Head-Hopping. HELP!!!

[gwendy85]

Help guys!

I can't seem to stop head-hopping (changing POVs) in my WIP! How much head-hopping is too much in one chapter? I'm writing through third person perspective. Is two POVs in one chapter the maximum?

[ChaosTitan]

Are you writing in third limited or third omniscient?

If in third limited, as long as each change in POV is accompanied by a scene break, I don't think you need to worry. Personally, I prefer to stick with one POV during any given scene. Jumping from character to character gives away too much information. I don't think six perspectives on one scene is necesssary.

But that's JMHO.

[pdr]

if you are really head hopping a lot, in every chapter, it might be a sign that you haven't picked the right POV.

Sit and have a think. Whose story is it that you are telling? What's the best POV to tell hir story?

[KTC]

I had a write once tell me to 'put a video camera on your shoulder'. If it swivels too much, you're head-hopping too much. I think two would be okay, if you are doing it with scene breaks...as chaos has said. (Oh God. I'm agreeing with Chaos!)

[johnzakour]

I think it depends on the context and how well written it is.

For instance in a “locked door mystery” it might work quite well showing the POV of every suspect in a room. (As long as each is change of POV is clearly marked as mentioned before.)

[Willowmound]

Don't hop heads. Change point of view where needed. Make the change clear.

Easy.

[Andre_Laurent]

I head hop. Which ever character is "on stage" and NEEDS to speak, is given the POV. But, I never, ever, head hop in the middle of a scene and never without a clear line break. That said, most of the story, still comes from my MC.

[Gillhoughly]

What pdr said.

Figure out the best viewpoint for each scene then TRAIN yourself to stay IN that person's head for the duration of the scene.

It's not rocket science. Pretend you're an actor playing that part. You won't surrender the stage to another character until you've taken your bow.

I have my editor hat on today and can let you know that nothing makes me reach for a blue pencil--or the return envelope--faster than writing that wanders all over the place.

Yes, there are books in print that head-hop.

I never buy those.

I suggest reading writers who use a similar VP to your style and see how THEY did it. One of the best is Lois McMaster Bujold. Third person, but you can feel the character's sweat, no wonder she's won so many awards!

[Laurawrites]

I've always been told to limit one POV for each chapter. That has several purposes. First, you can really develop your character's internal dialogue and get the reader acquainted with them. Second, that helps you avoid having a minior character take up more area than your chapter's main character. Lastly, it's just easier for the reader.

I don't like head-hopping when I read. Some authors can do it inside a chapter, but even so, it can get a little chaotic. There are probably exceptions to the rule, but, it makes it much simpler just to limit it. If you have ideas for other characters, skip ahead and start the next chapter with that. You can come back and finish the one you're on and you won't lose your place in the book.

[Carmy]

Omniscient or Unlimited (head hopping) within a scene is usually done when a character has information the reader needs to know but the MC may not know. It is why head hopping is often done in historicals -- to give the reader a view of both sides of a conflict.

This might help: http://fictionwriting.about.com/od/glossary/g/omniscient.htm

[Miss Java]

I agree with the others. Separate pov through scene breaks, though you may have several in a chapter.

[Monet]

I write in third omniscient. As long as you are making it clear who has the pov then it's fine. I like reading third omniscient and don't consider it head hopping unless the writer isn't making it clear who's head she/he is in and it ends up being such an endless tirade of disembodied thoughts, voices and emotions, that you finally throw the book across the room into the waste basket. I really like knowing all the different thoughts of the characters in the scene while the scene is going on, not rehashing what another character said or did in the last chapter because the writer didn't want to change pov in the scene or chapter. The pov I refuse to read is 1st person. My most favorite is third omniscient.

[Laurawrites]

I write in third omniscient. As long as you are making it clear who has the pov then it's fine. I like reading third omniscient and don't consider it head hopping unless the writer isn't making it clear who's head she/he is in and it ends up being such an endless tirade of disembodied thoughts, voices and emotions, that you finally throw the book across the room into the waste basket. I really like knowing all the different thoughts of the characters in the scene while the scene is going on, not rehashing what another character said or did in the last chapter because the writer didn't want to change pov in the scene or chapter. The pov I refuse to read is 1st person. My most favorite is third omniscient.

That is exactly the kind of books that make me want to yell. It's back and forth, many even in the same scene, with no real way to distinguish who is thinking or doing what. We're seeing through the eyes of the hero and suddenly, the villian is standing off to the side and we're reading what he is thinking, then back to the hero.

Also, if a scene is complex or pivotal to the plot, it doesn't have to be limited to a single chapter, especially if two people are heavily involved at that moment (i.e. a fight scene). There are always ways to exit one character's pov and end a chapter without leaving the scene altogether. Likewise, you shouldn't start the same scene all over again with a new chapter, just start from where the chapter ends. If the character is wounded by another's words, just refer to that and move on. That falls heavily into pacing.

I'm not a fan of first-person, either. Reading a book in that perspective feel restrictive in some ways.

[blacbird]

Echo what Laura just said. Most people who claim they like to write in "omniscient" POV often either A) don't really know what that really entails, and/or B) just plain spend too much time inside various characters' heads, narrating thoughts, rather than in the narration of descriptive action and dialogue.

caw

[JanDarby]

Omniscient is not the same thing as head-hopping. In true omniscient (as opposed to writing what's supposed to be third person limited but includes head-hopping), there's a distinct narrator, separate from the characters, who knows everything, and we're always, to some degree, inside the narrator's head, aware of the narrator, even when we're experiencing the thoughts of the other characters. The narrator is recognizable and usually has a worldview and is a distinct, godlike character on his/her own. There's no breaking of POV, because we're always in the omniscient narrator's pov.

The problem with head-hopping is that it breaks the bond between the main character and the reader and creates an emotional distance between the reader and the characters. Every time you change POV, you're breaking the intensity of the bond with one character to offer up a new character for the reader to care about, except that, like people in real life, readers tend to be a little wary about caring about a new person, especially if the reader was just jerked out of the head/heart of the last person she cared about, and then, just as the reader is settling in to really get to know the second character, she's jerked back again and offered yet another character (or even the first one) again, and this time the reader's going to be even MORE reluctant to settle into the pov, and may well stay distanced for the rest of the book, for fear of being jerked around, and in the end will think something like "Hmm, I never really bonded with any of the characters," and they won't come away with a really good impression of the book.

