The Importance of POV and Its Consistency?

[Ervin]

I am just wondering how much does POV matter to you in a book.

There are many books that prefer to follow just one person everywhere, one very popular example being Harry Potter with just two exceptions. But then even more books simply alternate between various POVs.

To me it seems the advantages of following multiple people is that the writer is able to tell many things very quickly, and have more ease when building the story. On the other hand the advantages of one POV are on the side of the reader because one POV can draw the person in more easily, since every time the POV is changed, the reader is reminded that they're in fact reading a book (those weird paper things). It can also add more mystery to the story since things are revealed more gradually and realistically.

So deciding on how to screw around with the POV seems to me as a matter how much ease and freedom you want when writing your book, versus how tightly do you want to draw your readers in.

Which do you think is better? Discuss?

Edit: Yes, this was prompted by that other thread with similar subject matter that's also on page one.

[BlackMagic528]

Personally, I believe that the POV should be whatever character has the best / most interesting / most entertaining / most informative perspective of the situation. That may or may not always be the same character throughout a single work, be it a short story or a novel. There are times, I find, when moving the viewpoint through the various cast members (and, just for the record, I tend to have huge casts) gives the reader a more rounded and complete view of the story taking place.

My novels typically follow multiple people (and think of the word "people" loosely ;)) dealing with multiple issues. It's simply not possible to do them all in a single POV believeably. It would require that a single person "happens" to be in a specific place to "happen" to hear or see just the right things going on all the time. Not likely in my writing. :) I think, under those circumstances, it's best to just go ahead and shift the camera (I make lots of movie analogies, because that's how I write) to a different character and let them take the spotlight for a while. And even when everyone is working together, which is rare for me, I still find that letting the audience see everything through everyone's eyes helps with reader understanding and experience.

It kind of bugs me when some people complain about a story changing the POV character, as if it's inherently wrong. I disagree vehemently. :)

[Karen Junker]

I'm not claiming that changing POV is inherently wrong. What I *am* saying is that I see a lot of manuscripts from a lot of new writers who switch POV a lot, probably without realizing it.

I think most readers read a story because they have come to care about one or more of the characters. When there are too many POV switches, it can be hard to stay connected to the characters.

Some genres allow for more characters--sweeping, epic fantasy, for example. But there should still be a good reason to switch POV.

[Mumut]

I change POV when necessary but I've been told there are different ways to change a POV. I believe it's alright to change POV because the story is following another character's side adventure and returns in a short time to the MC's main adventure. It's not alright to head hop. This is where the POV changes within a sequence or between sentences. For example:

Jenny was very happy. "I've won!" she shouted.
John was happy too. He opened the bottle of champagne.

In the example we hop from Jenny's POV to John's in two lines. That is forbidden and my Canadian editor comes down on it like a ton of bricks.

[Linda Adams]

My first thought is to the do what's right for the story. Sometimes I see authors gravitate to a specific viewpoint because that's what they've always written in--but the story cries out for something different.

When I started my current WIP, I wrote it in third because that's what I always used. But it felt wrong for the story, and I tried first. That was even worse, so I landed in omniscient--which turned out to fit what the story needed.

Please note that a lot of times that if omniscient is used in published fiction, writers will mistake it for head hopping.

[scarletpeaches]

Nothing wrong with switching POV, say, from chapter to chapter. Scene breaks? Less fond of those, but they're acceptable.

Headjumping? Hate it, and I lose all respect for the author no matter how much they try to justify it.

My first and third books are in first person POV, and we stay in the female MC's head throughout each story.

The second novel was written in third person POV and sometimes changed characters but with chapter breaks to establish this. The exception was within the first three chapters which will be part of my submission package - I changed point-of-view character within one chapter, but only where needed and only with a scene break. This was because I wanted to squish more pages into my 'first three chapters' section, to get more pages into the agent's hands. ;) A slight cheat, but justifiable, I think.

For the rest of the book, one chapter = one character only.

[Samantha's_Song]

Although I usually have quite a few characters, I only ever do any of my work via the main two characters' POV, using the one whose POV would best suit each chapter, sometimes resulting in three chapters or so coming straight out of that character's POV. Occasionally I do switch POV in a chapter though, obviously in a change of scene, if I think it's necessary to get each character's thoughts across about certain issues.

[Bufty]

One cannot 'screw around' with POV unless one first has a firm understanding of it.

Many of us are aware of and have benefitted from a very long but extremely informative and helpful thread in this sub-Forum - you may already have seen it- called Learn Writing with Uncle Jim.

It is well worth spending time reading that entire thread, and there is also an Index -

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8754

Items 45 onwards refer to POV.



I am just wondering how much does POV matter to you in a book.

There are many books that prefer to follow just one person everywhere, one very popular example being Harry Potter with just two exceptions. But then even more books simply alternate between various POVs.

To me it seems the advantages of following multiple people is that the writer is able to tell many things very quickly, and have more ease when building the story. On the other hand the advantages of one POV are on the side of the reader because one POV can draw the person in more easily, since every time the POV is changed, the reader is reminded that they're in fact reading a book (those weird paper things). It can also add more mystery to the story since things are revealed more gradually and realistically.

So deciding on how to screw around with the POV seems to me as a matter how much ease and freedom you want when writing your book, versus how tightly do you want to draw your readers in.

Which do you think is better? Discuss?

Edit: Yes, this was prompted by that other thread with similar subject matter that's also on page one.

