I think a lot of authors write with video games/movies in mind. So what ends up happening is basically games/movies being transcribed into a book. And I'm not saying this to pick on others, I find myself falling into this trap myself too.
But once you write books as books, then you'll have a lot more options. You want to explore a character's state of mind? You're no longer limited to just dialogues and expressions. Exposition? You don't have to be limited to characters giving each other history lessons or their backstory.
This is what I'm trying to do with my recent stories like 'The Santara Commentaries' or 'Love Your Enemy' where I just tell (*gasp*) the world's lore or the character's backstory. I'll let the readers decide how good my openings are. But I like that I was able to accomplish in just 100-200 words what most authors would take at least an entire chapter.
Thanks for sharing, Michael. It’s exactly that sort of “cinematic” or “video game” assumption that I hope to dispel. It’s not that those cinematic devices are bad per se, but rather that not every narrative (and not every part of a narrative) is best served with that sort of distance. Great examples.
thank you both for sharing! I've already run into this wall as I start writing short stories and look for alpha readers. I wrote a story that was told with narrative distance and reached out to a published writer to read the story, and that was the major criticism I received: "you need to zoom in to the main character! Give us her feelings and thoughts! The readers need this so they can sympathize more with her and hook the audience!"
Hooking the audience is another piece of advice I've been given by several so called experts - this idea that you cant' start with description of a scene or something slow; you have to start right in action or as soon as possible, and tell us who the main character is in the very first sentence. But I've found that I like stories that set the mood, describe the atmosphere and what is going on. But I was beginning to think I was an odd person in that manner!
Great article! I’ve also never heard of narrative distance before, but you’re right that it’s such a helpful way to think about things. I had to stop reading for a couple moments though to laugh at your description of the second person 😂 I don’t disagree at all, but I’ll admit I am one of those sadistic folks who kind of loves it. I don’t really use it at all, but I will give anything a shot if it uses the second person. I wrote a short story in 2nd many years ago that forever endeared me to it. Did I only do that because my middle school English teacher told me not to? Yes. Yes, I did.
Hey Addam, looks like I never replied here at first but I wanted to say this comment made me laugh 🤣 there are lots of folks who clearly disagree with my strong (and yes, exaggerated) opinion about 2nd person! That’s the fun of writing though: lots of viewpoints, even literally, lots of readers, and lots of ways to challenge ourselves and our ideas. Thanks for stopping by the Forge :)
I loved the first Hunger Games book. The first person present worked so amazingly well there. Unfortunately that style was not suited to the plot for the third book whatsoever. Katniss spent a lot of time asleep or injured while major world events happened beyond her. Collins is an excellent writer. I’m sure she was aware there was no choice but to do it that way in book three.
I totally agree, David. I actually added a footnote to the article to say that HG's viewpoint was clearly a deliberate choice for Book 1 and it worked effectively (even though I think it could have ALSO worked just as well in a different voice). But the series expanded and outgrew the choice that Collins started with... Anyway, it was an excellent point but I never got back to replying here. So: thanks!
Plenty of book series have altered their style from one volume to the next. It’s not really in fashion or expected today, but Collins did have a choice.
Very thought-provoking article. I've been pondering it for a couple weeks now actually, specifically why it is that all modern writing advice (or at least all I've run into over the years) is constantly condemning "telling." Which is what a majority of the classics, Tolkien, etc. are written in. Most publishers hate that. Yet, I am never once bothered by classic authors and Tolkien using that far away narrative distance. I don't think many writers even know how to use it well anymore, as they're scrupulous about the Literary Powers that Be who've told them telling is the mortal sin of storytelling. At least that's how it feels to me. I applaud you spelling out this very obvious distinction, and I hope authors start using narrative distance more intentionally again (that said, my fascination with characters' psychology all but requires me to use the RPG camera...)
And am I the only one who skimmed entire interludes in Stormlight Archive because I just wanted to get back to Kaladin?!
