Switching POV without changing the setting

[azbikergirl]

I'm writing a novel in third person subjective viewpoint. I have a main character from whose POV I tell most of the story, but also a few other characters whose POV is important in order to show the reader what's happening when the MC isn't there (IOW, they show the train speeding down the tracks). Because I refuse to put my character in front of a mirror or have him gaze at himself in a puddle or piece of glass and 'note' his appearance, I have to rely on another POV character to describe him to the reader. His appearance is mildly important to the story, but what's more important is the initial impression he makes on others.

The first time he meets a POV character is fairly early in the story. He's just saved a woman from drowning and is taking her home to her husband. The woman points to her house where her husband is repairing the door. I change to the husband's POV here, when they ride up, because a) his experience of meeting his wife's savior is more intense than the MC's experience of meeting him, b) I get a chance to show how this character feels about his wife, and c) I get to describe the MC.

I do this sort of thing in other places, too, such as when the MC drops a bombshell on Jane. Scene A is from Dick's POV and he's wrestling with whether to tell Jane his Bad News. She badgers him into telling, so he does. Scene B is in Jane's POV because the Bad News has grave impact on her, and she has to do a lot of internal processing, but without really letting Dick know her thoughts (i.e., she can't simply speak her mind).

Some readers say they find it jarring to change POVs this way, because the physical setting has not changed, although the scene from the husband's POV (and Jane's) starts a new chapter.

Is this sort of POV switching discouraged?

[Andrew Jameson]

I think I'd be more accepting of your second scenario than your first. In the second scenario, Dick drops a bomb on Jane, and the whole thing resonates about the room as the scene changes. The bomb disorients both Jane and the reader, so I think the reader would be more accepting of a scene change.

For example, this doesn't seem to work:
"So what's that in the freezer, Dick?"
"You really want to know?" Dick hoped Jane would decline, but the ending seemed inevitable now.
"I asked you, didn't I?"
"All right. Frozen cookie dough. I bought some this morning."
* * *
Cookie dough? Yum! Jane could almost taste it. "Let me have some!"
"Only if you're good." Dick grinned.

Here, as a reader, I'm thinking, "so what? what's important here that the author has to jerk me around?" There's no reason, apparently to change POV, so it's jarring.

Contrast that with:
"So what's that in the freezer, Dick?"
"You really want to know?" Dick hoped Jane would decline, but the ending seemed inevitable now.
"I asked you, didn't I?"
"All right. Bill Johnson's dismembered body. I killed him this morning."
* * *
A body? Jane sagged onto the kitchen stool. Dick... a murderer? "Why," she whispered. "Why?"
"Why did I kill him? Or why Dick specifically? Two different answers." Dick grinned.

But here, here, I *know* what's so important. *I'm* thinking "holy cow, he just told her! Now what is Jane gonna do? What is *Dick* gonna do? This changes everything!" And so changing the POV seems appropriate.

Question, though: In your first scenario, why does the first scene have to end with the woman pointing out her husband? Can't you end the scene a little earlier? For example:

"Thank you. I almost died." Glinda's hands started shaking, and they didn't stop.
"Oh. Here." Goodness, he'd been thoughtless. Dick popped the trunk and pulled out his emergency kit. "Here's a blanket. Can't be losing body heat."
Glinda laughed, a little shrilly, and pulled the blanket around her. "No. No I can't."
A delayed reaction, Dick thought. Time to leave. "Let's get you home."
"Yes, please. Home."
* * *
Jim-Bob's screwdriver slipped out of the screwhead. Damn! He leaned close. The third one he'd stripped today, trying to install this screen door. Goddam Taiwanese junk.
A green Pacer pulled into the driveway. Dented left fender and missing mirror. That was unfamiliar. The passenger door opened and Glinda stepped out, bedreggled and wrapped in a blanket. What the Hell? Jim-Bob stepped off the porch, letting the screen door ease closed onto the protruding screw.

There. Now there *is* a standard setting change.

So. Uh, that's what I think.

[johnnycannuk]

I agree with some of Andrews points as well.