[NeuroFizz]

No problem with having multiple POV characters in a story. Big problem if the writer doesn't understand both the general and subtle aspects of POV.

[DeleyanLee]

I don't care about POV as a reader, as long as I'm not confused. Shift POV in the middle of a scene? Fine, as long as I'm not confused by the shift. Tell the whole thing from one POV. No problem. I've read too many published books using all the various POV combination (including a mix of 2nd present and 1st person past) that worked to be judgmental for or against anything that tells the story well.

[James D. Macdonald]

For the love of Benji, folks:

POV is Point of View. It's not the same as Person (first, second, third), Tense (past, present, future) and has nothing whatever to do with who the main character is.

Point of View is where the camera is placed. Whose eyes we're seeing the action through. And you can change that a lot. Scene by scene.

[Libbie]

I agree that the POV should be from whichever character has the most at stake or is otherwise the most interesting person in a scene. "Most interesting" isn't always the person with the most at risk. Sometime it's a person who's uniquely placed for a very exciting "camera angle."

I'll happily read novels with multiple POV characters, and those with only one. It doesn't matter to me, as long as the story is good.

[Zipotes]

I'll read anything. In my writing (romance) I concentrate on the two main characters but always get into others heads as well. Sometimes a secondary romance is present, but sometimes it's a family member, etc. that the reader is already comfortable with. I add a line break when there is a shift and make it as clear as possible in the first line or two.

[K. Taylor]

Yeah, in romance before, I've occasionally had the best friend take the camera to poke fun at how silly the couple is being. It's a nice break to relationship angst. ;)

[Samantha's_Song]

:D Sounds good to me.

Yeah, in romance before, I've occasionally had the best friend take the camera to poke fun at how silly the couple is being. It's a nice break to relationship angst. ;)

[lucidzfl]

For the love of Benji, folks:

POV is Point of View. It's not the same as Person (first, second, third), Tense (past, present, future) and has nothing whatever to do with who the main character is.

Point of View is where the camera is placed. Whose eyes we're seeing the action through. And you can change that a lot. Scene by scene.

I think both Karen and James are right.

I think that a lot of newer writers, (or out of practice ones like me) jump POV a LOT, and at inopportune times.

I'm so freaking guilty of this, you can ask my beta. However, just because its a noobie mistake doesn't mean that you can NEVER switch POV.

It seems POV shift then gets a bad rap and is to be avoided at all costs. But every third person book I pick up has POV shifts.

You simply cannot reveal personal insights, or behind the scenes knowledge of things transpiring outside of the realm of perception of the MC without it.

And sometimes, I WANT to know that the mc is walking into a trap, and not be surprised with him.

[john barnes on toast]

I think both Karen and James are right.

I think that a lot of newer writers, (or out of practice ones like me) jump POV a LOT, and at inopportune times.

I'm so freaking guilty of this, you can ask my beta. However, just because its a noobie mistake doesn't mean that you can NEVER switch POV.

It seems POV shift then gets a bad rap and is to be avoided at all costs. But every third person book I pick up has POV shifts.

You simply cannot reveal personal insights, or behind the scenes knowledge of things transpiring outside of the realm of perception of the MC without it.

And sometimes, I WANT to know that the mc is walking into a trap, and not be surprised with him.

I assume you're talking about writing in 3rd person here.

If so there's no major issue at all in having scenes from a different POV.
What happens for scenes your MC isn't in?

[lucidzfl]

I assume you're talking about writing in 3rd person here.

If so there's no major issue at all in having scenes from a different POV.
What happens for scenes your MC isn't in?

I'm in total agreement. I even think that switching POV for scenes the MC is in, makes sense.

What if I want my MC's wife to internalize how she feels about what is going on?

I think as long as its done at a responsible break, there should be nothing wrong with it..

[john barnes on toast]

I'm in total agreement. I even think that switching POV for scenes the MC is in, makes sense.

What if I want my MC's wife to internalize how she feels about what is going on?

I think as long as its done at a responsible break, there should be nothing wrong with it..


Completely agree.

Sometimes we can learn more about a character from how others see them, than how they see themselves.

It's only really problematic when the shifts of POV happen within a single scene.

[sleepsheep]

It's only really problematic when the shifts of POV happen within a single scene.

My first third-person attempt is full of this... rewrite time is going to suck bigtime. Sigh.

[DeleyanLee]

Though my Hero is in the first scene of the book, he doesn't get his own POV until Chapter 5. This is because he knows things that I could only share with the reader in boring ways (info dumps, anyone?) that the other characters can't know. So I gave the POV to the other characters so the reader could discover the information along with them. Dramatization is everything.

The fun trick was to make certain that it was clear that while he's not a POV character, he is undeniably the hero of the story. I think I accomplished that. I'll find out for sure when I get it finished and off to the beta readers.

At this point, I have about nine third-person POV characters (50K in). Most times I change POV by scene break, but some high-tension scenes where I don't want that jump/gap in the reading experience, I don't break scenes. I think it's important for the reading flow and building tension not to in these instances. We'll see if I break my one writing commandment (Thou Shalt Not Confuse Thy Reader) with that technique or not. If I do, then I'll change it. *shrug* For the moment, I'm happy.

[cwfgal]

The second novel was written in third person POV and sometimes changed characters but with chapter breaks to establish this. The exception was within the first three chapters which will be part of my submission package - I changed point-of-view character within one chapter, but only where needed and only with a scene break. This was because I wanted to squish more pages into my 'first three chapters' section, to get more pages into the agent's hands. ;) A slight cheat, but justifiable, I think.

