Romance = head hopping ?

70s-80s romance is very hoppy, but not so much now.

hmmm maybe you're confusing headhopping with multiple POV's. if you're writing like elizabeth Lowell and nora roberts then yes you're headhopping. Some of the "biggies" are extremely guilty of it which is why I don't read them anymore.

Most romance genre though does switch properly between POV's the only difference being that it's more acceptable in romance to switch POV mid scene, usually the love scenes, but at natural breaks. Not something you usually get away with in other genres. IF that's what you're doing then the teacher might not be familiar with the romance genre. if however you are writing this

Suzanne looked at Mark. He was such a wonderful man, she thought. handsome and caring. he had offered to babysit her basset hound and that offer had melted her heart. Just look at him sitting there, petting Rufus. How could she not love a man who loved her dog.

Mark wanted to kill the dog. Nasty slobbering beast. and that bloody howling kept him up all night. but he would do what he had to do to get into suzanne's pants. god, she was sexy. he couldnt wait till he got his hands on her. then he'd hear some howling alright.

Rufus drooled. petting good. food good. rufus happy. ooo shiny.

Suzanne loved the way mark's hand stroked over rufus's head. she couldnt stop thinking about that hand stroking her. not her head. but... other places. she smiled to herself thinking of those tingly places.

Mark saw Suzanne smile. What was she thinking? was she thinking of him in her tingly places?

IF that's what you're writing, then yes, you're hopping. lol

If you head hop more than once a scene -- with the exception of love scenes -- you're going to get judged down at contests and scolded by agents and/or editors.

Lots of older romances head hop. I love Julie Garwood and sometimes she head hops in the same paragraph. But she does it so organically, a reader doesn't notice. On the other hand, if done poorly, it makes a story miserable to read.

Write what makes you happy, but just recognize the problems with a manscript that head hops too much. You'll have a hard time getting representation or selling it.

As always... JMHO.

shameless said:

If you head hop more than once a scene -- with the exception of love scenes -- you're going to get judged down at contests and scolded by agents and/or editors.

.

Click to expand...

I think you're pretty spot-on with what you've said here, but I disagree with your terminology a little bit.

"Head-hopping" is NOT the same as "changing POV." Done well, executed correctly, it's okay to "change POVs" in a scene. And as you mention, in a love scene, I might even change back to the original POV.

More than that, though, especially done in a flitting manner, is "head-hopping." See, if you change POV once, that's a HOP, that's not "hopping." Hopping implies back-and-forth, and it implies frequently.

Yes, in the "old days" they used to head-hop all the time - except it was often actually omniscent POV.

Even Nora has curbed her head-hopping to a great extent. (Nora can get away with it. We can't. <G>)

Head-hopping is not a good thing. It weakens the reader's ability to bond with a character. Spend some "quality time" in one POV before you shift to the other POV.

If your teacher is scolding you for head-hopping, she's right to do so.

Susan G.

I'm here to agree with Susan, and make one further point: I've sometimes heard it erroneously called head-hopping if you incorporate more than two POVs PER BOOK. Yes. This isn't accurate. This is simply multiple POV, which many (shall we say) less experienced romance readers/critiquers cannot handle. In my experience, they fall back on a term they know and with which they're comfortable, even though it doesn't describe their issue with the piece in question. Understandable that they're familiar with it, since we've all fallen into head-hopping once or twice when we were very new.

I regret this tendency romancers have to limit POVs to one or two, though. In many types of fiction, it's one POV per scene, and alters POV as many times as necessary, scene by scene, to tell the story in a rich and colorful fashion. Sadly, in our genre that level of storytelling seems to have gone out of vogue.

The problem with multiple POVs, even when done very well, is that form of writing can distance you from the main characters. You may never fully identify with anyone in particular if the perspective on the action keeps changing. That can work very well in some types of fiction, but I imagine it would be a drawback in Romance where you may well want to create a deep bond between the reader and the heroine or hero.

Deb Kinnard said:

I regret this tendency romancers have to limit POVs to one or two, though. In many types of fiction, it's one POV per scene, and alters POV as many times as necessary, scene by scene, to tell the story in a rich and colorful fashion. Sadly, in our genre that level of storytelling seems to have gone out of vogue.