Thank you, Khylie. I didn't skim in Stomlight but I certainly did in Wheel of Time and I know many others who did the same, for much same reasons. In any case the "RPG camera" isn't a bad voice or distance; I only make this distinction so that writers can choose it willingly as the best creative choice for their stories instead of choosing it because they haven't thought about any other option. It sounds like you want to explore characters' inner thoughts and psychology—that's a great reason to use it! You can get the most value of out it with a story like that.
I agree whole heartedly! I'm really getting tired of the "show don't tell" advice because there is no clear definition for it, and what one editor will call showing another will say its telling, and that advice is getting misapplied all over the place these days.
I think part of the problem with this insistence on using a close narrative distance is that its the viewpoint that has been taught in writing books and seminars for the last 20 years and has been drummed into editors as well.
Thanks for coming by, Bam, and sharing your thoughts here! It's a great question: how much of deep-POV's ubiquity is due to people mimicking each other and not thinking about it, and how much of it is enforced my the gatekeepers of the industry?
This was a great essay, and I’m not sure why I’m seeing it only now. It seems like the entire publishing world has shifted from omniscient to restrained or distant 3rd person POV (I think of William Gibson here) to close-up, right in the character’s head 3rd person that might as well be 3rd person. Both editors who looked at my sci-fi novel, told through three different POVs, wanted more internal monologue to reveal the character’s motivations. I view too much of this as telling rather than showing.
It’s been a long time since I read Game of Thrones, but I seem to remember that Martin avoided most of the pitfalls of this POV in that first book. I thought he always moved to the right character to move the plot ahead and build dramatic irony/tension, avoiding the need for too much backfill.
I agree with you! (I am scratching my head too on why I am only just now seeing this article)
I've run into that same advice too. I wrote a story back in August that was written from a more distant narrative distance and the feedback I got from one of my alpha readers who was a published writer complained that the story didn't get into the head of the main character and i needed to put more of her thoughts into the story. that reader then began to quote from a number of so called "authorities" that they had read who pointed to this being the only way to write an engaging story that hooked the readers. I pushed back against that idea then, especially since I got a lot of good feedback from other folks who liked it as it was.
But I'm finding I'm starting to push back against a lot of writing advice that is bandied out there these days as being "THE way to write." I think these how to write books, the seminars and such has resulted in a lot of writers who all sound exactly the same
Excellent article, thank you. I enjoyed the Hunger Games books but do think the films captured the themes of propoganda/marketing and the nature of power far better while being mostly accurate to the books. A rare case where the books and films are complimentary.
In my own writing I have played around with limited third, first-person, and more omniscient third. Omniscient third does not come naturally and that is likely because most of my narrative education is from games and films as I didn't start properly reading until my early twenties. Coupled with most new books are in first or limited third means that is what readers are exposed to. I am wrestling with the style of a sprawling epic now and found limited third wouldn't work because events are all over the place and so decided just to write from whoever's perspective I needed at the time but more narrative distance would sidestep this problem entirely, thanks!
I do not think you are alone - I think of lot of writers these days are heavily influenced from games and film and tv, and screenwriting advice seems to have overtaken writing advice in general (such as save the cat).
Quite true, when I started writing and looking for advice and trying to understand the craft of it I came across a lot, of what I now know to be, screenwriting advice simply called writing advice. A film is an hour and a half, two hours, whereas a book goes on for many more so the advice doesn't translate one-to-one.
Yes, very much this. It very much accords with my occasional rants against what I call "first person shooter point of view." Among it's many sins is that when a character narrates, the way they narrate becomes the principle expression of their character, yet this is almost always at odds with the other aspects of their character.
It is also worth pointing out the philosophical roots of this style, which lie in postmodernism and the denial of the possibility of objective knowledge. Thus the only reality is individual experience, and thus only the individual experience of the character is to be portrayed. Establishing narrative distance requires establishing a narrative voice, and the narrator is the voice of objective truth, and thus contradicts the postmodernist doctrine.
I'm sure most writers are not trying to affirm postmodernism when they adopt a first person shooter POV, but that is it's effect.
