Multiple POV question

[Mike Martyn]

I've just starting the first re-write on myh first novel. Some of it is surprising good IMHO, some of it's pure crap. Well, that's what re-writes are for.

I have one scene in which two of the main characters have points of view ie; they share their thoughts with the reader. Assuming the reader can easily determine whose POV it is at any given time, how common/workable is this?

[reph]

I see it occasionally in New Yorker stories, which I presume have been polished until you can see your face in them at a hundred yards, and it always looks like an authorial slip to me as a reader.

[sunandshadow]

Having two characters' povs in the same scene is generally considered head-hopping, a minor no-no; if possible, just put a line break between their sections.

[Mistook]

I have one scene in which two of the main characters have points of view ie; they share their thoughts with the reader.


Is this scene meant to show what they think of each other? If so, there may be better ways to approach it. Head-hopping in novels comes off as cheesy most of the time. Depending on how the story sets us up for this scene, you may be able to indicate the thoughts through the spoken conversation and body language.

[aadams73]

It can be done but depending on the skill of the writer, it's tricky to strike the right note. Nora Roberts does it well, maybe flick through a book or two of hers and see how she handles it.

[Jamesaritchie]

It can be done but depending on the skill of the writer, it's tricky to strike the right note. Nora Roberts does it well, maybe flick through a book or two of hers and see how she handles it.

Yes, but even Nora Roberts says it's a mistake, but that she just can't write without doing it, no matter how hard she tries.

If you're going to have two POV characters in the same scene, you need a really strong reason, and a ton of talent, to pull it off.

[maestrowork]

IMHO, it's better to show it through action and dialogue without headhopping.

Switching internal thoughts is always boring to me. I'd rather see things unfold than having someone tell me what these people are thinking about each other...

[sunandshadow]

IMHO, it's better to show it through action and dialogue without headhopping.

Switching internal thoughts is always boring to me. I'd rather see things unfold than having someone tell me what these people are thinking about each other...

Well that's a matter of taste though, for me it's the other way around, I'd way rather read lovers or rivals thinking about each other than only have a few lines of dialogue and have to guess at what's really going on in their minds.

[brinkett]

I sometimes do this (intentionally). The trick is not to change POV like a ping-pong ball. If you think the scene will be stronger by doing it, what you do is have one character hold the POV baton for a while, then you pass that baton to another character for a while. If you do it right, nobody cares.


Well that's a matter of taste though, for me it's the other way around, I'd way rather read lovers or rivals thinking about each other than only have a few lines of dialogue and have to guess at what's really going on in their minds.

Me too. Sometimes "showing" gets a bit ridiculous, and leads to over the top reactions, physical mannerisms, or facial contortions that nobody has in real life.

[Mistook]

Well that's a matter of taste though, for me it's the other way around, I'd way rather read lovers or rivals thinking about each other than only have a few lines of dialogue and have to guess at what's really going on in their minds.

If it's two lovers, I think the story can be set up in such a way that by the time the critical scene comes along, the reader will be able to imagine what each character must be thinking. A bit of this comes from body language, but the real art is just in writing dialogue with some depth.

John chooses to ask a certain question next because it extends from his internal reaction to her last statement, and he words it in a certain way for the same reason. Perhaps he's leading, or being evasive, or both. Perhaps it's a trick question, or one with a double meaning. The reader shouldn't have to guess too terribly hard to understand what's going on beneath the surface.

[katiemac]

I'd way rather read lovers or rivals thinking about each other than only have a few lines of dialogue and have to guess at what's really going on in their minds.

I originally wrote a scene that head-hopped between my two main characters. It's been reworked and doesn't stand that way anymore, but my original reasoning for it was because one character was basically falling for another, who was lying to him. It didn't work as a one-sided POV, because the second character was such a good actress he believed everything she "showed" him.

[Jamesaritchie]

Well that's a matter of taste though, for me it's the other way around, I'd way rather read lovers or rivals thinking about each other than only have a few lines of dialogue and have to guess at what's really going on in their minds.

If it's done right, you don't have to guess.

[James D. Macdonald]

This is why they call what we do an "art."

[Mike Martyn]

This is why they call what we do an "art."

Damn. I was afraid of that!

Seriously though, thanks to everyone for your replies.

Cautious baton passing will be my limit.

[aadams73]

Yes, but even Nora Roberts says it's a mistake, but that she just can't write without doing it, no matter how hard she tries.

I

Ah ok, thanks, I hadn't heard that. I'm reading a reissue of one of Janet Evanovich's older romance novels and she head hops like crazy and it's quite distracting. It's also reassuring to see that she wasn't always completely brilliant and hilarious.

[aruna]

If you want an example of multiple POV in a literary novel, try A Suitable Boy by Vikram Seth (I mentioned this a few weeks ago o a different thread.) He hops from oe head to another even in the mid-sentence and uses several POV's on one page. And the funny thing is, he can do it. The novel works; I never noticed before I looked.

[pixiejuice]

If you want an example of multiple POV in a literary novel, try A Suitable Boy by Vikram Seth (I mentioned this a few weeks ago o a different thread.) He hops from oe head to another even in the mid-sentence and uses several POV's on one page. And the funny thing is, he can do it. The novel works; I never noticed before I looked.

This is something I've been wondering about lately.

Writing books and teachers tell us to be consistant with our POVs. But I've noticed that John Irving head hops a LOT. I've seen three or four POVs in a sentence before. When I read one of his novels, I have to just accept that he has free entry to any one of the character's heads, anytime he wants.

Now, John Irving is a brilliant writer, but I can't quite recognize what he is doing that makes his head hopping okay, when mine would just be confusing.

So can anyone explain to me what makes head hopping done well, or badly? What is successful head hopping, and when would you use it?

[brinkett]

So can anyone explain to me what makes head hopping done well, or badly? What is successful head hopping, and when would you use it?
It's done well when the reader isn't jarred, confused, or pulled out of the story.

When to use it? No pat answer. As the writer, you have to decide when it'll make a scene stronger.

[Kiva Wolfe]

I write in more character POVs than I can count on one hand, they kind of go with my multifaceted personality (LOL). I always stick to one character POV per scene, but often switch character POVs from scene to scene in a given chapter. The concept of writing more than one character POV in one scene zaps my brain synapses. I admire anyone who can do it.

[CalicoBean]

It's done well when the reader isn't jarred, confused, or pulled out of the story.

When to use it? No pat answer. As the writer, you have to decide when it'll make a scene stronger.

Yes, exactly.