I like to think of it like a cop or reporter - you have the same story from two or more people, their are almost always different. So essentially you have one storyline told from Dick's perspective, one from Jane's, etc. The trick in changing POV is how to mix the two into a single narrative. Uncle Jim had a good metaphor for this in the Uncle Jim thread a while back - tying Celtic knots. Each storyline is a thread or string in the knot. The story is how you weave them.

I would say that you can change POV at the scene level and higher. That is, switching between sentences or even paragraphs makes no sense to the reader. But switching at natural scene breaks or chapters or even book "parts" makes it work.

As Andrew said, changing POV must serve to further the story or develop the characters, otherwise its gratuitous and makes no sense (like the first Dick and Jane, but not the second).

Hope that helps.

Mike

[Maryn]

To me, it's always seemed that changing the POV solely to give the reader information the other POV character doesn't have is a weakness, almost a cheat. Part of the writer's struggle is inventing other ways to impart the information.

What works, works, but few writers successfully change POV within a scene without a greater purpose than giving information.

Plenty have, hoever, changed POV without changing the setting--even I can do that well enough, although not mid-scene. Usually it works at a chapter or section break.

Maryn

[Birol]

Will these POV characters have scenes from their viewpoints throughout the story or are they only telling the story for one or two scenes then fading back into the backdrop?

If the former, then you're simply using a 3rd person limited shifting POV. If the latter, I have to agree with Maryn that it sounds like you're taking the easy way out. If you've chosen to tell the story from the MC viewpoint, that is the restriction you need to work with.

Of course, that is just my opinion. If it works for you, then it works.

[azbikergirl]

Thanks for all the replies. This story is not told in a linear fashion. That is, every viewpoint character has his/her own mini story, and they all come together at the end, sort of like a wheel with spokes, to help the MC get what's in store for him.

[RaptorBpW]

The first time he meets a POV character is fairly early in the story. He's just saved a woman from drowning and is taking her home to her husband. The woman points to her house where her husband is repairing the door. I change to the husband's POV here, when they ride up, because a) his experience of meeting his wife's savior is more intense than the MC's experience of meeting him, b) I get a chance to show how this character feels about his wife, and c) I get to describe the MC.

Never switch POV in the middle of a conversation or event unless it's something extremely traumatic (as has already been mentioned).

I'd make it a little simpler---just cut away, sort of like in a movie, when she mentions her husband. You CUT TO the husband's POV...he's busy with whatever he's doing, and soon notices his wife approaching, soaking wet, with some strange dude.

Basically, leave at least a short period of time between POV changes. Don't do it in the middle of the scene, even if it IS the same scene. But changing the POV, you are in fact creating a new one. It'll feel different to the reader.

[Birol]

Basically, leave at least a short period of time between POV changes. Don't do it in the middle of the scene, even if it IS the same scene. But changing the POV, you are in fact creating a new one. It'll feel different to the reader.



I've seen this done successfully in books where there are multiple POV characters. You get the same scene told from the different viewpoints and learn how they each experienced the event. Sometimes, it works really well.

[RaptorBpW]

Do it Tarantino style, in other words. Overlapping POVs and nonlinear story arcs. I love that. :)

[Anatole Ghio]

In Thomas Pynhon's novel, Gravity's Rainbow, he uses POV switches in the middle of descriptions throughout the novel without bothering to change the scene or even end the paragraph. At first it is very disorientating, but once you get the idea of what he is doing, it becomes less disorientating. He does this by using the elipses to indicate a break in the POV, so if he is in a tight 3rd objective POV, and he sudden gives us a tight 3rd subjective by jumping into the characters direct thoughts, he did it by breaking it up with the elipses... will they understand what I mean by this point, he had to question that because he knew it might be confusing. Stop sleeping on my bed, you damn lazy cat... the cat sat there, quite comfortable. It was all part of his master plot... he had grown up with sinister thoughts. Ha, I'll take you over some day. It wasn't easy just biding his time!