Agreed on all points, Mark. I hadn't really considered the philosophical underpinnings of the trends in POV shifts over time, but I think you're spot on. As you said, that philosophical bent is not (one would assume) the main purpose of choosing such a narrative voice & distance, but rather it shows up as an effect of the larger cultural milieu.
I'm amazed you managed to make heads or tales of my original comment, considering the number of incorrect words it contained as a result of my typing it on my phone! Hopefully I have corrected them all now!
And I agree. I doubt most people writing this way today have any clue about its roots in postmodernism. These days writing teachers mostly just say that it is essential to engage the reader (which is clearly not true). But then we live in a society that is heavily post modernist, in which people will say things like "living my own truth" which is pure postmodernism, even though they have never heard the term. So the use of that style is, so to speak, congruent with what people have been taught and what they assume.
I had not thought of this in the philosophical viewpoint, but I think you are spot on and this might explain why I don't care for a lot of modern books and stories and prefer to read older stories with that distance. I was raised in a more old fashioned manner and my faith gives me a viewpoint of absolute truth, so I don't tend towards postmodernist philosophical ideas.
Phenomenal essay! This is such an overlooked tool of modern fantasy that I'd love to see played around with more. I know I fall into the comfortable trap of a close perspective out of habit. Thanks for writing this!
Happy to help, MCN! Remember, it’s not a bad POV (despite my title), it’s just about choosing it deliberately and making the most of your story. Good luck!
Thanks for sharing this Eric. Your explanation using the RPG gaming world really resonated with me and has made me rethink the structure of the last chapter I wrote for my YA fantasy novel.
Hi Sarah! Thanks for reading & sharing the piece. I’m glad the analogy resonated with you and it helping you consider your story from a new angle. Remember: I’m not actually trying to get people to stop using this or that POV; instead I’m just trying to encourage folks to really consider this aspect of narration so they can make their stories and characters shine as brightly as possible. Sounds like you understand that, of course, so I’m just glad that this was helpful :)
It's interesting to think about the fact the Tolkien said he was aiming to write a mythology, and an omniscient POV works so well for that. The passage you shared has that grand, mythological feel, and it's so beautiful.
But stories that focus more on exploring a character's personal experience often work best with a limited POV--not just modern stories, but classic epistolary novels. I think Frankenstein, for example, is powerful and poignant because it uses that epistolary format, with a limited POV.
I think most modern writers choose a limited POV because they're writing stories about those personal, emotional experiences of their characters. That seems to be what modern readers prefer as well. But an omniscient POV can work for modern readers too, I hope, especially for certain types of stories. To get past modern preferences, though, such novels will probably have to be especially good examples of using that type of POV.
Precisely. It’s all about choosing the right POV (and subsequent distance) that serves the story.
Do you think that omniscient narratives are a harder sell because present-day writers are bad at omniscience, or because readers are genuinely disinterested in narratives that aren’t rooted in a likeable/relatable/interesting character?
I’ve wondered about the latter, but the continued success of Tolkien suggests otherwise … Would love your thoughts.
I’ve always written in third-omniscient precisely because I don’t want to be locked into a single character POV. I haven’t read the article on variable zoom yet but it always bothers me if people assume (or worse insist) third-omniscient is a distant view. Omniscient is a powerful and flexible POV that can get quite close and then move out when needed.
That Tolkien passage you cite also reads much more like an ancient piece of mythology than most contemporary fantasy does. For me, it increases the 'distance' and truly feels like a story from another world. This heightens my sense of wonder and awe, a big part of what I love and look for in fantasy.
I'd not considered how atmosphere—or lack thereof—might be a product of narrative distance as much as anything else. Thank you for sharing your insight.
I think a lot of authors write with video games/movies in mind. So what ends up happening is basically games/movies being transcribed into a book. And I'm not saying this to pick on others, I find myself falling into this trap myself too.
