Point of View: What Does Your Character Know?
Yesterday, I happened upon a blog post about head-hopping and the confusion we can feel when told our writing suffers from this problem. It doesn’t help when half the information out there about head-hopping is confusing as well, not to mention contradictory.
Some call head-hopping the worst ever, others defend it because the big authors can get away with it, and still others say there’s no such thing. Sometimes the feedback is outright wrong, as some confuse head-hopping with multiple point-of-view (POV) or don’t understand the difference that our POV style can make.
Several years ago, I wrote about the different POV styles and head-hopping, but I’ve learned a lot since then, so I figured it was time to revisit the subject. Hopefully, I’ll be able to share tips that won’t add to the confusion. *smile*
POV Types: From 1st to 3rd
Most of us are probably familiar with the different POV types, levels, whatever we want to call them:
- 1st Person: Uses I or me for the POV character. Emotions, thoughts, and perceptions shared with the reader are limited to what this character knows.
- 2nd Person: Uses you for the POV character. (Note: The POV character being you is different from addressing the reader as “you,” which is merely breaking the fourth wall in a “dear reader” way.) Uncommon in fiction, but when used, the thoughts, emotions, and perceptions shared with the reader would be limited to what this character knows.
- 3rd Person: Uses he or she for the characters. The emotions, thoughts, and perceptions shared with the reader depend on the type of 3rd person POV style used. (See Note #2 below.)
Note #1: Multiple POV Characters are Possible in One Story
Any one of those types could have multiple POV characters over the course of the story. I’ve seen stories with multiple 1st person POVs, where the POV character is named in the chapter title to make it clear who “I” is.
There are so few 2nd person stories that I haven’t seen one with multiple POVs, but it’s theoretically possible. Many readers might find it confusing, however, as 2nd person is often confusing for readers as is, much less with the complexity of multiple POV characters.
We’re probably all familiar with stories that follow multiple POV characters around in 3rd person writing, each scene or chapter focusing on a different POV character. I’ve even some stories that combine multiple POV types, such as the main character’s POV scenes in 3rd person and the villain’s POV scenes in 1st person to hide their identity.
Just because we have multiple POV characters does not mean we’re writing in omniscient or head-hopping. There are several ways to change the “ownership” of the story from one POV character to another and avoid problems.
Note #2: 3rd Person POV Encompasses Many Styles
The confusion about POV often lies in the many different approaches to 3rd person POVs. All these styles use the he/she 3rd person POV words, so it can be hard to tell which style applies to our writing—or to an example held up to “prove” that something is or isn’t allowed.
Yet it’s important to understand these differences because techniques that are acceptable in styles at one end of the range are less acceptable at the other end of the range.
Think of a range along a line, and what changes from one end of the line to the other is how close the reader’s “camera” is to the main characters. Within a story or scene, it’s possible to shift the writing along this line in certain ways, but it’s important to not confuse the reader, as that will take them out of the story.
At one end, we’re meant to feel very near to the characters—experiencing their story from the inside, as if we were them. At the other end, we’re meant to feel removed, like an audience member watching a story play out on the stage of the story’s pages.
Going from near to far, we can define the main points on the line:
- Deep 3rd Person:
Written at the same depth as well-done 1st person POV, just with different pronouns. Because the “camera” is deep inside the character’s head, hearing their thoughts and feeling their emotions, the writing cannot share perceptions that the POV character isn’t aware of. It is 100% subjective, focused from the inside of the POV character.
This style has become the new default for many genres, as it gives readers the immediacy of a “close up.”
In this style, we…:
- Avoid all filtering words (saw, heard, thought, knew, wondered, etc.).
- Use showing most of the time to let the reader experience the story along with the POV character.
- Include the POV character’s visceral reactions to make the reader feel as though they’re sharing the character’s body.
- Use the character’s voice for all sentences, and share only their perceptions. (Would the POV character notice the chair’s fabric or know the name of that flower? Would they think about xyz at this point in time? If not, don’t include it.)
- Italicize the character’s internal thoughts only when changing to I/me and present tense.
I hate this. She kicked the rock across the driveway. If only Roger hadn’t been such an idiot.
That last sentence could be her direct thoughts but wouldn’t need to be italicized because the tense and POV don’t change. In deep POV, most sentences would be near-direct thoughts (using their voice), so italics aren’t appropriate unless needed.
- Thought tags such as “he thought” or “she wondered” should not be used for internal thoughts. They add distance, which undermines the goal of this style.
