Most when I'm writing, I limit exposition to the POV character's vocabulary. I mean, I describe the scenery and the behavior and actions of other characters in the words that the POV character would use.

If I'm writing from Skinner's POV, I don't use romantic, flowery words to describe the wind through the trees, because he's not likely to wax lyrical about air.

I don't know the word (I never if there's a technical word for something or, if there is, what that word might be), but I always think of this as a really "tight" POV. Everything from the dilapidated, abandoned car by the side of the road to the flavor of a pasta sauce is presented to the reader strictly in terms of how the POV character experiences it.

(Is that actually a kind of POV? I mean, I think of it as "tight" but it may not be a particular "kind" of POV at all.)

Anyhow, the reason I've called you all together today is to, yes, babble on about my latest effort along the lines of writing. Today, we're brooding over just how necessary this kind of "tight" POV might be to a story.

I mean, if you're struggling for a specific "mood" or "tone" for a story, it's very difficult to write to write that mood/tone subtly and yet in language that the POV character would use. How do you describe loss from the POV of a character who has not yet acknowledged that he feels any loss? How do you describe frivolity from the POV of a character who sees, but disapproves of such things?

I know...I know...if writing were easy, everyone would do it.

But I don't have ambitions of becoming a "writer" with a capital R, so maybe I don't need to limit myself quite so firmly. I mean, in my current undertaking, it would be an advantage to me to be able to set a mood and tone independently of my POV character, then plop him down in it and make him react to it all.

Mostly because I need the story to start off all sort of broody and depressed and he categorically declines to be in a bad mood, which is really annoying of him on a variety of levels.

I'm currently contemplating a sort of "mixed" POV. Part limited omniscient (again, my word for it) in that expositionally (yes, I know, that's not a word), things are described in ways that the POV character might not be comfortable with but, but in terms of the actual "action" in the story, sticking to a single-person POV.

I actually know people who could explain this to me. In fact, they've discussed it in my (on-line) presence before. It's just that, at the time they were discussing it, I wasn't actually writing and consequently I only retained a tiny bit of what they said.

If I asked them again, I'm sure they'd be happy to repeat the information in short, simple words for me, but I have a certain innate awe for people who not only know the proper use of a semi-colon but who discuss a sentence's "predicate" or "subordinate clause"* with the ease of casual familiarity.

(* Hint: It has nothing to do with your boss.)

I was pretty excited when I learned what an adverb was, and that was only a couple of years ago. To be honest, I've always viewed my presence in that particular group as some kind of accident. Like when you leave the screen door open after dark...invariably a moth flutters in, worships the nearest light bulb for fifteen or twenty minutes, then commits suicide in acknowledgment of its own inadequacy.*

(* Don't push the example, which is either a simile or a metaphor but I think it's a simile, although it's quite possible that it's neither and is actually just an example, and I do know people who could answer that question, too far. I'm not committing hari-kari for anyone, even people who know Latin.)

So. Whaddya think? Do you pay attention to that sort of thing when you're writing? Do you notice it when you're reading?

Do you care at all?

(Some time later....

Aha! Archives are a thing of beauty. I found a discussion of the point in question. It's quite legitimate to write the way I was considering. Now all I have to do it try it and see if I'm technically capable.)