- Anatole

[Lisa Y]

"So what's that in the freezer, Dick?"
"You really want to know?" Dick hoped Jane would decline, but the ending seemed inevitable now.
"I asked you, didn't I?"
"All right. Bill Johnson's dismembered body. I killed him this morning."
* * *
A body? Jane sagged onto the kitchen stool. Dick... a murderer? "Why," she whispered. "Why?"
"Why did I kill him? Or why Dick specifically? Two different answers." Dick grinned.

Personally, I don't like switching POV within a scene. I think it is because I used to do it and thought it was a great way to write. I wrote an entire book like that. Then I read some books on writing that wagged index fingers at me. So I rewrote the whole book. I still wrote in 3rd person, but never switched POV within a scene. I think it truly improved my book.

The above scene could be written strictly from Jane's POV and still be wonderful:

"So what's that in the freezer, Dick?" Jane asked, not so much because she needed to know what was in the freezer, but because of Dick's sudden need to keep her away from it.
"You really want to know?"
"I asked you, didn't I?"
"All right. Bill Johnson's dismembered body. I killed him this morning."
A body? Jane sagged onto the kitchen stool. Dick... a murderer? "Why," she whispered. "Why?"
"Why did I kill him? Or why Dick specifically? Two different answers." Dick grinned.

[Euan H.]

David Weber (author of the Honor Harrington books) does what you're describing quite a bit. He switches POVs within scenes so we get access to information we wouldn't have had otherwise, bu also to give a different perspective on events. You can be thinking one way about a series of events, then he'll use a POV shift to throw a completely different light on things.

The first couple of Honor Harrington books are in the Baen Free Library

http://www.baen.com/library/.

[azbikergirl]

I probably didn't explain well enough what my concern was. I don't switch POV within a scene. I always start a new scene or chapter to change POV. But sometimes the physical setting doesn't change.

For instance, in my Big Battle Scene, I have short scenes of action told from the POV of three of the characters, including the Evil One. Each scene is separated by a # or some *** or whatever.

Problem is, some readers don't like the fact that the setting doesn't change when the scene/POV changes. Is it really that big an issue? I see writers do it all the time.

[maestrowork]

Problem is, some readers don't like the fact that the setting doesn't change when the scene/POV changes. Is it really that big an issue? I see writers do it all the time.

IHMO, no. That's perfectly okay as long as you're clear and you're telling a good story. You might run into "chronological" issues such as you're describing POV #1 fighting a character, then kill him. Then in the next scene you're retelling the same scene (or part of the scene) when the character is still alive. Then you run into chronological disorientation.

I don't see how switching POVs (between scenes) in the same setting is a problem. I think your readers are too picky. Ask them what exactly they don't like about it. I think maybe they don't understand that the previous scene has ended. Mabye they think each complete scene should be set in a different setting, which of course is not true. Perhaps your scene is just a continuation of what came before, and so they think you should have folllowed the POV character. For example:

Cinderella (POV) dances with the Prince. The clock strikes 12. Cinderella runs away, leaving only a glass slipper at the Castle.

Normally, the next scene would follow Cinderella as she turns back into a poor girl and runs back to her cottage...

But what if you follow the Prince instead? Cinderella has disappeared. He stays behind, picks up the slipper, and wonders where to find her. It's the same setting, and a continuation of the last scene with a different POV character. But if you write it well, it shouldn't matter.

[Euan H.]

I probably didn't explain well enough what my concern was. I don't switch POV within a scene. I always start a new scene or chapter to change POV. But sometimes the physical setting doesn't change.

I can't see why this would be a problem. But it all depends on how it's executed. Personally, I like seeing some kind of separation when a new scene begins; it doesn't have to be spatial, of course; a temporal separation could work just as well.

A scene is some kind of bounded conflict, right? So if it's clear where one conflict ends and another one begins, then I don't think it's a problem if it takes place in the same location.

Anyway, that's my 2c.

[Mistook]

I think it's important to focus on whichever character best percieves the scene, for the author's purposes. You can't get it from every angle, you have to sacrifice something if you're writing in 3rd limited, and part of the art of it is to limit your POV characters to a small handful, stick with each one as long as possible, and switch only when the next scene is best shown from a different perspective.