Recently I went back to study Garth Nix's SABRIEL (an MG fantasy). My memory of the POV was that it was a limited third, told from the main character's (Sabriel's) POV. What I discovered is that while it's told mostly from Sabriel's POV, there is not only some head hopping within scenes, but there are also some slips into an omniscient story-teller POV. And it works very well. There seems to be a lot more flexibility with POV than many writing books lead readers to believe. Although writers who are unaware of POV and don't make POV choices -- whatever those choices may be -- probably make pretty dreadful mistakes.

[Ronda]

I have a scene that I take from 2 characters' POV, but I have a blank space between sections when I'm switching, so it's not like playing head ping-pong. My reviewers have said it works - so far. A few more opinions in the next couple of weeks.

What do your reviewers or critique group members say?

I personally find it jarring to bounce from head to head in a scene.

[brinkett]

My reviewers have said it works - so far. A few more opinions in the next couple of weeks.
What do your reviewers or critique group members say?
I personally find it jarring to bounce from head to head in a scene.
It it's jarring, then it wasn't done right. When I do it, my betas don't complain unless I've been clumsy about it. I don't like a blank line when the same scene will be continued. I'd rather the author just go ahead and switch POV. When I see a blank line, I expect a new scene to follow.

[Crista]

I firmly believe in that saying that all rules can be broken, especially in writing. But, the key for me has always been learning the rules and knowing them forward, backwards and sideways BEFORE breaking them. I've tried a few experiments with POV, even with multiple ones in the same scene, but, for me, I can never manage to make it smooth and unnoticable. When I try head-hopping, it always seems to read very jerky and unbalanced. I think I've become so used to writing in a single POV throughout a scene that head-hopping feels strange to me to write and I convey that on the page.

I completely agree with what others have said, though. I don't think that head-hopping can NEVER be used, but it can be hard to do well.

[maestrowork]

If it works -- omniscient can be very interesting.

What I can't stand, though, is a story told entirely in 3rd limited, then once in a while, the author slips up and head-hops for no good reason. That shows laziness on both the author's and editor's part. One examine is Skipping Christmas by Grisham. In one chapter, it's all Nora's POV, then suddenly he head-hops into her friend's mind for one sentence. Ugh!

[Beb]

Something that confuses me about POV, is the "head hopping" issue. If I have a chapter told from the MC's POV, and then write something like:

"He (the MC) didn't notice her smile, to her great displeasure."

Does that count as head-hopping, or does it only count if I actually show "her" inner-dialog? If the above counts as head-hopping, then what's so bad about it? If I were to just have "her" act rudely towards the MC for seemingly no reason (he didn't notice the smile) then the readers would be just as lost as he was.

I've read all the posts about POV I could find on the board but I feel like I'm still missing something.

[Birol]

It also depends on what style narrator you are using. If you're using omniscient, you're fine, but if your using limited or limited shifting, the example you've provided is head-hopping. The MC doesn't know why she's suddenly upset so neither can the narrator or the reader.

Let me ask this: Why do you think it's a bad thing for the reader to be as confused as he is?

[Beb]

It also depends on what style narrator you are using. If you're using omniscient, you're fine, but if your using limited or limited shifting, the example you've provided is head-hopping. The MC doesn't know why she's suddenly upset so neither can the narrator or the reader.

Let me ask this: Why do you think it's a bad thing for the reader to be as confused as he is?

Because, in the example, if the reader only sees the MCs perspective, they gain no insight into the female character, and end up thinking she's rude/mean. If you head-hop, then you find out more about this other character who might be important, and gain info the MC doesn't have which might prove useful for creating suspence or anticipation later on.

It would matter less if the character had already been introduced, and the relationship between the two characters was already known. But it seems unnatural to me to start a new chapter from a characters POV anytime a new character is introduced. It seems bad to never introduce a character during a chapter written from someone's POV as well.

[Mistook]

Something that confuses me about POV, is the "head hopping" issue. If I have a chapter told from the MC's POV, and then write something like:

"He (the MC) didn't notice her smile, to her great displeasure."

Does that count as head-hopping, or does it only count if I actually show "her" inner-dialog? If the above counts as head-hopping, then what's so bad about it? If I were to just have "her" act rudely towards the MC for seemingly no reason (he didn't notice the smile) then the readers would be just as lost as he was.

I've read all the posts about POV I could find on the board but I feel like I'm still missing something.

Okay, how didn't he notice her smile. Did he look right at her smile, but it didn't register? Or did he look away and accidentally miss seeing her smile?

If it's the first case: That he saw the smile and didn't care, or think anything of it, then you can show it in his POV. When she starts getting rude, the reader will be able to guess why.

If it's the second case: That he looked away and missed her smile, then it's not his fault. So why would the girl be taking it so personally unless she really was a b****. And in that case, again there's no real reason to hop into her head, because knowing her reason for breaking bad on him won't change our impression of her.


But in answer to the larger question, yes it's not good to be tossing in information about non POV characters inner moods and so forth. If you absolutely have to do that, then there is no Point Of View. The writing becomes omnicient, which does read rather cheesily in this day and age.

Full omnicience tends to spoon-feed everything to the reader, and adults don't enjoy being spoon fed. Readers lose interest very quickly if you don't engage their minds, and part of that engagement is to stimulate their curiosity. This is why we have 3rd limited POV.

[Beb]

Okay, how didn't he notice her smile. Did he look right at her smile, but it didn't register? Or did he look away and accidentally miss seeing her smile?

If it's the first case: (...)

If it's the second case: (...)

But real life isn't that simple. Maybe he saw it and maybe he didn't Maybe he wasn't paying attention. Maybe she though he was giving her the cold shoulder, but infact he was worried about the police showing up.

This example isn't exactly taken from anything I'm writing, but more of a way to highlight my trouble with 3rd person limited. I suggested she'd get rude as a way to show "her great displeasure" without using the head-hoping sentance. The problem is that it creates a negative image of the woman.

Assume instead that we don't want to write her as standoff-ish. But we don't want to head hop. We could just leave the fact that she smiled completely out of the story, but that doesn't seem to get us anywhere.

Saying "He noticed her smile, but didn't think anything of it" seems wrong too, because if he didn't think anything of it, then why are we mentioning it in the first place?

We could change to the woman's POV afterward and then mention how she had flirted and was dissapointed he hadn't flirted back. But having a new scene just for that seems clumsy, too. Especially if the cops break in and the MC has to steal a car and get outta there.

I guess I'm talking this topic off course, so let me try and get it back on track. If the writting starts head-hopping in a chapter, doesn't that just mean that the chapter was written in 3rd person omni all along?