But once you write books as books, then you'll have a lot more options. You want to explore a character's state of mind? You're no longer limited to just dialogues and expressions. Exposition? You don't have to be limited to characters giving each other history lessons or their backstory.
This is what I'm trying to do with my recent stories like 'The Santara Commentaries' or 'Love Your Enemy' where I just tell (*gasp*) the world's lore or the character's backstory. I'll let the readers decide how good my openings are. But I like that I was able to accomplish in just 100-200 words what most authors would take at least an entire chapter.
Thanks for sharing, Michael. It’s exactly that sort of “cinematic” or “video game” assumption that I hope to dispel. It’s not that those cinematic devices are bad per se, but rather that not every narrative (and not every part of a narrative) is best served with that sort of distance. Great examples.
thank you both for sharing! I've already run into this wall as I start writing short stories and look for alpha readers. I wrote a story that was told with narrative distance and reached out to a published writer to read the story, and that was the major criticism I received: "you need to zoom in to the main character! Give us her feelings and thoughts! The readers need this so they can sympathize more with her and hook the audience!"
Hooking the audience is another piece of advice I've been given by several so called experts - this idea that you cant' start with description of a scene or something slow; you have to start right in action or as soon as possible, and tell us who the main character is in the very first sentence. But I've found that I like stories that set the mood, describe the atmosphere and what is going on. But I was beginning to think I was an odd person in that manner!
Great article! I’ve also never heard of narrative distance before, but you’re right that it’s such a helpful way to think about things. I had to stop reading for a couple moments though to laugh at your description of the second person 😂 I don’t disagree at all, but I’ll admit I am one of those sadistic folks who kind of loves it. I don’t really use it at all, but I will give anything a shot if it uses the second person. I wrote a short story in 2nd many years ago that forever endeared me to it. Did I only do that because my middle school English teacher told me not to? Yes. Yes, I did.
Hey Addam, looks like I never replied here at first but I wanted to say this comment made me laugh 🤣 there are lots of folks who clearly disagree with my strong (and yes, exaggerated) opinion about 2nd person! That’s the fun of writing though: lots of viewpoints, even literally, lots of readers, and lots of ways to challenge ourselves and our ideas. Thanks for stopping by the Forge :)
I loved the first Hunger Games book. The first person present worked so amazingly well there. Unfortunately that style was not suited to the plot for the third book whatsoever. Katniss spent a lot of time asleep or injured while major world events happened beyond her. Collins is an excellent writer. I’m sure she was aware there was no choice but to do it that way in book three.
I totally agree, David. I actually added a footnote to the article to say that HG's viewpoint was clearly a deliberate choice for Book 1 and it worked effectively (even though I think it could have ALSO worked just as well in a different voice). But the series expanded and outgrew the choice that Collins started with... Anyway, it was an excellent point but I never got back to replying here. So: thanks!
Plenty of book series have altered their style from one volume to the next. It’s not really in fashion or expected today, but Collins did have a choice.
Very thought-provoking article. I've been pondering it for a couple weeks now actually, specifically why it is that all modern writing advice (or at least all I've run into over the years) is constantly condemning "telling." Which is what a majority of the classics, Tolkien, etc. are written in. Most publishers hate that. Yet, I am never once bothered by classic authors and Tolkien using that far away narrative distance. I don't think many writers even know how to use it well anymore, as they're scrupulous about the Literary Powers that Be who've told them telling is the mortal sin of storytelling. At least that's how it feels to me. I applaud you spelling out this very obvious distinction, and I hope authors start using narrative distance more intentionally again (that said, my fascination with characters' psychology all but requires me to use the RPG camera...)
And am I the only one who skimmed entire interludes in Stormlight Archive because I just wanted to get back to Kaladin?!
Thank you, Khylie. I didn't skim in Stomlight but I certainly did in Wheel of Time and I know many others who did the same, for much same reasons. In any case the "RPG camera" isn't a bad voice or distance; I only make this distinction so that writers can choose it willingly as the best creative choice for their stories instead of choosing it because they haven't thought about any other option. It sounds like you want to explore characters' inner thoughts and psychology—that's a great reason to use it! You can get the most value of out it with a story like that.