Another thing I think nobody's pointed out is that in order to do any POV shifting at all, there is a kind of implied omnicience. The narrator is/must be allowed to bridge the gaps with temporary omnicience.

EX: "Walking down the street, Joe heard the sound of a bullet ricochet. A chunk of brick exploded off the wall beside him. He thought, What the hell is going on?
#
Hiding behind a garbage can across the street, staring at Joe through the crosshairs of his rifle, Sam thought, Damn! I missed! He watched Joe jump behind a parked car."

It may not be the best example, but the text in blue is what I'm talking about. I believe it's perfectly acceptable to use this technique because the reader assumes some level of omnicience simply because the story is written in third person.

I've even used a technique I call, "Persistance of POV" where, say the POV character has been talking with somebody, and leaves the room at the end of the scene. Somtimes I'll end that scene with a one-liner from the non-POV character, or a small observation.

EX: "Well, I have to go, but just remember what we've talked about." Jeremy walked out, closing the door behind him.

"Fat chance, jerk!"
#


or...

EX: "Well, I have to go, but just remember what we've talked about." Jeremy walked out, closing the door behind him.

The stuffed bear fell off it's shelf and landed on the carpet.
#

Only a writer is going to get thrown off by such tiny instances of omnicience, but the average reader will accept them at face value.

[Birol]

Another thing I think nobody's pointed out is that in order to do any POV shifting at all, there is a kind of implied omnicience. The narrator is/must be allowed to bridge the gaps with temporary omnicience.



Bridge the gaps with temporary omniscience... I'm not certain what you are referring to Mistook. To me, we're simply talking about 3rd person limited shifting viewpoint. As long as you stay within the POV of the character telling that particular scene/snippet, you're fine.

For instance:

Rising up from the bed on her elbows, she put her face right up against the spot she had touched. There were small holes where her fingers had penetrated between the fibers. As she watched, the fibers pulled back together. All but one. It stayed where she had moved it. She felt her eyebrows drawn together as she lay back against the bed.

That didn’t happen last time I moved it. Did it?

#

Michael had almost grown accustomed to the energy in the room when Sybil raised her hand again. This time, she quickly pulled it back and raised herself onto her elbows. A light ripple ran through the energy surrounding her.

Did she just do something?

[reph]

Another thing I think nobody's pointed out is that in order to do any POV shifting at all, there is a kind of implied omnicience. The narrator is/must be allowed to bridge the gaps with temporary omnicience.
Well, there's an implication of omniscience of a sort when a writer writes from somebody else's point of view in the first place. Here "somebody else" means "any character except a first-person one." Two minds are present, the describer's and the character's. Since the word "omniscience" is taken, maybe this other thing would be better called "penetration."

When you switch POV, you withdraw from one character's head and enter another's. Where are you in between? I mean, does the reader experience the narrator as being somewhere during the move?

[Mistook]

Well, there's an implication of omniscience of a sort when a writer writes from somebody else's point of view in the first place. Here "somebody else" means "any character except a first-person one." Two minds are present, the describer's and the character's. Since the word "omniscience" is taken, maybe this other thing would be better called "penetration."

When you switch POV, you withdraw from one character's head and enter another's. Where are you in between? I mean, does the reader experience the narrator as being somewhere during the move?


Well, perhaps a better example of temporary omnicience would be a shift across town at the beginning of a new scene.

"Five blocks away, George stood waving off the steam from an overheated engine, "Now what do I do?"

Does george know he's five blocks from the last scene? Does the last POV character know what's going on five blocks away? Only the almightly narrator can see them both. In that example, you could eliminate the telling phrase "five blocks away" and get away with the POV shift, but you'd lose one critical bit of perspective that would take a mountain of strategical writing to get across any other way.

Also, as I exampled with the persistance of POV after the character has left the scene, there the narrator is in-between.

-----------------

Also, there is an objective aspect to anything the POV character can observe. Everybody else in the scene who is visible to the POV can be described in every detail other than their personal thoughts.