- Limited 3rd Person:
Sometimes called “close,” “subjective,” or even just “normal” 3rd person, this style is still deep enough that the writing can’t share perceptions the POV character isn’t aware of. “Limited” means that the writing is limited to this one POV character’s experience for this scene.
However, some sentences (such as for action or descriptive narrative) might not be strictly in the character’s voice, more telling might be thrown in to provide context to the reader’s understanding, some filtering words might add distance, etc.
A character’s internal thoughts might be italicized even when still in 3rd person and past tense, or they might be tagged with “he thought,” similar to dialogue.
- Omniscient 3rd Person:
This style can share perceptions beyond the POV character’s knowledge. Other than certain genres (childrens’, middle grade, some fantasy, etc.), omniscient is less popular than it was during the time of the “classics.”
This style can include lots of telling and a narrator character, but it would include few (if any) deep emotions, thoughts, or visceral reaction of any character. If subjective thoughts, emotions, or visceral reactions were included, the sentence would use filter words or add distance in some way. In other words, the reader’s “camera” is outside of the main character.
The writing would be in either the author’s voice or a narrator’s voice. Insights into characters would be shared objectively (or subjectively from the author/narrator’s opinion).
There are several variations between those of course, but those are the main styles to understand for my point here.
Note #3: Sliding from One Style to Another Is Possible If…
We’ve probably all read stories that have most paragraphs in deep POV and then they throw in a telling phrase for a bit of backstory context. Other stories even go from a subjective POV to add in an objective sentence to increase reader tension. (If he only realized what was to happen next, he might have made a different choice.)
When a story makes a slide from deep to shallower in a way that improves the reader’s experience, there’s nothing wrong with this technique. However, too many of these shifts in depth are the result of authors who don’t know how to share information any other way, or they simply don’t think about what would be best for the reader.
As with all aspects of writing, we should make our choices deliberately. If we’re adding distance between the reader and the story, we should have a good reason.
Understanding Feedback about POV
Let’s take a look at some common issues we might receive in feedback from critique partners, beta readers, contest judges, and editors, and how this understanding of POV can help.
Is This Really Head-Hopping?
Many people use this term incorrectly, referring to issues with multiple POVs or out-of POV phrases. To understand the correct meaning, let’s go back to the “camera” idea.
Head-hopping is when the camera hops from inside one character’s head (meaning that it has access to their thoughts, feelings, perceptions, etc. without filter words) to inside another character’s head without using an appropriate transition.
Unless our POV character is a mind-reader, the writing can’t simultaneously share their emotions and know how another character feels. In other words, the camera can’t be inside two characters at the same time without potentially confusing the reader and creating distance. Those dangers are the reason to avoid head-hopping, not just because it’s a rule. *smile*
The use of filter words for omniscient keeps the camera outside: Sally knew Roger was lying. The filter word “knew” adds distance, so if the next sentence is a filtered insight about Roger, we’re not hopping from inside one head to inside another.
However, unless we’re trying to write in omniscient, we should avoid filter words in most cases, and we would need to transition from one character’s POV to another.
What Does Out-of-POV Mean?
The actual feedback for out-of-POV will call out the issue by many names. Some will call it head-hopping, some will say it feels too “told,” some will question how a character knows something.
The vast majority of POV problems comes down to this out-of-POV issue. The easiest way I’ve found to identify and fix the problem is a two-fold question:
Can the POV character know this?
And if so, is it clear to the reader how they know it?
If we keep these questions in mind, it doesn’t matter if we understand head-hopping or the different types of POV styles. These questions get to the heart of all POV issues.
From this perspective, head-hopping is a result of us not keeping the POV character clear to the reader by using transitions (or filter words in the case of omniscient) or by us sharing information the POV character can’t know. If we fix those, we fix the head-hopping.
But out-of-POV issues are also tricky because they can hide in innocent looking sentences:
Sally took deep, calming breaths as Roger loaded the rifle to get ready for the next set of zombies.
In omniscient, this sentence would be fine. There’s no obvious “inside” camera work here. That lack of inside camera work also means this technically isn’t head-hopping.