Is this mid-chapter change in POV (the only one in the whole book, you said, right?) really necessary? It concerns me a bit because I did something similar myself years ago and a writer friend called me on it. He told me the motivation for wanting to cram more into those first three chapters is often the suspicion that your opening prose is weak and you want the agent to get enough in hand to ensure they will get to the strong stuff. Except, if the first pages aren't strong, it won't matter. They will stop reading before they get to the strong stuff. If they are strong enough, throwing one more character or scene or whatever in there just so the agent can read it might throw off your story's rhythm.

Damn if he wasn't right. I undid the change and started getting requests for fulls after sending my partial. Prior to the change, none of my partials resulted in a request for a full.

So before you alter your overall story structure and flow just to cram something into the first three chapters, look at your opening pages and make sure they are super strong. And then consider this one variance in your overall writing structure to see if it's really, really necessary.

Beth (a bit off topic, sorry!!)

[dawinsor]

I think the question to ask is what effect you want to create because POV is a powerful tool for doing more than just showing us plot events. I read both single and multiple POV books and have written both things too. For me, POV is one of the ways to encourage a reader to identify with a character and also to convey the POV character's voice. Any POV character is going to notice some things and not others and use some vocabulary and sentence structures and not others because of who they are. You can do that in multiple POVs, of course. George R. R. Martin does that. But the more POVs you have, the higher the risk you'll spread the reader's attention too thin, so that's something you have to be aware of. Also, using GRRM as an example, some readers like some POVs more than others and skip the ones they care less about. OTOH, his multiple POVs allow him to tell a wide-ranging tale.

[cwfgal]

Though my Hero is in the first scene of the book, he doesn't get his own POV until Chapter 5. This is because he knows things that I could only share with the reader in boring ways (info dumps, anyone?) that the other characters can't know. So I gave the POV to the other characters so the reader could discover the information along with them. Dramatization is everything.

The fun trick was to make certain that it was clear that while he's not a POV character, he is undeniably the hero of the story. I think I accomplished that. I'll find out for sure when I get it finished and off to the beta readers.

At this point, I have about nine third-person POV characters (50K in). Most times I change POV by scene break, but some high-tension scenes where I don't want that jump/gap in the reading experience, I don't break scenes. I think it's important for the reading flow and building tension not to in these instances. We'll see if I break my one writing commandment (Thou Shalt Not Confuse Thy Reader) with that technique or not. If I do, then I'll change it. *shrug* For the moment, I'm happy.

I have to say, having nine POV characters in the book sounds like too many to me, particularly if your primary character (I'm making the assumption that the "hero" is the main character focus of the story) doesn't get one until well into the book.

In order to get your readers to fully invest in your story, I think it's important that they strongly relate to a main character and care about him/her on some level. They can care about more than one character, of course, but I think the strongest reader-story connection comes about if there is one, main character that the reader can relate to on some deep, personal level.

I use what I call the "universals" to do this: the universal human emotions and triggers that work on most of us. Say I'm a guy and I'm reading a book with a main female character. I may not relate to all the things the character thinks or does on a minute by minute basis, but if her overall actions and thoughts are because she's desperate to protect her family, yeah, I can relate to that. If she acts because she's in pain, or starving, or horribly thirsty, yeah, I can relate to that. If her hard shell crumbles for a moment because she sees the face of a cute, innocent child, yeah, I can relate to that. And if she acts because her life is in danger and she wants to live, yeah, I can relate to that.

You can try to bring in a whole cast of characters and get your readers to relate to all of them, but I think if you have too many, the reader gets to where they just don't care enough about any one character to fully invest in the story.

Just my opinion and maybe you've made it work. But it's hard for me to imagine a truly engaging story written the way you've described.

Beth
Beth

[ejwriter]

It's not alright to head hop. This is where the POV changes within a sequence or between sentences. For example:

Jenny was very happy. "I've won!" she shouted.
John was happy too. He opened the bottle of champagne.

In the example we hop from Jenny's POV to John's in two lines. That is forbidden and my Canadian editor comes down on it like a ton of bricks.

this worries me. :(

the story i'm currently working on has 4 equal MCs. i head hop constantly. i've tried rewriting entire sections from just one POV, but found it slows down the pace, and makes the whole book seem more:
'now here's character X for awhile. now here's character Y for awhile'
...when really it's critical to the story that they're all 4 in it together every moment.

(in fact, the first chapter is the only part where i do entire sections from one viewpoint, and i was lucky enough to get feedback from a popular agent who said those alternating chunks of viewpoint weren't working)

is this an exception to the rule?

[john barnes on toast]

I think the question to ask is what effect you want to create because POV is a powerful tool for doing more than just showing us plot events. I read both single and multiple POV books and have written both things too. For me, POV is one of the ways to encourage a reader to identify with a character and also to convey the POV character's voice. Any POV character is going to notice some things and not others and use some vocabulary and sentence structures and not others because of who they are. You can do that in multiple POVs, of course. George R. R. Martin does that. But the more POVs you have, the higher the risk you'll spread the reader's attention too thin, so that's something you have to be aware of. Also, using GRRM as an example, some readers like some POVs more than others and skip the ones they care less about. OTOH, his multiple POVs allow him to tell a wide-ranging tale.

are we still talking about things written in 3rd person here?