Making abrupt POV shifts where the only clue is the naming of the character can be confusing, because characters are named routinely before performing actions even when we are locked into one specific POV.

So if Gina was the POV character, and you open the next scene with, "Jeremy folded his hands and looked down." It's not immediately clear to the reader that we've shifted into Jeremy's head, especially if this is the same setting as the previous scene.

To avoid confusion, there often needs to be an omnicient hand-off to clue the reader.

[azbikergirl]

So if Gina was the POV character, and you open the next scene with, "Jeremy folded his hands and looked down." It's not immediately clear to the reader that we've shifted into Jeremy's head, especially if this is the same setting as the previous scene.
I think, though, that Jeremy's action being first will be a clue for the reader, and she'll form an expectation. If you then continued in Gina's POV, the reader might be jarred. Having Jeremy think something would most definitely help the reader out in that regard. The omniscient hand-off isn't necessary, IMO. Writers like me who are trying to stay strictly within the chosen character's POV during the entire scene will resist using a technique like that, and will probably flag it during a critique of others. ;)

[maestrowork]

There's no temporary omniscient if you stick with the POV within a scene, even if the scenes are continuous chronologically. In your example, it's the same scene (guy walks down the street, hears a noise, then another guy jumps out -- so that is omniscient). It doesn't matter if you put a blank line there, it's still one scene.

If there are two separate scenes, but the same setting, then a switch of POV is not omniscient. It's called a 3rd person rotated/shifting POV. Again, using Cinderella as an example:


She danced with the Prince. How dreamy this is. Is he going to kiss me? Suddenly she heard the grand clock strike. It can't be. She picked up her dress and ran. As she dashed down the staircase, one of her glass slippers slipped off. She ran back but the Prince was chasing her, so she abandoned the slipper and ran out of the door, got into the carriage. "Hurry," she told the driver. "Hurry before he sees me."
#
Everyone was hushed in the grand ballroom. The Prince entered with the glass slipper in his hand. Where did she go? Why did she run away? He looked up and saw his parents' faces, and he realized he must find the girl and marry her. But where, and how? He glanced at the slipper again and thought of something. Yes, the slipper. Only she can wear this slipper. I just need to find the girl whom this slipper will fit. With that thought he approached the King and the Queen. He had an announcement to make.


The two units (scenes) are each complete scenes. The setting is the same. but the POV characters are different. They're not reacting to the same events happening at the same time.

[azbikergirl]

The two units (scenes) are each complete scenes. The setting is the same. but the POV characters are different. They're not reacting to the same events happening at the same time. Yes! This is what I mean, exactly. Even in my Big Battle Scene where I switch POVs from scene to scene, each one picks up where the other left off -- there's no overlap of events:
1. Hero advances on Evil One, takes a beating.
2. Sidekick tries Plan B, takes a beating.
3. Evil One sees a weakness and exploits it.
4. Hero says Oh Crap and comes up with Plan C. etc.

[maestrowork]

Well, perhaps a better example of temporary omnicience would be a shift across town at the beginning of a new scene.

"Five blocks away, George stood waving off the steam from an overheated engine, "Now what do I do?"


No, the "Five blocks away" is not a POV shift. It's the narrator injecting his POV (remember, there's always a narrator POV as Reph mentioned). The POV is clearly George's here. There's no need to write "five blocks away." To write "five blocks away" is sloppy -- an narrative intrusion. But it's really not "omniscient" -- the narrator is always omniscient (how else he's going to tell the story from different POVs?). Here, this is what we call a "POV violation" because the POV character is supposed to be George, but the narrator injects his own POV here ("five blocks away" -- only the narrator knows that).

I think you misunderstand what a "POV shift" is. A POV shift doesn't have to be a transitional phrase like "five blocks away" or "two minutes have passed." Simply changing the scene with "George stood waving off the steam" is already a POV shift. The only time when the POV shift is not clear is if the previous POV character (say, John) is still in the new scene. In that case, the shift can be accomplished by using sensories:

"George felt the heat of the steam on his face, and he waved it off."

