POV question

[polymath]

There is a thing called a point of view violation, often subjective, often objective. It's a deprecated term in some writing consensuses because it's unnecessarily prescriptive to the point of being obnoxiously imperative when it's anything but an imperative. Thus the more diplomatic term unsettled narrative point of view.

The objective parameter is when a viewpoint character is aware of something that cannot logically be known by the viewpoint character. A viewpoint character cannot logically see him or her or itself looking at something and see the something at the same time, for example. I saw my eyes pop out of my head seeing her bend the iron bar between her hands. Of course, that could be a subjective perspective given the right context. Me seeing in my imagination my eyes popping out of their sockets and seeing her bend the iron. The underlying issue is illogically seeing both at the same time poses a potentially unsettled narrative point of view.

Causality is inverted, popping eyes are an effect, bending the bar is the cause of the popping eyes, also an unsettled narrative point of view from its out of context temporal sequencing. However, sometimes inverted causality produces a desirable rhetorical effect. In the above example, the viewpoint character's reliability can be opened up to interpretation from placing the bias of the observer reporting into question. It's a matter of pecking order, animacy, favoring one's self as subject over another perhaps more appropriate subject relinquished to object status. Patently a narcissistic tendency and thus a subtle creative writing method for characterizing a character. Very persuasive if used timely and judiciously.

From third person narration the exemplar might best be; She bent the iron bar between her bare hands. His eyes popped out of their sockets. The unsettled issue there is who's the focal character? Her because she's by default in first position? Him because he reacts most strongly? The narrator is covert so he's not there for establishing close narrative distance. Who can it be readers align with for reader surrogate? It's unsettled in so many ways.

The subjective parameter of unsettled narrative point of view is when a narrator takes readers aside to provide information from outside a narrative setting, to tell a summarized recitation of circumstances. Picture a stage where a drama is unfolding and the actors freeze, the stage lights dim, a spotlight focuses on a previously invisible lectern and a talking head behind it. The head recites (tells) the meaning of what's just occurred on the stage or what's about to occur, or the backstory of the sword the hero yields or the gown the damsel in distress wears, or to call undue attention to the firearm above the mantlepiece, and so on. The spotlight blinks out and the action resumes. Another analogy, from film, is where a camera turns away from the scene to a similar tableau, a narrator speaking from off camera brought into focus momentarily to relate information, a detail the writer wants readers to know at the moment but doesn't know how or when best to position it through imitation instead of recitation, whatever, especially in the middle of unfolding dramatic action.

However, if the narrator is set up in an opening as an overt narrator and is intended as who readers engage through, the narrator can be at times overt, at times covert without risking an unsettled point of view. That's what makes the call subjective.

It's all a judgment call, who makes the call, who writes it, who reads it vary widely in perspective. The ultimate decision for settling on a narrative point of view is up to a writer. Covert or overt narrator, remote or close narrative distance, a settled but varying narrator's standing, sometimes present as a disembodied head, sometimes invisible, sometimes close narrative distance, sometimes remote for good dramatic effect.

I spent most of last year working on these and similar concerns with my writing through studying how a gamut of reknowned authors ply their trade. I'd figure out one and how he contravened the so-called rules, test what I'd learned on another and find the style completely different, then figure out how she did it and test it back and gosh shucks it wouldn't fit. On to others, no two use similar methods. My conclusion, they thought for themselves consciously and critically rather than following a predetermined notion of how the right ways are supposed to be.

[bcomet]

Polymath, Again, Thank You. That explains much.

Your series of examples

She bent the iron bar between her bare hands. His eyes popped out of their sockets.

along with your explanation really helps clarify.

If/when you have the time or inclination, any additional short examples (of unsettled/settled/examples that broke the "rules" and worked/etc.) here are especially appreciated.

[polymath]

Markle Mayinor sat beside the village speaking rock. The rock was of the whining variety, unpleasant to listen to, though Markle was in a complaining mood and, for the moment, craved the companionship of misery.

The verb sat being a static action verb is a tip off to a weak sentence, though in past-present tense it could be construed as an action of actually sitting down taking place instead of merely being there already, statically sitting on the ground beside the rock. Clearer context development or a stronger verb would improve the sentence. However, the oddity of a speaking rock engages an exotic participation mystique, contravening the principle of using dynamic verbs.

