Matters Of Perspective

As the lovely Jack Gleeson (otherwise known as the antithesis of lovely that is Joffrey Lannister sorry, Baratheon from the epic TV series Game of Thrones) has demonstrated, the reader's perception of a character - and a character's perception of themselves, is based on perspective.

The sense of a character's perspective is immediately obvious to the reader upon opening the book. Often, this first encoutner will take place, as in the demonstration above, through something menial; talking to their friends, going to work, or waking up in the morning (although this can lead to confused interpretations between pessimists and those who cannot function until caffienated).

These "first encounter" moments are pretty vital: they set up your character's personality as it seems to others. For example, Bob, who has recently been awarded a promotion at work, and is looking forward to cooking dinner for his friends at the Historical Re-Enactment club, is going to have a much happier outlook on going to work than his friend Jerry, whose most recent attempt at cooking a souffle cost him most of his savings, his expensive wallpaper, and most of his hair.

However, even if it's in these first, small-scale encounters with the character, the reader probably won't be all that affected by their viewpoint until we get to the fun part: the bit where they have a problem, and they need to solve it OR ELSE {insert hyperbolic horror here}.

These testing moments are, quite likely, the ones where the reader will make their decisions about whether or not to like and support the character, and their perspective and subsequent actions will have a lot to do with that. After all, it's all very well that Bob can maintain a nice cheery outlook when his cat chews up his favourite pair of slippers, but if he takes one look at the advancing army of scientifically-enhanced warrior paperclips that are invading his hometown and immediately vaults off the nearest pier, we're not going to be very impressed with him; he set himself up as a practical, fairly brave sort, but has since undermined that, and his clothes will dry out long before the reader regains any of their trust in him.

That said, I think it's also important to keep a character's viewpoint consistent. Their development arc, of course, will result in changes - the magnitude of which will vary, usually, depending on how many times you've tried to kill, maim or otherwise ruin their lives - but the fact remains that most humans, once they've found their niche viewpoint, aren't all that willing to change it.

That's where the testing moments come in. If, having watched their family, friends, and postman viciously impaled upon the weapons of the paperclip army, the character does not come to some change of strategy, then the writer has wasted a wonderful opportunity for plot advancement. Conversely, unless the character had not first been of that wonderfully cowardly persuasion (in this case, particularly in the face of office stationary), the metamorphic transformation from Normal Old Bob The Narrator to Awesome Hero Bob Who Slays Paperclips With His Mother's Rolling Pin loses out on the better part of its impact.

Of course, viewpoint will be important for other parts of the story as well - the tone of the book, the humour (if any), the focus of the characters' attention in different situations, and whether, when confronted with a particularly irritating salesperson, they will entertain thoughts of bludgeoning them with the nearest blunt object until it stops being entertaining.

Perspective: like a pair of glasses, but the lenses aren't made of glass, but rather the thoughts, emotions, and judgements of the character. But you might have more trouble cleaning them on the sleeve of your coat.

~ Charley R

You, Herself, and I - Charley R's Guide to Viewpoints

Starting a new story is fantastic. It's fresh, it's exciting, it's full of potential for fun and mischief and all-round awesomeness. It's also something of a triumph, because getting to the start point is more trouble than a bag of cats dipped in hot sauce on a summer afternoon. Characters, setting, storyline - everything has a wonderful habit of mutating and changing and refusing to co-operate with you as you desperately try to hash out the idea before putting pen to paper.

And then this last little blighter jumps up and bites you on the nose. Never mind the story itself - how on earth are you going to tell it? One narrator? Is one enough? Which character should be the narrator? First person? Third? Stream of consciousness? Do you really trust a stream to keep track of all their names?

Many a great tale has been delayed because the author couldn't work out who was telling the tale.

Hence why I am doing this post today. In a vain attempt to aid all writers in the struggle over viewpoint, I'm going to pin down every option I can think of, from the norms to the nonsensical. Think of it as a metaphorical recipe- pick whichever options suit your proverbial supper. I don't recommend putting it on your actual supper. It tastes a bit like rhubarb crumble with jalapeno peppers and aubergine juice.

