Conference noted::sf

    I run across 3rd-person multiple-viewpoint a fair bit in mystery as
    well as in science fiction.  These are my main forms of fiction
    reading, but I can also recall it in "mainstream" stuff, too.
    
    Seems to me that it is simply one more narrative method, certainly not
    merely the refuge of the hack.  It works for:
    
    	Homer, in the Illiad
    	Kipling, in "Kim"
    	Conan Doyle, in the Serlock Holmes mysteries
    	Baum, in the Oz stories
    	Tolkien, in "Lord of the Rings"
    	Lewis, in the Narnia Chronicles
    	Tony Hillerman, in his Navajo mysteries
    	Jane Langton, in her New England mysteries
    	Elizabeth Peters, in her Jaqueline Kirby mysteries
    	Brin, in "Startide Rising" and "The Uplift War"
    	etc., etc.
    
    In fact, the marrative method seems so common that I am surprised
    writing guides urge writers away from it.  Or is it perhaps deemed a
    bit tricky for *beginning* writers?  I'll allow that you have to have a
    decent mix or alternation of viewpoints, to keep the change from
    looking anomalous.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

Isn't third person almost inherently multiple-viewpoint?
How else does one pursue a plot line that does not exclusively involve
at least one single character?

- tom]

    Re .2
    
    But there are lots of perfectly good plots with only one viewpoint
    character, even in 3rd-person.  I could rattle of a 3rd-person/single
    list of novels as easily as I rattled off 3rd-person/multiple in .1. 
    You usually use 3rd-person/single when you want to tell "X's story" 
    but don't want to have X tell it.
    
    So, for instance, P. C. Hodgell's "Godstalk" follows the heroine Jame,
    and only Jame (excepting a few paragraphs).  It is Jame's story.
    
    3rd-person/multiple is an intermediate step between 3rd-person/single
    and "omniscient narrator."
    
    Earl Wajenberg

re: .1

I guess maybe i should have said 3rd-person "many"-viewpoints, where "many"
is more than somewhere around four.  There's some excuse for it when one
is trying to tell a panoramic or multi-generational story, where it is
simply impossible to present the relevant story action through a couple of
characters' eyes.  But i tend to associate a lot of the use of it in
science fiction and fantasy now with bad habits picked up from writers like
Stephen King (who can be excellent but who also gets sloppy in books like
_It_ because his editors are probably afraid to red pencil a mega-best
selling author).

The trick in multiple viewpoint is in not switching so often that the
narrative gets totally confused or unfocused, as well as making each
viewpoint character real enough to involve the reader.  Frank Herbert was
able to break most of the rules in his early Dune books, but i think it
caught up with him as the series went on.  Horror fiction is probably
the worst in terms of introducing viewpoint characters who get bumped
off gorily in the same chapter.  Fantasy seems to have a problem with
viewpoint characters who appear for a chapter or two to flesh out the
setting and cultural background of the invented world (especially early
on in a book...this was one of the annoying points of the last Guy Gavriel
Kay book i read).

A good question to ask would be: does the author NEED this many viewpoint
characters or would the story work just as well minus one, two or more?
In DeLint's book, i'll bet about half of the viewpoint characters could
have been eliminated.
								paul

>                      <<< Note 973.3 by ATSE::WAJENBERG >>>
>    
>    3rd-person/multiple is an intermediate step between 3rd-person/single
>    and "omniscient narrator."

Perhaps this is what's confusing me.
 - A third-person story is narrated by someone outside the story.
 - A third-person single viewpoint story requires the central character
   to be always present, or the narrator has to take over, sans viewpoint.
 - A third-person multiple viewpoint story can recount plot from the point
   of view of any handy character, or impartially by the narrator, again
   without a predisposed viewpoint.

So when does a narrator become "omniscient"?  When he adopts a viewpoint?

Stephen King is probably a good example of an omniscient narrator,
in that he tips his hand about what is to happen and presents 
a more-than-usual accounting of individual motivation and rationale.
I happen to be in the middle of "Tommyknockers" as we speak, and this
affected omniscience is apparent (but it works for the story - I guess
horror is like that).

- tom]

I don't know that literature professors have created precise definitions of 
these narrative forms, but personally, I'd say:

 - Third-person/single is narrated relating ONLY events that (sole) viewpoint 
   character experiences.

 - Third-person/multiple is narrated relating ONLY events that (various) 
   viewpoint characters experience.

 - Omniscient narrator is narrated relating events beyond what viewpoint 
   characters experience.

Authors can successfully mix forms within a story or a part of a story.  And, 
as always, the borders of the definitions are not exact.  For instance,

	"Are the batteries included?" Oscar asked naively.

"Naively" is a narrative comment on Oscar, and so suggests a move to the 
omniscient mode.  But if the whole story or passage narrates only the 
adventures of Oscar, I'd be inclined to classify it as 3rd-person/single.

