Through whose eyes are we seeing the story? This is a critical question that the novelist and the narrator of the story must answer. Is it told through the author’s eyes, the eyes of a single character, or through the eyes of the All-knowing and All seeing? Whose perspective are we getting?
Ignoring perspective (or point of view) leads to confusing scenes and frustrated readers. “Whose telling this?” they ask. “What character’s thoughts am I reading now?” Requiring the reader to change perspective every paragraph pulls the reader out of the story, which is the last thing you as an author want. You can’t enjoy the scenery on a one hundred mile drive if your car stops every five minutes to change drivers.
In addition, point of view is directly related to emotion. The closer the narrator is to the character the more powerful the emotion level, a critical point to keep in mind.
A story can be told from a God’s eye view. This is called omniscience. In this perspective, all knowledge available to the narrator can be shared with the reader, a knowledge base that extends well beyond the knowledge base of any one character. The reader can be shown what caused the event, the event in its entirety, and the consequences of the event. It also presents the event without any of the characters’ biases. However, since the narration doesn’t provide a character’s perspective, no emotion is involved. Omniscience is the unemotional display of an event. Read the following example.
Minsk, capital of Belarus, whose history dates back to the Stone Age ended as a modern metropolis at 7:15 AM local time. With a deafening roar that survivors described as землетрясение orearthquake, twelve detonations rocked the city. Each was a shattering hammer blow, destroying the Council of Ministers, the National Bank, the Ministry for Taxes and Levies, and the Mnistry of Finances Every structure was hit by two conventional warheads, sending the buildings Crumbling into immense clouds pals or gray dust. The detonations sent huge pieces of concrete weighting hundreds of pounds flying through the air at over one hundred miles an hour, toppling statues, demolishing cars, and blowing people apart. MSQ, the Minsk airport thirty kilometers from the Belarus capital received two warhead strikes, one cratering the runway intersection, ending all flight operations. The second demolished the main terminal and control tower. A third warhead destroyed the terminal radar approach control, wiping out all radar operations, ripping MSQ off the air traffic control grid. The final warhead slammed into the Minsk transportation system, tearing apart trains, destroying tracks on the main transportation routes, impairing the ability of Belarus to move troops, It took two minutes to blow the city’s infrastructure apart and throw Belarus out of the Ukrainian war.
A depiction of a calamity, beyond the perspective of a single character, completely devoid of emotion. Another point of view is the first person point of view. This is a point of view characterized by the use of the word “I” where the narrator permits a single character to tell the story. Autobiographies, for example, are told from the first person perspective. It is very narrow. in that the reader only sees what the character sees and knows what the character knows. Is a very limiting but can be very powerful because the reader is immersed in the character’s emotions. Look at the following first point of view of a vice president who must ascend to the presidency in a crisis.
“I have the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the line for you.” Already? I’m not even president and I’m dealing with the head of US military forces? I almost threw up. “Ma’am? The strong voice came through loud and clear. “This is the Vice President, General Caddel,” I said. My sweaty palms almost crushed the cell. “Madam Vice President, how are you? It’s a terrible day for this country.” “It most certainly is, General,” I said, keeping my voice firm. “It’s your and my job to make sure it doesn’t get worse. I understand that you have asked the SecState not to contact our allies.” “I did give those orders. The Chiefs and I thought it prudent to say nothing to the outside world until we understand the President’s status.” How dare he do that. The mad presumptions of this man. I took a deep breath. “General, I must tell you that you made a rookie move. The last thing that people need from us right now is radio silence. In this paranoid world, silence means trouble. Therefore, I countermanded your order. Do you understand me, sir?” I had gone too far and I knew it. Maybe he would fight back, or just ignore me, make me once again the butt of late night TV jokes, an empty suit holding a sinecure of a job. “Yes, Madam Vice President, I do.” I collapsed back in my limousine’s seat.
The scene is chocked full of emotion. But she doesn’t know what the Russians are doing, what the opposing political party is up, so we don’t know. She, and we, only know that her head is in the moment.
Intermediate between the two is the third party point of view. The narrator exists outside the events in the novel (like omniscient) but tells the story from a single character’s point of view. We are released from only looking at it from that character’s perspective. However, we do have access to that character’s emotions. This is one of the most popular points of view for a novelist to use, because it provides an emotive experience without being limited to a particular character’s exposure to events.
Here’s an example of close third party perspective on the vice-president’s situation.
“I have the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the line for you.” “Ma’am? The strong voice came through loud and clear. “This is the Vice President, General Caddel.” “Madam Vice President, how are you? It’s a terrible day for this country.” “It most certainly is, General. It’s your and my job to make sure it doesn’t get worse. I understand that you have asked the SecState not to contact our allies.” “I did give those orders. The Chiefs and I thought it prudent to say nothing to the outside world until we understand the president’s status.” The VP took a deep breath. “General, I must tell you that was a rookie move. The last thing that people need from us right now is radio silence. In this paranoid world, silence means trouble. Therefore, I countermanded your order. Do you understand me, sir? She waited, She wanted no problems with the joint chiefs but they needed to know there was proper civilian control. Plus the Chairman was wrong. “Yes, Madam Vice President, I do.”
Same scene, but less emotion. Here is another example, this one from the point of view of a fireman’s reaction to a military strike against Portland, Oregon with more emotion.
Cleve Richards saw a white teenaged girl on fire thrown into air by another blast wave. The fireman lumbered over in his radiation gear, straining to get to her. Now leaning over the young girl, his lungs drawing huge quantities of oxygen from his tanks, he studied her eyes. She lay still, blinking, still holding life. Still alive. He stretched over her body, dragging back across her a smoldering blanket just within his reach to tamp the fire consuming her arms out. Seeing her eyes still fixed, but not on him now, he listened. No breath. His stomach rolled over as he looked up to see free flowing blood from her partially decapitated head flowing onto the hot dirty road, He had seen so much death today, but this was too much. Beyond his reach, beyond life’s reach. He sat back on his knees, ignoring the thick smoke enveloping him, and cried out, wailing against the hell that had come calling on Portland today.
These examples of the third person point of view demonstrate its flexibility. In the third person perspective the vice president shows very little emotion. The third person point of view from the Portland fireman shows a good deal of emotion. This point of view in this regard is resilient. It can have little emotional content or it can have powerful emotional content.
One way to think about perspective is as it being drawn on a spectrum. On one end we have the omniscient point of view, all knowing, all seeing but no emotion. On the other we place the first person perspective, Narrow in knowledge but powerful in emotion. Intermediate to this is the third party point of view. Telling the perspective of a character but from outside them. In. addition, one could have a distant less emotive third party point of view, or a closer, more intense but more informative third party perspective.
There is even more flexibility because the author can change perspective from scene to scene, moving for example, from omniscience to third person-close narrative. However, the author should decide what perspective they’re going to use in any particular scene. Be very flexible in the use of perspective, but within a scene or a sub scene be consistent. And when you change perspective, make sure that there is a break announcing a new scene or a clear division between one sub scene and another. Don’t make the reader guess whose thoughts they are following.
ping