POV Writing in Discworld Books

[Tonyblack]

I've often noticed that Terry sometimes wrote from the Point Of View of some of his characters - but mostly not. And it is only certain characters that he does this with. Vimes, Angua, Tiffany, Agnes to name a few. But most certainly not others. Why do you think this is? Are these characters different in some way that made it easier to do?

What are your thoughts?

 

[RathDarkblade]

Ahh, but which POV do you mean? Writing from the point of view of Vimes, Angua et al. would mean that Terry's writing in third-person POV (i.e. using pronouns like "he", "she" etc). Furthermore, the person named first within the scene is the only one whose head we can see into - so if we are first introduced to Vimes, say, then we can only see what Vimes sees, hear what he hears, feel what he feels, and are privy to what he thinks - and no-one else. It's as if Vimes has a little camera on his shoulder.

If we are privy to anyone else's feelings and thoughts, it becomes omniscient POV, which is extremely difficult to do well without "head-hopping" - i.e. bouncing around between people's heads and never settling down, which is disconcerting and something that agents and publishers frown upon.

You can also write in first-person POV (i.e. from the POV of the narrator). Conan Doyle did this all the time with his Sherlock Holmes stories, and Agatha Christie also did this many times from the POV of Captain Hastings). However, this is more difficult than third-person.

Least used, and hardest of all, is second-person POV - where you try to persuade the reader that he/she feels something or does something because... ABC XYZ. This is difficult to do well because each reader has different experiences and expectations, and would object that "I would NOT do [whatever]! I would NEVER do it!" etc. This is normally used in the "Choose Your Own Adventure" books, but nowhere else.

Here's a little more on different POVs: https://www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors ... cient-pov/

Now, it seems to me that Pterry normally writes in third-person POV. For instance, in NW or Thud!, he definitely writes from the POV of Vimes: we are privy to Vimes's fears, theories of policing, feelings, thoughts, and pains. We see many other characters, true, but Vimes is definitely the central one.

In CJ, OTOH, I'm not sure that there are any POVs - or, if there are, then we have more than one. Agnes Nitt is definitely the central POV, but we see quite a lot from Granny Weatherwax's POV, too.

I've probably been talking too much already, so I'll let someone else have a go...

 

[Tonyblack]

I'm talking about where we hear the inner monologue of the character concerned. It is used a lot in Thud! from Vimes, Angua and Brick's point of view, for example. Terry puts us into the head of the character - we are privy to their thoughts.

 

[Dotsie]

These characters are flawed in some way, a little dark, but they have a strong moral code and are fiercely loyal. They're also not too bright or too thick. So we can relate to them in a way that we couldn't to a character like Carrot, who is a) a bit dull, and b) a bit magical in his ability to inspire others to follow him. We can't be allowed to see behind the curtain there. Colon and Nobby are too flawed and too thick to be like 'us', and Vetinari is too intelligent - we'd be given the answers right away.

 

[raisindot]

I think Pterry does a lot more POV writing than people realize. It's just that he often switches it on and off, and, like Dotsie said, he reserves it mainly for flawed or more complex characters whose viewpoint is transformed throughout the novel.

In Going Postal and Making Money nearly all of the Moist scenes are written from his POV. You could argue that in Raising Steam Moist is the only character who has POV, white the rest are portrayed through dialogue and actions.

Polly in Monstrous Regiment is the central POV character, and you can argue that WIlliam de Worde has POV through much of The Truth, although his feeling are mostly expressed through dialogue, rather than "inner monologues." Lobsang had it to a degree in Thief of Time. Susan certainly had it in Hogfather and Thief of Time.

Agnes certainly has POV in Carpe Jugulum and Maskerade. Glenda Trevor and Nutt had it to a lesser degree in UA.

But Pterry doesn't limit POV to protagonists. Gaspode had it in both The Truth and The Fifth Elephant.

Even some of the villains had it occasionally. Both Pin and Tulip had bits of it. Cosmo Lavish had little bits of it when he was doing his butterfly bit. D'eath had it a bit in Men at Arms.

While Pterry understandably didn't give the one-dimensional Rincewind much POV, it is surprising that Granny doesn't get that much, either throughout the Witches book. Even in Carpe Jugulum it's used sparingly. And, surprising, Brutha has little if any POV scenes in Small Gods. Considering how his character evolved, it would have been interesting to witness his inner evolution. Instead, it comes almost totally through action and dialogue.

