I get tired of reading from first person pov, I get sick of a story very quickly if its always in first person pov. I like the all seeing pov cause I like to know everything about all the characters.

I voted other cause well I don't write stories

Is there an option to choose where you don't really count how many of each POVs you read or, that it doesn't bother you in the slightest?

For me though, I prefer to write in First Person because it is how my writing style came to be. It is easy to pick up and less easy to master, true, but I like the directness in establishing a relationship with the reader as though you are speaking to them directly. Third person is like telling the reader about something that happened and from my point of view less satisfying as a whole.

I've only ever used third person omniscient once - it works well with post-modernism, when somehow the omniscient POV is explained by the story itself, which adds to a reader's appreciation of the architecture of the story (I hope).

To conclude: I kind of already know what POVs work with a story I'm trying to tell, if i decide to tell it. So I don't particularly feel like a deliberate choice has taken place .

My answer is "Depends" on both accord. As you most cleverly have put out here, each PoV has it's uses and it's failures. Overuse of Omniscience may easily tire a reader as well as the author and the flow certainly stagnate. So, a middle ground has to be reached. A close third person gives you that. But as one would think, in the hand of a master, each and every PoV format blossoms to its bursting youth. And experimentation is vital, as Cia most eloquently explained. I agree with her wholeheartedly. 

Wonderful and insightful post, first of its kind if I'm not too mistaken. Expecting more from you in future. Hugs and Fishbaits!

I like to think I can write in most viewpoints. You know, it's a magical thing that the writer can tell his story as an observer or as a participant and there are many narrative positions to write from, not just the three all mentioned above. The POV will influence the way characters and events are presented.   I mean, this may seem silly, but consider how different Cinderella would be if told by Cinderella herself, or even the handsome prince, or by a third narrator who sympathises with the ugly sisters, rather than by a detached observer who sees both sides objectively.   Any other version of Cinderella would involve differencesin style as well as interpretation of the story, or the information in the story.

To me, 1st person provides authenticity and involvement.  It's a story personally told. The story belongs to the character telling the story and there is no room for detachment.  1st person is limited to what one person could reasonably experience.   The problem here is that, because of his involvement in the story, he may misinterpret causes or motives.  The 1st person narrator present things as a product of their own personality, and the reader will notice possible prejudice in the telling.   

The Direct Observer POV is another narrative probability.  This kind of narrator is not tied to the time and place of the action, and can, by selecting the appropriate material, make the story move quickly.  As an observer, the narrator cannot reveal all that is happening inside the minds of characters, unlike the omniscient observer, who has the advantage of being entirely trustworthy in the presentation of the story, as he sees everything he wants to see, even into the minds of his characters. 

The problem here is that the omniscient observer can sometimes seem to know too much, and the intimacy that draws a reader into the story as an excited participant may be lost.  

There is a beautifully written short story by Isaac Asimov called The Last Question and is to me, the ultimate example of omniscient narration.

I get tired of reading from first person pov, I get sick of a story very quickly if its always in first person pov. I like the all seeing pov cause I like to know everything about all the characters. I voted other cause well I don't write stories

Yes. That is one of the main problems with first POV actually. I have written stories in that but I find it very hard to maintain a good voice. Likewise I find reading first person POVs in online fiction to be a tiresome business too but there seems to be a lot of them online! Thanks for voting :3 I'm truly interested in seeing who likes what kind of POV. 

It varies. I've seen authors stick to those 3 different ranges quite strictly and then play with them. Experimentation is vital so that authors try out all different formats. In the stories I'm actively writing I've included third person limited, but alternating between 2 characters, and a first person shifting to third person limited from my 2nd main character in some scenes, a third person limited single pov, and a first person alternating POV.

 

The only thing I don't like to use is third person omniscient. I don't like it when authors use it for stories either. It can be confusing for the reader. It only works if the author ensures their characters are distinct from each other. I've noticed a distinct shift away from this format in recent years.

 

Great post Fishie.

Experimentation is important in order to decide what works best. Your alternation between POVs sounds good -- I think switching between viewpoints of different characters is a way to keep the reader (and author -- I get bored of writing in the same POV a lot hehe) interested in the story. As for omniscient, I have noticed a definite decrease in omniscient as well. That is probably because most stories nowadays are character driven. Omniscient doesn't work well in character driven stories whatsoever.