In some stories, that bonding doesn't matter; in emotional stories, it does.

Terry Pratchett does omniscient, and he does it brilliantly, but his stories aren't particularly emotional. Fast-paced and funny and brilliant and satirical, but not particularlly emotional. His later books have been closer to third limited in many ways, and the reader will get deeply into the head of, say, Sam Vimes, but then, every once in a while, Terry The Author (the godlike narrator), will pop in and do a riff on some issue, and while it's brillliant and funny and probably intentional for comic relief, it definitely pulls the reader back from the building emotion in the scene. Because Pratchett's books, at least the adult ones, aren't meant to be emotional in the way that romance or suspense are; they're meant to be funny, with some socio-political commentary thrown in.

Anyway, if you're going to write omniscient, then run with it, use it for all the benefits it can offer, taking advantage of the reader bond with the strong narrator's voice, but also be aware that it will result in a relatively unemotional story. If you're going to write third limited, then run with it, use it for all the benefits it can offer, taking advantage of the reader bond with the pov character, and you'll have an emotional story and you'll have to do a little extra work to reveal the inner workings of the non-pov characters.

But if you try for both, most times you end up with only the flaws and none of the benefits of either one.

If you've chosen third limited for your story, and you're tempted to switch pov, ask yourself why. Sometimes, it's because the emotions are getting too intense for you, as the writer, to deal with, so it's easier (for you, the writer) to switch to someone else's pov, but that robs the reader of the really good stuff of the story. Other times, it may be because you want to be able to tell the reader what the other character's reaction is to the pov character, but note that "telling" is just what you'd be doing, and it's a lot more effective to show it. You don't need to be in someone's head to know he's scared, angry, thinking the pov character is an idiot or whatever. Show that that's how he's feeling/thinking. And stay in the initial POV, observing those reactions.

There may be times when changing POV within a scene will gain you something that's worth risking the loss of closeness between reader and character, but the default should be to stay inside the scene protagonist's pov, and switch within the scene only if by doing so you will accomplish something that justifies breaking the bond between reader and character. It's got to be something that makes the story better for the reader, too, and not just easier for the author. It's all about the reader's experience.

JD

[Monet]

Writing third omniscient flows much the same way as watching a movie unfold on the screen. I find reading and writing third omniscient books/stories very emotional driven. True, I have read boring paste characters in some third omniscient writings just like in any other pov writing, but I have read just as many or more true to life emotional, bring tears to your eyes third omniscient characters and books as well. I tend to find the most boring non-emotional pov to be 1st person. The rest of the characters are like a second thought, mindless, thoughtless, for the most part. I want to feel what the characters are feeling. I want to know why they are acting like they are. I want to root for them and root for the other characters to get them to understand and realize the pain or happiness the other character is feeling. I want to know what he/she feels in their heart and guts, not just read what the pov character tells me what she/he thinks they are feeling or have every word out of the other character's mouths to be explaining their reactions/feelings.

We each have our own likes. None are wrong. What works for one, doesn't work for another. Mine just happens to be third omniscient.

[blacbird]

Monet, you need to read JD's post a little more carefully. Especially the first sentence. Which is exactly true.

caw

[gwendy85]

Sorry for the late reply guys! I've been super busy with all the events in my school.

Well...I see there's a lot of conflicts here that I don't know which is which. For the most part, I want the reader to get in touch with the rest of my characters...

I read something here that getting inside the head of the characters will have a more emotional impact to the reader since you know that character and get attached to them.

But I guess for now, I'm sticking to one to two POVs in a chapter.

[writeroffthelake]

You lose reader identification every time you change viewpoint. It reminds the reader that he is reading instead of experiencing the fiction. It's annoying, and makes the reader feel the writer doesn't know how to write well.

That said, there's a time and a place for changing viewpoint. It depends why you want to change.

Changing viewpoint because you want the reader to know all your characters just isn't good enough. Your reader will know all your characters much better when seen through the viewpoint of your main character. If the main character's viewpoint of another character is skewered or incorrect, you can easily show the reader that without hopping into the head of the other character.

It sounds as if maybe you don't know your character's well enough and are trying to get to know them with all the head hopping.

OR

Maybe you know your characters TOO well and want to show every little tidbit of what they do and think to your reader.

Ask yourself: Does the reader need to know this in order for the story to progress? Does hopping into the character's head add to the conflict in a way that can't be done otherwise? If it doesn't move the storyline, then you either need a different character, different actions for that character, or a different storyline.

Head hopping isn't always the answer, often it's the problem.

[farfromfearless]

I think that head-hopping is find if you keep things simple. In scenes where the main character is not present (ie. where you're dealing with secondary characters) then there is a little bit more freedom to explore the story and world from different perspectives. I typically prefer to limit the head jumping to scenes where action might naturally separate characters (you could consider this a scene jump) or scenes where characters share similar perspectives on a given subject with minor variants that might affect plot or outcome of a scene. Any way, keep things simple as possible.

[Willowmound]

Head-hopping isn't the same as changing viewpoint. It's called head-hopping when it's done poorly, confusingly, randomly.

Don't hop heads.

[farfromfearless]

Excuse my poorly worded response, you are of course correct.

[Willowmound]

The question is, does the original poster say head-hopping when she means changing VP, or does she actually hop heads?

[Atlantis]

Personally, I do not think there is anything wrong with head hopping at all. Christine Feehan, author of the "Dark" series, head hops sometimes two or three more times in a single scene without any breaks. There are no rules for head hopping. If you change heads more then twice in a scene, it doesn't matter, just as long as it is well written enough for people to know who is talking or thinking. Head hopping has some advantages. In my novel, my villian is quite insane, so its always a pleasure when I go inside his head because then my readers can have a glimpse into the depth of his madness. Don't be afraid of head hopping. Done correctly, it is a powerful tool. Use it.

