This chapter here is actually different from the rest. The only humorous element is the old song above.

There's more to a narrator than merely 'Point of View'. Likewise, there are many techniques that can be utilised, some which are not frequently used or antiquated. This is more than just based on the words or manner of speech/voice of the narrator.

In the second section underneath, I will present a brief analysis of a few of my stories. The first one is the easiest, the others—apparently—not so much. There's still very much for me to learn and experiment with. Learn the rules, then bend them or at least see where pushing their limits can take you. I hope this helps and provides you with some elements to consider as you're drafting your stories.

It's not absolutely essential to know every single one of them. In fact, there seems to be a little ambiguity with a few—something which has created some disagreements/disputes about their exact analysis—I suppose that's why it's called Literary Theory, not Literary Law. Though they truly can be helpful—each in their own way—in how to differently/uniquely tell a story [other than 'narrative voice'].

Voice style and nuances: A voice can function like a signature sprawled everywhere and hidden upon the surface of your pages, like a brushstroke on a painting. It's the result of your unique perception of things and personal experiences. Also sets the Mood/s. Unless it's a purposely tailored first person narrator with a completely different personality from the author, you will notice a consistency in the stories. No matter how much I attempt to experiment with my own writing, I naturally maintain two distinct voices within my third-person narratives.

When someone reads a different one of your stories, without having to look at the author name, they can automatically recognise that it was made by you. Much like the brushstroke reference, when you see a J.M.W. Turner or a Francis Bacon, you immediately recognise who the artists were. Don't like the painting reference? Very well, Mozart versus Rachmaninov.

Try different ones and see which one works best for you [not what anyone else tells you, this is your own personal choice]. Maintain and love your chosen styles when you're certain of them. It might not seem unique to you, but to others it might be. Also, working on the other bits and technical aspects is much more pertinent than constantly worrying or doubting that.

The majority of you have heard about first-person, third-person, omniscient narratives, but did you know there's semi-omniscient/limited omniscient and subjective? Some people would use these interchangeably, personally, I don't agree with that.

A semi-omniscient/limited-omniscient narrative has information outside of the character's frame of reference, time, chain of events, etc. Unlike the fully omniscient though, there are boundaries. One example of this could be: A character has died and is telling the story of a past version of themselves. Around the corner there's a monster. Past version doesn't know it's there, future dead version does. Future dead version knows all the mistakes that will lead to their death and narrates it as such.

Another way: The narrator is a separate ghost/disembodied thing within the story watching all the characters. Let's say it's a house that can read minds. The house knows the thoughts and actions of everyone within it, even their future. 'Aunt Jane's going to choke on mushy peas 10 years from now at the dinner table'. It's stuck in one location, so once a character leaves the neighbourhood, the house doesn't know more until it's shared by the mind of one of the characters.

Third person subjective narrative is when the narrator can be in the mind of more than one character. Example: The narrator knows the thoughts and internal feelings of character A and B, but only knows character C from what A and B can see and experience. Knows no thoughts of character C, can't internally focalise.

Now, to explain in more detail why I don't agree with using them interchangeably. Noticed on top when it says 'has information outside of the character's frame of reference, time, chain of events' for the semi/limited-omniscient narrative? That means it can move more freely in a few instances. Now, compare with the limiting factor given by the example at the end of the third person subjective description. Notice the difference? If not, one of my stories underneath will help.

My simplified way of dealing with the terms without all the unnecessarily overcomplicated rubbish:

P.O.V. - How the story is told.

Viewpoint character - Who is watching, rendering/depicting, filtering and telling the story.

Focaliser - Who is perceiving, experiencing the events firsthand, reacting and performing the actions, etc.

Internal focalisation - internal world of the character which includes thoughts, feelings, etc.

External focalisation- external world of the character where emotions can only be assumed by the gestures and actions the character makes.

Fixed focalisation - remains on one focalised character.

Multiple focalisation - used primarily in third person subjective, but can be used in semi-omniscient and omniscient. The same scene can be seen through the eyes and minds of the multiple focalised characters within that scene.