And as for 3rd person omni being in poor taste, or spoon feeding the reader...I don't quite understand that attitude. I can't remember ever being taken out of a story by POV change. When people are talking, it makes sense when you have the appropriate dialog tags...so why would it be any different for when people think or feel something?

I can see using 3rd person limited when you want the reader to really be standing in someone's shoes. But if the whole story is going to be in 3rd person limited, then it might as well be in first person, no?

[Birol]

But real life isn't that simple. Maybe he saw it and maybe he didn't Maybe he wasn't paying attention. Maybe she though he was giving her the cold shoulder, but infact he was worried about the police showing up.

This isn't real life. It's fiction. Remember the axiom "Truth is stranger than fiction." There are things that happen in real life that we writers can't get by with in fiction.


Assume instead that we don't want to write her as standoff-ish. But we don't want to head hop. We could just leave the fact that she smiled completely out of the story, but that doesn't seem to get us anywhere.

Depends on where we're trying to go. Maybe needing to see her smile is irrelevant. Maybe it's not.


Saying "He noticed her smile, but didn't think anything of it" seems wrong too, because if he didn't think anything of it, then why are we mentioning it in the first place?

But it is possible, especially assuming your telling the story in past tense. People often notice things and don't really think about them until later, after they have more context or time to look back on it.


I guess I'm talking this topic off course, so let me try and get it back on track. If the writting starts head-hopping in a chapter, doesn't that just mean that the chapter was written in 3rd person omni all along?

POV should be a conscious choice on the part of the author. If you mean to write in 3rd limited and start head-hopping you need to either rethink the POV for the entire work or consider rewriting in order to keep the viewpoint consistent.

[pianoman5]

Beb, you might be having trouble with POV (and who hasn't) because you're confusing convention with logic.

First person narration obeys our sense of logic, because the protag is also the narrator and tells a story strictly from their point of view. But third person and omniscient POVs are convenient storytelling fabrications that rely on the reader's acceptance of an invisible entity -- a narrator who is separate from the dramatis personae.

That's the first big lie we have to swallow to accept third-person fiction as a reflection of reality. Thereafter, it's a matter of the extent to which we're prepared to suspend our disbelief.

For efficient storytelling, you can't beat the omniscient narrator. This God-like entity has access to everyone's internal thoughts and feelings and can swap at will to let us know exactly what's going on at all times.

The modern reader, however, is apparently less prepared to accept this outrage on the senses and can only cope with modest sorcery. Rotating third person is perhaps the writer's most common narrational choice as it lets the reader into the minds of a small number of significant characters, which is often necessary for a satisfying and complete emotional reading experience. Logically it's still rubbish, of course, because although the characters appear to be telling their own stories (in their own scenes or chapters), there's clearly a puppeteer pulling the strings behind the scenes. But we're prepared to accept this mystical party's existence and role as long as he maintains a low profile and keeps his opinions to himself.

Tight third party (one or very few POV characters) is arguably more realistic, as the story feels mostly like the protag's, with the narrator mimicking his/her 'voice' to conceal 'its' own necessary presence.

Having been inured to these conventions over centuries, we are not jarred by the ludicrous proposition of fiction as a kind of true account, so long as it obeys the conventions we now accept as readers (and which we demand as writers, being picky little smartarses who are familiar with the notion of POV).

These conventions say (among many other things): No headhopping within a scene. Why? Because, except where the narrator is, well, narrating, each scene usually 'belongs' to a character. That character is in the spotlight of the narrator's attention. Changing the focus to another character within a scene effectively reveals the presence of the narrator, who is (usually) pretending not to be there. When it's handled badly, I can almost visualise the narrator frantically swapping the puppets' strings and switching voice to accommodate the other character.

[brinkett]

And as for 3rd person omni being in poor taste, or spoon feeding the reader...I don't quite understand that attitude. I can't remember ever being taken out of a story by POV change. When people are talking, it makes sense when you have the appropriate dialog tags...so why would it be any different for when people think or feel something?

Many good books are written in omniscient. It's out of fashion these days in the sense that it's less likely to be published. In twenty years, it might be back in vogue and 3rd limited might be seen to be too limited and primitive. Who knows.

As far as head hopping goes, you don't want to change heads every sentence unless you're writing the entire work in omniscient. But a well done POV switch in a scene isn't a crime. Many authors do it, and as you've said, most readers won't have a problem with it. Go with whatever you think works best for your scene.

[Ronda]

No right or wrong, but IMO -- Yeah, the "too her great displeasure" part is head hopping because you're telling her reaction. Saying he didn't notice something is staying with him, even though it points out something he missed. Nothing wrong with him failing to notice a smile and her acting however he acts and him being baffled. It's ok for the reader to be baffled alaong with the MC. It can be fun as a reader to be with the MC and figure things out along the way. Readers will probably assume the woman is being rude for a reason and make speculations, like maybe she was flirting with him and he's oblivious.

[reph]

Saying he didn't notice something is staying with him, even though it points out something he missed.
Whenever I read that the POV character failed to notice something or was unaware of something, it undermines my identification with him. The strings are visible, pulled by that puppeteer the (should have been) hidden narrator Pianoman talked about.

[Beb]

So is part of the issue really that writters should avoid 3rd person omni because it's "out of style"? Is it because it is often used poorly by novices?

POV should be a conscious choice on the part of the author. If you mean to write in 3rd limited and start head-hopping you need to either rethink the POV for the entire work or consider rewriting in order to keep the viewpoint consistent.

But what is the difference between 3rd person limited and omni? If the difference is "head-hopping", then how do you know a story you're reading is using limited and then head-hopping, and not that the scene was in omni all along?

It sounds like people are saying "I hate it when I'm reading a 3rd person limited scene, and then the author screws up and starts head hopping."

Do they really mean "I hate reading 3rd person omni" ?

(By the way, thanks to everyone who has replied so far)

[Birol]

This is going to sound contradictory, but, IMHO, when an author uses 3rd person omni and does it well, the reader doesn't notice it unless they're looking for it (i.e. studying it as a student of literature or a writer of craft).

The feel of the piece is different when it is in omni vs. limited. In omni, it's like the reader is on the ceiling looking down and observing everything.
Third person limited is more like riding on the MC's shoulder and when the author head-hops, the reader is momentarily jarred from their perch.

I for one don't think omni is out-dated. I think certain versions of omni are out-of-style, but that's a different thing. There are many elements of writing that are no longer vogue and will not hold the interest of the average, modern reader, but all the different POV's still exist and when done well, they will still hold the interest of your modern reader.

[ted_curtis]

But what is the difference between 3rd person limited and omni? If the difference is "head-hopping", then how do you know a story you're reading is using limited and then head-hopping, and not that the scene was in omni all along?

