Purposeful Prose Advice Column: A Problem in Perspective

Dear Purposeful Prose,

I’m going through feedback I received from beta readers last week, and I’ve noticed that most of them have found errors in point of view. I will be fixing them, but I’m frustrated with myself, and I need some outside perspective. What are some ways that I can fix point of view errors in my writing and how do I avoid running into this problem again?

Inconsistencies in point of view is a very common issue, and mitigating it requires a delicate hand, especially when writing from multiple perspectives. More often than not, writers will make errors in perspective that go unnoticed by readers, even editors and publishers. 

One of the best ways I know of identifying errors in point of view is by, first, identifying the narrator. A narrator in first person (I, me) would not feel out of place when saying that, “Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine.”

A narrator in the third person (he, she, they) has given us Beth March, and “There are many Beths in the world, shy and quiet, sitting in corners till needed, and living for others so cheerfully that no one sees the sacrifices till the little cricket on the hearth stops chirping, and the sweet, sunshiny presence vanishes, leaving silence and shadow behind.”

In the second person (you), “What you are trying to say is that it’s easier for you to hide in your own darkness, than emerge cloaked in your own vulnerability. Not better, but easier. However the longer you hold it in, the more likely you are to suffocate. At some point, you must breathe.”

Finally, an omniscient perspective states, “I wanted to tell the book thief many things, about beauty and brutality. But what could I tell her about those things that she didn’t already know? I wanted to explain that I am constantly overestimating and underestimating the human race–that rarely do I ever simply estimate it. I wanted to ask her how the same thing could be so ugly and so glorious, and its words so damning and brilliant.” 

Some of these perspectives sound very similar to one another, but the key difference is who, specifically, outside of the reader is seeing, feeling, listening, and wondering. The most common choices of perspective are first and third, and while it is possible to achieve second and omniscience, they have historically been the most difficult to master. 

When, in your writing, you assume a character, you assume their awareness of their world. Consider the five senses, for example. They can see, hear, and analyze information. However, while they can attempt to better understand those they surround themselves with, your narrator will not know all of the particulars of what others see, hear, taste, smell, feel, or think. 

Your narrator can only truly know what they are able to know or what they think they know. A narrator can deduce or assume the motivations of another character or the emotions of another character. However, unless your narrator has sufficient reason given to assume emotion or motivation, a point of view error would assume knowledge that the narrator would not fully have. Consider this example:“Nancy felt relieved when removing her coat at the end of a long work day, but she didn’t get far enough to sit down. Heather suddenly stormed past, throwing her bag to the sofa.”

In this case, our narrator is Nancy. Readers will be able to see what she sees, hear what she hears, and feel what she feels. They might be able to glean from the information above that Heather is angry, but maybe she’s more frustrated or sad than angry. Based on the two sentences above, Nancy can make an assumption, but she cannot know for sure. Saying that Heather stormed past “angrily” would be a point of view error. 

Depending on the context of this scene, Nancy might also be able to deduce what motivated Heather to act in this way. However, it is not Nancy’s responsibility to assign that motivation to Heather. I also only included items that might have been in Nancy’s field of vision. For example, a sofa. We understand, as readers, that Nancy wanted to sit down after a long work day. She was probably walking towards that sofa with the intention of doing just that. Because of this, it wasn’t out of the question that Nancy would have seen Heather’s bag being thrown on the sofa. If the narrator included information about a cockroach on the floor above them, that would be a point of view error unless Nancy knew about the roach and either hadn’t killed it or didn’t want to (unlikely, I think).

When you are resolving errors of agreement or passing through your manuscript, consider who is thinking, feeling, generally taking in the environment around them. Who, in this case, is your narrator? Make sure that you have only included as much information as your narrator can plausibly give. 

Before you pass through your manuscript, lay out your narrator’s limitations. What would they know/understand/think/feel, and what would be outside of their understanding based on how you’ve designed them as a character? Consider, also, that physical limitations exist. We can only see so far, run so fast, and take in so much information about the world around us. Laying out those limits can help you to catch errors in perspective or general plot holes that result from your characters surpassing their limitations.

In principle, of course, I am not against characters surpassing their initial perceived limitations provided, of course, that this is properly contextualized.

If you have a writing or editing-focused question, I would be more than happy to dedicate a post to you. Contact us with any questions you might have or to schedule a free consultation with yours truly!

All submissions will remain anonymous unless you explicitly request for me to include your name.