[DeleyanLee]

this worries me. :(

the story i'm currently working on has 4 equal MCs. i head hop constantly. i've tried rewriting entire sections from just one POV, but found it slows down the pace, and makes the whole book seem more:
'now here's character X for awhile. now here's character Y for awhile'
...when really it's critical to the story that they're all 4 in it together every moment.

(in fact, the first chapter is the only part where i do entire sections from one viewpoint, and i was lucky enough to get feedback from a popular agent who said those alternating chunks of viewpoint weren't working)

is this an exception to the rule?

Sure. It's called Nora Roberts, or Orson Scott Card, or any of the other plethora of authors who use shifting third person well.

Just 'cause one editor at one publisher hates it doesn't make it the wrong way to tell your story. It's something that irks many writers, but the vast majority of readers I've talked to over my lifeting (including myself) never notice it as long as it's done well and doesn't interrupt their flow in the reading experience.

Of course, the key to all this is: Do it well.

[lucidzfl]

I think the question to ask is what effect you want to create because POV is a powerful tool for doing more than just showing us plot events. I read both single and multiple POV books and have written both things too. For me, POV is one of the ways to encourage a reader to identify with a character and also to convey the POV character's voice. Any POV character is going to notice some things and not others and use some vocabulary and sentence structures and not others because of who they are. You can do that in multiple POVs, of course. George R. R. Martin does that. But the more POVs you have, the higher the risk you'll spread the reader's attention too thin, so that's something you have to be aware of. Also, using GRRM as an example, some readers like some POVs more than others and skip the ones they care less about. OTOH, his multiple POVs allow him to tell a wide-ranging tale.

This is a great point. One of the wonderful things about switching POV, is allowing a reader to see the world different, and think differently and use different words and phrases to describe the same things.

Voice is a great tool of POV.

[aadams73]

is this an exception to the rule?

I'd get rapped across the knuckles if I turned in something like that. But that's just me.

[scarletpeaches]

Is this mid-chapter change in POV (the only one in the whole book, you said, right?) really necessary?

Yes.

Edited to explain: the first three chapters, each from different, distinct points-of-view, add up to 21 pages in standard manuscript format. Yes, each shift is necessary. However, if I want to get more pages into the hands of an agent, I could, in theory, smush these chapters together and instead of having chapter breaks, use '#' as a scene break. This way my submission package of 'first three chapters' would jump from 21 pages to around 50, which is acceptable where I live. 21 pages just seems very short to me. They're polished, but still...only 21 pages.

[maestrowork]

So deciding on how to screw around with the POV seems to me as a matter how much ease and freedom you want when writing your book, versus how tightly do you want to draw your readers in.

To me, freedom only applies when you know what you're doing: that you've mastered the craft already. Writers who know how to use POVs show us HOW they use them masterfully. Some writers have their POVs all over place, and then they say, "But that's how I want to tell the story." The fact is, they don't know the difference between 3rd limited and omniscient. They don't know how to write 1st person. They don't know what headhopping means. They just don't know. And their works demonstrate that.

It's about discipline. It's about practice. It's about knowing your tools. It's about leaping after you learn how to stand.

I mean, we writers should strive to do our best to master our craft. It would be odd to hear someone say, "I don't need to understand grammar. I want total freedom and write how I want to write." It's, to me, equally odd when a writer says, "I don't need to learn POVs. I want total freedom."

Now, once you know the differences among the different POVs, and once you mastered them so much that you could write 1st person, 3rd limited, 3rd omniscient, 2nd person... whatever at will and effectively, then you can "do whatever you want." Mix and match and be creative; wow us.

[lucidzfl]

To me, freedom only applies when you know what you're doing: that you've mastered the craft already. Writers who know how to use POVs show us HOW they use them masterfully. Some writers have their POVs all over place, and then they say, "But that's how I want to tell the story." The fact is, they don't know the difference between 3rd limited and omniscient. They don't know how to write 1st person. They don't know what headhopping means. They just don't know. And their works demonstrate that.

It's about discipline. It's about practice. It's about knowing your tools. It's about leaping after you learn how to stand.

I mean, we writers should strive to do our best to master our craft. It would be odd to hear someone say, "I don't need to understand grammar. I want total freedom and write how I want to write." It's, to me, equally odd when a writer says, "I don't need to learn POVs. I want total freedom."

Now, once you know the differences among the different POVs, and once you mastered them so much that you could write 1st person, 3rd limited, 3rd omniscient, 2nd person... whatever at will and effectively, then you can "do whatever you want." Mix and match and be creative; wow us.

I'll buy that. I was doing a lot of head hopping. So now I do my best to only shift POV in chapter breaks, and only if completely necesary and only occasionally, without having too much time away from my mc.

I don't know how it works but in my trilogy, I wrote about 4 main chars. The hero is obvious, but every person has their story told from their pov.

Chap 1: Char 1
Chap 2: Char 2
Chap 3: Char 3
Chap 4: Char 4
Chap 5: Char 1
Chap 6: Char 2
Chap 7: Char 3
Chap 8: Char 4

I hope it works ok. its an ensemble group and everyone needs to have their own pov as they go towards the inevitable climax. Eventually everyone's story is shown through Char 1's eyes, but before that the people are so spread out all over the world, Char 1 would have NO idea what was going on otherwise.

Back on topic. I'm still a shitty writer so I do my best to adhere to the basic principles of writing.

[katiemac]

Changing POV doesn't bother me a bit when it's done right and for the right reasons. Sometimes it seems like I've picked up a book and the POV is changing every chapter just because the author figured out she could.