Variable focalisation - used primarily in third person subjective, but can be used in semi-omniscient and omniscient. Switching to different focalised characters within separate scenes.

Collective focalisation - exactly what it means, there are multiple focalisers, but what makes it different from multiple focalisation is that the scene isn't separated by chapters. To be more specific, it doesn't take turns in switching between the characters, instead all are focalised and there are multiple reflectors simultaneously [more appropriately referred to in this instance as collective reflectors]. Could also be multiple narrators speaking at once, which may or may not be the characters.

I'm well aware this one might be too strange? Perhaps a weird quick example [not going to win any awards with this one, I'll tell you that. haha]: A tree has many leaves and they're narrating about a man resting underneath.

'We observed this beastly bipedal creature stumble and pause underneath us. Its strange beady eyes peered up at us, half-closed with miniature suns reflected on their watery surface. He swayed momentarily as he placed a hand upon our mother.

What is he doing? How dare he touch her with that? He's not going to cut our her down is he? What is he doing? What is he doing? We all trembled and shivered from above. Some of us detached.

Taken by the wind.

Forever lost in their plight.'

Zero focalisation - used in omniscient. It's boundless, isn't restrained by any one character and there is—in essence—no focalised character. The latter says 'essence', because this can be toyed with in an obscure way.

Hypothetical focalisation - oh now we're getting into the real mind-bending stuff! Haha. Neither the narrator nor character were in a particular scene, so either describes what they think might've possibly occurred. A very simplistic and limited version of this can be seen when a character is replicating a crime scene, or re-enactments/dramatisations. Excellent tool for whodunnits and psychological novels.

Empty centre figural focalisation [also called figuralisation] - No one is present. Did the event really occur? Another mind-bender in reflector-mode. Simplistic example: A story about the Big Bang with the descriptions of the events, but no one is there. Think of this as you viewing events and hearing sounds within a viewer/telly/screen, but with no narrator, just images or events occurring.

Deep P.O.V. - Typically in free indirect speech, but can be interlaced into direct quoted speech. I actually think this term is somewhat lame and was created by someone that either wanted to pile several of the ones on this list into one or thought they were introducing something completely innovative into the literary world. I'll use it underneath, though I believe it detracts from the EXACT breakdown of the literary devices used. This is similar to observing a replica of a Van Gogh, with a red dot added in the corner. The red dot: opinion of avoiding passive voice and only using active.

Autodiegetic narrative - this one's easy, it's primarily first-person and the protagonist is the narrator.

Heterodiegetic narrative - narrator resides outside of the story.

Homodiegetic narrative - narrator is within the story and is a character.

Covert narrator - non-personal, impartial, genderless, without opinion.

Overt narrator - participatory, opinionated, can have a gender, can refer to themselves, can address the reader.

Intratextual voices - various speakers. A narrator's voice and the character's/multiple character voices.

Extratextual voice - The author's voice. It can be that the author is one of the narrators. Sometimes it can be the author appears in collusion with the narrator, but their distinct voices can be seen. Or the author can be completely separate from the narrator. This must be handled with extreme care/tact when outside the realm of historical narratives and essay papers.

Monologic voice effect - same voice throughout. All voices are the same.

Dialogic voice effect - different distinct voices throughout. Each voice has its own personality [regional, cultural, gender, age, idiomatic usage, etc] unique difference.

Important notes: A heterodiegetic narrator can refer to themselves as 'I' in the story. Whereas a homodiegetic narrator can refer to themselves as 'he', 'she', 'them', 'it', 'we' or 'they'. Not often used, but you will find it in some classical literature.
________________________________

Questionable Circumstances

First-person narrative, singular, unreliable narrator being the protagonist [Nic]. /Autodiegetic narrative, overt narrator.

Single viewpoint character - Nic

Focaliser - Nic, fixed

Is a chaos narrative. [This latter one will confuse some of the younger readers on here if they're not well acquainted with an important topic in the story. That's why I marked the story Mature. It's a very heavy and information-loaded novel, but also puzzles for the reader to attempt figure out.]

Complexity level of techniques: Simple.

***

Passage to Kraälst Ta'ark

Third person limited/Heterodiegetic narrative, covert.