It sounds like people are saying "I hate it when I'm reading a 3rd person limited scene, and then the author screws up and starts head hopping."

Do they really mean "I hate reading 3rd person omni"

I don't think so. In a true third person omniscient, multiple character's thoughts are used throughout the book, which is a fine thing to do if it's your style. But if everything's from Bob's POV, and Bob's thoughts, suddenly mentioning Mary's feelings -- that's head-hopping.

Personally, I think alternating between third person limited and third person omniscience scenes/chapters would be incredibly hard to pull off. I can think of a few books that switch from first person to third person limited, and it's very easily read.

Ted

[Beb]

The feel of the piece is different when it is in omni vs. limited. In omni, it's like the reader is on the ceiling looking down and observing everything.
Third person limited is more like riding on the MC's shoulder and when the author head-hops, the reader is momentarily jarred from their perch.

Agreed, except doesn't all 3rd person omni feel like limited until the moment the second person's thoughts enter the fray? Are you jarred because "the author head hops" or because you assumed you were reading limited when infact you were reading omni?

Extending that even further, doesn't all 3rd person feel like dramatic until the first person's thoughts come up? If a whole book was written in dramatic, and then suddenly started into limited, would you even notice?

I don't think so. In a true third person omniscient, multiple character's thoughts are used throughout the book, which is a fine thing to do if it's your style. But if everything's from Bob's POV, and Bob's thoughts, suddenly mentioning Mary's feelings -- that's head-hopping.

So when you read a few chapters from 3rd person limited, you expect them all to be that way, and that's why it's jarring?

I can think of a few books that switch from first person to third person limited, and it's very easily read.

Wouldn't that be even more jarring, and draw even more attention to the narrator? To me, the different flavours of 3rd person seem subtle, but changing from 1st to 3rd seems like a huuuuuuge deal.

[Mistook]

Beb, you might be having trouble with POV (and who hasn't) because you're confusing convention with logic.

First person narration obeys our sense of logic, because the protag is also the narrator and tells a story strictly from their point of view. But third person and omniscient POVs are convenient storytelling fabrications that rely on the reader's acceptance of an invisible entity -- a narrator who is separate from the dramatis personae.

That's the first big lie we have to swallow to accept third-person fiction as a reflection of reality. Thereafter, it's a matter of the extent to which we're prepared to suspend our disbelief.

For efficient storytelling, you can't beat the omniscient narrator. This God-like entity has access to everyone's internal thoughts and feelings and can swap at will to let us know exactly what's going on at all times.

The modern reader, however, is apparently less prepared to accept this outrage on the senses and can only cope with modest sorcery. Rotating third person is perhaps the writer's most common narrational choice as it lets the reader into the minds of a small number of significant characters, which is often necessary for a satisfying and complete emotional reading experience. Logically it's still rubbish, of course, because although the characters appear to be telling their own stories (in their own scenes or chapters), there's clearly a puppeteer pulling the strings behind the scenes. But we're prepared to accept this mystical party's existence and role as long as he maintains a low profile and keeps his opinions to himself.

Tight third party (one or very few POV characters) is arguably more realistic, as the story feels mostly like the protag's, with the narrator mimicking his/her 'voice' to conceal 'its' own necessary presence.

Having been inured to these conventions over centuries, we are not jarred by the ludicrous proposition of fiction as a kind of true account, so long as it obeys the conventions we now accept as readers (and which we demand as writers, being picky little smartarses who are familiar with the notion of POV).

These conventions say (among many other things): No headhopping within a scene. Why? Because, except where the narrator is, well, narrating, each scene usually 'belongs' to a character. That character is in the spotlight of the narrator's attention. Changing the focus to another character within a scene effectively reveals the presence of the narrator, who is (usually) pretending not to be there. When it's handled badly, I can almost visualise the narrator frantically swapping the puppets' strings and switching voice to accommodate the other character.


Every author is a puppeteer. You may as well fault real puppeteers for using wooden dummies. Even in the theatre, real live human beings obey a pre-planned script.

To attack fiction for being false is the height of stupidity. By definition, fiction is falsity. You may as well attack pizza for being edible.

If you truly want to master all the nuances of 3rd Person, from Omni to Objective, with Limited and shifting POVs, then go right ahead. But the idea of the art is to engage the reader.

it's one thing to avoid confusion. It's another to be blatantly obvious. I am not a kept woman, deprived of education, thrilling myself with the novelty of novels as I clean house. I don't require an educated man to hold my hand and walk me through the plot, explaining every little line of dialogue, just in case I don't comprehend what's going on.

I'm a man, in the 21st century, and yes I'm familiar with the concept of POV, because I've been enlightened by a slew of old stories and novels told in the first person, which blasted our childish need for omnicient narrators to peices. 1st person really captured our imaginations and showed us that characters could think for themselves, even while we thought for ourselves, to discern the motives of those puppets whose heads we could not penetrate.

Movies and television only upped the stakes. With merciless objectivity, the screenplay writers showed that it was possible to convey even the most secret thought, without ever resorting to a blatant "tell".

We like the disembodied voice of that invisible narrator. To this day, it is the most readily accepted form of story telling. But we are wise to the workings of the humand mind. We don't need every line to be followed up with a condescending explanation.

When it happens, it reflects badly on the author. He/she must prop every word and gesture with a krutch. She said this, but what she really meant and felt was this, just so you don't misunderstand. I'm the author, and believe me, I know!

To the reader, it amounts to saying, "I know her line was meaningless, but beleive me, she's a very interesting character. She's all worked up right now because of a perceived slight, which tracks back to the neglect of her childhood. She's fascinating, really. But Joseph is equally fascinating. And their interaction here is classic. Trust me..."

[brinkett]

Movies and television only upped the stakes. With merciless objectivity, the screenplay writers showed that it was possible to convey even the most secret thought, without ever resorting to a blatant "tell".

This is certainly one reason why omni is out of fashion today--the influence of movies/TV. But one of the strengths of writing over film making is that when writing, you have the ability to go into everyone's heads, and sometimes a scene is stronger if you use that ability. Other times not. It's up to the writer to decide.

I don't why you talk about omni as if it's insulting to the reader's intelligence. There's nothing inherently better or smarter about 3rd limited. It just happens to be in vogue right now. There are engaging, interesting stories written in omni. You obviously don't enjoy books written in that POV, but many do. Don't confuse personal preference with how things should always be done.


This is going to sound contradictory, but, IMHO, when an author uses 3rd person omni and does it well, the reader doesn't notice it unless they're looking for it (i.e. studying it as a student of literature or a writer of craft).