The POV swap in chapter 2 of Harry Potter/Half-Blood Prince is one of the best examples of a good reason to switch a POV. The rest of the book just would not have been the same if we didn't have that one scene. The chapter that came before it, also not in Harry's POV? Not as crucial to exist, but I didn't have a problem with it. Same goes for the POV changes in Goblet of Fire and Deathly Hallows. The Sorceror's Stone example is also probably one that works better than the others. What is interesting about these examples, however, is that Rowling used the POV switch only in the opening chapters, never in the middle of the book, and before we got to Harry's POV in the first place. I'm not saying that's how you should do it, but interesting nonetheless.

I recently put down a thriller (by a well-known, bestselling author) because the POV shifts were just way too much. The prologue was in someone's POV. Then the first three opening chapters in someone else's. Then it went back to the prologue character's POV. After that, every scene break was another new character for five or six scenes. I stopped caring. I put the book the down.

I also wrote a WIP once with the first half of the book in the one character's POV, the second half in the second character's, and some final chapters at the end that alternated between the two. It was a mess. I'm actually rewriting it now--it's a completely unrecognizable book at this point--but I'm sticking to one POV only. It's already ten times better.

I was just indulging myself. I wanted it to have the feel of a movie, where it's not as intrusive if you're following a bunch of people. But that was a long time ago, and I'm done with movie writing syndrome.

[dawinsor]

are we still talking about things written in 3rd person here?

Close third, which is pretty similar to first really. GRRM writes close third. The chapters sound different, depending on who he's using as the POV.

[Matera the Mad]

Whatever the story needs, it should have. In my last finished novel I stick to close third with two main POV characters, plus some short "cameo" scenes featuring secondary characters without the MC's. Then there are a few small omni scenes sandwiched between where neither the main characters nor the secondaries are present but the action is essential to build tension -- the reader knows what the bad guys are up to, but the good guys find out later that they had a narrow escape. There is a strong focus on one character even when he is not in the scene, and he has the majority of the POV scenes. I think it is possible to maintain that focus on a main character without always being in the POV, and I think I'm getting away with it. It's when there is no focus, when any character can take a turn in the spotlight at any time, that I get annoyed with an author. There's nothing wrong with omni per se, but it can get too unfocused and distant.

[Ervin]

For the love of Benji, folks:

POV is Point of View. It's not the same as Person (first, second, third), Tense (past, present, future) and has nothing whatever to do with who the main character is.

Point of View is where the camera is placed. Whose eyes we're seeing the action through. And you can change that a lot. Scene by scene.
Yes, a lot of people for some reason failed to get that before your post.

Some great replies so far. I have nothing against switching myself, but I do think that it often might jeopardize some quality of the story.

[RJK]

The greatest and most popular story tellers of ancient and prehistoric times were the ones who knew how to switch POV. They would tell the story of the great hunter, either in first or third person. but in the story they would speak about Mr. Wolf and what he was thinking. They would describe Mr. Bison's thoughts and what he saw as the hunters approached. They would talk about the coyotes slinking along, calculating the best way to sneak in to grab snacks.
The audience knew the story teller was making this up, but they suspended their disbelief, because the story was much more interesting than the one where the hunter just stalked a beast and killed him.

Uncle Jim makes a strong point that continues to elude many people here. A shift in POV is similar to placing the camera in a new position. The difference is, the camera has a brain and thoughts, and has a history and relationships with other characters.

[john barnes on toast]

Close third, which is pretty similar to first really. GRRM writes close third. The chapters sound different, depending on who he's using as the POV.

That's cool. Was only asking because they're seemed to be growing confusion on this thread, and at least one other, between POV and narrative form (1st person, 3rd person etc)

I wasn't sure if you were making the same mistake. Apologies for doubting you.

You're right in that a close 3rd person can be almost the same as 1st (pronouns aside). This can signify those very marked changes in tone, that some people are citing can be potentially distracting, but I would add that a shift in POV can be almost imperceptible too. It may only amount to one or two words in a whole scene.

[lucidzfl]

The greatest and most popular story tellers of ancient and prehistoric times were the ones who knew how to switch POV. They would tell the story of the great hunter, either in first or third person. but in the story they would speak about Mr. Wolf and what he was thinking. They would describe Mr. Bison's thoughts and what he saw as the hunters approached. They would talk about the coyotes slinking along, calculating the best way to sneak in to grab snacks.
The audience knew the story teller was making this up, but they suspended their disbelief, because the story was much more interesting than the one where the hunter just stalked a beast and killed him.

Uncle Jim makes a strong point that continues to elude many people here. A shift in POV is similar to placing the camera in a new position. The difference is, the camera has a brain and thoughts, and has a history and relationships with other characters.

Thanks for that, when the last person who read my writing called it antiquated and borderline prehistoric, I hadn't known I was being paid a compliment!

[Samantha's_Song]

:roll: Every cloud has a silver lining, so they say.

Thanks for that, when the last person who read my writing called it antiquated and borderline prehistoric, I hadn't known I was being paid a compliment!

[backslashbaby]

I don't know that I'm spotting the confusion. POV doesn't mean 1st person, 2nd person, etc. [narrative form], but you have to show POV through one of those, so they are quite linked, right?

But then you have to choose a tense, too, so my argument is a fail. Aaaargh.

[scarletpeaches]

Think of point-of-view as where the camera is.

Narrative is who's holding it.

Tense is when the filming occurred.

Or something.

[backslashbaby]

That'll do!