Is there an option to choose where you don't really count how many of each POVs you read or, that it doesn't bother you in the slightest?

 

For me though, I prefer to write in First Person because it is how my writing style came to be. It is easy to pick up and less easy to master, true, but I like the directness in establishing a relationship with the reader as though you are speaking to them directly. Third person is like telling the reader about something that happened and from my point of view less satisfying as a whole.

 

I've only ever used third person omniscient once - it works well with post-modernism, when somehow the omniscient POV is explained by the story itself, which adds to a reader's appreciation of the architecture of the story (I hope).

 

To conclude: I kind of already know what POVs work with a story I'm trying to tell, if i decide to tell it. So I don't particularly feel like a deliberate choice has taken place .

That's interesting!! Hey I have noticed that Brotherly Love is definitely omniscient third POV though. I didn't notice it when I first read it because through my first reads I always gobble up stories really fast. I do have to admit that you did pull it off for me but idk what other people will think. And that's very nice :0 often times I have trouble deciding whether I wanna write a story in 1st POV or 3rd POV. Usually it's 3rd. 1st is a lot of work for me because I find it hard to develop the protagonist.

My answer is "Depends" on both accord. As you most cleverly have put out here, each PoV has it's uses and it's failures. Overuse of Omniscience may easily tire a reader as well as the author and the flow certainly stagnate. So, a middle ground has to be reached. A close third person gives you that. But as one would think, in the hand of a master, each and every PoV format blossoms to its bursting youth. And experimentation is vital, as Cia most eloquently explained. I agree with her wholeheartedly. 

 

Wonderful and insightful post, first of its kind if I'm not too mistaken. Expecting more from you in future. Hugs and Fishbaits!

Thanks for voting! And yes. Third person has been shown to be the "default" POV in published novels for that very reason but I have read a lot of excellent 1st person POVs in books, particularly YA novels -- like "the uglies," "Feed," "the lottery," ones by kenneth oppel, etc. And they're GREAT!

I like to think I can write in most viewpoints. You know, it's a magical thing that the writer can tell his story as an observer or as a participant and there are many narrative positions to write from, not just the three all mentioned above. The POV will influence the way characters and events are presented.   I mean, this may seem silly, but consider how different Cinderella would be if told by Cinderella herself, or even the handsome prince, or by a third narrator who sympathises with the ugly sisters, rather than by a detached observer who sees both sides objectively.   Any other version of Cinderella would involve differencesin style as well as interpretation of the story, or the information in the story.

 

To me, 1st person provides authenticity and involvement.  It's a story personally told. The story belongs to the character telling the story and there is no room for detachment.  1st person is limited to what one person could reasonably experience.   The problem here is that, because of his involvement in the story, he may misinterpret causes or motives.  The 1st person narrator present things as a product of their own personality, and the reader will notice possible prejudice in the telling.   

 

The Direct Observer POV is another narrative probability.  This kind of narrator is not tied to the time and place of the action, and can, by selecting the appropriate material, make the story move quickly.  As an observer, the narrator cannot reveal all that is happening inside the minds of characters, unlike the omniscient observer, who has the advantage of being entirely trustworthy in the presentation of the story, as he sees everything he wants to see, even into the minds of his characters. 

 

The problem here is that the omniscient observer can sometimes seem to know too much, and the intimacy that draws a reader into the story as an excited participant may be lost.  

 

There is a beautifully written short story by Isaac Asimov called The Last Question and is to me, the ultimate example of omniscient narration.

Yes I do notice that with 1st person POVs as well. Often times I'll feel like I don't agree with the protagonist and I feel like my disagreements are very whole hearted because of how close I am as a reader to the protagonist. I have read some Direct Observer POVs but I find that they're usually limited to plot devices in the beginning or in the end of a story with another viewpoint taking place in the middle. I think "Garden of the Forking Paths" is one example, idk, i havent done much research with regards to that.