Exactly. The same goes for having a single, well done POV switch within a scene. Readers won't notice unless they're on a POV violation hunt. Clumsy switches will be noticed and should be avoided.

[Jamesaritchie]

Real head-hopping doesn't even come across well in omniscient. Just because omniscient allows the narrator to know what's happening in everyone's head at the same time does not mean you can head-hop all the way through the book and get away with it.

Head-hopping is just as jarring and confusing in omniscient as in third person limited, which is why it lost favor, and a good omniscient writer keeps head-hopping under firm control, even when using omniscient POV.

I think many writers get confused by third person limited because they forget how closely it's associated with first person. Forget the invisible narrator, the unknown narrator. Either become the narrator yourself, or realize that third person limited is written with teh same restrictions as first person, only with a he/she instead of an I.

[Jamesaritchie]

But real life isn't that simple.

Real life is a great way of looking at third person limited. Real life is exactly this simple. In real life you are the POV character, and you can't read someone else's mind. You can only know what they think and feel by what they tell you, or by how they act.

In real life, if you don't notice someone's smile, then you won't think about that smile, you won't comment on that smile, that smile does not exist. Third person limited works exactly this way. The POV character can only think about, comment on, react to, things he actually notices. If he doesn't see it, hear it, taste it, touch it, smell it, or think it, it does not exist, exactly as in real life.

Good omniscient viewpoint is not an excuse for head-hopping, but for allowing the reader to be told about things the POV character does not see, hear, taste, touch, smell, or think.

"As John Madison walked to work, he was so focused on the problem at hand that he did not notice the wad of hundred dollar bills lying at the corner of Fifth and Broad" is omniscient. There's no head-hopping here, just a narrator that lets the reader notice something John did not see.

Forget some invisible narrator. This just confuses most writers. Consider yourself the POV character. If you are the character, and you can't see something, smell something, taste something, feel something, hear something, or think something, then you can't write about it, exactly as in real life.

And never use omniscient as an excuse for head-hopping. This isn't what it's for, and good omniscient writers don't use it as an excuse.

There are two reasons why omniscient lost favor. One is simply because the vast majority of readers prefer third person limited, and as soon as they were given the chance to read third person limited, they never wanted to go back. The second reason is because far too many writer use omniscient only because they don't know how to use third person limited properly. They don't know how to say things, to get information across, without slipping into omniscient. Consequently, they write unreadable omniscient.

Omniscient is a way of writing that's unique unto itself. It has to be written properly, with skill and tact, and can't be used well if the writer is only looking for an excuse to head-hop. It demands strict control, a reason for doing what you do in the way you do it. If that reason is only because you don't know how to say something in third person limited, omniscient is unlikely to work at all well.

Ommoscient seems a way for new writers to put things down on paper that they are unable to put down in thrid person limited. But it just doesn't work this way. Omniscient takes even more skill than third person limited to do well. Considerably more skill.

[maestrowork]

James touched on a good point. Multiple POV (or omniscient) doesn't necessarily involve head-hopping. Just a simple observation outside of one POV character is enough:

John left the room to have a smoke. The paintings on the walls looked really strange. He looked for an ashtray, and realized his keys were still in the room. What he didn't know was that Mary had seen his keys on the sofa and hidden them. Meanwhile, ten blocks away, Chris ran toward the castle. A giant robot was chasing him from a half mile away, zapping all living things that came in its way with its death ray.

The only mind we're reading is John's. But the narrative is omniscient, anyway.


Or something more subtle -- in the following case, the characer's POV is mixed with the narrator's:

John fell on the ground. His face was bloody with multiple scars, and his hair turned gray.

(there's no way John could have known what's on his face and how his hair just turned color -- unless we show that he wipes his face and sees blood, or somehow sees his reflection...)

[Birol]

LOL. Good fictional examples, Ray.



Agreed, except doesn't all 3rd person omni feel like limited until the moment the second person's thoughts enter the fray? Are you jarred because "the author head hops" or because you assumed you were reading limited when infact you were reading omni?

No. Not if it is well written.

[maestrowork]

LOL. Good fictional examples, Ray.


What? It's actually a real passage from CTN!

[pixiejuice]

Okay, so tell me if I understand this right then -

Third person limited shows one character's POV, and only what that character can see, smell, feel, taste, touch, and think. So, pretty much the same as first person, except using he/she instead of I.

Then once the narrator observes anything that the POV character can't, you've gone into omniscient?

[Susan Gable]

Yes, but even Nora Roberts says it's a mistake, but that she just can't write without doing it, no matter how hard she tries.

If you're going to have two POV characters in the same scene, you need a really strong reason, and a ton of talent, to pull it off.

No, Nora doesn't consider it a "mistake." Actually, she's cleaned up her POV act quite a bit, but she still changes POV, and on occasion, she head-hops. (Obviously I don't not equate changing POV with head-hopping - head-hopping means being a ping-pong ball and bouncing back and forth frequently.)

I once heard Nora say that only other writers gave her grief about head-hopping and POV, that she never had a reader complained about it.

But as I say, she's cleaned it up a bit in her newest works. Probably got tired of hearing all the griping from the writing crowd.

I happen to be in the camp that says it's okay to sometimes switch POV in the middle of a scene. I get very aggrevated when I am reading a scene and there's a line break that does nothing more than tell me the writer has changed POV. I'm a smart reader, and if you switch clearly, then I'm going to realize that we're in another POV. (As will most readers. After all, they read all the head-hopping without problem for years.)

I am NOT advocating head-hopping. I think head-hopping limits the readers' ability to form a strong bond with a character. But I don't think there's anything wrong with a controlled change.
(I have an article about this on my website, www.SusanGable.com (http://www.susangable.com/), click on articles, and it's called "Confessions of a POV Slut.")

I did a workshop yesterday called "We Don't Need No Stinkin' Rules." A friend of mine and I elicited a list of so-called rules (writing "rules" and general writing "rules") and then we proceeded to discuss if they were bendable, breakable, or needed to really be a "rule." I think we do a disservice, especially in the romance arena, by turning everything into a "rule." (For example, there are people out there who will tell you that you MUST have your hero and heroine meet by page five in a romance. Or that there should be a dead body by page X in a mystery.)

Yes, you need learn your craft. If you don't know and understand POV, then you'll never do a "controlled" POV shift. But ramming these things down the throats of other writers - well, I think we do a disservice to our entire industry.

Susan G.

[Birol]

Yes, you need learn your craft. If you don't know and understand POV, then you'll never do a "controlled" POV shift.