 

[Tonyblack]

I found it odd when seeing Vimes from someone else's point of view. William, for example, in The Truth. We are used to seeing through Vimes's eyes. It's refreshing to see him from another's pov.

 

[RathDarkblade]

Raisin, Pterry certainly does write quite a lot of POV. The question I'd like to know is this:

Does the POV-switch make sense? What I mean is this: take FOC, for example. We start with the POV of Arthur Carry (who buys a golem), but then we quickly switch to the POV of Father Tubelcek, the priest. He dies shortly thereafter, and we switch POV again - to Vimes - where it stays for most of the novel. From time to time, we get to see Angua's POV, Cheery's, and even Dorfl's (in the cellar scene). But most of the time it stays with Vimes.

The big question is: can this POV-switch be warranted? If Vimes, as the main protag, has the POV, then how does he know about Carry? Or Tubelcek? Or Dorfl? He wasn't there. The answer is simple - he doesn't - so he doesn't appear in those scenes. This makes the POV changes easier to countenance, but it's still a little confusing to change POVs so often and so quickly.

The same problem occurs in Thud! It starts with the POV of an anonymous troll (whose identity we learn later). It quickly changes to Vimes (in a scene with A. E. Pessimal). All right - but Vimes was nowhere near that troll, so the troll's subplot is not the same as Vimes's until they intersect.

If a scene starts with (say) Cheery, then it's Cheery's POV and no-one else's. If we want to switch POVs, we have to end the scene. Furthermore, in a scene, the person with the POV has to achieve something; it can't just be a walk-and-talk scene. If we want to sympathise - and eventually root for - a character, then he/she must face a challenge within the scene. Maybe he/she overcomes it, maybe not - but the character must consider what his next step should be, and make a decision.

There's a reason that Cheery's first scene with Angua (in which they simply walk and talk) don't resonate as strongly with readers as Cheery's later scenes. In the first scene, Cheery doesn't face a challenge, and has no decision to make: she simply tells Angua why she came to A-M. In Cheery's later scenes (e.g. at the slaughterhouse), Cheery's aim is to learn about golems, which she does from Dorfl - but again, there is no challenge. So we don't really "connect" with Cheery until she decides to start wearing the leather kilt. Now she's made a decision; now there's a challenge for her to overcome! That's what makes her an interesting character.

The same goes for every character. Do they face a challenge in the scene? Are they pushed back? Do they have a choice to make, or a decision to make? If not, then it shouldn't be their POV, and the scene should be rewritten from someone else's POV.

 

[raisindot]

Apologies in advance for perceived "fiction-splaining."

Rath, methinks you may be confusing the notion of POV with the concept of the "omnipotent narrator."

A character with POV at any given time doesn't need to know what's going on with other characters at the same time, only what he or she (or it) is thinking. Most good fiction books where the protagonist isn't in every scene do have multiple POVs.

It's not in issue in Pterry's books, and, in fact, make the books better. For example, I do like getting Brick's POV in Thud! even when he's in a scene with Vimes the protagonist. It adds depth to the story and makes Brick seem more than what he is. The same with the different POV in FOC. They add to the story and don't confuse the narrative at all, because these characters' POV only reflect their own limited knowledgeset.

As Tony mentioned before, it gets interesting (and sometimes unsettling) when Pterry leaves out POV for characters than normally have it in other books where they appear in supporting roles. Like in The Truth, where Vimes never has POV, and his character is mostly defined by DeWorde's POV attitude toward him. In this context, Vimes seems, in some ways, a much less competent and likeable figure. The same with VImes' cameo in Monstrous Regimen, where Polly doesn't seem to actually know what Vimes is, and Vimes comes off in some ways as a meddling interloper.

 

[Tonyblack]

I think it is a tribute to Terry that he seems to pull off these changes without any apparent effort. Clumsier writers make this so awkward that it can be unsettling to read. We generally don't even notice that Terry is doing this until we see a much loved character from someone else's point of view. One of the joys of the Tiffany books is seeing Granny from Tiffany's point of view. I think we learn more about Granny from those book than we do from books were she is the major character. And I think that is why the events in The Shepherd's Crown are so powerful. Even with Terry's advanced illness, he was still able to work his magic.