Ancillary Viewpoint: Getting that Different Perspective

Occasionally, you’ll read a short story or novel in which the point of view is not that of the principal character. This might strike you as odd. If the story tells of Blustery Bob the Protagonist, why wouldn’t the author have us follow Blustery Bob in first person or his third person subjective viewpoint? Why do we get the story from the viewpoint of Sidekick Sam?

If the writer knows her stuff, she made an intentional and correct choice.

When we see the story through the eyes of someone who is not the main character, it’s called ancillary, or minor character, viewpoint. Think about Sherlock Holmes for a moment. Almost all the stories are told from the viewpoint of the erstwhile Doctor John Watson. Now Watson is a plucky, resourceful, and interesting character in himself, but Sherlock stories aren’t about Doc Watson. And although Watson is assigned various tasks by Holmes, he usually amounts to little more than a camera lens, errand boy, and chronicler. So why did Arthur Conan Doyle use Watson for viewpoint?

The answer lies in Sherlock Holmes himself. Doyle envisioned his sleuth as someone with almost untouchable powers of reasoning. Holmes could see things far beyond what the surrounding characters could, including Inspector Lestrade and Watson. All they could do was get out of the way and watch in astonishment as Holmes deciphered the most intractable of problems, or deduced volumes about a person at a glance. Often Holmes sat for hours, eyes closed or staring into space, fingertips touching in prayerful aspect. Lost in deep thought. Thoughts we’re not privy to.

Untouchable intellect. If Doyle told the story through Holmes’s eyes and mind, the illusion would collapse, so the choice of Watson as principal viewpoint character makes perfect sense.

Since Doyle, many mystery writers have realized the benefits of telling the story from the viewpoint of a minor character. Mystery is all about, well, mystery. If a sidekick tells the story, watching the detective at work, he can’t see the sleuth fitting the pieces together in her mind. She may have come up with a prime suspect right away, but the viewpoint character may not be in on it.

Ancillary viewpoint doesn’t need to be in the first-person, by the way. Third-person limited could do the work as well. And though the benefits are clear in mystery fiction, they can be adapted to any genre.

In The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald tells of Jay Gatsby and Daisy Buchanan, but does it through the eyes of Gatsby’s neighbor, Nick Carraway. Again, the right viewpoint choice. Gatsby is an enigma, a wealthy man pining away for Daisy for reasons unknown, guarding a dubious past of his own.

The ambition and tone of Gatsby differ greatly from that of the Sherlock Holmes stories, but Fitzgerald chose first-person ancillary viewpoint just as Doyle did. Carraway is a bit of an outsider, an observer watching the goings-on of the fabulously rich. He is at first seduced by these beautiful people that live in rarefied air, but bit by bit the veneer is stripped away. Fitzgerald wants the reader to see the stripping as it occurs. More importantly, the mystery and enigma of Jay Gatsby are sustained at length.

Sherlock and Gatsby. Two very different stories, two different authors, two wildly differing styles. Same unusual viewpoint technique, one vital to both. Should you use ancillary? Maybe, maybe not. Its inherent limitations make it not the best option for most stories. The point is, choosing the right viewpoint can make or break a written tale. Rather than settle on an obvious, viewpoint choice, sniff around a little and consider how the options affect the whole of the story.

And now, just for kicks, enjoy Benedict Cumberbatch’s take on Sherlock Holmes: