Emma Welsh
9-2-16
Three Characters in Third Person
In Keri Hulme’s The Bone People, the characters are revealed using a third person omniscient point of view with the focus on three main characters: Kerewin Holmes, Simon Gillayley, and Joe Gillayley (though it will occasionally focus on some minor characters). When a scene occurs with the presence of two or more main characters the narrative will usually focus on the thoughts and actions of one character, and display the other’s thoughts as memories or consideration later on. This happens when Kerewin and Simon first meet, the narrative tends to focus on Kerewin to create mystery surrounding Simon’s character.
Using third person omniscient is helpful for full character development. Because the focus changes characters, we are able to learn both what others observe of the character as well as the characters thoughts. A very basic example of this is in Simon’s name. When Joe and his wife were trying to discover his name, they listed multiple names and gauged his reaction to each. When they said Simon, he visibly reacted. However, we know from Simon’s thoughts that he calls himself Clare or Claro, not Simon. Though the other characters observed one thing, the thoughts of the character revealed another, contrasting idea.
This point of view is also helpful in plot development. Though the story is focused on the three main characters and what happens to them together, third person omniscient allows for the story to continue with just one character. This allows for personal experiences of each character such as Simon’s encounter with the mummified rabbits or at the end of the book when the three separate post-brawl. We are able to follow each character’s plotline even when they are separated, creating a more expansive story.
Had The Bone People been told from a different point of view, I don’t think the book would have made as much sense. If it were first person, the narrative would have been limited to the thoughts and observations of one character, and we probably wouldn’t have had as full of an understanding of each character. If the narrative were first-person focused on Simon, we wouldn’t have understood the meaning Kerewin’s guitar that he broke, or any of the discussions surrounding his behavior. The same goes for the others, if it were focused on only one, we would lose pivotal information on the others. Also, if the book were written in third person limited omniscient the same problem would occur. Third person dramatic would not include the characters thoughts, leaving out a lot of the reasoning and mystery of the novel such as Simon’s true name or Joe’s thought process that brings him to hit Simon.
I really liked how you made separate paragraphs for the impact of the point of view on both the plot and character development. Also, when you explained that any other point of view would not work well for this story, you used very good examples to justify this. Lastly, your introduction was strong and I liked your word choice(especially pivotal)!
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gianna with how much stronger your argument became when you explained why every other point of view would not have worked. Having counterarguments was an extremely clever way to go! I think you're concluding paragraph should have been before your third paragraph only because your second paragraph talks about why third person omniscient is the best, so after it "why all the others were not as good of a choice" might have made more sense. Overall I think your post really did a fantastic job of explaining how impactful POV truly is!
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely correct, Emma! It's true that the narrative would be weird in first person. The point of view provides so much to the story, including the example of Simon's name. Through this, we can see the difference of what the characters themselves think and what the other characters think of that character, as you said. I enjoyed reading your post.
ReplyDelete