[Novelist in Paradise]

From Stephen Koch, former chair of Columbia U's graduate writing program, in his excellent book "Writer's Workshop":

"...it is a mistake to assume that point of view itself necessarily endows any story with either unity or coherence. Too often, this rather fussy doctrine pointlessly constricts writers' options and narrows their range. As for the claim that the reader can't follow multiple or shifting points of view, it is simply false on its face. The whole history of the novel is testimony to the contrary...in masterpiece after masterpiece, the narrative point of view readily changes from page to page, or even from sentence to sentence, and only delights as it does so."

[cwfgal]

I don't know that I'm spotting the confusion. POV doesn't mean 1st person, 2nd person, etc. [narrative form], but you have to show POV through one of those, so they are quite linked, right?

But then you have to choose a tense, too, so my argument is a fail. Aaaargh.

I think POV and narrative form are very closely related and often dependent on one another. If your POV is your camera angle/shot and your story (or any portion thereof) is being told in first person, there is only one angle and view you should have through your camera lens in any given scene. The reader shouldn't be able to see something that the character can't see, or know anything the character doesn't know. Same with limited third person. In these situations, the camera view character is the main character so your POV is essentially whatever your main character sees and the knowledge that gives him/her. Omniscient third person lets you run amok with your cameras and film, shooting from all kinds of angles and character views. It can get sloppy if it's not done well because you end up with a lot of camera-shot-hopping and head-hopping, which can be dizzying, distancing, and confusing.

Beth

[courtneyv]

this worries me. :(

the story i'm currently working on has 4 equal MCs. i head hop constantly. i've tried rewriting entire sections from just one POV, but found it slows down the pace, and makes the whole book seem more:
'now here's character X for awhile. now here's character Y for awhile'
...when really it's critical to the story that they're all 4 in it together every moment.

(in fact, the first chapter is the only part where i do entire sections from one viewpoint, and i was lucky enough to get feedback from a popular agent who said those alternating chunks of viewpoint weren't working)

is this an exception to the rule?

If you're following one perspective per scene for the first two chapters, and in chapter three suddenly hop to another character's head, this will mark you as an amateur. This is head hopping, which wrinkles collars, draws fangs, ruffles feathers. HH makes it appear that you don't understand how perspective works, and you never want to give that impression to anyone. You've given readers your narrative mode--THIRD PERSON LIMITED/Alernating at scene breaks--so you cannot switch out of nowhere or whenever you like. First Person Limited filters a scene through just one character's perspective until a scene break.

BUT you CAN write in Omniscience. This is the exception you're wondering about. But writing with Omniscience requires great care and skill. Stephen King uses Omni a lot. So check out his work for examples.

The key to Omniscience is to make it clear in the first sentence, or paragraph at most, that you're using it, to establish your narrator with readers.

Omniscience is deliberate focusing, sometimes at or through one character, sometimes many, sometimes none. You can even mention story-related information or show brief snippets where there is no character: a bomb ticking, set to explode, but no one knows it yet. Omniscience is the only viewpoint in which you can reveal this kind of information and not get darts thrown at you. You can spill all sorts of secrets that the characters don't know, reveal things from the past or forshadow things to come.

The biggest danger with Omniscience is that readers rarely feel connected to the characters, so you must really develop your characters to a full and fascinating degree and SHOW who they are as much as you can, so readers can and will engage. Omni holds one voice, and sometimes tone, throughout the whole novel, which will be the flavor of your book. This Narrator sees everyone in the same light.

It's also easy to botch. Omniscience is not recommended if you're a new writer. You really must understand how to weild the different narratives and reveal character through and through before you can take on something so arduous.

No matter what you use, the focus always needs to be deliberate and clear. Transitions from one character to the next always need to be obvious, otherwise readers will get confused or just plain annoyed.

I have seen some Romances head hop between the hero and the heroine, but the transitions were always clear to me. It sometimes interesting for a writer to contrast what's being shown and expressed and what's truly being experienced and thought. But again, this is deliberate and always appropriately focused, never willy-nilly.

[john barnes on toast]

I don't know that I'm spotting the confusion. POV doesn't mean 1st person, 2nd person, etc. [narrative form], but you have to show POV through one of those, so they are quite linked, right?




I think the biggest area for confusion is the fact that when working in 3rd person you can still shift the POV.

It's possible to have a scene between 2 people written in 3rd person, but where the POV is taken from one of their perspectives.

eg. They met on the bridge as usual, and it seemed to MrX as though MrY, ignorant as ever, was in a hurry to leave.

So that's in 3rd person (determined by the pronoun 'they') but taken from the POV of one character (Mr X).
However it would be quite possible for the author to write the next scene from the other's POV.

eg. MrY was glad to get home. He'd known it was going to rain, and that fool Mr X could talk afternoon.

What people (readers) tend to have an issue with is 'head hopping', which occurs when a scene written in 3rd person shifts POV mid-scene.

eg.
They met on the bridge as usual, and it seemed to MrX as though MrY, ignorant as ever, was in a hurry to leave. MrY didn't want to stay long as he knew it was going to rain, and that fool Mr X could talk afternoon.

[Bufty]

Clear as mud.

[scarletpeaches]

I understood it. :D

[DeleyanLee]

Using the camera analogy:

First person: The camera sits behind the eyes of the character and records only what they, personally experience in the course of the story. Pronoun of choice for the POV character is "I".