There's no ambiguity here. The POV has shifted to George.

[azbikergirl]

I consider changing from a third person subjective viewpoint to omniscient to be a POV shift. To me, narrator intrusion is more like:

He thought back to the night Sandra accused him of being a traitor -- in front of Darlene Johnson, his date, no less.

He already knows that Darlene was his date, so the clarification was solely for the reader's benefit.

[maestrowork]

I consider changing from a third person subjective viewpoint to omniscient to be a POV shift. To me, narrator intrusion is more like:

He thought back to the night Sandra accused him of being a traitor -- in front of Darlene Johnson, his date, no less.

He already knows that Darlene was his date, so the clarification was solely for the reader's benefit.

Well, yes and no. Sure it's for the readers' benefit, but I don't see it as a POV shift. I mean, I hear people say things like that all the time: "That night I went to the restaurant. My date, Darlene, was fifteen minutes late and I blew a gasket waiting for her..."

Even though the POV character tell us something he already knows, it's still within his point of view. There's no shift, in my opinion. I mean, if you change all the pronouns to "I," it would still work:

I thought back to the night Sandra accused me of being a traitor -- in front of Darlene Johnson, my date, no less.

I don't consider that "omniscient." Now "five blocks away" is omniscient because there's no way the POV character would know.


To eliminate confusion all together, we should probably establish the fact that Darlene is his date, instead of inserting something like that in a sentence.

[azbikergirl]

Sure it's for the readers' benefit, but I don't see it as a POV shift.
Me neither. To me that = author intrusion.

Now "five blocks away" is omniscient because there's no way the POV character would know.
Agreed! I was just saying that changing from 3rd person limited to omniscient is a POV violation -- IMHO. Some writers do this with great skill and nobody notices. I can't pull it off, however, so I don't even try. :D

[Mistook]

Everyone was hushed in the grand ballroom. The Prince entered with the glass slipper in his hand. Where did she go? Why did she run away? He looked up and saw his parents' faces, and he realized he must find the girl and marry her. But where, and how? He glanced at the slipper again and thought of something. Yes, the slipper. Only she can wear this slipper. I just need to find the girl whom this slipper will fit. With that thought he approached the King and the Queen. He had an announcement to make.


Maestro, how does the prince know that everyone is hushed in the grand ballroom before he enters?

I'm sure you could re-write it to avoid any whif of narrative intrusion, or you could rationalize that the doors were open, or that the noise of the ballroom could be heard through the closed doors, and thus, the prince knew all was quiet.

My point is that you don't have to worry about it, because three to seven words of narrative intrusion (deliberate or otherwise) between scenes isn't enough to trigger the tilt buzzer.

We're all familiar with the little yellow box in the corner that says, "Meanwhile, back at the ranch..." It's a convention that everybody understands from comics and movies, and In my opinion, there's no reason not to use it in novels, especially genre fiction, which is very closely related to pulp and comic forms.

----------

Again, I don't think it triggers the tilt buzzer because as Reph has so kindly articulated, the 3rd person narrator is a second mind that every reader assumes to be present throughout the novel.

[maestrowork]

Easily fixable:

The Prince entered the grand ballroom. Inside, everyone was hushed.

RE: comic books:

The problem is, comic books are "omniscient" by nature -- you have word bubbles and thought bubbles all over the place. The "Meanwhile, on the other side of town" works because the narrative voice is yet another "omniscient" view point.

But it's 3rd limited in novels we're talking about here. We need to stay close to the POV without author's intrusion. "Everyone was hushed" is not a POV violation, because as you said, it could be deduced through observed silence (the ballroom would be noisy if people are talking) or the door is opened, etc. The Prince could observe that -- it's just a matter of sentence placement. This is not the same as "five blocks away" because that's clearly something the POV character couldn't have known.

We can test that by doing what I just did -- by switching the two sentences. "The Prince entered the ballroom. Everyone was hushed" works just fine. But "George stood waving the steam from his face, five blocks away" still doesn't work.