Single viewpoint character - Narrator [somewhat non-personal/impartial, almost bordering on an experimental objective style at times to remain NOT a focaliser. External focalisation. Story is in the past, narrator is not a child, this could only be problematic if it used present tense. Unconventional, though. This could maybe be seen as an extratextual voice, the author is the narrator.

Focaliser - Protagonist [Benjamin], internal focalisation, fixed. [Confused with the top part? Look underneath for example.]

Has a few similarities to a quest narrative, lots of reported speech interlaced with direct speech.

Reported speech - A dry reporting from the narrator [is often utilised with the direct/quoted speech] which connects to the substantial amount of external focalisation. This can be seen from the beginning and throughout. It's marked here, because it's utilised very frequently, same can be said for the rest that I include this section to. The external focalisation to be more exact and using a smaller paragraph:

'After answering the final question about the differences between parasites and viruses, Benjamin looked around. Miss Montgomery stared intently at the novel on her desk. She lifted a hand in a lethargic way, held it near her face for a few seconds, then proceeded to fix her glasses.'

Until half of the fourth paragraph, then it becomes internal focalisation:

'Clothing rustled as children shifted in their seats. A chair scraped against the floor's surface. Another chair squeaked elsewhere. A pencil tapped on a desk somewhere in front. Someone nearby huffed and groaned. These sounds would have otherwise gone unnoticed, but they were slowly beginning to irritate him. At that moment, it was a reminder that he was surrounded by people and many small events, yet still felt completely alone.

As he submerged himself deeper into his internal solitude, everything seemed to slowly fade away, until it was only him being swallowed by the void.'

From there onwards it recommences in external and alternates again.

Complexity level of techniques: Medium.

***

NORP Meets NAT

Substantial moments of Deep P.O.V.

Third person subjective - is Limited when one of the characters is focalised./Heterdiegetic narrative, but becomes almost autodiegetic a few times while remaining monologic while referring in third person, overt. Confused about the overt in this one? Overt is also sometimes referred to as having emotive or subjective phrases. Another reason, see example below.

Multiple-character viewpoint - Narrator, Grant and Nathalie [this explains the limited part].

Multiple focalisers - Grant and Nathalie, multiple and variable internal focalisation alternating at intervals. [Multiple internal focalisation can be seen on the second chapter versus third chapter. The Harlowe's event can be seen at the end of the second chapter limited mostly to Nathalie and start of the third chapter limited mostly to Grant. Maintaining the variable Grant chapter one, Nathalie chapter two beginning, Grant chapter three beginning. You'll notice the separate narrator appear briefly in a few paragraphs, but might miss that since the narrator is not focalised and uses monologism.]

Free indirect speech - Example: Nathalie on the job vs preceding chapter of Grant on the job. Their thoughts are presented within the narrative many times.

Example of Grant:

'His heartbeat quickened with hers as both laid differently exposed. The physician associate cast him a worried glance. He inhaled deeply as he reached in to her strong, yet fragile heart. What secrets did she safely lock away within it? Even with it bared and exposed before him, it remained mysterious in its nature.'

The question and last sentence are all him and his thoughts, but they're in the narrative. As if the narrator has become him in that moment? The viewpoint has shifted. It's a prime example of free indirect speech, almost autodiegetic maintaining the third person references in a monologic voice effect.

Unlike the others, these weren't consciously planned, it was just how the story was decided by my brain.

Complexity level of techniques: Difficult.

[Looks quite simple on the surface doesn't it? In the future, I will try the same, but intentionally fiddle with intratextual voices by introducing dialogic voice effect/polyphonic text. It'll be effective for a particular type of story—and no, I won't tell you which kinds.]

***

Sincerely Yours, No Matter Where

Some Deep P.O.V.

Semi-omniscient/limited omniscient third person [brief moment of focalisation on Christina, because of importance of scene and absence of Thomas. This is the only time the narrator might be confused as Omniscient in that brief moment.] The narrator doesn't know much about Amanda. Narrator knows Thomas's past and future, when Amanda appears in his life, there's some information the narrator gains about her. Appears heterodiegetic, but is homodiegetic narrative, overt. [*explained in the following two sections*].