Click to expand...

I agree. The saddest part about it seems to be the vehemence of some of the POV nazis. It's nice to have style guidelines. For those of us with less experience writing, especially, it helps us communicate effectively.

I like sticking with the term GUIDELINES, though. We've all read amazing books that seem to break every style GUIDELINE ever written. As well, diffent elements of style do come and go in fashion. It is helpful to know what current trends are, but I'm glad there are people out there bucking the fashion police - boring reading without some rule-breakers, I say!

ccarver30 said:

I don't think mine it is THAT bad. LOL
It happens more with dialogue, I think...

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Dialogue is spoken aloud, not inside any character's head, so it can't be headhopping.

lkp said:

The problem with multiple POVs, even when done very well, is that form of writing can distance you from the main characters. You may never fully identify with anyone in particular if the perspective on the action keeps changing. That can work very well in some types of fiction, but I imagine it would be a drawback in Romance where you may well want to create a deep bond between the reader and the heroine or hero.

Click to expand...

It can do that, but it needn't. Multiple POV's is not the same as distant omniscient narrator. In fact, done well, multiple POV's allow the reader to identify with more than one character in a novel, keeping them emotionally engaged throughout. And in romance, you don't always just want the reader to identify with the heroine, you sometimes want them to feel things from both points of view - to love and be loved.

head-hopping. (hed'-hop-ping) noun. 1. changing character viewpoint without a proper break on the page. 2. changing viewpoints in mid-paragraph. 3. changing viewpoint every other paragraph or whenever the mood strikes. 4. used by Gillhoughly as an acceptable reason to inflict blunt force trauma on a writer's head until said writer learns better writing habits.

("You were head-hopping, ya dizzy dame! Wham-wham-wham-wham-WHAM!!!!!")

Deb Kinnard said:

I regret this tendency romancers have to limit POVs to one or two, though. In many types of fiction, it's one POV per scene, and alters POV as many times as necessary, scene by scene, to tell the story in a rich and colorful fashion. Sadly, in our genre that level of storytelling seems to have gone out of vogue.

Click to expand...

What kind of structure are you talking about, when it was in vogue?


I haven't read a lot of genre romance novels, and those I have mostly overlap with other genres like suspense.

I'm wondering if there's a novel subgenre that would be similar to what we find in romantic comedy on stage and screen -- often one main couple and one or more secondary couples, or two main couples and maybe one or more background couples, who each get happily paired off in the end. With or without much partner switching along the way. If so, is multiple points of view the way to go?

Gillhoughly said:

head-hopping. (hed'-hop-ping) noun. 1. changing character viewpoint without a proper break on the page. )

Click to expand...

See, I take exception to that definition, too. If I change POV's, and I do it well, I don't need a BREAK to show that to the reader.

In fact, I find it insulting as a reader that some people insist I can't follow the writer into another head without a break. I'm not stupid. Somehow we all used to be able to keep up with omniscent POVs.

To me, the only time there should be an actual BREAK is when you are changing SCENES (time, setting, etc.) not changing POV's. And that's how I execute in my books.

If you are in the same exact time, the same exact setting, and the only thing that's changing is the head (POV) we're in, I thnk it can be done without a break, only with words that indicate to the reader, HELLO, we're IN a DIFFERENT POV HERE.

And that's why writing is a craft, and there are no hard and fast "rules." Guidelines, yes.

Rules chiseled in stone, no.

Oh, and generally speaking, most of my romances have had 3 POVs - the hero, the heroine, and a significant secondary character. In fact, all of my books have had 3 now that I think about it.

Susan G.

girlyswot said:

It can do that, but it needn't. Multiple POV's is not the same as distant omniscient narrator. In fact, done well, multiple POV's allow the reader to identify with more than one character in a novel, keeping them emotionally engaged throughout. And in romance, you don't always just want the reader to identify with the heroine, you sometimes want them to feel things from both points of view - to love and be loved.

Click to expand...

When I was speaking of multiple POVs, I was following right after Deb's post, and her usage which suggested that multiple=more than two. I realize that not all novels with multiple POVs are written from an omniscient POV, but I still feel that the more POVs you have, even when well done, the harder it is for you to side with one or two of the main characters. It works well in a novel like Phillips's The Egyptologist, where you're not supposed to like any of the characters very much.

I know the current preference in Romance is to have at least the hero and the heroine's POV. I'm not that crazy about the trend. To me, it's like being friends with the guy and the girl in a relationship and hearing from both sides and having to be all objective and stuff. I'd much prefer to just hear about the relationship from one side and be able to fully wallow in one characters biases and feelings.

But I realize I'm a minority in this and it is just my POV. Hee.

See, I take exception to that definition, too.

Click to expand...

Make sure I don't edit you.

However skillfully handled, it is one of my hot button issues.

Years back I committed a head-hop while working on a novella, and Lois McMaster Bujold herself gently pointed it out, asking if I could tweak that just bit and stay in the VP character's head.

She was SO right. I fixed it. When a writer of her stature makes a suggestion, oh-hell-yes, I'm gonna listen!

On the last anthology I edited, a NYT list writer--who made more last month than I have in the last five years--did a head-hop in her story, several head-hops.

I had to phone her about something else, but mentioned the issue as part of an overall fix for the last twenty pages.

She actually uttered "D'OH" just like Homer Simpson, laughed, and said, "I thought I'd got them all!"

She fixed everything, and I love her story and her 'tude.

Another NYT bestseller, who makes more than the first one and myself three times over, turned in a piece that had so much head-hopping I thought she had ADD.

I pointed out the problem, but was wholly ignored, and the story went to print, spelling mistakes, word reps, and mangled grammar intact. The hours I spent editing were wasted time and effort on my part.

So, I'm putting together another collection this year.

Guess which writer I've invited back?

I suppose that some readers don't notice the head-hopping. Maybe they're not that picky or they like it, thinking it gives a well-rounded view of a scene.

Some great writers have gotten away with it, but I acknowledge that they had a far better education and read many, many more books than I.

But it still makes my teeth itch.

.

Gillhoughly said:

Make sure I don't edit you.

However skillfully handled, it is one of my hot button issues.

Click to expand...

LOLOL! Run, run, flee! <G>

Luckily it's not one of my editor's hot-button issues. So far, to my good fortune, none of my editors have had a problem with it.

If you were my editor, and you were buying my book, and it annoyed you that much, well...as a professional who wants to sell books, I'd have to suck it up and put the damn break in there. <VBG>

Guess which writer I've invited back?

Click to expand...

LOL. Precisely why I just said what I did. If we had a discussion about it and you, as my editor, really wanted it the other way...well...okay. I'll do it.

Because to me, that's part of being professional. (And I would want to be invited back! Someone who is a PITA to work with...well...when given a choice, why would you pick a PITA? <G>)

But it still makes my teeth itch.

.

Click to expand...

And it is never wise to make one's editor's teeth itch. <G>

Susan G.

Susan Gable said:

...To me, the only time there should be an actual BREAK is when you are changing SCENES (time, setting, etc.) not changing POV's. And that's how I execute in my books.

Click to expand...

This is why I only change POV at a scene break.

Of course, now I write mostly in first person so it's not something I worry about but I hate, hate, hate, head-hopping mid-scene, no matter what reasons or excuses the author comes up with or how skilled they are normally.

Susan Gable said:

Head-hopping is not a good thing. It weakens the reader's ability to bond with a character. Spend some "quality time" in one POV before you shift to the other POV.

If your teacher is scolding you for head-hopping, she's right to do so.

Susan G.

Click to expand...

I have notice a lot of the books I pick up to read are like little rabid bunnies, hopping from one character's head to another lately. It's driving me insane!!! (well, more insane than I already am) I read mainly romantic suspense, and this seems to be a trend from really talented writers. Though I don't like the writer changing POV's without a break, I really don't. I hate when they skillfully plant me deep inside this amazing character, then suddenly, mid-scene, they rip me out and put me into someone else's head. Give me some warning, dang it! I'll simply put a book down if it does this every chapter. It's just too frustrating for me.

scarletpeaches said:

This is why I only change POV at a scene break.