I shall definitely look up "the last question"!! I'm getting a kindle so I will be tearing through ebooks like a badass motherfucker : D

Btw no votes for 1st person? SO INTERESTING I expected that to be the majority

I've written in 1st person and 3rd Close and enjoy both. I do love the deeply personal connection that can be made from first person, but it's much harder to keep from being bored by the same person's voice sometimes. It requires a very dynamic character or personal connection to maintain. For longer stories, I'm starting to shift to 3rd close. For me, I like the ability to shift POV as long as there is a proper transition. (I think I'm getting much better at it.) It really just depends on the story I'm writing. I'm likely to do either.

Omniscient is just too broad for me. I think it takes away the surprise of discovery as everything can easily be spelled out by an unsophisticated writer. I think it takes extraordinary skill to pull it off, but I think it can lack a personal touch to the reader.

I've written in 1st person and 3rd Close and enjoy both. I do love the deeply personal connection that can be made from first person, but it's much harder to keep from being bored by the same person's voice sometimes. It requires a very dynamic character or personal connection to maintain. For longer stories, I'm starting to shift to 3rd close. For me, I like the ability to shift POV as long as there is a proper transition. (I think I'm getting much better at it.) It really just depends on the story I'm writing. I'm likely to do either.

 

Omniscient is just too broad for me. I think it takes away the surprise of discovery as everything can easily be spelled out by an unsophisticated writer. I think it takes extraordinary skill to pull it off, but I think it can lack a personal touch to the reader.

I totally agree -- hard to maintain the 1st person voice with regards to both the author and reader, and i find a lot of the protagonists that I read that are in 1st person are ind of annoying. Also with 1st person I find it super hard to switch POVs (i havent seen it done right even in published novels).

Then you ought to read The Pilot's Wife by Anita Shreve. However, most of the novels I read are 3rd Person Omniscient like Clark, Baldacci, Cornwell, Hollinghurst, Peretti, Nora Roberts, James Patterson, Larsson, Prouxl, Charlaine Harris, and the list goes on and on. They write in all POV but they write scenes as if you were watching a movie. Hence, my story Imagine There's No Heaven amd my one published work, Revival, is written in omniscient. I actually like omniscient.

Then you ought to read The Pilot's Wife by Anita Shreve. However, most of the novels I read are 3rd Person Omniscient like Clark, Baldacci, Cornwell, Hollinghurst, Peretti, Nora Roberts, James Patterson, Larsson, Prouxl, Charlaine Harris, and the list goes on and on. They write in all POV but they write scenes as if you were watching a movie. Hence, my story Imagine There's No Heaven amd my one published work, Revival, is written in omniscient. I actually like omniscient.

That is very interesting. Probably 'cause we might read very different genres then -- I shall definitely check the said authors out! (I cannot wait to get mah kindle :3)

FPS games suck.  That is all.

I have no hard and fast rules about what I like to read. There are fine examples in all 3 genres. The one thing I consider extremely hard to pull off, and, therefore, tend to avoid reading, is alternating first person. Either the characters sound exactly the same, because the writer is not adept enough to give them all different 'voices' or, even worse, the writer resorts to writing an accent or dialect for one, which can turn old very fast.

I tend to write first person or close third person. First person keeps me a little more honest about not jumping into the other character's head, and in a certain genre it's easier to keep body parts straight (so to speak   ), but I also have to be careful not to sound like my character is on psychologist's couch. One thing you do lose in first person (especially if you write present tense, which I also do) is that you can't explain why a character reacts a certain way. You have to hope that you've done a good enough job that the readers will understand, even if they don't agree. 

FPS games suck.  That is all.

LOL. Actually a lot of the advantages/disadvantages of first person shooters/third person shooters apply to stories. I like dead space and that's third person and I suck at FPS.

I have no hard and fast rules about what I like to read. There are fine examples in all 3 genres. The one thing I consider extremely hard to pull off, and, therefore, tend to avoid reading, is alternating first person. Either the characters sound exactly the same, because the writer is not adept enough to give them all different 'voices' or, even worse, the writer resorts to writing an accent or dialect for one, which can turn old very fast.

 

I tend to write first person or close third person. First person keeps me a little more honest about not jumping into the other character's head, and in a certain genre it's easier to keep body parts straight (so to speak   ), but I also have to be careful not to sound like my character is on psychologist's couch. One thing you do lose in first person (especially if you write present tense, which I also do) is that you can't explain why a character reacts a certain way. You have to hope that you've done a good enough job that the readers will understand, even if they don't agree. 