Rising a little from this level of detail, I'd say that any narrative mode can 
be used well, and any can be abused.  The main goal is to give the reader 
sufficient orientation OR the *right* *kind* of DISorientation.
   
So, for instance, in first-person narrative, the narrator's own viewpoint is a 
good, firm basis for orientation.  But, exactly because we are limited to the 
narrator's narrow range experiences, we run the risk of sharing in the
narrator's confusion when events in the story become hectic or enigmatic.  As
long as the author conveys to us a delightfully lucid or amusing description
of "this is what it is like to be confused," we are still content to go on
reading.  But if the author slips from clear description of confusion to 
confused description, reading becomes a chore.

With first-person or third-person/single narrative, confusion can result from 
the restrictions of viewpoint; we can't get the big picture.  With
third-person/multiple (or /numerous), confusion can result from trying to keep
track of the viewpoints, as was said a couple of notes back. 

Earl Wajenberg

    The attribute of omniscence (a.k.a. "all-knowing author") was, I
    thought, that the narrator has the option to portray the thought-stream
    of a character, to wit:
    
    "Gimmie that gun," Wilbur barked, his hand trembling subtly. He could
    feel the sweat bead in the small of his back, and his pulse rolled like
    distant thunder in his ears.
    
    These are details that would not be available to an objective observer,
    but allow an insight into the thought processes of a character. It also
    creates a possibility for extended rapport or empathy between reader
    and character.
    
    The second issue under debate is wether, having done this with one
    character, can you then successfully shift viewpoint to another
    character and be all knowing?
    
    	Successful examples:
    
    		"Lord of the Rings," JRR Tolkein
    
    	Sure. 
    
    						- M
    

    There'\s a shift from speaker to speaker amongst the protagonists of
    Guy Gavriel Kay's "Fionavar Tapestry Series", however the view is not
    omniscient.  In fact, when you're in one character's mind, you don't
    even see EVERYTHING, you get glimpses, concepts, thoughts, words, but
    not everything.  You must pull together the motivations and actions
    yourself (and think about what might happen next).  It's a great
    exercise in thinking!
    
    -Jody
    

    I was under the impression that a purely omniscient viewpoint was
    something out of gothic era literature.  The example that comes to mind
    is something like this:
    
    Roger looked at the rain drenched sign.  In faded letters, it warned
    trespassers away at penalty of their life.  Roger, soaked to the bone
    and hungry, moved towards the abandoned castle, resolving to face
    whatever dangers lie ahead of him.
    
    Forgive him, dear Reader, he knows not what he does, for Roger is a
    mortal, such as you and I....blah blah blah.
    
    
    Multiple viewpoint works best in a story that has a lot of characters
    doing things that move the story along, but not *too* many characters. 
    Too many viewpoints fragments things, and jars the reader out of the
    storyline.
    
    FWIW
    
    kim

    I don't think so... Most of the contemporary stuff I read uses
    all-knowing author - try Mary Gaitskill's "Bad Behavior" or any
    of Tom Clancy's stuff. Steven King.
    
    The style I miss is first person singular. Two points for identifying
              ______
    this:
    
    "I went down to the railway station. I went over to the taxi stand.
    I've been standing in the lobby of the Hyatt Hotel..."
     -M
    
    
    

    Re .10
    
    There's still plenty of first person singular out there.  Roger Zelazny
    favors it strongly.  The quote sounds a bit like Hemmingway, but I sure
    wouldn't bet money on it.
    
    Re .9
    
    Omniscient narrator doesn't have to jump clear out of the book and
    address the reader directly.  It's sufficient to describe things
    unknown to any character.
    
    	"Luke pulled the trigger, unaware of the risk he was taking in
    	 using a wet phaser."
    
    	"The planet Vleeb orbits a red dwarf sun.  It was warm enough to
    	 support life, but as a corollary, it huddled so close to its tiny
    	 star that tidal action had stopped its rotation; one side lay in
    	 permanent day, the other in everlasting night." (We then go on
    	 to relate a tale of iron-age warlords of Day and Dusk on Vleeb, 
    	 none of whom think even once about these gravitational niceties.)
    
    The line between omniscient narrative and third-person/N-viewpoint
    narrative is fuzzy.  An author can mix in varying amounts of
    omniscience while still spending most or a lot of text inside
    characters' viewpoints.
    
    Or the author can make a formal separation between narrative styles
    within the work.  Consider "Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy," where we
    spend most of our time following the experiences of the Arthur and
    other characters, but take frequent dips into the Guide itself, which
    narrates about the characters (not to mention Life, the Universe, and
    Everything) with terrifying objectivity and omniscience.  Just to bend
    things a little more, the characters occasionally read the Guide that
    is (perhaps in a later edition?) commenting on them.
    
