Which Person's Viewpoint?

[Laerten]

I posted a thread about my characters dialogue sounding very 'wooden'.

I have been back to my story and started to re-write it using a different point of view for dialogue. Before, it was written as though the listener was a 'third person' (invisible, I grant you), but now it seems to flow better being written from the point of view of one of the characters who is speaking.

Is this the best way to do it? Would this be suitable throughout the whole book or would the 'view' change in different situations?

Any ideas would be appreciated.

I was going to post some of the unchanged and changed dialogue together for comparison but there would be too much.

[The Pelagic Argosy]

Originally Posted by Laerten

I have been back to my story and started to re-write it using a different point of view for dialogue. Before, it was written as though the listener was a 'third person' (invisible, I grant you), but now it seems to flow better being written from the point of view of one of the characters who is speaking.

I'm a little confused, sorry. (No coffee yet.) Usually when writers talk about 'point of view' they are referring to the narrator. In first person, the narrator is a character in the story. In third person, the narrator is more or less detached. (Omniscient or limited, etc.)

I've never heard of a POV specifically for dialogue. Isn't dialogue always from the point of view of whomever is speaking? The way you worded your description above, it sounds like you have people talking to no one at all...or directly to the reader. Unless it's in between quotation marks, it's narration, not dialogue. (But again, I'm probably confused.)

Maybe you should post some examples, if you have time.

[Pantheon]

As far as i am aware, you're meaning, the characters spoke not to each other but to the listener?

If this is the case, then only thoughts should be protrayed to the listener, but not in the style of one person talking to another, but as one person thinking to themself.

You can keep the thought style up for the whole book, but if you accidentally slip at some point and write, 'The group then travelled north for three days, barely seeing another living soul. They stopped to rest at a spring on the fourth day. *Idle banter here*. They then gathered up there things and returned to there journey.'

if the rest of the chapter was, 'We decided going north would be the best route, as the eastern desert was currently blocked off due to a sandstorm. After three days hard riding, we stopped offat a spring to replenish our water. *Idle banter*. We picked up our belongings and carried on north to find the pass.'

Is this what you mean? If so, it is highly dangerous as far as I'm aware to swap narration styles like this. If the book is an account of events from the main character, or maybe even a supporting character, then it should almost always be 'we' or 'I' when talking about the group. If you want to narrate as if the narrator is telling the events as theyre happening, you have to refrain from using a character from narrating journes and events, scenery etc.

hope this helped, because i didn't quite get what you meant

[daisybee]

I think I know what you mean, to have your dialogue sound more real, you write the conversation from one persons viewpoint with their thoughts and feelings etc. That will probably help you write more realistic dialogue because you are putting yourself in your characters place, and are more in tune with their motivations as you write it. I think it's a good idea.
If you do this, make sure that they are the character whose POV is guiding that scene or chapter and I think you'll be fine.
A lot of peeps on here have pointed out how switching POV mid scene is off putting and distracting to the reader.
Hope this helps.

[Laerten]

I think I have described my problem incorrectly but Daisybee has picked up on what I mean. An example of dialogue would be:

“You’re late.” said a cold, emotionless voice.
“I’m sorry,” apologised the soldier, picking himself up from the ground.

Would it sound better written this way:

"You're late." The soldier thought the stranger had a cold, emotionless voice. He apologised but knew he didn't sound very convincing.

This is what I meant when I mentioned 'viewpoint'. In the first example it sounds like someone just listening equally to both speakers but in the second the soldier is the focal point.

Does this make sense??

[Pantheon]

I see what you mean! In that case, yes you want to switch between using thoughts after dialogue, with nothing. If you put thoughts after every dialogue, it would get very annoying, very quickly. Every now and then you should convey the thoughts and feelings of the character in question to let us know that he/she is human. Also depending on the type of scene, using no thoughts or feelings works best, i.e; if you want to be cryptic about some information that you don't want reveiled until later in the story, or if two people are having an arguement.

Is this what you were looking for?

[The Pelagic Argosy]

Originally Posted by Laerten

I think I have described my problem incorrectly but Daisybee has picked up on what I mean. An example of dialogue would be:

“You’re late.” said a cold, emotionless voice.
“I’m sorry,” apologised the soldier, picking himself up from the ground.

Would it sound better written this way:

"You're late." The soldier thought the stranger had a cold, emotionless voice. He apologised but knew he didn't sound very convincing.

This is what I meant when I mentioned 'viewpoint'. In the first example it sounds like someone just listening equally to both speakers but in the second the soldier is the focal point.

Does this make sense??

Either way could work. In the first example, the narrator is distant, staying out of characters heads and simply reporting on the action. Sort of like a surveillance camera, if you will.

The second example is from the soldier's point of view.

Like I said, either way could work. It would just depend on whether you want the emphasis to be on the character of the soldier (the second example) or on both characters equally or on the action (the first example.)

Technically, if you choose an omniscient narrator, you could jump back and forth between both characters thoughts. However, I think I would avoid that method. Unless you're very skillful, you risk confusing the reader (or yourself.) I would stick with one viewpoint - pick one character or the surveillance camera method - and stick with it at least for entire section/chapter.

[Laerten]

So really what I need to do is see which way of presenting the dialogue sounds more realistic for that particular scene. In some cases it may sound (and read) better with the focus on one character but at others it could be better with a general focus.

[SJAB]

The section you put up, seems to me to be a omniscient narrator, but it is hard to tell from such a short sample.

As to Third Person POV there are a number of forms;

The limited third is like 1st person, in that we only see what the character sees, but it is a bit like omniscient, because we see the action happening around the character unlike 1st which is usually remembering the action.

But Limited third has degrees of penetration;

Light is the scenes the character is in, but not seeing them through his eyes.

Deep is through the character's eyes, not seeing them as they happen but as the character thinks they do, along with his thoughts

Then there is the cinematic , we only see what the character is present to see and never in his or anyone elses head.

It you work at it you can fade from light, to deep even back through to cinematic if you hone your skills well enough. Even change mid scene from one character to another James Morrow does it wonderfully in The Last Witchfinder.(I love this book!)
I recommend you get a copy of Orson Scott Card's Character and Viewpoint, it will help you understand a lot about POV...