However, if it’s meant to be 3rd person limited or deep, there is a problem with an out-of-POV phrase (that’s also telling and not showing). Sally can see Roger load the rifle, but how can she know his motivation of “to get ready” for the zombies? Maybe he’s getting ready to kill her for all she knows. *grin*
Obviously, no matter the POV style, most readers would skim over that phrase and think the motivation clear enough if they’ve seen the characters just survive one wave of zombies and they’re regrouping now. But an editor skilled at catching these issues would flag this for out-of-POV. (Marcy Kennedy is genius at finding them.)
Even if we don’t think these slips are a big deal, they’re also often telling issues as well. So if we’re trying to use a deep POV, these are a double whammy of problems and should be avoided.
How to Fix Out-of-POV Issues:
So we’ve established that Sally can’t know Roger’s motivation (unless she can read his mind—I write paranormal, so that possibility exists *smile*). That’s a failure on the first question above, but what if we shared evidence to explain how she could know it? That is, what if we provide an answer to the second question?
That second question is the key to the two easy ways to fix this problem. Both require us to show the evidence for Sally and/or the reader to reach the right conclusion:
- Show How the POV Character Reaches Their Conclusion:
Sally took deep, calming breaths as Roger loaded the rifle to get ready for the next set of zombies. His gaze repeatedly flicked to the barricaded door. No sign of them yet.
With that extra information, the reader understands that Sally’s not reading Roger’s mind about his plan, but rather she’s making an educated guess based on actions she can see and interpret (and the reader would likely agree with her guess).
- Cut the Conclusion and Show Just the Evidence:
Sally took deep, calming breaths as Roger loaded the rifle. His gaze repeatedly flicked to the barricaded door. No sign of them yet.
This leaves the motivation of why he’s loading the rifle in the subtext, but if all the clues are there, readers will pick up on it. This is usually the technique I use to fix these issues because telling and showing is a form of repetition, and I write in deep POV most of the time, so I avoid telling unless I have a reason to include it.
Resources for Learning More about POV
- In addition to her many posts about POV, Janice Hardy has a great post about the subtle ways the POV can shift within sentences. Credit goes to her for the inspiration of using a zombie theme for these examples. *smile*
- Writer/editor Marcy Kennedy has a fantastic book about showing and telling that covers many of these concepts, such as filter words, telling, and some types of out-of-POV issues. Marcy also has several POV-related posts on her blog.
- Alicia Rasley’s book covers the many types of POV.
- The physical signals found in the Emotion Thesaurus help us share the emotions of non-POV characters without head-hopping or including out-of-POV information.
- Angela Ackerman, one of the authors of the Emotion Thesaurus, shared a guest post here about writing with subtext by sharing information about a non-POV character.
Want Feedback on Potential POV Issues?
Because these issues are so tricky to find and because many are confused about whether these problems exist in their work—or about whether the feedback from others is valid—I want to try something different…
If you’ve received feedback about a line in your story being head-hopping, out-of-POV, or suffering from a POV problem (or you’re worried about a potential problem), feel free to paste your example (up to a paragraph or two) in the comments. We can all take a look through the comments and compare notes.
Maybe we’ll learn that the feedback was wrong or mistaken. Maybe we’ll learn more about how to fix the problem. Or maybe we’ll get better about finding these issues in our work. No matter what, hopefully we can all reach a better understanding of this confusing issue. *smile*
Do you find head-hopping and the different kinds of POV confusing? Do you have any questions about the concepts covered here? Do you have any additional tips or insights for others? Have you ever been told that you’ve head-hopped in your writing? Or that you’ve included out-of-POV information? (If you wish, share your example below for feedback.)Pin It
My novel is mostly in 1st person although I have a few scenes where the POV is more like a fly on the wall showing what is happening in the situation. Is this limited 3rd person?