I agree whole heartedly! I'm really getting tired of the "show don't tell" advice because there is no clear definition for it, and what one editor will call showing another will say its telling, and that advice is getting misapplied all over the place these days.
I think part of the problem with this insistence on using a close narrative distance is that its the viewpoint that has been taught in writing books and seminars for the last 20 years and has been drummed into editors as well.
Thanks for coming by, Bam, and sharing your thoughts here! It's a great question: how much of deep-POV's ubiquity is due to people mimicking each other and not thinking about it, and how much of it is enforced my the gatekeepers of the industry?
That is why it bothers me so much when people parrot advice about showing not telling. The classics had both and did them well, most of the time.
This was a great essay, and I’m not sure why I’m seeing it only now. It seems like the entire publishing world has shifted from omniscient to restrained or distant 3rd person POV (I think of William Gibson here) to close-up, right in the character’s head 3rd person that might as well be 3rd person. Both editors who looked at my sci-fi novel, told through three different POVs, wanted more internal monologue to reveal the character’s motivations. I view too much of this as telling rather than showing.
It’s been a long time since I read Game of Thrones, but I seem to remember that Martin avoided most of the pitfalls of this POV in that first book. I thought he always moved to the right character to move the plot ahead and build dramatic irony/tension, avoiding the need for too much backfill.
I agree with you! (I am scratching my head too on why I am only just now seeing this article)
I've run into that same advice too. I wrote a story back in August that was written from a more distant narrative distance and the feedback I got from one of my alpha readers who was a published writer complained that the story didn't get into the head of the main character and i needed to put more of her thoughts into the story. that reader then began to quote from a number of so called "authorities" that they had read who pointed to this being the only way to write an engaging story that hooked the readers. I pushed back against that idea then, especially since I got a lot of good feedback from other folks who liked it as it was.
But I'm finding I'm starting to push back against a lot of writing advice that is bandied out there these days as being "THE way to write." I think these how to write books, the seminars and such has resulted in a lot of writers who all sound exactly the same
Tolkien's style in that passage is also just so good. It's compelling in its own right.
You caught me. I added that passage largely because I just straight up love it.
Excellent article, thank you. I enjoyed the Hunger Games books but do think the films captured the themes of propoganda/marketing and the nature of power far better while being mostly accurate to the books. A rare case where the books and films are complimentary.
In my own writing I have played around with limited third, first-person, and more omniscient third. Omniscient third does not come naturally and that is likely because most of my narrative education is from games and films as I didn't start properly reading until my early twenties. Coupled with most new books are in first or limited third means that is what readers are exposed to. I am wrestling with the style of a sprawling epic now and found limited third wouldn't work because events are all over the place and so decided just to write from whoever's perspective I needed at the time but more narrative distance would sidestep this problem entirely, thanks!
I do not think you are alone - I think of lot of writers these days are heavily influenced from games and film and tv, and screenwriting advice seems to have overtaken writing advice in general (such as save the cat).
Quite true, when I started writing and looking for advice and trying to understand the craft of it I came across a lot, of what I now know to be, screenwriting advice simply called writing advice. A film is an hour and a half, two hours, whereas a book goes on for many more so the advice doesn't translate one-to-one.
Yes, very much this. It very much accords with my occasional rants against what I call "first person shooter point of view." Among it's many sins is that when a character narrates, the way they narrate becomes the principle expression of their character, yet this is almost always at odds with the other aspects of their character.
It is also worth pointing out the philosophical roots of this style, which lie in postmodernism and the denial of the possibility of objective knowledge. Thus the only reality is individual experience, and thus only the individual experience of the character is to be portrayed. Establishing narrative distance requires establishing a narrative voice, and the narrator is the voice of objective truth, and thus contradicts the postmodernist doctrine.
I'm sure most writers are not trying to affirm postmodernism when they adopt a first person shooter POV, but that is it's effect.