Of course, now I write mostly in first person so it's not something I worry about but I hate, hate, hate, head-hopping mid-scene, no matter what reasons or excuses the author comes up with or how skilled they are normally.

Click to expand...

I'm with you there. Maybe it's simply boils down to a matter of opinion, but if you write a deep POV especially, I do not think there is ANY good reason to switch heads in a scene. For me as a reader, it's a gigantic speed bump and totally ruins flow.

lexxi said:

What kind of structure are you talking about, when it was in vogue?
I'm wondering if there's a novel subgenre that would be similar to what we find in romantic comedy on stage and screen -- often one main couple and one or more secondary couples, or two main couples and maybe one or more background couples, who each get happily paired off in the end. With or without much partner switching along the way. If so, is multiple points of view the way to go?

Click to expand...

Handled well, multiple (for the time being, I'll define that as more than two) POVs can be very effective. I think, as a reader, hearing other speakers' deeper perspectives in a novel can enrich the identification with the main characters, and not distance it.

A current-day romance example is Susan Elizabeth Phililps. She often puts a secondary love story in alongside the first, goes into these characters' POVs, and does it very well. Mind you, I don't do backflips over everything she's written, but her stuff is proof to me that it can be effective.

An earlier non-romance example is the multiple POVs of the novels of Winston Graham. If you've never read his POLDARK series, you have a treat in store. I urge you to read at least one, the first time for the sheer pleasure, the second time with an eye to craft. He uses many POVs, sticking to one deep POV per scene, and IMO it in no way subtracts from the focus of the story on its main characters.

Would that every writer could handle this so masterfully. I'm still learning to do.

scarletpeaches said:

This is why I only change POV at a scene break.

Of course, now I write mostly in first person so it's not something I worry about but I hate, hate, hate, head-hopping mid-scene, no matter what reasons or excuses the author comes up with or how skilled they are normally.

Click to expand...

I don't wait for a scene break, but I do only switch POV once a scene, if at all. And only when I think there's something important to be gained by the switch. I also limit the POVs I use in most of my books to just the hero and heorine.

I read an older book by a favorite author that was evidently one of her first and had been re-released. I couldn't finish it. The head-hopping was between ALL characters in the same scene, sometimes the same paragraph. It was distracting and, IMHO, unnecessary to tell the story.

First person does solve that, but it is a challenge to write well. You only get to see the world through one pair of eyes. The first book I sold was first person, which bucks the odds because the "rule" is that first person isn't marketable.

Love this discussion, ladies!!

Handled well, multiple (for the time being, I'll define that as more than two) POVs can be very effective.

Click to expand...

Aye, there's the rub: handled well.

So very, very many are clueless about how to handle it at all, much less well. That's why I get snarky at workshops and mercilessly beat hapless writers with what's left of my blue pencil. They need to know the rules first so they can choose when break them. Or not.

I have to mention that I could NOT get into any Nora Roberts titles, not one, because of her VP shifts. Yes, I know she is a peerless goddess with enviable sales, but she's got more uncoordinated back and forth between characters than you'd find at the World Series of Beer Pong.

There go my teeth again. (Scritch-scritch-scritch!)

Ditto for Terry Brooks. After forcing myself to finish his first Shannara book for a review, I never went back. Maybe he got better as a writer in the last couple decades, but I'll never know.

OTOH, I believe Professor Tolkien himself committed the deadly deed, but for some reason he was able to get away with it with me. He's the one I had in mind about certain writers being better educated and better read than myself.

veinglory mentioned that HH was around in the 70s-80s. Too true.

This being 20-30 years later and a still a shiny new century, how about pushing forward, minus the mistakes of past writers?

I'll be your editor! (BOO-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAAAAA!!)

i think the difference is that tolkien wrote in omniscient and miss roberts just headhops. i don't like tolkien but i've never had a problem with his POV. just everything else. lol

Gillhoughly said:

Aye, there's the rub: handled well.

This being 20-30 years later and a still a shiny new century, how about pushing forward, minus the mistakes of past writers?

Click to expand...

Gilloughly, you always make me smile. Loved the Wicked Witch.

I can still love to read Garwood and Woodiwiss. Doesn't mean I have to write like them. It is amazing, however, what readers will "forgive" from their favorite writers.