Narrative distance is somewhat remote from a somewhat covert narrator reciting Markle's external circumstances, from the outside looking in. But the last clause closes in soon enough through the word craved, a semi-deliberate thought verb in that context setting up a transition to inside Markle's thoughts, creating a pending close narrative distance.

The next sentence would ideally indirectly express Markle's causal thoughts that brought him to the speaking rock, caused his misery, the antagonism that overcame his resistance to the unpleasant rock. Then an off kilter dialogue between Markle and the rock would best come next. Perhaps at first they talk past each other. The rock gradually begins to mimic Markle's complaints. The purpose and mechanism of the rock revealed through showing how it came to be of the whining variety, also, the rock's complaints would show more of the setting by parroting past complaints it's heard and reveal the rock's personality.

Anyway, that's two writing principles contravened by the peculiarity of the circumstances evoking reader curiosity, static action verbs and narrator reciting.

From a narrative point of view perspective, the recited opening introduces the narrator's standing to the narrative. A somewhat remote narrator but quickly closing on the viewpoint character. Because the narrator's standing is introduced, the narrator can now periodically come and go, close or open narrative distance as circumstances dictate without necessarily creating an unsettled point of view.

[bcomet]

This is great, Polymath. Studying your posts again and again.

Question:

Regarding an earlier example I gave and had questions about:

The main weakness of the excerpt is the point of view, which is shifting and not well defined. For example, "No doubt, it was the same . . ." (an internal thought inside the main character) conveys the main character's thoughts to us, so the viewpoint is in his head. On the other hand, "The boy and the girl stepped out . . ." and "They bounded gracefully, two thin children . . ." (description and action) are told from an omniscient narrator's viewpoint, detached from either character. The POV seems to waver between these two options, which is distracting and keeps me from becoming attached to the main character or as involved in the situation as I'd like to be.

In the above example, would shifting out "No doubt, it was the same..." to something like "He wondered if it was the same..." keep the omniscient narrator distance or is it still too close so that it is still jolting, even from that shift to move outside them ("They bounded..."). Would series of stages in and out be smoother? In other words, how much authority does an omniscient narrator have to know all and see all, inside and outside the character, etc.?

[polymath]

Recasting from "No doubt, it was the same" to "He wondered if it was the same" does bring the narrator forward. Actually, the former is free direct thought and the latter is tagged indirect thought. "He wondered" is the indirect thought attribution tag. Narrative distance closes in the former and opens in the latter. So yes, keeping the narrator in the foreground for transitioning to an external view of the viewpoint characters does flow smoother. Though narrative distance is more remote.

A serial narrative distance sequence usually does create a progression inward or outward typically through causal perceptions and reacting cognitions. My sense is openings of any dramatic unit ought best close narrative distance and transitions ought best open narrative distance.

I believe the main purpose of closing narrative distance is to estrange an overt narrator and favor a viewpoint character. On the other hand, the purpose of opening narrative distance is to set up for a viewpoint transition mediated by a narrator.

Closing and opening narrative distance serve other purposes, principal among them is to either closely engage readers in a participation mystique spectacle or keep readers at arms length so they're not so caught up by the action they can't engage their critical thinking faculties.

[polymath]

Here's one that starts off unsettled from opening inside a viewpoint character's thoughts, but closes in soon enough by looking outward. Not every reader can process this kind of close narrative distance. They need a sense of setting to anchor them in the narrative, though it comes up soon enough.

  The guilty ones are clueless. They show their tells as soon as they see him coming.
  An ageless oriental woman and an older caucasian man, a likely veteran of a Far East war, bent from the dock, across the boat ramp. Reaching into their boat, they lifted an ice chest out. They made it to the front of the boat trailer hitched to their pickup before they saw him. If they'd been innocent, they'd have kept on going, put the chest in the truck bed, and pulled the boat out of the water as though he didn't exist.
  They set the chest down on the boat ramp, ready to fight or flee or deny their guilty catch.

Starting with stream of consciousness is a little unsettling, creepy for readers who like to start on the outside and close in. The strength of stream of consciousness comes from favoring a viewpoint character through thoughts, over a narrator, though the narrator is still mediating, as noted by the third person pronoun "him." Also unsettled by not naming the viewpoint character right away, nor what his mission is, nor where they are in absolute location, though with a relative location, a boat ramp. The working title of the piece is "Catch Trap," which does an effective job of raising reader curiosity and is what the story's about for each and every one of the multiple, focal viewpoint characters involved.