I think you've hit on the true key, Susan. It's a matter of control. It's knowing what we're doing and meaning to do it when we do it and knowing whether or not it works for the story we are telling.

[Susan Gable]

I think you've hit on the true key, Susan. It's a matter of control. It's knowing what we're doing and meaning to do it when we do it and knowing whether or not it works for the story we are telling.

Exactly. :Clap:

Susan G.

[Beb]

I'm assuming that those of you that detest 3rd person omni would still allow a story written in 3rd person limited to change what character the POV is attached too from scene to scene. Yes? Or is that "taking the easy way out" as well?

Would the only reason to use 3rd person limited instead of first person be so that you can change POV characters?

If something was written in first person, but switched POV characters between chapters, would the reader's brain explode?


"He stepped into the shower, and gave his blonde hair a once-over with the last of the shampoo." ... That is third person dramatic, right? Can I switch between that and limited in a scene without insulting people's intelligence?

[reph]

"He stepped into the shower, and gave his blonde hair a once-over with the last of the shampoo."
The problem here is, if you're in his POV, you need a reason to tell his hair color. Don't add "blond" just to slip that information to the reader. People know what color their hair is; this is background knowledge for them. Most of the time, they don't say "I'm going to take a shower and wash my blond hair."

Using Max's POV means you, the narrator, follow along with Max's actions and thoughts. Has the story created a special situation so that Max is thinking about his hair color? Maybe he had his hair dyed and doesn't like his new blondness, and he wants to wash it out, and that's why he gets into the shower. Then being blond is on Max's mind, and it connects with his motivation. If being blond is simply a fact about Max and has nothing to do with the story at hand, it's irrelevant.

[Beb]

The problem here is, if you're in his POV, you need a reason to tell his hair color. Don't add "blond" just to slip that information to the reader. People know what color their hair is; this is background knowledge for them. Most of the time, they don't say "I'm going to take a shower and wash my blond hair."

Using Max's POV means you, the narrator, follow along with Max's actions and thoughts. Has the story created a special situation so that Max is thinking about his hair color? Maybe he had his hair dyed and doesn't like his new blondness, and he wants to wash it out, and that's why he gets into the shower. Then being blond is on Max's mind, and it connects with his motivation. If being blond is simply a fact about Max and has nothing to do with the story at hand, it's irrelevant.

So you don't describe your characters? What if it doesn't matter until later on. Do you wait until then and then bring it up (which might break whatever image the reader has painted in the meantime) or do you "find a reason" for him to "legitimately" think about it so you can describe it.

I put those words in quotes because that seems more contrived to me than 3rd person omni does. Suddenly, the limited POV is dictating the actions of the character so that the information can come across, all in the name of "good writing."

[Susan Gable]

So you don't describe your characters? What if it doesn't matter until later on. Do you wait until then and then bring it up (which might break whatever image the reader has painted in the meantime) or do you "find a reason" for him to "legitimately" think about it so you can describe it.

I put those words in quotes because that seems more contrived to me than 3rd person omni does. Suddenly, the limited POV is dictating the actions of the character so that the information can come across, all in the name of "good writing."

Describe your character's looks from another character's POV. That's how it's most often done in romance novels. You describe the heroine from the hero's POV, and vice versa. Though there still may be moments when you can legit. sneak in some description, like if your protagonist has curly hair and she's wrestling into place or something.

Susan G.

[Jamesaritchie]

So you don't describe your characters? What if it doesn't matter until later on. Do you wait until then and then bring it up (which might break whatever image the reader has painted in the meantime) or do you "find a reason" for him to "legitimately" think about it so you can describe it.

I put those words in quotes because that seems more contrived to me than 3rd person omni does. Suddenly, the limited POV is dictating the actions of the character so that the information can come across, all in the name of "good writing."

It isn't a matter of contrived or not contrived, it's a matter of how real people think and act, Real people do not think to themselves, "I'm going to wash my blond hair." That's bad writing because it's unrealistic.

But, yes, you always have to find a legitimate reason for why a character does anything, says anything, thinks anything, describes anything. This is true of limited or omniscient. Omniscient does not give either the narrator or the POV character the right to be unrealistic, to do, say, or think things that real people don't do, say, or think.

As for hair color, who really cares? If the POV sees someone else, and has reason, he can tell teh readers what color hair that person has. But let the readers give the main character whatever color hair they want him to have.
The more they think the main character looks like them, the more empathy and interest they'll have for that character.

[maestrowork]

This kind of POV problem is hard to find, because it's so subtle.

While "he took a shower and washed his blond hair" is considered poor POV (since people just don't say "I'm going to wash my blond hair"), you can always do something like:

His hair was too limp and thin, even for a blond guy.

Here, you get to convey the same information, or more -- that's he's blond -- without sounding like an amateur. Better yet if you can use this kind of character descriptions to develop characters.

[maestrowork]

So you don't describe your characters? What if it doesn't matter until later on. Do you wait until then and then bring it up (which might break whatever image the reader has painted in the meantime) or do you "find a reason" for him to "legitimately" think about it so you can describe it.

I put those words in quotes because that seems more contrived to me than 3rd person omni does. Suddenly, the limited POV is dictating the actions of the character so that the information can come across, all in the name of "good writing."

If it's important (for example, all the characters are brunettes and the fact that the character's hair color is blond makes him King of the land...) then describe it early on, but don't do the "he took a shower and washed his blond hair." Use a more realistic approach. But no, don't wait until page 230 to reveal that the guy has blond hair.

If the blondness of the character doesn't have an significance, then skip it.

[aadams73]

No, Nora doesn't consider it a "mistake." Actually, she's cleaned up her POV act quite a bit, but she still changes POV, and on occasion, she head-hops. (Obviously I don't not equate changing POV with head-hopping - head-hopping means being a ping-pong ball and bouncing back and forth frequently.)

I once heard Nora say that only other writers gave her grief about head-hopping and POV, that she never had a reader complained about it.

But as I say, she's cleaned it up a bit in her newest works. Probably got tired of hearing all the griping from the writing crowd.


Thanks for clarifying, Susan!

[reph]

Beb, the details of a character's looks won't matter in most stories. What color is Hamlet's hair? I don't know. Shakespeare didn't say. Whatever hair color the actor has who plays Hamlet in the current production, that's what color Hamlet's hair is.

What I remember about a story isn't hair, unless the story is Goldilocks and the Three Bears. (Goldilocks was blond. What color were the bears? Who cares?) If I summarize a story to someone else, I might say "This guy falls in love with a woman at work, but he's too shy to ask her out, so he gets a friend to spy on her, but that backfires, so..." I won't say "This guy with brown hair and a mustache falls in love with a woman at work who has long legs, but he's too shy..."

