Which P.O.V Is Right For Your Story?

COLUMN BY JON GINGERICH OCTOBER 12, 2011

Given this is a column about writing craft, its inevitable that sooner or later were going to have to discuss point of view.
At its core, P.O.V. is an issue of perspectives. The mode of narration you choose fundamentally alters how your story will
be received.

While writing transcends the visual, you should think like a director when choosing your P.O.V.: you need to make a
judicious decision regarding how close or far you want your narrator to be in relation to your characters. The
placement of this narrative eye can be used to forge an extremely strong bond between narrative and reader.
Sherwood Andersons Winesburg, Ohio, for example, places the narrative at a fable-like distance, as if were looking over
the town and moving from character to character, lending the story the idea of a shared, unified experience. Extreme
close-ups, on the other hand (e.g., Faulkners The Sound and the Fury), can place the reader in uncomfortably internal
spaces, subjecting them to a characters psychosis.

While there are a number of different modes of narration, its important to mention that all P.O.V.s essentially do one of
two things: they serve either as an observer in the action or a participant in it. Below is a look at the first-,second-, and
third-person points of view, with a breakdown of the advantages and disadvantages of each.

Without question, the single greatest advantage to first-person P.O.V. is access. First-person perspectives can be
extremely powerful because the narrative is essentially a mouthpiece for the character, and were given unrestricted
admittance into his/her thoughts, opinions, voice and worldview. The main drawback is that this access offers only a
single, limited voice; the character (referring to him/herself with I) can only describe what she/he knows, and then only
to the extent of the communicative/mental powers youve granted. As such, its extremely restricted range can
compromise its allure. Theres a common misconception among many beginning writers that first-person P.O.V. is the
easy default. In reality, first person is an extremely difficult P.O.V. to master. You need chops to transmit a credible voice
consistently. Too often in the beginners story, first-person characters make claims that arent earned, or they account for
exposition by digressing into jarring, soliloquy-length rants. In either case, the voice begins to take on the role of
narrative custodian, and the story fails on the authenticity meter. The only time you should use first-person is if the voice
is well-crafted, unique, constant, and compelling, so access to the character makes it worth your readers while to see
his/her world in tunnel-vision.

One way to make sure an organic perspective is maintained in first-person is to constantly ask: how does my character
see the world? What would they say in this situation? Another salve for first-person narratives is the use of dialogue from
other characters. If youre going to write in the first-person, youre going to need lots of it, because outside dialogue is the
only objectivity your reader is going to get.

Of course, there are other variations of the first-person P.O.V., and each offer the writer varying degrees of leeway.
Theres first-person multiple vision, where the story rotates around several narrating characters (Russell Banks The
Sweet Hereafter or Faulkners As I Lay Dying are examples of this), and theres the rarefirst-person peripheral, where a
non-protagonist character narrates the actions of the protagonist (e.g., The Great Gatsby).

Third person is the most common P.O.V., and for a reason. The biggest benefit of the third-person is the amount of
flexibility it provides: an unspecified narrator moves in and out between the character (referred to as she or he) and
the larger world. As such, the story gets the characters thoughts and actions but P.O.V. is not limited to the characters
understanding of their world. Because its not as intrusive as first-person however, access in the third is limited, and cant
take full advantage of a compelling voice.

Third-person P.O.V. is extraordinarily diverse in its application. There are a number of third-person P.O.V.s, and while
some are more popular than others, each deserves some mention here.

The most common of the third-person P.O.V. is the third-person limited (also called third-person close orthird-person
single vision). In this case, the narrator presents the story from the perspective of a single character, the main character
in the story. Like first-person, the thoughts and beliefs of the character are revealed, but because theyre ultimately told
from a different perspective (the narrators), we arent limited to the characters subjective interpretation. It should be
mentioned that while the third-person limited follows our character relentlessly throughout the story and has full access to
his/her thoughts, it cant avail what the character doesnt know.

Third-person omniscient is where an all-knowing narrator moves from character to character with the ability to
independently reveal anything it wants. Here the narrator is granted unprecedented leeway: it knows the past, the
present, the thoughts and beliefs of all our characters, and may hold a judgment or opinion regarding each. The biggest
benefit of the omniscient is that it can supply us with information our characters may not know, such as where the story
is headed or some arching historical or moral perspective. The disadvantage is that its a dated voice; hardly anyone
uses it anymore. As such, its typically found in stories now destined for the "classics" bin.

Personally, I like an omniscient P.O.V. Sometimes the best use of omniscient-third occurs when the narrative wall is
broken and it employs an alternating-person P.O.V. One of my favorite uses of this is in SteinbecksEast of Eden, where
the omniscient narrator is later revealed to be a distant relative of the protagonist family. A more recent application of this
P.O.V. is in Junot Diazs The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao. An omniscient narrator, who moves back and forth in
time, is later revealed to be the protagonists former roommate. I should mention there is a great deal of suspended
disbelief needed for both cases to work or at least acknowledgment that editorial liberties were taken by the narrator
because non-omniscient people are later revealed to be oracles of information (like characters thoughts) they could
not have possibly known.

Third-person objective is where the narrator follows many characters but never has access to their thoughts (a classic
example of this is Shirley Jacksons short story The Lottery). One benefit to this P.O.V. is that it strives for a journalistic
truthfulness; it allows the story to be seen equally from many different viewpoints and angles, complete with diverse array
of dialogue. Another advantage is it quickens the storys pace. The disadvantage to this camera lens approach is that
its the nadir of the third-persons preexisting disadvantage: it allows absolutely no inside access.

Third-person multiple vision is where perspective moves from character to character, one at a time, allowing alternate
points of view revealed by the narrator. It can be very effective for point / counterpoint setups where the thoughts of two
conflicting characters are pitted against each other (check out Mary Gaitskills short story A Romantic Weekend, for a
great example of this). The drawback lies in its abrupt changes. Remember, adhering to a P.O.V. creates an extremely
strong bond. You dont want to break that connection just because you can. Too much head hopping among too many
points of view can quickly diminish the readers investment in the story.

Out of all the different P.O.V.s weve discussed, second-person is probably the least common. In this case the narrator
has designated an unspecified you (i.e. the reader) as the focal point in the story. The biggest advantage of this P.O.V.
is that its intrinsically intimate; it literally makes you part of the story (Jay McInerneys novel Bright Lights, Big City or
Wells Towers short story Leopard both showcase excellent uses of this technique). Aside from the glut of Choose Your
Own Adventure serials published in the 80s however, hardly anyone else experiments with this unique P.O.V. I would
argue that second-person offers another unique advantage, and its why Ive saved it for last: like first-person, this P.O.V.
allows a very close access to a character and his/her thought process, but like the third-person, you arent limited by that
voice. So, in a way it offers the best of both worlds. The main problem with this P.O.V. is that its awkward. It reads like an
advertisement, its tedious and alienating. It also makes for a very unreliable narrative; it sets no appropriate boundaries
between readers and the main character so it feels like youre stepping on readers toes. It also takes an unusually great
deal of suspended disbelief in order to convince the reader that you are the character the writer has created.

One more point to consider about point of view. Every once in a while it becomes apparent that your story could benefit
from a change in perspective (Fitzgeralds first draft of the The Great Gatsby, for example, was initially from the
perspective of the protagonist), but if you have a clear understanding of what your story is about and how it should be
told, most of the time P.O.V. will come naturally. Remember to think in cinematic long/medium/close-up terms when
kicking around preliminary ideas for your story, experimenting with how near or far you want your characters to be and
how this reflects the internal logic or any grand theme your story may have. Good luck and keep writing!