Anyone object to using two POVs in the same story?

I'd wonder if those 3rd person chapters are really necessary.

James Patterson does it all the time, especially with his Alex Cross novels. I used it in a YA sci-fi thriller I wrote. I say go for it.

Lots of writers do this. It's not at all unusual. But there are also a lot of writers who adhere to strict first-person narrative, and make that work very well, too.

So, I'd echo the caution Hapax gave, above. Without seeing your story, it's impossible to tell, one way or another. But beware of "the reader needs to know this" thinking. It can lead to all manner of morass for the writer. Among the worst is shifting to a different POV solely for the reason of providing the reader information. Why does your audience need to know something your initial first-person narrator doesn't?

caw

blacbird said:

Lots of writers do this. It's not at all unusual. But there are also a lot of writers who adhere to strict first-person narrative, and make that work very well, too.

So, I'd echo the caution Hapax gave, above. Without seeing your story, it's impossible to tell, one way or another. But beware of "the reader needs to know this" thinking. It can lead to all manner of morass for the writer. Among the worst is shifting to a different POV solely for the reason of providing the reader information. Why does your audience need to know something your initial first-person narrator doesn't?

caw

Click to expand...

Gotta agree with Da Bird (caw) but there are two ways the tension can go

The reader finds stff out as the first POV does. OMG WHAT WILL HAPPEN!

OR

The reader knows something the first POV is oblivious too, which can also (depending ) lead to OMG WHAT WILL HAPPEN, depending on what it is. (I refer you to the scene in the Hitchcock film Sabotage where WE know there's a bomb on the bus set to go off at Time X. The people on the bus do not....and the clock ticks towards Time X and...*bites nails*) ETA: This generally works better in thrillers/crime etc, though it can work in other genres too. It generally works better if the reader is not cast iron certain This Guy will survive

If the reader knows here is a maniac knife wielding guy behind that door he's about to open, and he's just whistling his way to work..that could actually add to tension.

So could him discovering a knife wielding maniac hovering over his beloved poodle and it's as much a surprise to him as to us.

Either CAN work. But it's impossible to say whether they WILL work for your book without seeing it. Try to think of books/films that have used both, and work out why they used that way not another. Whether it worked or not.

There is nothing wrong with using two (or more) povs in one story, even two first-person povs. But I would think about why you're doing it. If I had a pov character I was only going to "use" for a scene or two, because I needed to show the reader something the main pov didn't know, I might consider finding another way to get it across. My preference is for all pov characters to have arcs or threads that are a major part of the overall story, either in parallel, or in terms of weaving together. I tend to feel a bit cheated by "throwaway" povs as a reader.

Now if there is a whole other (interesting story) which the "main" pov character is unaware of for a long time, that may be different. Think about whether some of the suspense in your story stems from the reader wondering what will happen when these two people finally level with each other (or one finds out the other is lying) versus being kept in the dark along with the pov.

Personally, i'd find it a bit awkward to switch between 1st and 3rd in the same story, so if i were to have multiple POVs, i would write them all in 3rd.

I just find it can be a bit jarring, as a reader, to switch between modes, even if i'm starting a new book entirely. I will forget all about it pretty quickly, but i still don't like the transition.

Having said that, i'm sure there are plenty of examples of popular books that have done it. Most people are probably more adaptable than i am.

I've seen books that have alternated between first and third. I think the only reason it'd annoy me was if the third person POV wasn't introduced from or near the start and was only brought in to shore up gaps in the first person narrative.

Stanton said:

Good points from all. Thanks. I'm writing an espionage thriller. The key to this question, as some have pointed out, is does this 'hybrid' POV increase the suspense. I believe it does. Still, I have to do that without annoying the reader.

Click to expand...

I agree with Flibble's astute comments, too. But, just for grins, I'll say that, as a reader, I find not knowing anything the first-person narrator doesn't know to be far more suspenseful than knowing what he doesn't know. Maybe that's because I read a lot of mysteries, most of which work suspense in that manner. But for some really good espionage/thriller novels that do NOT give the reader anything the narrative character doesn't know:

The Ipcress File, Len Deighton (made into an excellent movie with a young Michael Caine back in the late 1960s)

Watcher in the Shadows, by Geoffrey Household

The Spy Who Came In from the Cold, by John LeCarré

Six Days of the Condor, whose author slips my feeble mind at the moment, but also made into an excellent suspenseful movie starring Robert Redford, and reduced to only Three Days.

The Ministry of Fear, by Graham Greene. Greene had a background in Intelligence services, and transformed that experience into just about the finest body of literary work anyone ever has. Several others of his novels deal with espionage and suspense.

caw

I just finished a writer's workshop and one thing they said was to watch out for thinking you had to write another POV in order to show things the first-person MC doesn't know about. If you want the story to be first-person, you can't show things the MC doesn't know about. This can add tension, because the reader finds out at the same time the MC does. Plot details can be unfolded gradually, as the MC figures things out, or certain details can be revealed suddenly, as a big shock to the MC.

Basically, if the only reason you're adding a POV character is to show things the MC isn't aware of, it's probably a bad idea.

If you decide you absolutely need another POV character, he needs to be a fully-fleshed out character in his own right, with needs/desires/goals, motivations, challenges, growth, etc. Don't just throw someone into the story, but plan it out, give him a purpose, and give him both a story arc and a character arc.

blacbird said:

Six Days of the Condor, whose author slips my feeble mind at the moment, but also made into an excellent suspenseful movie starring Robert Redford, and reduced to only Three Days.

Click to expand...

Budget cuts for you.

The novel was by James Grady.