Hi Glynis, If the POV character’s thoughts, emotions, etc. are always worded with I, me or my (not just the occasional emphasized line), it’s a 1st person POV. Example time… (And excuse the cheesy example–my brain is fried. LOL!) 1st Person: He took my hand and placed it on his chest. My heart pounded in rhythm with his, spreading warmth through my limbs. The air in the room stilled, as if the world itself held its breath. I wished the moment would never end. Deep 3rd Person: He took her hand and placed it on his chest. Her heart pounded in rhythm with his, spreading warmth through her limbs. The air in the room stilled, as if the world itself held its breath. She wished the moment would never end. In both cases, the reader gets the deeper experience of visceral and internal reactions (pounding heart, warmth in limbs) and internal thoughts. Although these both use “wished”–which can be a filter word–in some situations, the word can emphasize the importance of the wishing emotion and not the content of the wish itself. Only the pronouns are different. The line about the air isn’t necessarily in any specific voice or POV, so it could be seen as an objective, fly-on-the-wall statement. However, the lines around it add the context that keep the section in the same 1st or deep 3rd POV. In other words, not every sentence has to be grounded to the POV character (such as stating “the air around… — Read More »
[…] ever-helpful Jami Gold has posted a concise but comprehensive discussion of POV (Point of View: What Does Your Character Know?) on her blog. The post covers different types of POV (what they look like and how they are used), […]
Oh very interesting post! Especially as I write in omniscient, and one reason why I write in that style is because it’s the norm style in my genre (Chinese martial arts stories.) And when something’s the norm, no reader used to that genre will look twice at it, lol. It’s great that you explained the head hopping issue. I thought it was just because readers would feel dizzy from zooming from inside one character’s head into another, and I can feel dizzy too, but I see now that it’s more about being unclear on whose thoughts we are now hearing. (Switching heads without using transitions, haha.) Since I value clarity very highly in my stories, I almost always use filter words (he thought) before a character’s thoughts, because I want the reader to absolutely know whose internal thoughts these are. Yet sometimes I put the character’s thoughts in directly without any filter words, lol, to confuse the reader intentionally so they don’t know if it was the narrator saying that or the character thinking that, haha! But that’s just me being a poltergeist of a writer, lol. (Like Peeves! :D) During the editing though, I’ll pay attention to these parts where I evilly confuse the readers on purpose, lol! And decide whether this confusion is really necessary or will lead to some good effects, or if it’s simply me being mean and immature. XD And edit accordingly. It is sometimes very hard to resist teasing your readers, though. I’ve seen… — Read More »
Hi Serena, Great comment! I am by no means an expert on omniscient, so I appreciate you sharing your tips for how to “do omniscient right” (i.e., how to not confuse the reader so much that they put down the book–LOL!). I love your advice, so I’m going to summarize your tips to help other visitors. 🙂 If you don’t use filter words to identify which character is thinking or feeling something, ensure that character is the last one named (and they should have been named recently, like in the previous paragraph). This is the same rule we use for dialogue in all POVs, so this makes sense for omniscient thoughts and feelings as well. Unless the thoughts or feelings shared are extremely short and shallow (Jack thought X, and Jane thought Y), the thoughts and feelings of different characters should appear in different paragraphs. Again, this is the same rule we follow for dialogue in all POVs. We switch paragraphs when we switch speakers. Sometimes a paragraph break isn’t enough of a transistion, so a baton pass transition might be needed to guide the reader from one character to another. Comparing and contrasting how characters view the same situation differently is often used to point out the subjectivity of the situation (or to not trust one character’s perception and bias), to keep readers uncertain about a character, or for humor. Even in omniscient, one character might “own” the scene (i.e., the camera following them through events) and the prose… — Read More »
LOL! I’m glad you liked my “tips”. XD Well, I’ve written over 1 million words of my omniscient POV story now, so I should be ashamed of myself if I didn’t learn ANYTHING about the omniscient after all that. XDD HAHA that the editor wouldn’t catch the squinting modifier either if they also understood it. I didn’t think of that! Oh similar to the squinting modifier problem, sometimes the sentence mentions a “he”, but there are two or more possible guys this “he” could be; yet unfortunately the text doesn’t specify and leaves you confused. The reader in general assumes that your “he” refers to the last male mentioned in your story, but not all readers make this assumption, and this assumption may be wrong! It could be referring to the second last male mentioned. I find this problem even in traditionally published books, and I’m only made hyper aware of it because one of my English lit TAs pointed this out to us! So, I would rather be a little less elegant in my prose and keep mentioning the actual name of the guy instead of using a long string of “he”s. It might be okay to keep using “he” if the context makes it very obvious who “he” is, BUT if readers make the wrong assumption when they first read the “he”, and then realize a second later when they read the rest of the sentence that they guessed the wrong “he”, the reader might frown or even… — Read More »
Oh yes! Good point, and I meant to mention that in my comment above. LOL!
Like you, I think it’s better to be a touch clunky but clear in those situations. Confusion will take readers out of the story far more than an extra clarifying word or two. 🙂 Thanks for that addition!