Second person: The camera sits behind the eyes of the reader, making him/her a character, and informs them what they should be experiencing in the course of the story. Pronoun of choice for the POV character is "You".

Third person: The camera sits outside of all characters and records the experiences of the story. Pronoun of choice is anything but "I" or "You".

Within Third Person, you've got a WIDE variety of how tight/limited (right against their person) or from on-high (omni) and everything in between.

Where that camera moves is completely up to the director/author's discretion in order to tell the story they need to tell. Does it need to focus completely on one character all the time and never sweep back for a panoramic shot? Does it need to dart all around from this focus to that focus within the same scene in order that all sides are understood within context? Does the angle need to be shot up from the floor to see their towering rage, or down from above?

Shifting the focus of the camera/POV is no more wrong in a book than it is in a movie if that is where the best use of the POV is for that moment's experience in story.

It's all authorial choice, how to give the information via POV, that determines what's right within the story. It's all authorial skill, whether or not it works as they intended it to.

In writers' communities you will hear a great deal of "NEVER head hop" but out in the readers' world, I haven't noticed that big a deal. When I first started writing in the 70's and into the 80's, there wasn't this giant war again "head-hopping" (a very derogatory term for a legitimate form of Third Person) until about 20 years ago. But, honestly, if that is how you see your story, that is how you should write your story. It's part of your voice, your style, your way of storytelling that sets you apart from the fifty bazillion other writers out there.

Anything else is personal preference on the part of the individual and not a "rule" that needs to be blindly obeyed.

Is that clearer?

[Julie Worth]

Headjumping? Hate it, and I lose all respect for the author no matter how much they try to justify it.


I used to be quite religious about this, as many writers are. But religion can lead to rigidity, and nowadays I do a bit of head hopping when the story calls for it. Like anything else, you have to understand what you're doing and why you're doing it.

[scarletpeaches]

I've never read a story that was improved by headjumping and I stand by what I said in the post you quoted. Yes, you have to understand the rules before you break them but no, I've never needed to break that one and never will. Whenever I read headjumping in published novels, it never, never, never reads as if the author's doing it for effect. It always reads like they've lost control of their story.

And yes, I'd apply that even to Nin, who (whom?) I'm reading now. There are gems there, but ooh, that headjumping. Ouchy.

[ejwriter]

BUT you CAN write in Omniscience. This is the exception you're wondering about. But writing with Omniscience requires great care and skill. Stephen King uses Omni a lot. So check out his work for examples.

The key to Omniscience is to make it clear in the first sentence, or paragraph at most, that you're using it, to establish your narrator with readers.

Omniscience is deliberate focusing, sometimes at or through one character, sometimes many, sometimes none. You can even mention story-related information or shows brief snippets where there is no character: a bomb ticking, set to explode, but no one knows it yet. Omniscience is the only viewpoint in which you can reveal this kind of information and not get darts thrown at you. You can spill all sorts of secrets that the characters don't know, reveal things from the past or forshadow things to come.

The biggest danger with Omniscience is that readers rarely feel connected to the characters, so you must really develop your characters to a full and fascinating degree and SHOW who they are as much as you can, so readers can and will engage. Omni holds one voice, and sometimes tone, throughout the whole novel, which will be the flavor of your book. This Narrator sees everyone in the same light.


awesome. thank you for this. i think i'm clear on limited/omni once and for all.

[Julie Worth]

I've never read a story that was improved by headjumping and I stand by what I said in the post you quoted.


I read a book review in the NYT a while back that mentioned a book's shifting POV and how artfully and seamlessly the writer accomplished it. So it seems to me that, as long as you don't jerk the reader around and confuse him, this is a valid technique. After all, if shifting POV between chapters and scene breaks is okay, why not in the middle of a paragraph? Or even in a sentence? Assuming you do it in such a way that it seems natural to the reader.

[john barnes on toast]

Clear as mud.


I see my work here is done.

[Arkie]

Elmore Leonard switches POV throughout his books and sometimes switches from present to past tense in the same sentence. Leonard stated in an interview he doesn't let grammar get in the way of telling the story. Dennis LeHane switches POV. Andre Dubus III stated in a magazine interview that when he finished The Garden of Last Days he had 800 pages and 14 POV. His editor helped him shave 6 minor characters and 240 pages after he had already cut a lot. He ended with a 535 page hardback. Don Delillo switches POV usually when starting a new chapter. All our gifted writers do it with ease.

[john barnes on toast]

Don Delillo switches POV usually when starting a new chapter. All our gifted writers do it with ease.

I'm not sure anyone's saying they have issues with POV shifts at appropriate breaks (chapter/scene) within 3rd person novels.
It's normal isn't it? In fact, I'm struggling to imagine how any books written in 3rd person don't have some shifts, however subtle, in POV. (I'm sure it would be a much shorter to list great books that don't, rather than those that do).


Surely the only things people are questioning is whether it's possible to successfully occupy the thoughts of more than one character simultaneously.

[scarletpeaches]

Shifting POV, yes.

Headjumping, no. Never.

[DeleyanLee]

Shifting POV, yes.

Headjumping, no. Never.

Definitions of each, please?

[scarletpeaches]

That's already been covered in this thread.

ETA: But to clarify, shifting POV is clearly marked, for instance with a scene or chapter break. Headjumping is when the author...well, jumps from one head to the next, even in the same sentence, leaving the reader confused as to who's thinking, speaking, moving. It's uncontrolled rather than clearly marked.

[DeleyanLee]

That's already been covered in this thread.