[ChaosTitan]

Personally, I do not think there is anything wrong with head hopping at all. Christine Feehan, author of the "Dark" series, head hops sometimes two or three more times in a single scene without any breaks.

That is precisely why I gently tossed her book across the room (I didn't hate it enough to actually throw it with great force). After fifty pages of bouncing between characters in the middle of a scene, I'd had enough. It didn't seem like true omniscient, just an inability to stay in one character's head for longer than a page, and it irritated me a great deal.

[Atlantis]

I don't understand why this bothers people so much. In Dark Magic, by switching between Savannah's point of view and Gregori's point of view and to a lesser extent Gary and members of the society, the readers get to understand Savannah's fear and determination to avoid the Carpathain way of life, Gregori's guilt and fear that she will reject him (and his murderous violent side) and by stepping into the minds of the society members, we get to see how the villians think. Obviously, its not for everyone, but personally I can think of alot more irritating writing styles. Information dumps annoy the hell out of me. In the Stephanie Plum novels, Janet Evanovich always repeats the same information about Stephanie and all of the characters in every book. She explains that she's a bounty hunter, where her parents live, Ranger's mysterious background, her relationship with Joe, after 12 books in the series it is a little irritating.

[writeroffthelake]

In series books, such as Stephanie Plum, the editors usually require that all that info be repeated in every book since many (maybe even most) readers have not started with book one (I know I didn't) and need the background info.

The reason head-hopping is so disliked is that it makes the reader lose interest and feel the writer doesn't know how to handle the material. It is not "real life" enough, since none of us can get into the head of anyone else but ourselves. Whenever your readers feel they've been drawn out of the "real life" of the story, they lose interest.

Why do your readers need to know what everyone's thinking? Do they REALLY need to know, or do you just THINK they should know? Is there any other way to get the info to them other than headhopping?

It's your story. You have to write it the way you feel is correct, but it's good that you are at least concerned enough about your reader than you are questioning as to why headhopping might not always be the answer.

Good luck in figuring it out. I, personally, throw down books when they have:

1) headhoppng, or, often, more than 2 multiple viewpoints throughout

2) more than one character and/or place name that starts with the same first letter (first or last), ends with the same letter, rhymes, or has a similar sound

3) choppy, short chapters or section breaks - how can I get into the character or scene if it ends in 100 words?

Why am I so picky? Look how many books there are and what the average life span is - and I'm already in my mid-fifties - so if a book aggravates me, not only don't I read it, but I bad-mouth it (along with my reasons) to my reading friends so they don't have to waste their time.

[aliajohnson]

I'm torn on this issue. I certainly like Nora Roberts. She seems to do quite a bit of hopping/swtiching POV. Is it simply okay because she's Nora Roberts, or is there something to be said for swapping around if it's done well?

[ChaosTitan]

I don't understand why this bothers people so much. In Dark Magic, by switching between Savannah's point of view and Gregori's point of view and to a lesser extent Gary and members of the society, the readers get to understand Savannah's fear and determination to avoid the Carpathain way of life, Gregori's guilt and fear that she will reject him (and his murderous violent side) and by stepping into the minds of the society members, we get to see how the villians think.

I love to get inside of a character's head, to live with them and experience the story through them. That is why I love first person and third person limited. I look over the shoulder of one person at a time, and I experience things as they experience them.

An author can still show Savannah's POV, Gregori's POV, and the society members' POV. I just prefer not all at once.

To each his/her own.

[aliajohnson]

To each his/her own.

This sounds right to me. :)

As long as it's done well, I really don't mind switching POVs. In fact, I'll often avoid purchasing books (particularly in romance) in first person because I want to know how other people are feeling or reacting to a situation. There's a limit of course, I don't need to be inside the head of every secondary character in the book. Actually, I insist on not being. In the end, I think it really is a matter of skill on the author's part and taste on the reader's.

[janetbellinger]

I feel the same way as JD about head hopping in that it almost always weakens my bond with the main characters. I have seen it work a few times such as a novel I recently read, called The Thief, can't remember the author'f name. This novel involved the relationship between two brothers, one of whom was emotionally and mentally challenged. At first it bothered me when it changed from one character to the other, but this novel was so exquisitely written that it worked.

[Dave.C.Robinson]

I tend to use from 1-3 main viewpoint characters in a novel, and perhaps as many again minor characters that are only the viewpoint for one or two scenes. Having said that, I am very much of the one scene-one viewpoint school and don't change within a scene.

[Atlantis]

[quote=writeroffthelake]
1) headhoppng, or, often, more than 2 multiple viewpoints throughout


Hmm, you wouldn't like my book then, I have over 15 main characters and each one has a point in the story where we see things through their point of view. It just sorta evolved that way. I swear to God it works though. Mostly. It still needs editing. lol.



2) more than one character and/or place name that starts with the same first letter (first or last), ends with the same letter, rhymes, or has a similar sound



Christine Feehan irritates me with this. She quite often has Carpathian males and vampires appear in her series with the same name. It makes things very confusing when Gregori, a Carpathian male, is fighting a vampire called Dimitri and then the next book in the series is about a Carpathian male called Dimitri finding his life mate. Part of me is always like "What a minute, wasn't he killed by so and so in..."

[Ken Schneider]

I would keep POV to the main character of each scene if your MC is not in the scene.

Sub-plots that do not invovle the main character, calls for someone to be in charge of that scene and give a viewpoint.

There are methods and ways of writing where you can head-hop, and change POV.

If I'm the main character, and read a letter from someone else can I not express their feeling and thoughts as I read the letter?

How about finding someones journal, or diary? If you want to get something across that would be considered head-hopping or a pov change consider this method.

I am now reading a book, though written in first person, where the whole book is excerpts from journals and diaries of the main characters.

This makes it easy to give different perspectives of each character.

[Julie Worth]

if you're having trouble staying in one POV, write the scene in first person, then rewrite it in third.

[ChaosTitan]

Hmm, you wouldn't like my book then, I have over 15 main characters and each one has a point in the story where we see things through their point of view. It just sorta evolved that way. I swear to God it works though. Mostly. It still needs editing. lol.