Oh and I forgot to mention, I meant this for “she”s and “it”s too, just in case anyone’s reading it and thinks I’m being sexist/ species-ist. XDD
There was something I else I wanted to say, but I forgot. 🙁
Btw, for Kindle ebooks, do you know how to make them have real page numbers? You know how there are usually only “location numbers”, yet for some books, there are “page numbers” too? I wonder if they can make page numbers for Indie ebooks as well.
LOL! at species-ist. 🙂
Hmm, no, that’s a good question about Kindle page numbers. You’re talking about in the file itself, and not just on the sales page, right? (I’ve heard having a print version connected to the Kindle version can add the exact pages on the sales page, but that hasn’t happened for my Treasured Claim pages yet.) Thanks for stopping by–wish I had an answer for you! 🙂
HAHA yeah species-ist. XD
Oh interesting! Hopefully making a kindle ebook from my CreateSpace print book would help, lol. It would certainly be nice for the readers too, not just for the authors.
Oh sorry I realized I skipped your question, haha. Yeah I mean that when you click “Go to” on your Kindle, apart from “Location”, the “Pages” function is active too and you can type in the page number. Also, at the bottom of your Kindle, you see both the location number and the page number. This is very unrelated, but I realize that even though I’m writing a happy ending romantic comedy, with many happy and even ideal couples, I also have a ridiculously large number of unrequited love couples. So it’s kind of tragic that the person will never return their love, EVER, and that the unrequited lover will never be able to or even want to love anyone else. (Save two exceptions who manage to find someone else!) In fact, many are friendzoned (or worse)… So I don’t write tragedy, but I realize that I do have love tragedies within my comedy. A comedy only means that the protagonists are guaranteed a happy ending; it doesn’t guarantee anything for non-protagonist characters. D: But similarly, a tragedy only means the protagonists are guaranteed a tragic ending; non-protagonists are free to have happy endings in contrast! D: But most of those unrequited love stories within my happy romantic comedy story, aren’t THAT tragic. At least for most of these stories, no one dies or marries anyone else or anything. Interestingly, most of the unrequited love interests don’t ever get into a relationship with anyone; so this could be a comfort… — Read More »
Interesting! I don’t think I’ve seen a Kindle book like that, so I have no idea. LOL!
You know, it’s funny that you mention the idea of how a happy ending refers only to the protagonist. I saw a slam against a book recently for making a disabled character a plot device–that they were there only to inspire the protagonist to do something. And while I understand the point (too many disabled characters exist only for what they can do for other characters), the same could be said for any non-protagonist character. The harping mother-in-law, the pushy friend, the mentor, etc.–they’re all there only to trigger something for the protagonist’s story…because it’s the protagonist’s story. 😀
So I guess this goes back to POV in that we can make sure our secondary characters feel more well-rounded than mere cardboard cutouts, but until and unless we’re writing their stories (as many romance series do), they are only there to serve the protagonist’s story. So our protagonist’s POV takes precedence in most cases. 🙂 (Hmm, I sort of got the conversation back on topic there–LOL!) Thanks for the comment!
Yeah! I have a Kindle keyboard and Kindle paperwhite, and they both have functions where you can jump to (go to) a specific location or page number. You can’t go to the latter if they don’t put in page numbers, though. 🙁 Oh my! I believe I told you about this before, but I see that there are two general ways to view characters. One way is to see them as mere functions in the story. The other way is to see them as actual people and individuals. Clearly I do the latter much more than I do the former, if I even do the former at all, haha. Actually I was shocked when I first read that the disabled person only exists to make the protagonist do something. >< What a cruel thing to say! Isn't it bad enough for the disabled person to be disabled? But those people have to say that this person is a mere tool too!! Argh. Yeah if those people insist on seeing all characters as mere tools for the plot and story, yeah, everything's a tool. 🙁 But I personally see them all as individual people, whether they are well developed or not. If they are flat, it doesn't mean that they're flat; it only means that the author didn't have enough time to develop them, or they didn't need to be developed that much for the story, i.e. the author only showed some parts of this character, not others. It's like if… — Read More »
Interesting! I see both perspectives, but I definitely start off with the whole-person idea. My characters are like actual people to me, but during revision, I also see how they fit into the story. The attitude of only seeing them as tools frustrates me though, especially as that perspective is often used to describe characters who belong to marginalized groups–which as you said, just minimizes them even more and dismisses the characters themselves.