Multiple-character viewpoint - Narrator [interjects sometimes as someone reading a story to an audience*] and—questionably—Thomas.

Multiple focalisers - Thomas and the narrator [the latter has their own personality. *Therefore, is a character/disembodied entity within the story.], internal focalisation.

Free indirect speech - Found amongst the narrator's occasional and very evident opinion, sometimes seems mixed with Thomas's. Style is especially evident in the park tree segment in first chapter and when he's in the cafeteria.

Cafeteria:

'He couldn't bear to listen to the annoying squabble of his peers. Homecoming dance, drinking, couples and make out sessions. Who cares? His heart had made a pledge before he even knew it. At that moment, it seemed capricious in its obsession to take pleasure in its own suffering, under the guise of some angsty melancholic joy.'

One extra thing in that paragraph above: Noticed the thought in the middle—not italicised nor containing 'he thought' afterwards? I'll keep that one as is until I die, though it might pull the reader out for a moment. Who thought it Thomas or the narrator?

Two more that include the [very obvious] overt, homodiegetic and focalised narrator:

1.
'Thomas watched his retreating back for a moment. Confused, but also wary of the older boy. When he turned around to help the little girl, he noticed her staring up at him through a mess of curly blonde tendrils. She looked up profoundly, with an expression of gratitude and a spark in her eyes that would turn out to be the beginning of adoration. They were unaware that in that instance, a deep connection was made and that love had instantly taken refuge in their hearts. Being a young boy at that moment, it would take many years for Thomas to comprehend what it all meant. Like any other normal child would have done, he focused on playing and having fun.'

2.
'So it seemed by some unjust divine decision, that Life would teach Thomas about the ephemeral disposition of the body and that at a tender age, he would have to learn about the fragile—and oftentimes very finite—quality of cherished bonds. Despite the summertime vigor and energy that permeated Christina's and Thomas's relationship, it was not impervious to the twists and turns of fate.'

Similarities to a quest narrative.
Though these added portions at the end are primarily used for illness-based stories, I can use them to mark some similarities in the terms and how the characters behave with their obstacles.

Complexity level of techniques: Medium.

________________________________

Want to see how other writers utilised these?

Read James Joyce's A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man to Ulysses to Finnegan's Wake. It begins as fixed focalisation, as a whole—variable. By the time you reach Ulysses, you will begin to notice the increasing complexity of the techniques utilised.

Too difficult and boring? He's a favourite of mine since childhood! How dare you? Hugs his second edition prints and wishes they were first editions.

You can try Virginia Woolf. Not a favourite of mine—I'm well aware of the irony, considering I often employ a lyrical/evocative style—but she was quite the talented writer. I've read To the Lighthouse, that can give you a more simplistic view of these focalisation changes [includes the surprise empty focalisation for a moment and also, the house as a viewpoint character]. Miss Dalloway supposedly contains a style similar to the techniques in NORP Meets NAT, but to be perfectly honest, I couldn't get past the first page and can't fully attest to the exact structure of the techniques. Apologies to the friend that suggested it.

These are just the ones that I remembered immediately that weaved some complexity and experimentation. You can look at any classical literature and analyse the techniques. Fyodor Dostoevsky, Jane Austen, etc, etc.

Not certain what the majority of these are? I gave a more simplified definition of them on top. They're in bold so that you can search for them specifically, as well. There are loads of reports or papers written by Literary Theorists and Literary Critics: Gérard Genette, Ann Banfield [excellent in helping you understand empty focalisation/figural], and many more.

Here's one from Jahn Manfred. It's superb, but might prove to be a bit overwhelming due to its scientific style[1]. Mentions the disagreements. The addition of passages allow you to see better how they're utilised. https://books.openedition.org/pufr/3952?lang=en

Here's one by Nieragden, Goran:

http://hispabrina.qwriting.qc.cuny.edu/files/2011/06/sabz1.pdf

1. That's why the previous chapters of this book were written using humour with the examples of literary devices underneath, etc.

____________________________

THE END. PARTY TIME!
____________________________