ETA: But to clarify, shifting POV is clearly marked, for instance with a scene or chapter break. Headjumping is when the author...well, jumps from one head to the next, even in the same sentence, leaving the reader confused as to who's thinking, speaking, moving. It's uncontrolled rather than clearly marked.

Thanks. That's what I thought you meant. We have different operating definitions, so I wanted to be sure.

[DMarie84]

I've never read a story that was improved by headjumping and I stand by what I said in the post you quoted. Yes, you have to understand the rules before you break them but no, I've never needed to break that one and never will. Whenever I read headjumping in published novels, it never, never, never reads as if the author's doing it for effect. It always reads like they've lost control of their story.


Completely agree. I've never read a book where headhopping was justified. If anything it irritates me to the point I'll stop reading the book.

I'm of the opinion there should be one POV character per scene. And it's very important each POV character has a distinct voice and personality. I've read books where an author will have multiple POV characters and do it all from first person--yet the voices are the EXACT same. Completely awful when it's a male and female and you can't tell which one is speaking until three or four paragraphs later.

So it's very important that each POV has a distinctive quality about it.

[Use Her Name]

Personally, I feel as long as what you are doing is clear to the reader, then there is no problem shifting POVs. I've done head jumping and have been repremanded for it-- I can see the point of those who dislike it. When doing omnipresent POV with all character's minds open to the reader, it can get a bit hard to read. I now try to keep the POVs separated by paragraph or other indication that the viewpoint has changed.

Some generes, suspense and action adventure, encourage several shifting main characters, other generes like ony one POV-- so, you have to look at what "sort" of writing you are doing as well. I do a kind of literary or mainstream suspense, and generally have no less than 4 main characters each with a different role, and each with their own chapters.

[cwfgal]

I read a book review in the NYT a while back that mentioned a book's shifting POV and how artfully and seamlessly the writer accomplished it. So it seems to me that, as long as you don't jerk the reader around and confuse him, this is a valid technique. After all, if shifting POV between chapters and scene breaks is okay, why not in the middle of a paragraph? Or even in a sentence? Assuming you do it in such a way that it seems natural to the reader.

Mid sentence? Oy vey.

Seriously, a lot of head-hopping is almost always a bad, bad thing to do. It's too much like watching The Blair Witch Project over and over and over again.

If you feel the need to head-hop, delineate carefully by devoting large segments to each head. Give your characters and your story a chance to develop fully.

In the end, everyone can write whatever they darn well please. That doesn't mean it will be a joy for others to read. Can head-hopping work? Sure. Does it work most of the time? Not in my opinion, which is worth what you paid for it.

Beth

[The Backward OX]

Omniscience is not recommended if you're a new writer.


So what POV is recommended for a new writer?

[Salis]

The ills of headjumping are greatly exaggerated (along with the rumors of my demise).

[Matera the Mad]

Anything goes as long as it is done well. Different stories need different POV handling.

[maestrowork]

I read a book review in the NYT a while back that mentioned a book's shifting POV and how artfully and seamlessly the writer accomplished it.

I suspect a) the author actually wrote in omniscient, and thus b) the writer did not really shift POV. The POV is always the narrator's, but it can go with any character at will (even mid-sentence, yes). Oh, and c) the reviewer doesn't know omniscient from head-hopping.

Head-hopping, especially mid-sentence or paragraph is never good. Omniscient, on the other hand, is a totally different thing.

[blacbird]

The ills of headjumping are greatly exaggerated

Not for me, as a reader. I hate hitting that moment where I say, how do we know this, other than through authorial intrusion via head-hopping?

Head-hopping is probably the most common example of "tell" instead of "show" in manuscripts I read. Published novels as well. One of the worst offenders I can think of among successful novelists is P.D. James.

It's subliminal, not analytical. Which is how it works for most readers, I'd surmise.

caw

[Salis]

Not for me, as a reader. I hate hitting that moment where I say, how do we know this, other than through authorial intrusion via head-hopping?

Head-hopping is probably the most common example of "tell" instead of "show" in manuscripts I read. Published novels as well. One of the worst offenders I can think of among successful novelists is P.D. James.

It's subliminal, not analytical. Which is how it works for most readers, I'd surmise.

caw

Yeah, but then, when I'm reading something I enjoy, I'm not thinking, "OH HO, author, I caught you telling instead of showing!"

Really not a big deal to me, but feel free to hate on people for switching perspectives more than you like, if you want to.

[maestrowork]

Yeah, but then, when I'm reading something I enjoy, I'm not thinking, "OH HO, author, I caught you telling instead of showing!"


I do. And many readers do, too... they may not stop and say, "the author is telling instead of showing" (because they don't know the technical terms) but their experiences would be different and they would know something is better than another. I think readers are smart and they've internalized what makes a storytelling good.

I was watching WALL-E last night and almost everything was "shown" instead of "tell" because there was so little narration and dialogue. We couldn't get into any of the characters' heads but there was no doubt what the characters were thinking or feeling, and what is going on. It was fantastic. Great storytelling.

And then there was a movie (name withheld) that tried to tell and explain to me everything (starting with a long voice-over narration that explained what we were seeing on screen) and I got really bored after only 10 minutes. Hate being treated like I was stupid.

Obviously a writer must how when to show and when to tell. It's the art of storytelling.

You don't need to understand the technical details of show vs. tell to understand how they affect storytelling. Chances are you "enjoy" what you're reading because the writer is showing more than telling. I'm willing to bet on it.