I mean, I make all my characters as full and well-rounded as I can, and if someone chooses to focus on a diverse character to talk about how they’re only a plot device–and yet they don’t do that for any of the other secondary characters, who were created and interact in all the same ways–I think that says something about their narrow vision. :/ In the real world, diversity is everywhere, and we shouldn’t limit ourselves to showing diversity only when they’re the main character just so we don’t get “dinged.” *sigh*
LOL! Yes, exactly! That Hamlet example is perfect. 🙂 Thanks for the comment!
Yeah it’s terrible if people twist their original story just to satisfy certain social criteria. :O There’s also that problem where many readers assume that the narrator and characters’ attitudes equal the author’s attitude. I’m pretty sure Nabokov does not agree with Humbert Humbert from Lolita’s worldview! But even in less obvious cases, it’s dangerous to assume that the narrator and characters’ beliefs represent what the author believes. 🙁
Very true. Plenty of my characters have attitudes I don’t agree with, and sometimes I include those attitudes specifically to shine a light on how wrong they are, but I’m sure someone could twist my intentions if they so wished. 🙁
Yes, that said, I don’t have “real” page numbers on my Kindle version of Treasured Claim yet, despite it being linked to the print version, so who knows. LOL!
Point of view is not fun at all… I thought I’d mostly gotten rid of head-hopping, but it looks like I have a long way to go… See, I tend to write in Limited 3rd Person, but I still notice moments of head-hopping (“Wait, when was I in her head?”) on rereading stuff. I guess POV is another weak point for me. OH well. It’s something to work on.
Like, in one of my fanfics I’m writing, the focus is on the canon character (he’s called Kira. Yes, I know) but I sometimes catch myself later having jumped into Yumi’s (the potential love interest) head. Gah.
I’m guilty of making POV slips as well, so this takes practice and a keen eye to pick them out. 🙂 Good luck and thanks for the comment!
[…] list the name of the of the main POV character in this scene. This is a good reminder not to “head hop” or change POV […]
[…] blogged before about how fixing POV errors often comes down to better showing, as we might want to show how the POV character comes to their conclusion, or we might just cut the […]
[…] aspect of writing that we often emulate without thinking is point of view (POV), which we’ve talked about here before. The POV we use for our writing is likely one we’ve seen in other stories, so it’s […]
Hi Jami. I’m a little late to the party, but I really enjoyed this post on POV. However, I was confused by use of “Limited 3rd person” as a section title to contrast it with “Deep 3rd person”. The “Deep 3rd person” section starts with this definition:
This is confusing — my understanding is that “Limited 3rd person” refers to the use of only one 3rd person subjective POV in a story. That doesn’t seem to be really what you are describing here. Also, doesn’t “Deep 3rd person” also describe a POV that is “close”/”subjective”?
A better label for this POV sub-category is suggested by your comments later in this same post, where you talk about “when a story makes a slide from deep to shallower…” Wouldn’t “Shallow 3rd person” be more appropriate than “Limited 3rd person”? Granted, “shallow person” has its own baggage, but in context there shouldn’t be too much concern about what is meant.
There’s no end to the labels used to describe POV, and they’re not at all consistent, so I tried to give enough information that people could understand the differences regardless of the labels. For many, “shallow” might imply more of an omniscient approach.
Also, yes, some think of “limited” as meaning one POV per book. However, that’s not a requirement of the label, as it could refer to one POV per scene (i.e., not head-hopping). The point of “limited” here is to contrast the style with omniscient–that the information shared in the scene is limited to what the POV character for that scene knows.
Deep POV is Limited POV plus… 🙂 In other words, think of a spectrum. Both limited and deep POV are subjective, but where limited is “close,” deep is closer.
Going back to the idea of cameras to explain the differences: In omniscient, the camera floats above the fray, zooming in wherever it wishes. In limited, it follows a single character per scene, remaining close enough to them to witness their experience and dipping into their heads for insights occasionally. In deep, the camera remains inside the POV character’s head, sharing the same experience and hearing all their thoughts.
So you’re not wrong about how limited is more shallow than deep. However, the labels that make the “most” sense probably depend on which end of the spectrum you’re comparing it too. 🙂 Hope that helps! Thanks for the comment!
Ah, now it’s all much clearer. “Deep POV is limited POV plus” — that’s the key. Many thanks for the quick response!
[…] understand our POV options (first person, deep third person, etc.) […]
[…] what point of view (POV) means […]
[…] know what point of view (POV) means […]
[…] we’re careful about keeping in mind what our POV character knows, we won’t run into problems if the POV character hints at the non-POV character’s […]