AISLE ONE: THE BASICS

Third Person, Past Tense, Limited Narrator - This is probably the most common form of narrative strand, and also the easiest to follow. Written in past tense, we follow a single character's actions throughout the narrative, from an "over their shoulder" perspective. E.G. - Bob was walking to the shop to buy some eggs when, suddenly, his chihuahua exploded after eating a radioactive fish finger. Startled, he fell on his backside and let out a cry as the pavement bit him cruelly on the backside.

Pros: Its popularity probably lies in its simplicity. While we are encouraged to engage and relate to the narrator, we also have the advantage of distance from the tricky stream-of-consciousness elements that a first person narration can bring up. Third person also allows for greater description of setting, and physical appearance of other characters (first person narrators often don't have great reason to describe characters they are familiar with). Allowances for short deviations into explanatory passages from the author also tend to flow better from a third person perspective.

Cons: Being unable to deviate from a single point of view could be limiting to a complex, multi-stranded plot, and if the story contains a wide variety of characters with very important roles, the readers might feel they are missing out on exciting events that happen away from the narrator. Giving a character a distinctive "voice" is also more difficult, as there are few available contrasts, except  via dialogue.

First Person, Past Tense, Limited Narrator - Another popular form of narration, especially in thrillers and some romance novels. Written in past tense, but using the "I" voice, as if the character vocally recounting the events of the story. E.G. - I could hardly believe it, the chihuahua's body was levitating in the air! I ran to Bob's side and thrust my chicken drumstick into his hand, hoping he could use it as a weapon if need be.

Pros: First person allows for a more personal relationship with the narrator than third, especially if the story is written in the form of a diary, or a series of letters. The character's thoughts and feelings are made more explicit, and the potential for an individual "voice" and personality to come through is huge, and relatively easy to exploit (though one does have to be careful not to get too lost in the narrator's thoughts and forgetting the story). Also, the ability to hide elements of the story from both character and reader encourages a more gradual revelation, and further engagement from the reader as they learn along with the protagonist.

Cons: Potential for confusion is high. Having a single character try and explain a complex situation to a reader can end in messy transgressions, and if the reader does not find the character engaging and interesting, they may give up on the story if they know this is the only voice they will hear for 800+ pages. As with its third person counterpart, too, a complex story with a wide cast can also be inhibited by the one-man-band style of narrative.

AISLE TWO: INTERESTING ALTERNATIVES

Omniscient Narrator - Here, the reader sits on a proverbial flying carpet, viewing all the characters' thoughts and feelings in the same narrative strand. Mostly applicable to third-person narration. E.G - The chihuahua's body, enraged at the fate it had suffered, launched itself upon its terrified owner. Bob shrieked and hurled himself instinctively behind Brenda. Luckily, she was feeling braver than him, and brandished her handbag fiercely. The chihuahua shuddered in fear and shrank back, plotting its next move.

Pros: The potential to introduce, develop and work with multiple characters is huge. Here, a reader has potential to look over characters and plot elements that they find less interesting in favour of other events and / or people they prefer. Characters' motives and feelings can be clarified, and the relationships between different people are clearer. Explanatory digressions flow near seamlessly into the narrative as, being detached from any particular viewpoint, an impersonal passage is less noticeable.

Cons: It's hard. Really really hard. Even with one or two characters, keeping an even balance between their thoughts and viewpoints in the same passage is a logistical nightmare. Complications can also arise  when characters are separated, or come together in a group, as one is not sure who to follow and when. Potential to hide characters' motives and plot elements from the readership is also more difficult. Potential for characters' individuality to come through in the writing is also seriously limited.

Rotating Narrators - Each chapter or paragraph, the viewpoint rotates to a different character. 