When you write in Max's POV, you aren't just following a set of rules or playing a writers' game in which it's cheating to mention something Max can't know. You're presenting Max's experience of what happens, so the reader will identify with him. If you say "Max washed his blond hair," you've left his head. You're not Max now. You're the narrator hovering near the ceiling, watching him wash. As a result, the reader will feel distanced from Max.

[mkcbunny]

This thread has been both informative and really confusing. I started reading it to find some POV answers, but now I think I should step back and just write what seems right and figure out what's "wrong" later. Something tells me I will have a lot of rewriting in the future, but the more I think about the POV issue, the more I second guess every word and find myself sprialing downward in a ball of confusion. Thanks to all for the detailed discussion.

I had not expected to find info about character description rules here, but that's something I had been curious about so I was glad to see it. I haven't described my MC's appearance [At 240 pages, it's too late now! lol]. I didn't want to limit the reader's imagination, and it seems like that's just fine. I don't want to throw that info in for no reason.

Oh, and for the record, I am personally getting tired of first-person POV fiction. Bios and non-fiction, fine. But if it's not a "real" person, I have trouble buying the lie from the very first page.

Thanks again.

[brinkett]

Oh, and for the record, I am personally getting tired of first-person POV fiction. Bios and non-fiction, fine. But if it's not a "real" person, I have trouble buying the lie from the very first page.

I don't read first person fiction. I've tried and just can't get into it. I find it much too limiting to have everything filtered through only one POV for an entire novel. It gets boring after a while. I'm sure there are wonderful first person novels, but they're just not my cup of tea.

[Beb]

Omniscient does not give either the narrator or the POV character the right to be unrealistic, to do, say, or think things that real people don't do, say, or think.

If you're trying to say that "He washed his blonde hair." somehow breaks the rules of 3rd person omni, or that 3rd person omni must be limited by a cetain character's POV (which it seems like you are) then you've lost me.

As for hair color, who really cares?

That really isn't helpful. I'm asking about the finer points of writing from different POVs here. A lot of the replies in the thread give me a vibe like: "I can't imagine the appearance of a main character being important to a story. Nothing that escapes the MCs notice could possibly be useful."

How about a murderer/monster in the closet that he doesn't know is there? Suspence. If I write a scene from the badguy's POV just to let the reader know that they're there, then doesn't that make the reader identify with them, and detatch from the hero?

If you say "Max washed his blond hair," you've left his head. You're not Max now. You're the narrator hovering near the ceiling, watching him wash. As a result, the reader will feel distanced from Max.

I understand that. It's not 3rd person limited anymore. Thus the questions about using omni and dramatic.

If it's important (for example, all the characters are brunettes and the fact that the character's hair color is blond makes him King of the land...) then describe it early on, but don't do the "he took a shower and washed his blond hair." Use a more realistic approach.

Is it really better to have a scene break, and have a pizza delivery guy come to the door just so we can see the blonde guy from someone else's POV?

Just looking through some books nearby, it seems like they either don't care to describe the MC (not helpful), or they just describe them in 3rd person the same way you would set a scene.

Made-up example:

The moonlight filtered through the leaves. Below stood a man, smoking a cigar. Archie loved to smoke at night. Tendils of smoke rode up into the air, past his greying beard and balding head.

etc. etc.

This type of thing seems pretty common. And apparently it's a great sin of writing?

[katiemac]

Beb, I can't help you much with the murderer in the closet, but maybe I can with the hair color.

The appearance of one of my main characters is important, but only to the other character. She reminds him of someone else, and so hair color and other physical features are to what he pays the most attention.

I'm guessing your character isn't alone throughout the entire book, but I don't know what POVs you're using. If you want to stick to one, your blonde guy, there are other ways of conveying his appearance. For example, does he have a girlfriend?

"Have I told you how much I love your hair?" Jill said, toasting him with her wine glass.
"Not recently." Brian smirked. With a few more sips, she would be drunk enough to start talking.
"Well I do," she said. "I'm a sucker for blondes. My last fourteen boyfriends were blondes."
"Oh yeah? Was Jake a blonde, too?"
Jill scowled. "I never dated Jake."
"Because he wasn't blonde?"
"Because he wasn't as handsome as you."

Etc. I hope that helped, a little. The way Jill perceives Brian gives his good looks, and through context it should explain a little about Jill, too. Even though it's the main character's POV, it helps to think like the minor characters from time to time. If looks are important to the story, there will be a way to convey it effectively because the story will call for it.

[reph]

The moonlight filtered through the leaves. Below stood a man, smoking a cigar. Archie loved to smoke at night. Tendils of smoke rode up into the air, past his greying beard and balding head.
I'll use this example to try to show why switching POVs so quickly confuses the reader.

I'm the reader. I'll report my experiences as I read.

The moonlight filtered through the leaves. Below stood a man, smoking a cigar.
This is very visual. I have a high vantage point, above treetops or maybe level with the higher branches. It's dark. If I look down, I see a man smoking. I don't know who he is.

Archie loved to smoke at night.
This sentence zooms in for a close-up, but not a visual one. I learn two things: his name is Archie (biographical fact), and he loves to smoke at night (aspect of his emotional life). I'm not just looking at him; I'm getting into his inner world.

I think I'm standing on the ground now, near Archie. So far, so good. But wait–

Tendrils of smoke [rose] into the air, past his greying beard and balding head.
Uh-oh. This bounces back to visual, and the camera isn't behind Archie's eyes. It's behind the eyes of someone outside him who can see his head. What happened to Archie the man, the conscious being, as opposed to Archie the figure in someone else's visual field? I was just getting to know him.

If you'd used this sequence:

Moonlight filtered...Below stood a man...Tendrils rose...Archie loved to smoke at night

the passage would make more sense. As a reader, I'd expect something like this to come next: Cigars were one of his few remaining pleasures since his wife left him. A midnight smoke always capped his day (something internal, as opposed to description of his looks).

Or you could go another way and follow up with Archie's experience of the scene: ...at night. It was nice and quiet out here behind the cabin, no sound but crickets chirping beyond the clearing...

But if you then say "Archie wore a gray windbreaker and dark green pants that had seen better days," it'll jerk the reader around again.

[maestrowork]

Switching POV just to describe the main character seems to be an overkill... you can describe the main character (even staying with his POV) in so many ways. Dialogue, for example:

"Jack, you have such great blond hair," Jill said.


Or internal thoughts/observation:

Jill used to love his blond hair, until he cut it all off.

[Beb]

The way Jill perceives Brian gives his good looks, and through context it should explain a little about Jill, too.