But are each of your POV changes set aside by either a chapter break or a scene break? If so, then you aren't head-hopping. I'll read books with ten or more POV characters (The Stand comes to mind), and I thoroughly enjoy them if done well.

But in The Stand, you are never in a single scene that jumps from Stu to Frannie to Nick to Mother Abigail to.... Each switch is marked in some way, so you know who's the POV character.

[Dave.C.Robinson]

Yeah, just so long as the changes are clear and appropriate-- none of the "What am I doing in so-and-so's head, I thought this scene was from the MC's perspective?"

[Prawn]

I have more than one POV per scene sometimes, but I make the dhange of POV very obvious.

Abbas couldn't help but distruct that stupid smirk the guy had. "Next time, then," he said, and turned on his heel and walked away.

Hassan stood there smirking, watching Abbas go, telling himself Next time I see that man, I'll kill him.

[blacbird]

Stated perhaps another way, the major objection many readers (me included) have to "head-hopping" isn't just from the movement of POV from one character to another. Lots of writers do this, in various configurations, and (generally) as long as it's clear what's happening, it causes few problems; although I agree also with the disruption of reader identification with character it can cause.

But the overriding problem is that some writers, usually inexperienced ones, don't so much "head-hop" as "head-drift". They exercise no real control over which characters are providing perspective, and exhibit no real evidence of even realizing what POV is. I can't enumerate how many manuscripts I've seen that suffer from this principal problem.

caw

[gwendy85]

Thanks for the inputs guys!

I never thought there'd be so many opinions on this. I'm a little confused now. I suppose I'm switching POVs because one of my favorite authors happens to be Nora Roberts.

I'll mull over this for a while. I've been minimizing on the head-hopping, but there's this scene about two sweethearts who are revealing their feelings for each other. Of course, I'd want to get into their heads and show the readers what they're thinking about each other. When I change POVs in this scene, there are no line/scene/page breaks.

Also, I happen to find getting inside a character's head to show more personality, in that we see the world through their eyes or something like that...

[J.S Greer]

As stated above, I usually stick with one POV per scene. A chapter can have more than one scene, and as long as the scene clearly changes, and the transition is smooth, then its ok.

I tend to use one per chapter; thats because my chapters are usually about one persons event. Sometimes I will add a small POV that adds tension to the end of a chapter, usually from an antagonits POV.

I do throw in chapters from time to time with 3 or 4 POV's. After a few chapters of the main story, I like to change the pace by adding some scenes that help support the main, or complicate it.

Thats just me though.

[pianoman5]

Also, I happen to find getting inside a character's head to show more personality, in that we see the world through their eyes or something like that...

That's actually the key point to observe.

Fiction is a way of letting us into the minds of other people - seeing the world as if in their shoes, through their eyes, ears and thoughts. In general, the most compelling fiction is that which does this best, by giving us very close identification with the viewpoint character, including all the sensory clues that make us feel we're actually there with them. At times you might even feel you are in the scene, looking at the world through their eyes a la 'Being John Malkovich'.

The reason head hopping is frowned upon is that if you've achieved that effect - which is the fiction writer's nirvana - there's no way you want to break the spell by jumping directly into another character's brain. If being inside one brain is a bit surreal, being inside two at the same time is, well, just plain weird.

There are ways of letting a reader know what's going on in a character's head without burrowing into it. You can do it by describing their expression or body language, by what they say and how they say it, by having them write it (later) in their diary or tell all to a close friend. You name it, writers have done it.

We all understand what you want to achieve. It's often handy to know what people other than the viewpoint character are thinking. But head hopping is almost never the best way to do it, especially before you've mastered the form.

[gwendy85]

That's actually the key point to observe.

Fiction is a way of letting us into the minds of other people - seeing the world as if in their shoes, through their eyes, ears and thoughts. In general, the most compelling fiction is that which does this best, by giving us very close identification with the viewpoint character, including all the sensory clues that make us feel we're actually there with them. At times you might even feel you are in the scene, looking at the world through their eyes a la 'Being John Malkovich'.

The reason head hopping is frowned upon is that if you've achieved that effect - which is the fiction writer's nirvana - there's no way you want to break the spell by jumping directly into another character's brain. If being inside one brain is a bit surreal, being inside two at the same time is, well, just plain weird.

There are ways of letting a reader know what's going on in a character's head without burrowing into it. You can do it by describing their expression or body language, by what they say and how they say it, by having them write it (later) in their diary or tell all to a close friend. You name it, writers have done it.

We all understand what you want to achieve. It's often handy to know what people other than the viewpoint character are thinking. But head hopping is almost never the best way to do it, especially before you've mastered the form.


Hmmm....wow. Thanks! That's a really great way to look at it. I guess I'll have to make a few changes then. Thanks, pianoman5!

For now, I guess I'll just leave it and weave through it when I move through another revision process. Thanks again :D

[JanDarby]

I've been minimizing on the head-hopping, but there's this scene about two sweethearts who are revealing their feelings for each other. Of course, I'd want to get into their heads and show the readers what they're thinking about each other.

Here's the thing. You could do that. But if you do, there's a real risk that scene will be dull and flat. No tension. The tension in a scene like this comes from each character NOT quite knowing what the other is thinking, and the reader not knowing either.

Consider this exchange, where the reader knows what both characters are thinking and feeling:

"I've been thinking about you," she said, wondering if she dared to tell him the truth.

He continued hammering nails into the roof without looking at her, afraid to reveal his thoughts. He held his breath, hoping she meant what he thought she did, that she felt the same way he did. "Me too."

"I've been thinking about you a lot," she said tentatively.

He dropped the hammer and swept her into his arms. "Not as much as I've been thinking about you."


Okay, it's a silly, trite little scene, and I'm sure yours will be much better. But look at how little real tension there is for the reader, who knows they both care about each other, so there's no risk that the heroine will be rejected if she admits her feelings. Sure, you're TELLING the reader that the heroine is at risk, that the heroine believes she's at risk, but you're not SHOWING that she's at risk; in fact, you're showing the opposite, that she's at no risk.

