Choosing the Storyteller

There are basically three points of view (PoV) in literature:

(a) The first person, where the narrator is one of the characters in the story and speaks directly to the reader. (Example: I liked this girl. “Want to go for a coffee?” I said. She looked away.)

(b) The third person, where the narrator observes the characters in the story and can tell us what one of the characters thinks or feels in any particular scene. (Simon Drake thought that he liked this girl. “Want to go for a coffee? he said. She looked away.)

(c) The omniscient, where the narrator observes the characters in the story and can tell us what each of the characters thinks or feels in all the scenes. (Simon Drake thought that he liked this girl. “Want to go for a coffee? he said. What nerve she thought and looked away.)

Before the author puts the first word on paper he must decide who is going to tell us the story. Will it be God (omniscient), one of the characters (first person), or something in between (third person)? There are advantages and disadvantages in each of the three PoV.

The omniscient PoV has the most capabilities. Since the author can be anywhere, and tell us how everyone feels and thinks, we can have the most complete and spherical view of what is happening in the story. (No other medium can quite match this. In plays we can only follow dialogue. Thoughts through soliloquies are cumbersome. In movies it is possible to convey thoughts and feelings through editing, but it is slow and awkward to convey thoughts and feelings of more than one character in any one scene.) An author may inhabit one body and move into another quite seamlessly. The reader may have a wide perspective of the story but as a result will lose intimacy with the characters. If you can follow everyone's thoughts, it's a chore to get close and care for someone in particular. You are way too busy and usually get lost.

The first person PoV on the other hand, sees the story through one of the characters. This is close to how we live our lives. We inhabit one body, observe what happens in our immediate vicinity and only know how we feel and what we think. Here the author is not God, but someone who tells us what has happened to him. As a result everything feels more intimate and real. However we are also looking at life through one person's eyes constantly, so a lot will depend on what that someone is like. If we don't like him or misunderstand him, we really can't read the book. The first person PoV is highly objective. You have a lot of intimacy but little perspective.

Somewhere in between these two extremes, lies the third person. It gives us both intimacy and perspective to an average extent. It is the PoV most authors use.

The three points of view are like the primary colours. They may be combined to advantage. For example, you may have the story told in the first person by many narrators, giving you both intimacy and perspective. A master of this technique was William Faulkner for which he ultimately won the Nobel prize. In his novel As I Lay Dying fifteen different characters tell us a story over fifty-nine chapters, where each chapter is entitled with the narrator's name. You may also have a story told by a collection of documents, such as reports, transcribed taped interviews, letters, public statements and newspaper articles as in Eric Ambler's The Intercom Conspiracy.

What ultimately determines the PoV the author will choose however is the effect that the author wants. For instance, I write mystery thrillers. Mystery occurs when we can't explain what has happened because we don't have all the facts. If we use the omniscient PoV, and hence we can move into anyone's head, mystery can never occur. We may avoid entering the heads of people who possess the key to the mystery. But no matter how careful or expert we are, the reader subconsciously realizes this and feels cheated. The limitation of being in one head ultimately promotes mystery so it is no longer a limitation. It becomes an advantage.

A thriller scares the reader in that something bad is going to happen, then it allows for a narrow escape, hence it thrills. (See The Fear Conspiracy). Fear is most effective if it is immediate, that is we are more scared when something is happening to us rather than someone else. In the first person PoV the narrator's fears and thoughts become our own. We are literally wearing his shoes so his emotions are most immediate to us. Let me illustrate this with a short passage from my latest novel Bird of Prey in the third person or omniscient point of view:

Simon Drake could hear his raspy breath like a gale and felt as if someone had shoved a torch down his throat. His lungs hurt and his breathing did nothing. He had no stamina left for a dive, hardly enough strength to keep floating. Damn you, you bastards, he thought.

Well Simon Drake is in a bad state and I am sure we would like him to pull through but guess what. He is the one in a fix, not us. See what happens when we move inside him:

I could hear my raspy breath like a gale and felt as if someone had shoved a torch down my throat. My lungs hurt and my breathing did nothing. I had no stamina left for a dive, hardly enough strength to keep floating. Damn you, you bastards!

Now it's our breath and lungs and his final thought is no longer a thought. It is a cry, an anguish! You can see therefore how the advantages and limitations of the PoV chosen play a significant role in enhancing the story. 

The second important decision an author must make is the character(s) whose thoughts we will follow. This is what largely determines our emotions as the story progresses. In the Sherlock Holmes stories, for example, Sherlock Holmes might be the hero, but the story is told to us by his best friend, Dr Watson. With this choice, Doyle takes us through the following steps: we are told the visitor's problem, observe what is happening through an objective set of eyes (those of a doctor), we don't know exactly what Holmes is doing and why (mystery), we are told by Holmes to wait somewhere for the guilty party (suspense), the guilty person was not the one we expected (surprise), we are given a reasonable explanation of what has happened (denouement) and admire Holmes' abilities of deduction. Think now on how different the same story would be if it was told by Holmes. Would there be mystery, suspense, surprise and admiration?

Many stories are famous largely because of the PoV of the person who told them. What makes J D Salinger's Catcher in the Rye fascinating is that it is told by an angry, alienated adolescent.

If his mother told us his story, it would be frightfully boring.