'. In a really good manuscript they never intrude into the reader's consciousness because when they do they detract from the story.

One of the big problems with the short sections we are slicing and dicing in this format is that most of them are short - too short for any but the best writer to set the hook. We get a sniff of something nice, but that is all.

Author: author author
Date:   05-31-07 18:14

Thanks for all the opinions and info. It gives me confidence to challenge people and ask them to provide more specifics.

By critic, I meant critical people, not actual critics.

A few good laughs here too. Thanks!