If you'd used this sequence:

Moonlight filtered...Below stood a man...Tendrils rose...Archie loved to smoke at night

the passage would make more sense.

Jill used to love his blond hair, until he cut it all off

So, what you guys are really saying is: "Why change POV and disturb the waters when you can save up important things to say, and drop them into someone's POV in order to ...

Uncle Jim always says:

...advance the plot, reveal character, and support the theme.




I suppose that's the best I can distill from all your answers. At least, it's what makes the most sense to me. Thanks guys.

[reph]

So, what you guys are really saying is: "Why change POV and disturb the waters when you can save up important things to say, and drop them into someone's POV in order to ...
Sort of. I can't speak for the other explainers. What I've really been saying (trying to say) is, the "rules" about POV add up to a technique in the toolbox. POV is something you use to get the reader to sing along with a character of your choosing, to feel his triumphs and failures, his excitement and despair, and all that.

[maestrowork]

Birol is right. Basically, the longer you stay with one character and see, smell, touch, feel, and hear through that character, the more you identify with that character. That's when the story has the most impact. If you head-hop a lot and switch POV all the time... sure, you may explain things better, but you also run the risk that the readers don't care about any particular character. These are not hard "rules," but guidelines to help you create vivid characters and a story that the readers can follow and identify with the characters who experience the events. A story is an experience. As long as you can create that "experience" for a reader, you can use any techniques from the toolbox, POV included.

[Jamesaritchie]

The reason to change POV is because you want to tell the story, or a part of the story, from the perspective of another character for a time. This most often involves a change of location. As long as your main charcter is at the scene, there's very seldom a good reason for changing POV.

Needless POV changes are as jarring to the reader as anything else.

Anything can be made to work, and no rule is unbreakable. But there is good writing and bad writing, and rules have been established over a great many years, by a great many good writers, and with the feedback of millions of readers. When you break a rule there had better be a reason, and if the reason is only that you don't know how not to break the rule, the writing is probably going to be atrocious.

Now, there are certainly uses for omniscient, and good stories can certainly be told using omniscient. Masterpieces can, and have, been told using omniscient. The point is that omniscient can't be used as an excuse for
not knowing how to write something in third person limited.

There are probably twenty million ways of letting a reader know what color hair a charcter has without resorting to omniscient. That's piece of cake writing. Which one you use depends on the scene, the character, who else is there with the character, and why anyone needs to know at that moment.

As for the man in the closest, all it takes is a scene change, which usually works a heck of a lot better than slipping in an omniscient line about a man being in the closet.

No, I'm not saying that "He washed his blond hair" breaks the rules of third person omni. It doesn't. It doesn't even break the rules of third person limited, since the person taking the shower certainly knows what color his hair is, and you can tell teh reader anything teh character knows. But it does break the rules of realism and good writing. People simply do not think or talk this way, and neither do narrators without very good reason.

Tobe honest, I think the best way to learn how to do all these things is by reading good writers who do them routinely. Third person limited novels are far and away the majority of what's out there, and I can't remember reading one where tghe writer had troublegetting across something as simple as hair color. Reading how they did it is a heck of a lot easier than having anyone try to tell you how to do it. It's always easier to be shown than to be told.

[Jamesaritchie]

No, Nora doesn't consider it a "mistake." Actually, she's cleaned up her POV act quite a bit, but she still changes POV, and on occasion, she head-hops. (Obviously I don't not equate changing POV with head-hopping - head-hopping means being a ping-pong ball and bouncing back and forth frequently.)

I once heard Nora say that only other writers gave her grief about head-hopping and POV, that she never had a reader complained about it.

But as I say, she's cleaned it up a bit in her newest works. Probably got tired of hearing all the griping from the writing crowd.

I happen to be in the camp that says it's okay to sometimes switch POV in the middle of a scene. I get very aggrevated when I am reading a scene and there's a line break that does nothing more than tell me the writer has changed POV. I'm a smart reader, and if you switch clearly, then I'm going to realize that we're in another POV. (As will most readers. After all, they read all the head-hopping without problem for years.)

I am NOT advocating head-hopping. I think head-hopping limits the readers' ability to form a strong bond with a character. But I don't think there's anything wrong with a controlled change.
(I have an article about this on my website, www.SusanGable.com (http://www.susangable.com/), click on articles, and it's called "Confessions of a POV Slut.")

I did a workshop yesterday called "We Don't Need No Stinkin' Rules." A friend of mine and I elicited a list of so-called rules (writing "rules" and general writing "rules") and then we proceeded to discuss if they were bendable, breakable, or needed to really be a "rule." I think we do a disservice, especially in the romance arena, by turning everything into a "rule." (For example, there are people out there who will tell you that you MUST have your hero and heroine meet by page five in a romance. Or that there should be a dead body by page X in a mystery.)

Yes, you need learn your craft. If you don't know and understand POV, then you'll never do a "controlled" POV shift. But ramming these things down the throats of other writers - well, I think we do a disservice to our entire industry.

Susan G.

Yes, she head-hops, but she also had an article a few years ago where she said head-hopping was a bad thing, and that she'd truied very hard to stop doing it, but could write well without doing so. So she gave up the effort. This sound like she thinks it's a mistake to me.

And whatever she says, I know two readers who have complained about her head-hopping. I'm one of them. I enjoy her writing a great deal, I love her stories and characters, but her head-hopping drives me crazy.

Many writers are in the camp where they think it's all right to change POV in the middle of a scene. They have every right to think this and to do it.

But I think I'll remain in the camp that says it's never necessary and is always bad writing.

Now, I like many romance writers, and I think there are some excellent romance novels and novelists out there, but I also think the genre would get a lot more respect if more of the writers in it actually learned the rules and used them.

I simply don't believe there is such a thing as a "controlled shift." Either you stay in POV or you don't, and I've yet to see an example where I thought changing POV in mid scene worked at all well. It always looks like bad writing to me, and it jumps right off the page.

We all need stinking rules. Different rules can be used, and any rule can be broken, but doing so is always a risk. Far more often than not, a broken rule is simply an ecuse for doing something you lack teh skill to do by following the rule.

Bad writers can laugh all the way to the bank, can make millions of dollars, but bad writing is still bad writing, and knowing and following the rules can make all the difference.

[Ronda]

re "head hopping"

IMO, it's fine to say he didn't notice something so the reader can be aware, but adding her emotional reaction jumps into her head. You can show her disappointment in things like a gesture, a sigh, an unbidden tear, etc.

I think it's ok for the reader to discover things along with the MC. I don't feel they always have to be a step ahead of him.

Ronda