[Mistook]

Easily fixed:

The Prince entered the grand ballroom. Everyone was hushed.

Okay, but the original version read better.

[Writing Again]

Readers have a blind spot: They do not analyze what they read. Writers have a blind spot, they learn to object to those things they have been told are wrong, and they forget how to read as readers do, simply for enjoymene.

If you want to know what purple prose looks like read Zane Grey, he was pounded by critics and writers alike. Did the public care? Obviously not, he was among the best selling writers of his day...And still considered worth reading.

If you want to know how far you can go switching povs in a single scene read Mary Higgins Clark and Danielle Steele.

When you seek advice listen to the voices of success.

[reph]

Okay, but the original version read better.
Wow, some people are hard to please.

"Prince Charming stepped into the grand ballroom and signaled the orchestra leader. At once the waltz ceased and the crowd of dancers quieted. The prince surveyed the scene...

[reph]

Okay, but the original version read better.
Wow, some people are hard to please.

"Prince Charming stepped into the grand ballroom and signaled the orchestra leader. At once the waltz ceased and the crowd of dancers quieted. The prince surveyed the scene and looked again at the glass slipper in his hand..."

[Writing Again]

Me neither. To me that = author intrusion.


Agreed! I was just saying that changing from 3rd person limited to omniscient is a POV violation -- IMHO. Some writers do this with great skill and nobody notices. I can't pull it off, however, so I don't even try. :D

Challenge yourself.

Remember how many people, men and women, say "Oh, I could never ride a motorcycle."

There was a time when you couldn't either, but you got on it and rode it. Now you don't even think about it, you just enjoy the wind.

The same is true with POV.

You can do it.

[maestrowork]

;)

As I said, "Everyone was hushed. Prince Charming entered the room..." is intrincit. We realized "everyone was hushed" must be through Prince Charming's perception, whether the writer specifically shows us all the details of "how he knows" or not.

It's not the same as "five blocks away." No matter how you dice and slice it, the POV character just couldn't know he was "five blocks away." That just can't be part of the POV observation or understanding.

[azbikergirl]

Challenge yourself.
There are so very many ways to challenge myself with writing, I prefer to put my energies into those aspects that have greater appeal to me. Floating from one head to another isn't one of them. Maybe later, when I've completely mastered everything else...
:roll:

In fact, the same goes for motorcycling. I could concentrate on mastering my street techniques, track techniques, stunt riding or dirt riding. For now, 100% of my time in the saddle is spent on the street so there's where I'll benefit most from practice and training. (Not to say that an occasional track day, such as October's Femmoto at Las Vegas Motor Speedway, won't be of tremendous value to my street riding!) ;)

P.S. Here's my baby: http://members.cox.net/fjrgirl/

[maestrowork]

That's a nice bike.

[Mistook]

;)

As I said, "...It's not the same as "five blocks away." No matter how you dice and slice it, the POV character just couldn't know he was "five blocks away." That just can't be part of the POV observation or understanding.


I never said it could. My point was, "five blocks away" really and truly is outside the POV... and in my opinion, that's okay to do. I am speaking in favor of floating "between" POV's in a temporary state of narrative voice.

"Everyone was hushed" is a toss-up. It's not necessarily author voice, but I'm saying that even if it was author voice, that would be wonderful, because when it works, author voice should be used just like any other tool in the box.

Between you and Reph, I'm not sure what we're arguing any more. I'm speaking in favor of author voice (when used in moderation). Is the outlook so frowned upon that it fails even to register?

[maestrowork]

Author voice is okay if you do it well... these are just guidelines. Many writers have done well with omniscient and author's intrusion (just read the Da Vinci Code -- it's full of author's intrusion, even though I wouldn't call Dan Brown's writing great). If you have established an "omniscient" narrative voice, then use it. The "meanwhile" or "five blocks away" or "little does he know..." It can work well with 3rd limited rotated POV if your narrative voice is not too intrusive.

But if you're using 3rd limited close POV (following the same POV characters) it's probably better you don't intrude with an omniscient narrator.

All this discussion is simply discussion. Remember: Do what works.