Now consider the same scene without headhopping:

]"I've been thinking about you," she said, wondering if she dared to tell him the truth.

He continued hammering nails into the porch without looking at her. "Me too."

She'd never been much good at reading signals from the opposite sex, and he wasn't giving her anything to go on. Was he just being polite? She had to try again, just to be sure. "I've been thinking about you a lot," she said tentatively.

He dropped the hammer and swept her into his arms. "Not as much as I've been thinking about you."

Okay, it's still silly and trite, but at least there's some tension. The reader has to wonder along with the pov character if her revelation of love is going to be reciprocated or rejected or even ridiculed.

JD

[blacbird]

Jan just illustrated perfectly what I've suggested previously about spending too much time inside the heads of characters, relating thoughts, rather than conveying story more dramatically.

caw

[FennelGiraffe]

Also, I happen to find getting inside a character's head to show more personality, in that we see the world through their eyes or something like that...Another $0.02--I think what kind of novel you are writing is also a factor (but not the only factor). How many total viewpoints can the novel as a whole support? A very psychological or literary novel has different requirements than a plot-driven novel.

Not every POV shift is head-hopping. But every POV shift breaks reader involvement. And every additional POV char distances the reader a little bit farther from the POV chars s/he has already met. Those are heavy costs. Make sure the pay-off you get from them is worthwhile.

[gwendy85]

Another $0.02--I think what kind of novel you are writing is also a factor (but not the only factor). How many total viewpoints can the novel as a whole support? A very psychological or literary novel has different requirements than a plot-driven novel.

Not every POV shift is head-hopping. But every POV shift breaks reader involvement. And every additional POV char distances the reader a little bit farther from the POV chars s/he has already met. Those are heavy costs. Make sure the pay-off you get from them is worthwhile.

My novel's actually a historical, set in WWII and I want to show the events in it through the eyes of several people: guerillas, nurses, soldiers, civilians. Though it is a war novel, it has romantic elements. The conflicts are both external and internal, and the internal conflicts of one either affect or connect with another character, which is why, like I said, I wanna get inside the heads of the characters and such.

One character in particular, I want to show her personality early onm what goes on in her head, how she sees the world, so people will understand why she will turn out that way in the later parts of the story (she's minor, but her actions affect the main characters A LOT)

Again, thanks for the useful advice guys :)

[scarletpeaches]

I don't think you need to be inside someone's head to show character. Indeed, this can be a disadvantage. People can lie to themselves about what sort of person they are, their motivations, their desires.

Think about it. How do you know your friends? You don't live inside their head, do you? No, you hear what they say, see what they do and observe whether or not the two match up.

My suggestion would be sticking inside the head of one person, and have that person 'report' the actions of others', although of course not making it a journalistic style for a novel; I just used the word 'report' as a figure of speech.

Try describing people's speech and actions, and leaving the reader to make up his or her own mind about what this character is like. The reader should do some work too...but the writer should be clever enough to write in such a way that it doesn't feel like work.

[Evaine]

That's exactly what Lindsay Davies said about her Falco series (about an Ancient Roman detective). She deliberately never did a single scene from the point of view of Falco's girlfriend Helena Justina. All the reader knows about her comes from Falco's point of view - but she comes over as a very strong character all the same.

[blacbird]

To elaborate some on Evaine's and Scarlet's points: Focusing on the viewpoint of a single character allows some intriguing variations on working out the thoughts and motivations of other characters. This is perhaps most clearly done with 1st-person POV, but can be done equally well with limited third. As an example that comes to mind, the 1st-person narration of the Nero Wolfe mysteries by Rex Stout. His narrator, Wolfe's aide-de-camp Archie Goodwin, is constantly trying to figure out exactly what Wolfe is thinking (and usually failing, at least in part). It's a device that makes for some great narrative tension. You lose a lot of that kind of narrative tension when you're constantly relaying to the reader direct thoughts of every significant character in the story.

caw

[greglondon]

I read something here that getting inside the head of the characters will have a more emotional impact to the reader since you know that character and get attached to them.

My thumbrule is that the closer your narrator is to your character, the closer your reader can get to your character.

Reading omniscient usually bores me because it's too far away.
Reading first person usually makes me feel like I'm in a box because
I'm completely limited to what the character knows, sees, and feels.

POV is a skill completely foreign outside of creators.
Readers don't have to understand how POV works or when to switch,
they just have to know if it works for them enough to pay for a copy.

Having recently had a major "Ah-ha" moment around POV,
I'm currently rewriting my whole manuscript from scratch
to fix all the head hopping and sloppy POV stuff that I was
doing.

My experience so far of the before version and after version is
"Wow" what a difference a POV makes. Practice it. Learn it.
It will serve your entire career.

[karo.ambrose]

Arrrrghhh!!!! I had no idea that POV was such a big deal. The fact that it has stirred this big debate will make me seriously reconsider how I used it in my novel. **Good grief** First I had to weed out all the info dumps, then I had to actually develop a plot (who knew, eh?:e2hammer: ), and now I have to make sure I don't head hop.

It makes sense to stick with one POV per scene if you actually want the reader to care about the characters. I guess I just needed someone to spell it out for me.

[Julie Worth]

It makes sense to stick with one POV per scene if you actually want the reader to care about the characters. I guess I just needed someone to spell it out for me.

While that's not an iron-clad rule, people in workshops will jump all over you.

[Sean D. Schaffer]

I don't know as there is a maximum amount of different POV's to use in one chapter or not. What I do know is that if you want to change POV, you should probably separate the scenes with a #, so that the editors you submit to will know that there is a different POV being used, or that the scene changes there, etc.

I wish I could be of more help, but that's really all I know to do in this case. I hope it works for you.

[J.S Greer]

I don't know as there is a maximum amount of different POV's to use in one chapter or not.

There is no rule other than the one of telling a coherent narrative.

What I do know is that if you want to change POV, you should probably separate the scenes with a #, so that the editors you submit to will know that there is a different POV being used, or that the scene changes there, etc.