Yeah I actually don't read a lot (if any) first person alternating. I mean I also have read alternating first person and third person (in Pendragon series) but honestly looking back, I always got annoyed at the viewpoint change. Didn't work.

And yes, exactly. In first person it's much harder to slip into omniscient. And yeah. I've read too many stories where the main character is blabbing on and on about their feelings, I'm just like "shut the fuck up! No one cares." LOL. Much harder to abuse when third person.

Like Cia, the only POV I don't like is third-person omnipresent.  I usually write in first-person and if I choose to write in third-person, it'll be third-person limited (or closed, if you prefer to call it that). 

I don't agree first-person is the easiest to write.  Okay, technically, it's easy to learn but difficult to master.  It's easy for some writers because it's the most natural, because we tend to start a sentence with "I."  BUT..., as a writer, you have all the information you got, it's your job to hide the information as you write, keep a track who knows what at what moment.  Doesn't it annoys you if you found out a character knew what is going on though there is no way he could have known that info, not before the characters in conflicts have a sit down and talk about the issue anyways....  That sort of thing is a test for the writer's ability.

What I don't like about omnipresent POV (AKA god's POV) is because it spells out EVERY character's thinking process and I don't like that!  That's why I usually write in first-person POV.  The reader can feel like he or she is exploring the characters from only one person's POV, which is the "I" perspective.  Same thing for third-person limited, you only get to see from one person's POV, and the rest is explored, guessed (either right or wrong, which is the charm of limited perspective like first-person or third-person limited), and then deduced as you go.  That way there is a lot more psychological depth.  Besides it gives the reader some sense of accomplishment when they finally figure it out why the conflict occurs, like, "Oh, so that's what he was thinking, and I thought he meant something else.  No wonder there he and the protagonist were arguing, because we all assumed it wrong."

And omnipresent POV has a tendency to drift into "speaking directly to the reader."  That also annoys me a great deal.  Back from my literature training, we were taught to avoid using omnipresent POV.  Many great writers did write from omnipresent POV, and sometimes even shift POVs from one to another like Podga mentioned.  But in modern convention, that should be avoided (and I said avoided..., because I bet there are some authors who know what they are doing and can do great wonders if they know when to break the rules, and done effectively).

Like Cia, the only POV I don't like is third-person omnipresent.  I usually write in first-person and if I choose to write in third-person, it'll be third-person limited (or closed, if you prefer to call it that). 

 

I don't agree first-person is the easiest to write.  Okay, technically, it's easy to learn but difficult to master.  It's easy for some writers because it's the most natural, because we tend to start a sentence with "I." 

 

What I don't like about omnipresent POV (AKA god's POV) is because it spells out EVERY character's thinking process and I don't like that!  That's why I usually write in first-person POV.  The reader can feel like he or she is exploring the characters from only one person's POV, which is the "I" perspective.  Same thing for third-person limited, you only get to see from one person's POV, and the rest is explored, guessed (either right or wrong, which is the charm of limited perspective like first-person or third-person limited), and then deduced as you go.  That way there is a lot more psychological depth.  Besides it gives the reader some sense of accomplishment when they finally figure it out why the conflict occurs, like, "Oh, so that's what he was thinking, and I thought he meant something else.  No wonder there he and the protagonist are arguing, because we all assumed it wrong."

 

And omnipresent POV has a tendency to drift into "speaking directly to the reader."  That also annoys me a great deal.  Back from my literature training, we were taught to avoid using omnipresent POV.  Many great writers did write from omnipresent POV, and sometimes even shift POVs from one to another like Podga mentioned.  But in modern convention, that should be avoided (and I said avoided..., because I bet there are some authors who know what they are doing and can do great wonders if they know when to break the rules, and done effectively).

Yes. I agree 1st person is definitely the hardest to master. There are tons of elements to consider and perfect when you're telling a story so personally -- readers will be very quick to judge whether they like the protagonist or not. If they don't they're not going to like the story.

