There are four different types of point of view: first person, second person, third person, and omniscient. Many people make the mistake of believing that which one you choose is not important and that it will not affect your story.

Although all can be done skillfully (with many exceptions for second person) you should keep in mind what you excel at and which one best suits your story.

First person is the point of view using "I", "my", "we", "our", etc. In first person, the story is narrated directly through your character's heads. Nothing is filtered. Their brain is visible for all readers to see.

Some good things about first person is that it is very revealing of your character. Readers have a greater connection to your main character and tend to root for them more than in, say, omniscient point of view. All thoughts can be shown through first person and readers find it easier to sympathize with the characters. They understand them and their actions.

A thing that many beginning writers tend to struggle with is creating transitions. It is very easy to say "I" repeatedly and it gets tedious to the readers. If you are writing in first person, be conscious of this. Your fans will thank you. Also, if your readers dislike your character, sometimes they lose the desire to read on in the thoughts of your character all day, especially if their thoughts are not justified.

You would use first person if that is what you are comfortable writing, or when you desire a greater connection between readers and your main character.

Second person is the use of "you", "your", etc. You are not talking about yourself, or even a specific person. This is pretty much never seen in novels. And if it was, you can bet that book would be thrown into a fire.

You can use this in pieces of literature (not novels) where you do not need a specific character and you don't need to bother thinking up back story and different angles. This is most commonly seen when the whole idea or message behind a poem (or other) has nothing to do with personality or character. It diverts attention away from a person and outlines the bigger idea.

Like I said, you can't write this in your novel if you ever want anyone to actually enjoy your work. It is strange to read and gives no connection between readers and protagonist. It is impersonal and bland.

I may have fooled you into thinking that second person is simply there to show what not

Also, some short fanfictions use second person if they want you to experience what's going on. This is usually seen in celebrity fanfictions, and they aren't very common on Wattpad. I'm not even done yet. The occasional short story follows the same idea. What it comes down to is this: is your character getting in the way of what you want to get across, or not?

Third person is the use of "he/she", "they", "they're" "their", "his/her", etc. Instead of using "I", the character's name is blatantly revealed through his or her's every action. Not all thoughts and emotions are revealed through third person. They are .

It is easy to reveal the character's name without thinking of a creative way to do it. Plus, the plot tends to be more action-focused, versus being emotion-focused. Those seeking a nice, healthy dose of fantasy or action/adventure stories probably end up reading stories in third person.

Although some like that they aren't inclined to reveal every thought and feeling coming from their characters head, others like to have these things revealed. Although it isn't like you can't reveal these things, it doesn't flow as naturally as first person. Plus, you can't really write third person, present tense without it sounding awkward. I went over that in the last chapter.

You would use it in a more action-based novel where the character's feelings aren't as important to know, in a book that is in past tense, or simply because you want to. Often characters that just aren't as naturally emotional or even villains are written in third person simply because they don't need that extra personal connection with the readers. Some very strong characters have been written in third person.

Omniscient can be done very, very wrong, or it could be the next literary masterpiece. It depends on your experience as a writer. It is where the story is not narrated by just any one person, but by someone who can peer into the minds of all the characters and knows everything about them and their past. Sometimes there isn't even a main character and if there is, it isn't always clear. Randomly through a chapter, the narrator might just tell what someone is thinking that hadn't been introduced before.

Example: John watched the fight in horror — he never did have the stomach for gore — and it took everything in his power not to run forward and help his friend. Andre, on the other hand, didn't care what John thought; this was his battle to win and he wasn't going to waste his chance. He threw a punch into his attacker's abdomen and stood back for a minute to breathe. As he did so, his enemy keeled over, waiting for the pain to subside as he plotted his next move.

Notice that all three characters in this particular scene had their thoughts revealed. The narrator knows everything about them. If you have read "The Book Thief" that is a remarkable example of using omniscient point of view successfully. It was narrated by Death, but it wasn't necessarily all about Death. He could read the other character's thoughts, even though his focus was mainly on Liesel.

Sometimes in stories, it is necessary or more intriguing for the reader to know all sides of the story so they can greater relate to and understand what is going on. Even though not all the characters know something, the reader does and it can fill your reading with anticipation. Remarkably effective in mysteries, especially, if done well.

Also, in this way the author does not need to focus on every itty-bitty detail of each character's motives and past. They all seem to blend together to form a greater whole.

There is a very small connection to characters this way. Since there are so many angles, it would be hard to focus all of your energy into rooting for just one. Sometimes this enhances your book, but at other times it can harm it. Decide which it would do for you if you are considering omniscient. Not to mention that most writers who attempt this fail miserably and end up having to start over.

Omniscient point of view is usually seen where there is a large cast of characters or it is important to the plot that the narrator be someone other than the people enacting out the story (like in "The Book Thief"). I mentioned mysteries as being guilty of using this from time to time. Keep on the look out for books like this.

Do not mistaken this for omniscient. It is very different. Instead of having access to all characters at all times, it is only a select few. And they speak only in their designated chapters. Often two or three or four or five (sometimes more) characters narrate a story.

If you have two main characters on different missions and doing different things at the same time, you might want to consider incorporating more than one point of view so that your readers get the full experience. It is much more absorbing than having one character simply relate their adventures to the other when they finally do meet each other again. Not only this but it also shows what more than one character is thinking. They might have different views and react to things in opposite ways. Maybe they even hate each other.

This is especially good if you bore easily and want to keep switching up the conflict. This way you can go back and forth. Another key reason why multiple point of views are so common is because you can create a lot of suspense by leaving each chapter with a cliff-hanger and then switch to a new perspective, leaving the reader holding on for dear life. Even if your reader didn't like one person who was narrating, they would probably continue reading anyway for the other more intriguing character.

I've said this about five million times in this chapter, but I have to keep throwing it in your face until it sticks. Your readers will not connect as much to one character because their focus is split between two. It is just not possible for there to be that same emotional connection. If you desire that, I will suggest again that you do not use this form of writing. Plus, people love to pick favourites. Someone's review of your book might be affected by the fact that they simply did not like one character nearly as much as the other. A lot of the time people will argue that the book would have been better without said character. It is impossible to avoid this when more than one narrator is involved.

This is the second time I mentioned that if two characters are in completely different places, experiencing two completely different things, this is when multiple point of views are most effective. Also, if you feel the need to reveal parts of more than one character this is a good idea too.

An example of a book where this is used is in Rick Riordan's "The House of Hades". Spoiler alert: when Annabeth and Percy are stuck in Tartarus and the rest of the seven are on land, the point of views are split between all of the characters as they had no way of communicating with each other and, let's be honest, who would want to miss what went on in Tartarus? And it was also necessary to know what was going on with the main mission as well. This is an example of a book where it was absolutely necessary for there to be multiple point of views.

That is it for this chapter! I really hope that you are now clear on what point of view best fits your story and that this chapter proved valuable to you. Thanks so much for reading, as always!