A double hard return will do nicely too if you dont want to use the symbol.

[blacbird]

A double hard return will do nicely too if you dont want to use the symbol.

Not so nicely, actually. In a manuscript, if you simply leave a blank line to separate scenes, and it happens to fall at the beginning or end of a page, it can easily be missed. Should you want the final printed book to have blank line separators, that's an issue to take up with the editor once the book is accepted. A single # is the common typesetter's symbol for a scene separator, although other symbols could be used equally well.

caw

[karo.ambrose]

Okay, here's a scenario. I have a chapter with Characters A, B, and C and each of them carries the same amount of weight in the novel- they're all main characters basically. I enter into into a chapter using the perspective of Character A to guide us through. She's with Character B, but we don't know his motives, we just know his actions. All the reader is concerned about is how B is motivating or relating to A. So for the entire first part of the chapter, we're in A's mind and B is basically playing a secondary role.

As the chapter progresses, C enters and an argument between B and C ensues. What perspective do I use here? Character A is no longer the main focus, so can I leave her POV and just jump into the motives of either B or C, or should I move to a more omniscient perspective? Can I discuss the motives of B and C, or are they off limits now that I started the scene using A's perspective?

What are your suggestions or thoughts? This whole debate about POV has left me baffled. And yes, I am hijacking this thread and if it goes under 50 mph, we're all doomed.

[TheIT]

Karo.ambrose, why not just keep writing the scene from A's perspective? A is observer now of B and C's argument and is no longer an active participant. So what? She still has an opinion about anything she sees.

If it's important for the reader to understand the motivations behind the argument from behind B or C's eyes, then the question becomes whether it's necessary to show those motivations during the argument. Can it wait until later when the narrative switches back to B or C's POV? At that point, the new POV character can remember and give their take on what happened.

Sometimes it's more interesting not to flat out tell the reader what's going on inside a character's head. If we the readers are following the argument from A's POV, we, like A, must guess as to what's really happening. Sometimes we'll guess right and sometimes we'll guess wrong. Guessing wrong leads to interest. Either way, we'll have to keep reading to see if the guess is correct.

[karo.ambrose]

Karo.ambrose, why not just keep writing the scene from A's perspective? A is observer now of B and C's argument and is no longer an active participant. So what? She still has an opinion about anything she sees.


Ahhh.... logic then, eh? Sometimes the right answers are the ones that stare you right in the face. Why start with her perspective if I can't find the way to show the significance of the argument from her POV? I see...

The way I have the chapter now is that once the argument begins, the perspective shifts from A's to an omnisicient where the reader cannot delve into anyone's thoughts. They just become a witness to the actions. Everything physical can be seen, but the narration doesn't enter into any one character's head.

I will give your suggestion a try and see how it shapes up. I am looking for strong character development, and your idea seems like a logical path to take. Thanks.

[TheIT]

Glad I could help. Here are a few more things to think about. This is my usual POV example. Ever read any of the Sherlock Holmes stories? All but one are written from Watson's perspective as he observes the great detective at work. We the readers never see inside Holmes' head, yet we're pulled along in the story with Watson as he tries to figure out what Holmes is thinking. The one story which is written from Holmes' perspective is my least favorite. To me, it feels like watching the magic trick from inside the magician's head. There's no possibility of mystery because everything is spelled out.

You said that you switched from inside a character's POV to something omniscient. That can be very distancing for a reader. Instead, it's possible to stay inside the character's POV but have the narrative be less inside the character's head. Think of the camera pulling back from inside the thoughts to sitting on the character's shoulder instead. The reader is still anchored in the scene to the POV character the reader has already grown attached to, yet the camera lens is now pointed outside, not inside.

[kwwriter]

If your transistions are smooth, don't freak. FAR too much emphasis is put on POV changing, and it's mostly from other writers! If it's the way you THINK and SEE a scene unfold, make sure it's smooth but that's part of your creative process -- don't try to change it -- perfect it!

[scarletpeaches]

I strongly disagree. Head-hopping is never smooth - it jars the reader out of the story and makes the writer look indecisive.

Of course the criticism of this would come from other writers - it's our job to know what we're talking about. We love the English (or another) language. Words are our tools and we want to treat them well.

If you think and see a scene unfolding while constantly changing POV, there's something indecisive about your thinking. Changing between scenes and chapters is fine...but in the middle of a scene? Ugh. Please.

[J.S Greer]

I strongly disagree. Head-hopping is never smooth - it jars the reader out of the story and makes the writer look indecisive.

Of course the criticism of this would come from other writers - it's our job to know what we're talking about. We love the English (or another) language. Words are our tools and we want to treat them well.

If you think and see a scene unfolding while constantly changing POV, there's something indecisive about your thinking. Changing between scenes and chapters is fine...but in the middle of a scene? Ugh. Please.

Exactly. Its amateurish and sloppy.

[maestrowork]

If your transistions are smooth, don't freak. FAR too much emphasis is put on POV changing, and it's mostly from other writers! If it's the way you THINK and SEE a scene unfold, make sure it's smooth but that's part of your creative process -- don't try to change it -- perfect it!

Not true. There's a reason why it's generally a bad idea to head-hop and not because other writers say so. From a reader's perspective, they may not know what is wrong with headhopping but certainly will feel the effect. Headhopping keep the readers from being completely engaged in the characters. There's also an unfocused narrative distance. It's not to say headhopping never works, but it rarely does.

The major idea of telling a story is to keep your readers in that dream world, transport them to that time and place and make them care about the characters. Headhopping defies all of that.

[scarletpeaches]

Plus, the reader might not know whose head you're 'in' at any given moment unless you use speech/thought-tags on every single line. And that's just messy.

[maestrowork]

It's simply not natural, to be in the heads of all the characters at random, at all times. And the readers will feel the unnaturalness and wonder who the narrator is -- beats the purpose of a transparent narrator.

[PeeDee]

The interesting thing, though, is how many writers I've noticed who DO head-hop. My list, yesterday, included Stephen King, Charles de Lint, Roger Zelazny (though he usually writes in the first person) Neil Gaiman, Terry Pratchett a great deal, and so on...