[polymath]

An example of unsettled narrative point of view exaggerated for best effect.

  He sighed. Here we go again. The enemy commander decided upon another engineer sortie of tunneling under the castle walls with explosive intents as a distraction from his cavalry charge. Cavalry prepared a surge through the breastworks before the detonation and loitered out of bowshot range. The explosion when it came fizzled quietly more than crumbled the sally port gate. Infantry followed the cavalry and came forward pushing a shielded battering ram and other assorted ramshackle covered siege engines. They are disorganized, he thought. About as predictable as kids loosed on a playground recess. He thought we'll easily repell them yet again. They should give up.

Numerous issues, first, causality is in a confused sequence. The narrator interjects a recitation of events between the viewpoint character's thoughts that the viewpoint character cannot logically know about. It's told not shown from the narrator's viewpoint nor is it at all from the viewpoint character's viewpoint. A jumbled mess of sensation perceptions and cognitions. And author surrogacy issues as well.

[bcomet]

These examples are very helpful. Thanks Polymath.

In the first example (above) the first line is unsettled. I wonder if separating it with a paragraph break would help or change it?

In the second (directly above), the exaggerated example clearly is unsettling to read too.

I wonder (and get confused--perhaps because he does it so fluidly) about Orson Scott Card's Characters and Viewpoint example, (pg. 156), in the third paragraph of the example on that page, where in the same paragraph he flows (in Ominscient) from Pete to Nora: (paraphrasing/partial sentences below):

"Pete knew that he... He kept... never guessing... Nora had grown up... She had often told..."

It is both outside and inside the heads of the two main characters in the same paragraph with the two characters' thoughts, back and forth at the same time. It works, but should it? Shouldn't it have been separated? Is this a more artful use of the rules (that a lot of us can't pull off) or an artful breaking of them?

But I suppose it feels settled in that the narrator is settled. Ominscient is clearly telling the story.

[polymath]

In the first example (above) the first line is unsettled. I wonder if separating it with a paragraph break would help or change it?

Probably not considering the main issue is no sense of time, place, or person making the comment. The first sentence isn't quite enough of an overstatement to stand out as a viewpoint character thought. Nor does it give a sense of the narrator's persona either. "Ones" is too generic. Fishermen too gendercentric. "Clueless" is too commonplace a word for it to feel like it favors the viewpoint character's thoughts. Oblivious would be too erudite for him. A homier idiom would do wonders for the sentence. Something along the lines of brain spoilt, but that's not the voice aesthetic I'm trying for.

In the second (directly above), the exaggerated example clearly is unsettling to read too.

It was fun to write, challenging from having to reorient to that kind of writing again now that I've hopefully moved past it, and then pouring it on full bore.

I wonder (and get confused--perhaps because he does it so fluidly) about Orson Scott Card's Characters and Viewpoint example, (pg. 156), in the third paragraph of the example on that page, where in the same paragraph he flows (in Ominscient) from Pete to Nora: (paraphrasing/partial sentences below):

"Pete knew that he... He kept... never guessing... Nora had grown up... She had often told..."

It is both outside and inside the heads of the two main characters in the same paragraph with the two characters' thoughts, back and forth at the same time. It works, but should it? Shouldn't it have been separated? Is this a more artful use of the rules (that a lot of us can't pull off) or an artful breaking of them?

But I suppose it feels settled in that the narrator is settled. Ominscient is clearly telling the story.

I'm averse to basing my comments on any so-called rules. While they serve a purpose for developing a skill set, they impose unnecessary limits when for every so-called rule I can cite a narrative or many narratives that contravenes it. Grisham and Clancy, for example, frequently portray the thoughts of multiple viewpoint characters in the same dramatic unit without setting them off from each other. And others.

Card's example works because the viewpoint is from the narrator's perspective yet reporting the characters' thoughts in what I know as journalistic selective objective ominscient. In other words, after the fact, yet dramatized as being in the time, place, and persons of the events (that narrative distance temporal degree of separation is artfully left out), and unbiased the way nonfiction journalism is meant to report from a nonbystanding correspondent covering a story after it broke when all the relevant facts are known and speech and thoughts too can be reported without an overt mediation by the correspondent.

I'd say it's not the easiest for readers to be in two heads at the same time, three actually, including the narrator. If it's taken as purely from within the narrator's head it's a little easier to comprehend and perhaps to write that way.