Pros: Applicable to both third and first person plots, rotating viewpoints can encompass a large cast whilst also providing contrasts that can highlight their individual quirks and traits. Favourite characters can be more closely tracked, while ones that an individual is less fond of are easier to skim over and / or ignore, depending how much you genuinely wish a painful end on them. Complicated plots can be brought together in strands by different characters, making for a more intriguing story while still retaining the personal relationship / ability to hide key plot points for the author

Cons: Choosing which characters should be narrators is a hard job - especially if your plot has a habit of mutating on you, and people end up in different roles to those you planned. It's easy to develop George R. R. Martin syndrome and give a viewpoint to the world and its 49 cats because you're sure they'll be useful later. It also makes killing off characters hard, as you lose their strand in the narrative, and often can't be sure whether to replace them with another narrator or not. The story can also end up a lot longer than it needs to be, as individuals have to be rounded off in some way or another (provided you don't pick them all off one by one . . . which is an interesting option, if a little psycopathic.)

Present Tense - Instead of telling the tale as a finished event, this time we see the story "as it happens". E.G. - Brenda leaps into action, swatting the chihuahua around the head with her purse. However, the blow bounces off and sends her crashing on top of Bob with a sickening crunch that perfectly mimics the noise that chihuahua is making as it slowly decomposes stinkily in mid-air. 

Pros: I think "The Hunger Games" proved how tense a present tense narrative can be. Increased immediacey heightens the stakes, as we cannot be sure that there is, theoretically, any end to tale beyond the last page of the book. We are drawn deeper than ever into the character's immediate thoughts and feelings, literally as they happen, and with no endpoint in sight, our emotions can be merrily shredded by any sadistic entity who likes throwing spanners in the works of poor figurative creations.

Cons: Some people are put off just by the fact that present tense can be slightly awkward to read. Digressions for explanatory passages are practically impossible, and if you have more than one narrator in this setup then the timefram can get wobblier than a fairground ride that hasn't seen repairs in a long while. Potential for foreshadowing is also seriously restricted.

AISLE THREE: AND IF YOU'RE FEELING ADVENTUROUS . . .

Second Person Narrator - Here, we are told the story as if we are being talked to by another figure. E.G. - You gasp as your companion lands on top of you, crushing the air from your long-suffering lungs. She's heavier than you expected, and you're pretty sure she's broken something - namely the eggs in your shopping bag.

Pros: Anyone who's ever dressed up as their favourite movie character knows how awesome it is to play the hero - and here, you literally are! Never mind a narrator, here it's the reader who is the center of attention, the chosen one, the hope of all peoples, the kicker of backside. The story is entirely yours to discover as you go along.

Cons: This viewpoint only really works in second person, and I've never seen it used anywhere effectively outside of a Goosebumps "choose your own death" style book. It's awkward to read, there's little room for exploring setting or relationships with other characters that aren't pre-determined, and a complicated story will only serve to confuse all involved.

"Fragment" Narrative - A personal term for a story that really has no distinctive narrator at all, but seems to be played out in the mindset of another observing party. E.G. - It was strange, what happened next. Amidst dreaming spires and confusion, the half-comic, half-tragic battle continued. Such is the struggle of life; a neverending whirl of emotion and panic all bottled up and falling through an endless spacial abyss.

Pros: If your project is reaching for some metaphysical truth or deeper message, a narrative like this can be fascinating. Opportunity for abstract language and expression abounds, and everything can contain a deeper meaning with greater ease than if you were in a more conventional narrative frame. Explanative digressions? Who needs those. This sort of story doesn't even have to make sense if it doesn't want to.

Cons: The optional nature of sense can be horribly confusing. Anyone who's read a William Faulkner novel will know how hard a really fragmented and abstract narrative is to read. Unless you're writing for a highbrow audience, or aiming for a deeply philosophical tone, this confusing bundle of madness is probably best left alone.

***

And what about all of you? What's your favourite sort of narrative style? Have you ever tried any of these up here? What happened? What would you recommend to other writers when helping to choose their narrative styel? Leave a comment and let us know!

~ Charley R