But with the exception of Terry Pratchett and Charles de Lint for whom I have no explanations, I think the reason that the others do it is because there is a narrator telling these stories, and it's the narrator moving around.

[The Lizard]

IMO? Head-hopping hurts!

I like to intro the characters and concentrate on their interactions within a scene. If I need to take the reader deeply into my main character I will lead the reader into a one-off recollection of that character's past and either montage it or show the experience as though it is occurring in the present tense.

Book or film that head-hops is like bad editing!!

Lizard

[PeeDee]

Only if it's done poorly. Head-hopping can work perfectly well, especially if it's got a reason. If we see tow characters who keep just missing each other, evne though we know that if they would just meet up, they'd fall madly in love...this works nicely. (I'm thinking of the movie Serendipity which I can't spell this early in the morning, and which didn't actually work TOO nicely).

Randomly head-hopping for no good reason is annoying. Doing it because you just realized you totally want to do the scene from both sides so you can totally share twice the number of feelings is probably going to stall out your book and bore me to tears.

[kwwriter]

[quote=PeeDee]Only if it's done poorly. ]\

Which is what I said above -- smoothly --

Um, none of you have ever read Nora Roberts, obviously, author of over 150 novels ALL or most of which she changes POV constantly. Huge best selling author. And if you're going to come back and moan about the fact that SHE and she alone can write and THINK that way, forget it. I've heard every argument there is on this, and it's simply a matter of authors reading and nit picking. Nuff said.

[PeeDee]

[quote=PeeDee]Only if it's done poorly. ]\

Which is what I said above -- smoothly --

Um, none of you have ever read Nora Roberts, obviously, author of over 150 novels ALL or most of which she changes POV constantly. Huge best selling author. And if you're going to come back and moan about the fact that SHE and she alone can write and THINK that way, forget it. I've heard every argument there is on this, and it's simply a matter of authors reading and nit picking. Nuff said.

We haven't read Nora Roberts? I think that's a bit of a leap to make, really.

And I never said that she alone could do that. In fact, further up thread, I believe I listed a bunch of authors -- mostly bestselling -- who frequently change POV all the time, mid-scene or otherwise. I have no problem with it.

As with all things writing, I only have a problem with it when it's done poorly.

[scarletpeaches]

...I've heard every argument there is on this, and it's simply a matter of authors reading and nit picking. Nuff said.

Nit-picking, to want to write well? So be it. I'm a nit-picker. I also hope I don't fall into the head-hopping trap as often as do so many other writers.

[Willowmound]

who frequently change POV all the time, mid-scene or otherwise.

Try Isabel Allende. She once changed POV mid-sentence (in 'Kingdom of the Golden Dragon'). That's when I decided never to try reading her books again.

And I really liked 'House of the Spirits'. When I read it. Many years ago.

[Dave.C.Robinson]

As a rule, I don't like head hopping. I do use multiple POVs in my novels, but I try not to head hop within a scene. It can be done, and done well, but it's very hard. The late Patrick O'Brien did a mid-scene POV change in one of his Aubrey/Maturin books where one entered with an object, the other left with it and the POV changed at the hand-off. Very well done.

However, random bouncing from head to head does nothing but confuse the reader.

A number of well-known and successful authors do break the rules. They do so deliberately and with malice aforethought. Many beginning writers see this and think it means they don't have to hold to a consistent POV. Unfortunately that's not so. The only time it works (and it rarely works for me) is when it is done deliberately by a writer in order to achieve a specific effect.

It takes a long time and a lot of words to know when to do it, and to know what effect you will get from it. Most beginners don't have the technical skill to know exactly what effect they'll get. You have to walk before you can run. First we learn how to follow the rules. Then we begin to understand the reasons for the rules. Once the rules are completely understood and internalized, it becomes possible to see when they not only can be broken but should be broken. The hard part for some is to avoid breaking the rules until they do fully understand them.

Be sure that's why it's being done before you do it.

[blacbird]

However, random bouncing from head to head does nothing but confuse the reader.

The crucial point. Every inexperienced writer writer I've ever seen whose writing displayed the flaw of head-hopping (or head-drifting, as I called it elsewhere) was blissfully unaware of it, at least at first, and equally unaware of the virtues of paying attention of POV at all. Some of them never in my experience figured it out.

caw

[Rashenbo]

Personally, I don't like first-person stories... and I'm not all that fond of omniscient... but that's me. I prefer third-person voice and multiple point-of-view observations. I don't mind a POV shift in a chapter. But with all things writing - man is it subjective. I like Christine Feehan. I never slow down with her POV shifts... it never bothers me. I've picked up other books where they attempt the same thing and it drives me batty. Every where you turn there are rules and then there are statements about those authors that can set aside the rules. That's all well and good, but what it really comes down to is how well you tell your story.

If you have a great story and it takes 10 pov's to tell it and your readers love it... then it doesn't matter. If you have an ok story and having 3 pov's drives everyone crazy... it's not working.

I would probably recommend to not do a POV shift without a logical break or without clearly transitioning to the new POV... but that's me. One thing you can do is get some beta readers and have them read your stuff and find out if the POV shifting is too much or too chaotic. If the shifting is pivotal to the way your story is told, you want to find out now if it'll work or not.

ah well... that's my 2cp

[pianoman5]

I think a lot of the confusion about POV, and head hopping in particular, stems from misunderstandings about the overall viewpoint 'mode' of a book.

The mode is important, because it establishes the central narrative tone and focus of a piece, in a spectrum of infinite shades between 'extremely close' and 'somewhat distant'.

It's easy to pick in first person, because we know exactly who is the most important character - they appear in every scene, and all narrative is from that POV. It can be very irritating when in an "All about me" introspective style, commonly seen in writers' early works, which are often thinly disguised autobiographies with an unreasonable quota of angst and an appalling 'I' count.

Limited and tight third person, with a central VIP character and possibly a couple of other viewpoints, retains much of the emotional closeness of first person, because we still know/feel (writer's perspective/reader's perspective) with whom the main focus lies, while the extended scope of the POV mode allows for a wider view of the book's created world.

