musings on point of view

In The Art of Fiction, John Gardner writes, "In contemporary writing one may do anything one pleases with point of view, as long as it works." Earlier in the text, Gardner comments on Henry James' claims of the use of first-person point of view in long works of fiction as "barbaric."

In his own book entitled The Art of Fiction, a collection of previously published articles on the craft, novelist David Lodge writes of the subject, "The choice of the point(s)of view from which the story is told is arguably the most important single decision that the novelist has to make, for it fundamentally affects the way readers will respond, emotionally and morally, to the fictional characters and their actions."

I haven't written my own The Art of Fiction but here are some of my musings on point of view:

1. Though I don't find first-person point of view "barbaric," I do find it overused in contemporary fiction, stylistically overindulgent, and a set-up for lazy writing. First-person, in particular, lends itself to "telling" versus "showing" and, firmly rooted in the character's mind, allows for often tedious (and worse, boring) over-narration.

2. Beginning writers, and many established writers, fail to consider carefully the question of point of view. Who is in the best position to tell this story, is a fundamental question that must be considered in the planning stages, not a question to be answered by accepted norms/characteristics of a particular genre or dictated by trends in the market. For me, telling a story is about revealing a truth. Through whose eyes should we see this story? Who can best reveal that truth?

3. The third-person objective point of view is underrated and underutilized. Certainly better suited for shorter works of fiction, the third-person objective vision allows for gaps, or room, in the narration for interpretation of character's thoughts and feelings. As this method of point of view relies only on description, action, and dialogue -- what characters do and say -- the reader feels more freedom to interrupt the text. It is "showing" in its most direct sense. It is the camera's lens.

4. As a young reader in my twenties and early thirties, I used to enjoy omniscient narrators who commented on, even judged, the actions of characters in the story. I even wrote a few, somewhat successful, short stories in that fashion. Now it makes me cringe. It feels like moralizing. In my forties, I no longer want a "God" narrator commenting and judging characters, pointing out their weaknesses and failings. Maybe as we grow older, there is a certain tendency toward understanding and compassion. Maybe it's because I've moved away from organized religion and the "voice of God" narration style feels damning and condemning.

5. Gimmicks with point of view annoy me -- excepts when they work. I've written before about the use of second person by Jay McInerney in Bright Lights, Big City and Joshua Ferris's use of first-person plural in Then We Came to the End. I consider them both gimmicks, in a way, but both work and add levels of meaning. By gimmicks I mean such POV mistakes as multiple first-person points of view for no apparent reason (especially retelling the same event over and over, as in the movie Vantage Point) and "mind of the killer" first-person points of view placed within the framework of a larger first-person or third-person limited story (where the only reason for plunging into the "killer's mind" is to shock and scare). Typing this I realize both of these "gimmicks" involve the use of first-person. Another good reason not to use first-person unless the story cannot be told from any other point of view.

I'll end with another quote by David Lodge: "One of the commonest signs of a lazy or inexperienced writer of fiction is inconsistency in handling point of view." This is our craft, my fellow writers. This is our art. Let's not be lazy. Let us consider what a careful examination of point of view can do for our fiction.