Considering character, we noted that a writer does not arbtrary choose methods of revealing character, but rather selects the method of methods in keeping with his chosen point of view. By the point of view of a story (sometimes called “angle” or “focus” of narration) we mean the narrator’s relation to the fictional world of the story and to the minds of the characters in it. When we read fiction we tacitly agree to a contract with the author: we agree to be willing to accept as imaginitively true what he tells us. We 
agree to do this , but we also expect the author to keep to the terms of the bargain terms he himself sets when he begins to tell the story. They are (1) he must make clear to us where he, as narrator, stands in relation  to the substance of the story; and (2) he must make clear which, if any, of the minds of his characters he presumes to be able to penetrate, and hence to reveal.  

    Let us put the matter another way. Assume a triangle situation involving Allan,Bob, Cathy, an emotional difficulty of some sort, the details of which we  need not specufy. Who could tell their story? Where would the narrator stand in relation to the story? What exactly could he divulge in the telling?  The answers to those questions constitute the 4 main points of view in fiction.  
  
    1.  Allan could tell the story(or Bob or Cathy could tell it , though in each case it would be a different story) with himself as one of the characters; nobody else thought and felt . He would be inside the story. An important variation on this method would be to have someone other than one of the principals-- perhaps a parent or a friend-- tell it. He too would write in the first prson would be inside the story, but he could not penetrate the minds of the principals. The point of view in both cases is that of the First person 
narrator.  

    2.  The narrator could be someone outside the storywho would speak of the principals as “he” and “she”. If he wnted to focus on one of the principals, say Allan, he would take liberty of assuming to know what Allan thought and felt, and he would proceed to tell us. He would reveal what Cathy and Bo said and did, but he would  not presume to read their minds and so we would only get indirect an indirect revelation of them. We would say that tha narrator pretands he knows all-- is omniscient -but chooses to reveal only a limited part of what he knows: the workings of Allan’s mind . This method  is known as the limited omniscient point of view .  

    3.  The narrator , again outside the story could penetrate and reveal the minds of all three of the principals. in this case he  would pressume to know all and would take the liberty of telling all. We call this the omniscient point of view.  

    4.   Finally, the narrator might choose to reveal none of   the three minds. From outside the story he would report simply what the three people did singly,in various pairs or three together) and what they said (in various paits  or all together) , the story would resemble a play in that the narrator be revealing thingd indirectly, throug speech and action. At no point could he make a statement like “Cathy felt miserable.” Bacause all personal thoughts and feelings --subjective matters-- are ruled out by this method, it is called the objective point of view.  

    Each of this points of view has technical advantages , as well as disadvantages , which the other lack. A story told in the first person is likely to be convincing because the method of narration is a natural one; as in life, a person tells us directly what happened to him. It also seems more intimate than a story in the third person, and so we find it easier to identify ourselves  with the central character, the “I” of the story. On the other hand, action is largely limited to what the narrator himself witnesses or takes part in. Also, 
when the main character and narrator are one, possibilities for analyzing  the mind of the character will be limited if he is unperceptive or reticent or both.  
  
    The   other points of view also have advantages and disadvantages. The omniscient point of view, which reveals all minds, makes for subjective richness, but it maybe that this value is achieved at the expense of selection and concentration . When such emphasis is desirable, the limited omniscient point of view maybe used. Finally, the objective point of view  in a way is the most lifelike, since the limitation to action enables the narrator to present a scene in the way we would encounter it in life. We may, however, 
miss the analysis and wish the author had included some--had, that is, written from a different point of view, or, we may like the subtlety of the objective method, the rich implication it permits, and the corresponding inference it requires from the reader.  

Reference:  
Bautista C. et al.  Introduction to Literature, 1986  
Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 99 1993-1998, “ Fiction”.