Rotating third person, with a larger cast of viewpoint characters, is an appropriate mode for an ensemble piece, where we're following a number of characters who all play an important role at some point, and readers realise (preferably at an early stage of the proceedings) that they are going to be expected to invest their sympathies/antagonisms in several different people who will each have their turn in the spotlight.

Omniscient POV is best reserved for writers with mastery of the craft who have a strong and engaging narrative voice (e.g. Terry Pratchett), because that unseen narrator is effectively another character. And it had better be a 'good' one, to hold the reader's attention so they accept the puppeteer's intrusion into what the dramatis personae think is their story.

Really good fiction (= publishable plus some) that engages readers and gets them to invest emotion in certain characters generally has a distinct POV mode. It needs to, so we know who we're supposed to care about. Not many stories are strong enough to carry it on their own, because stories happen to people, and it's humans, individuals, whose plight we identify with. (Plus the occasional dog/dolphin/alien/sentient creature of your choice).

As maestro observed, every viewpoint character you introduce diffuses the focus and diverts it away from the main character(s). Readers sense this, even if they are unable to articulate the reason why, and unless each new character viewpoint serves a distinct purpose when it redirects attachment, it can lead to a less satisfying overall read.

At some stage in the writing process we need to think carefully about which mode best serves our story. If emotional closeness to the characters and the action is the goal, and it usually is, I think there's an argument that the fewer viewpoints there are, the better. Some stories, such as long, sprawling LOTR-style sagas obviously need several, because stuff happens to significant characters when they're away from the other guys. But with work that's chiefly focussed on one or two or three people, I try to keep the active narrative viewpoints down to a minimum. We don't usually need to get inside the skulls of the secondary cast, or even sit on their shoulders. We can show what the readers need to know about their feelings (to the extent that they care) via their dialogue, body language, actions etc. and general interplay with the main characters. A useful option in scenes where a M/C is not present is 'camera eye' or 'objective' point of view, in which the narrative simply describes the scene and what happens in a neutral voice, supplying all the necessary cues so that we know what's going on under the skins, without having to slip into a sub-primary character's point of view.

This brings me back to head hopping. Just as I make every character/chapter/scene/line/adverb/word justify its existence in my finished work, I make every POV shift do the same. And if ever I find that head hopping seems necessary, I rewrite the scene, because I've obviously got something wrong.

[blacbird]

And if ever I find that head hopping seems necessary, I rewrite the scene, because I've obviously got something wrong.

Yes. Apt and exact.

caw

[gwendy85]

Rotating third person, with a larger cast of viewpoint characters, is an appropriate mode for an ensemble piece, where we're following a number of characters who all play an important role at some point, and readers realise (preferably at an early stage of the proceedings) that they are going to be expected to invest their sympathies/antagonisms in several different people who will each play a significant part in the tale.

This is exactly my problem. I have a large cast, and all play an important role. For the sake of argument, one of my characters die (a minor character, but the death has great effects) and I want the reader to sympathize. I don't think I can do that if I don't at least show them what's inside of this character who dies.

[ChaosTitan]

This is exactly my problem. I have a large cast, and all play an important role. For the sake of argument, one of my characters die (a minor character, but the death has great effects) and I want the reader to sympathize. I don't think I can do that if I don't at least show them what's inside of this character who dies.

Sometimes you can evoke greater reader sympathy through the reactions of those characters most affected by his death.

[J.S Greer]

Personally, I don't like first-person stories... and I'm not all that fond of omniscient... but that's me. I prefer third-person voice and multiple point-of-view observations.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pianoman5
And if ever I find that head hopping seems necessary, I rewrite the scene, because I've obviously got something wrong.


Yes. Apt and exact.

caw


Again, right on the money.

[pdr]

this is another case like those of the Show v Tell and No Adverbs rules that people will keep chewing over on the boards.

Less is more.
One episode of telling may be far more effective than showing inside the heads of six characters.
One adverb, the right one, will save the reader paragraphs of head hopping and Showing. Things which needlessly delay the flow of the story.

'...one of my characters die(s) (a minor character, but the death has great effects) and I want the reader to sympathize. I don't think I can do that if I don't at least show them what's inside of this character who dies.'

No, all you have to do is show how the death of this character affects the main character. You don't need oodles of characters all displaying their emotions and gushing them over a bemused reader. The reader won't sympathise, They'll be fuddled and overwhelmed. You need the reader to see, through your main character's eyes, how devastating the death is. And if you can weave in how your main character sees the other characters reacting then you're home and hosed, without the dreadful head hopping.

Readers need a character they can identify with, or one they want to follow through a story to see what happens. When you keep chucking the reader from head to head, from character to character you are not encouraging them to read on, but to give up.

Writers who feel they need to do this head hopping often are still learning their craft. They haven't learnt how to pick out the key events and write oply about them. They still have to learn that less is actually more. Writing is often the art of knowing exactly what to leave out and what to include.

Stick with your main character's view point and you will automatically start to select and leave out things. And your writing will be better for it.

[J.S Greer]

this is another case like those of the Show v Tell and No Adverbs rules that people will keep chewing over on the boards.

Less is more.
One episode of telling may be far more effective than showing inside the heads of six characters.
One adverb, the right one, will save the reader paragraphs of head hopping and Showing. Things which needlessly delay the flow of the story.


And I think that's the point that the "Naysayers" are making. Moderation.

Most writers that abuse those "Rules" do so flagrantly and far too much.

Knowing where and when to use something is the key. Less is more sometimes, but on the flip side, there are times when more is just right.

[blacbird]

one of my characters die (a minor character, but the death has great effects) and I want the reader to sympathize. I don't think I can do that if I don't at least show them what's inside of this character who dies.

Don't bet on this. In To Kill a Mockingbird, Tom Robinson dies, and it's all related through the viewpoint of young Scout Finch, and no reader is lacking sympathy for Tom Robinson, or his family, or Scout's father, Atticus, none of whose heads we ever visit. That a reader needs to inhabit the mind of every character of importance in your story is a fallacy.

caw