    Isaac Asimov's frequent epigraphs from the Encyclopedia Galactica, or
    Frank Herbert's from the works of Princess Irulan, have the same
    narrative structure, though completely different dramatic tones.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    re .11
    
    Please write the Vleeb story!  I like non-magical iron-age warring
    states stories, and I like your setting (I'll assume most life is
    in the twilight zone...).
    
    		-John Bishop

    re. 11
    
    >>Re .9
    
    >>Omniscient narrator doesn't have to jump clear out of the book and
    >>address the reader directly.  It's sufficient to describe things
    >>unknown to any character.
    
    No, they dont' have to, but it was common in that day and age.  Also, I
    would suspect that this style would be considered a "pure" omniscient
    viewpoint, where the author talks about anything and everything as if
    they were talking right to the reader.
    
    
    >>	"Luke pulled the trigger, unaware of the risk he was taking in
    >>	 using a wet phaser."
    
    I think this example is a borderline case of bad writing (or bad use of the
    narrative), and a little *too* omniscient.  
    
    kim

    Re .13
    
    Luke and his wet phaser may not be stylistically great, but the use of
    omniscient narration isn't any different from, say, a part of "Lord of
    the Rings" where Sam, talking to himself, thinks of his far-off friends
    and says something like, "But they are all far away and probably never
    think of us," and waves his hand back the way he had just come.  Tolkien 
    then remarks that Sam was actually gesturing south, not west, and gives a
    quick run-down of what all the other members of the party are doing
    (which always includes thinking of Sam and Frodo).  It's perfectly
    omniscient, but I found it quite successful.  In fact, Tolkien often
    "pans back" to tell you how the current main characters (often the
    erstwhile viewpoint characters) would look to a remote observer.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

In _The Lord of the Rings_, Tolkien actually has a pretty small set of
viewpoint characters--basically the four hobbits and possibly Gimli and
Aragorn in a few places.  As the series progresses, more and more of the
narrative shifts away from the viewpoint characters and into a more
"omniscient" mode--part of the reason why i thought _The Fellowship of
the Ring_ was the best of the three books.  The _Silmarillion_ is almost
all "omniscient"--you rarely get inside the head of a particular viewpoint
character.  It's handled well, but still not as sympathetic as _The Hobbit_
or _The Fellowship of the Ring_ for the average reader (i.e., me).

								paul

    Re .15
    
    There comes a point when lit-crit gets down to personal preference.
    Myself, I don't have a strong preference for a particular narrative
    mode.  If viewpoint-character mode gives lots of involvement and
    "sympathy," omniscient mode gives lots of orientation and "lucidity."
    I have often enjoyed the feeling of widened perspective when an author
    moves from the first to the second, or the feeling of zooming in for a
    close-up when the author moves from the second to the first.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

Talk in the J. G. Ballard note reminds me that Ballard uses almost exclusively
a third person single-viewpoint mode.  George Stewart's _Earth Abides_, another
classic, also uses this mode.  I'm not sure what the advantage of third person
single-viewpoint is over first person (since in both you're getting just one
character's perspective), but it seems to work well in _Earth Abides_, _The
Drowning World_ and _The Crystal World_ (the latter two being Ballard novels).
Another less "literary" use of third person single-viewpoint technique is in
_The World of Null-A_ by A. E. Van Vogt.

I still tend to think that third person multiple-viewpoint is an extremely
tricky technique to master.  If i look at my list of ten favorite SF books,
only _Dune_ manages this successfully (_Lord of Light_ verges more into the
"omniscient" technique when it departs from Sam's perspective, as for Tak,
Yama, Ratri, Kubera, etc.).

								paul

    The loveliest uses of multiple-viewpoint in SF that I've read lately
    are M. J. Engh's "Arslan" and "Wheel of the Winds". But Sturgeon (due
    partially to strategic improvements from Faulkner) has to be the
    original master, right?
    
>> I'm not sure what the advantage of third person
>> single-viewpoint is over first person (since in both you're getting just one
>> character's perspective)...
    
    Two come immediately to mind:
    
    - There can be a constant nagging (and distracting) question with
    first-person as to whether the fiction is supposed to be an
    autobiographical narrative of some kind, and, if so, what the framing
    device is supposed to be. 
    
    - In first-person, the narrative voice belongs to a character, and thus
    its honesty is in doubt. Third-person limited allows the writer to
    filter sensations through the hero's mind (thus providing
    story-advancement and characterization at once) while still allowing
    the illusion that the reader is a camera roaming over reality.
    
    Third-person limited is particularly important to writers who wish to
    emphasize the gaps between consciousness and reality -- Flaubert
    and Joyce, Ballard and Delany for example.  In "Dhalgren", it's of the
    utmost importance that the reader see the Kid as an unreliable source
    AND that the reader experience what the Kid is going through; in
    "Triton", the satire largely depends on the reader noticing that what
    Bron is making of Bron's experience differs painfully from what the
    reader might make of Bron's experience.
    
    Ray