Omniscient for me only works in small doses or in olden day literature. The drifting annoys me too! Character development becomes spread out too thin and I feel like I'm constantly being shunted unceremoniously from one head to the other.

Conclusion: FIRST PERSON LIMITED :3 Excellent insight although with a small sample size.

Sorry I'm late to the party - been offline since Friday. For me it's all about "good writing". And the test of good writing is engagement and readability. I don't want technique shoved in my face - a triumph of style over substance. So for me experimentation is a turn off if the author is trying to be tricksy. It's a distraction from the action I've found that with the best writers I am simply not aware of the technique, skill, time and effort that has gone in to producing perfect prose because I'm too busy enjoying it. It's like a clean and tidy room - you don't notice the absence of dirt and chaos, you don't think about all the work done, you just enjoy the pleasant ambience. BUT - aaarrgh - I hate multiple POVs where the same scenes are replayed, even repeating the same lines. Tinnean is a repeat offender - clunky, pointless and irritating.

As for "voice" I tend to look for first person narrative because I like the immediacy, seeing the world through another pair of eyes and the intimacy of plugging directly into someone else's emotions and self. But if it's a comic story then I think third person is best because much of the fun often comes from the multiple viewpoints.

Would Catcher In The Rye have been such a phenomenon in third person? That book has captured generations of teenagers - and there's no sign of that stopping - who have related to it so personally not only because it is so well written but also, I think, because the first person narrative engages so directly with the reader. But you're right - unless you can identify with and like a first person character's voice, and not get tired of them, it won't work.

You could also poll "tenses" which podga mentioned. Generally I hate and avoid present tense, especially when the story is "locked" into the present tense throughout like a car stuck in first gear. However, I have read a few stories where present tense is done brilliantly because the writer knew when to switch between present and past tenses. A good example is podga's own writing, smoothly transitioning between present and past tenses like a well oiled machine ...

To sum up then, for me it all comes down to the quality of the writing, then the appeal of the characters, and finally the subject matter. A brilliant writer can make me want to read about people, places and events I would normally have no interest in, from any POV and in any tense. I bet that's been no help at all Great blog Fishie Shame it will be lost, buried and forgotten in the blogosphere

Sorry I'm late to the party - been offline since Friday. For me it's all about "good writing". And the test of good writing is engagement and readability. I don't want technique shoved in my face - a triumph of style over substance. So for me experimentation is a turn off if the author is trying to be tricksy. It's a distraction from the action I've found that with the best writers I am simply not aware of the technique, skill, time and effort that has gone in to producing perfect prose because I'm too busy enjoying it. It's like a clean and tidy room - you don't notice the absence of dirt and chaos, you don't think about all the work done, you just enjoy the pleasant ambience. BUT - aaarrgh - I hate multiple POVs where the same scenes are replayed, even repeating the same lines. Tinnean is a repeat offender - clunky, pointless and irritating.

 

As for "voice" I tend to look for first person narrative because I like the immediacy, seeing the world through another pair of eyes and the intimacy of plugging directly into someone else's emotions and self. But if it's a comic story then I think third person is best because much of the fun often comes from the multiple viewpoints.

 

Would Catcher In The Rye have been such a phenomenon in third person? That book has captured generations of teenagers - and there's no sign of that stopping - who have related to it so personally not only because it is so well written but also, I think, because the first person narrative engages so directly with the reader. But you're right - unless you can identify with and like a first person character's voice, and not get tired of them, it won't work.

 

You could also poll "tenses" which podga mentioned. Generally I hate and avoid present tense, especially when the story is "locked" into the present tense throughout like a car stuck in first gear. However, I have read a few stories where present tense is done brilliantly because the writer knew when to switch between present and past tenses. A good example is podga's own writing, smoothly transitioning between present and past tenses like a well oiled machine ...

 

To sum up then, for me it all comes down to the quality of the writing, then the appeal of the characters, and finally the subject matter. A brilliant writer can make me want to read about people, places and events I would normally have no interest in, from any POV and in any tense. I bet that's been no help at all Great blog Fishie Shame it will be lost, buried and forgotten in the blogosphere

Thanks zombehhhhhbrainnsss. I'm goign to have to read Podga's stuff sometime :3! And that's okay, it may get unearthed some day