Agreed on all points, Mark. I hadn't really considered the philosophical underpinnings of the trends in POV shifts over time, but I think you're spot on. As you said, that philosophical bent is not (one would assume) the main purpose of choosing such a narrative voice & distance, but rather it shows up as an effect of the larger cultural milieu.
I'm amazed you managed to make heads or tales of my original comment, considering the number of incorrect words it contained as a result of my typing it on my phone! Hopefully I have corrected them all now!
And I agree. I doubt most people writing this way today have any clue about its roots in postmodernism. These days writing teachers mostly just say that it is essential to engage the reader (which is clearly not true). But then we live in a society that is heavily post modernist, in which people will say things like "living my own truth" which is pure postmodernism, even though they have never heard the term. So the use of that style is, so to speak, congruent with what people have been taught and what they assume.
I had not thought of this in the philosophical viewpoint, but I think you are spot on and this might explain why I don't care for a lot of modern books and stories and prefer to read older stories with that distance. I was raised in a more old fashioned manner and my faith gives me a viewpoint of absolute truth, so I don't tend towards postmodernist philosophical ideas.
I have no schooling in writing, so this is very helpful and easy to read - thanks.
Phenomenal essay! This is such an overlooked tool of modern fantasy that I'd love to see played around with more. I know I fall into the comfortable trap of a close perspective out of habit. Thanks for writing this!
Happy to help, MCN! Remember, it’s not a bad POV (despite my title), it’s just about choosing it deliberately and making the most of your story. Good luck!
Thanks for sharing this Eric. Your explanation using the RPG gaming world really resonated with me and has made me rethink the structure of the last chapter I wrote for my YA fantasy novel.
Hi Sarah! Thanks for reading & sharing the piece. I’m glad the analogy resonated with you and it helping you consider your story from a new angle. Remember: I’m not actually trying to get people to stop using this or that POV; instead I’m just trying to encourage folks to really consider this aspect of narration so they can make their stories and characters shine as brightly as possible. Sounds like you understand that, of course, so I’m just glad that this was helpful :)
This made so much sense, thank you for sharing it and for the humor!
Happy to help, and all the better if I can make you laugh a bit :)
I need to come back and read this again.
It's interesting to think about the fact the Tolkien said he was aiming to write a mythology, and an omniscient POV works so well for that. The passage you shared has that grand, mythological feel, and it's so beautiful.
But stories that focus more on exploring a character's personal experience often work best with a limited POV--not just modern stories, but classic epistolary novels. I think Frankenstein, for example, is powerful and poignant because it uses that epistolary format, with a limited POV.
I think most modern writers choose a limited POV because they're writing stories about those personal, emotional experiences of their characters. That seems to be what modern readers prefer as well. But an omniscient POV can work for modern readers too, I hope, especially for certain types of stories. To get past modern preferences, though, such novels will probably have to be especially good examples of using that type of POV.
Precisely. It’s all about choosing the right POV (and subsequent distance) that serves the story.
Do you think that omniscient narratives are a harder sell because present-day writers are bad at omniscience, or because readers are genuinely disinterested in narratives that aren’t rooted in a likeable/relatable/interesting character?
I’ve wondered about the latter, but the continued success of Tolkien suggests otherwise … Would love your thoughts.
It’s kind of chicken/egg, probably? I’m not sure!
I’ve always written in third-omniscient precisely because I don’t want to be locked into a single character POV. I haven’t read the article on variable zoom yet but it always bothers me if people assume (or worse insist) third-omniscient is a distant view. Omniscient is a powerful and flexible POV that can get quite close and then move out when needed.
That Tolkien passage you cite also reads much more like an ancient piece of mythology than most contemporary fantasy does. For me, it increases the 'distance' and truly feels like a story from another world. This heightens my sense of wonder and awe, a big part of what I love and look for in fantasy.
I'd not considered how atmosphere—or lack thereof—might be a product of narrative distance as much as anything else. Thank you for sharing your insight.
Glad you liked it, Josh. Thanks for reading.