A POV question

[procrastiwriter]

What do people think about changing POV in a novel?

My idea is to have the very start and very end of the story in first person, but the guts of the novel in third person.

The start (first person) is a woman in a police station, with no clue how she got there. The middle (third person) is two weeks earlier, telling the story of how she got there and the end (back to first person) shows how things are resolved.

I can't think of anything I've read that has used this technique, though I'm sure it's been done. But does it work?

All thoughts welcome

 

[KTC]

Anything works if you do it well. I know it's been done. I can't off the top of my head think of any examples. I'm sure somebody will be along shortly with a list of examples, though.

 

[Bufty]

Anything will work if done well, but telling me at the outset that she has survived whatever it is I am going to read for the next X Chapters...............

 

[procrastiwriter]

Very good point Bufty!

I'm still very vague but I wan't planning on saying who the woman in the police station is, or what her connection is to the main story. She might well be the main character, but she could be somebody else...

 

[JanDarby]

There's nothing wrong with the structure, per se -- it's a variation on "bookends" or "frame" storytelling. But there are a couple practical considerations for you to contemplate.

First, if you start out in one POV (first person), and a reader looks at the book in a store, and reads the first page and thinks "Hmm, I like first person, and this is interesting," there's a risk that when she turns the page to the next chapter and it becomes third person, she's going to feel like she's been cheated, b/c she wanted a firist-person story. Not all readers will feel that way, but it's a risk. Make sure the advantages of this technique outweigh the risk. Oh, and you also run the related risk of turning off any reader who dislikes first person, even though the bulk of the book is in third person, b/c they won't see it when they read the first page or two to decide whether to buy it, and there are readers with a distinct aversion to first person.

Second, if you start the story out of chronological order, there are other risks. If it's obvious that the person with amnesia is the heroine (although you say it will be vague), then, as Bufty said, you've pretty much given away all the suspense of whether she'll survive her ordeal. Alternatively, if it's not clear that she's the heroine, then there's a risk that (as with the change of POV), the reader will pick up the book and read the first page and think, "Hmm, I like this character and I want to spend 400 pages with her," and then she turns the page to the next chapter and, as far as she can tell, she's presented with a NEW character, and she's thinking, "Hey, I liked the other person, and I want to know what happened to her, not to some new person that I may or may not want to spend 400 pages with." Again, not all readers will react that way, but it's a risk, that you need to consider and make sure that your technique is worth that risk.

JD

 

[Carmy]

It can work well. In some stories, the third-person body of work becomes a flashback. I've read several novels written that way and I'm working on one using that technique.

Some authors sprinkle first-person sections throughout novels. The only one that comes to mind right now is Mists of Avalon.

Good luck.

 

[JimmyB27]

There's nothing wrong with the structure, per se -- it's a variation on "bookends" or "frame" storytelling. But there are a couple practical considerations for you to contemplate.

First, if you start out in one POV (first person), and a reader looks at the book in a store, and reads the first page and thinks "Hmm, I like first person, and this is interesting," there's a risk that when she turns the page to the next chapter and it becomes third person, she's going to feel like she's been cheated, b/c she wanted a firist-person story.

Not that much of a risk, she's already bought it by then. Mwuahahahah!

Second, if you start the story out of chronological order, there are other risks. If it's obvious that the person with amnesia is the heroine (although you say it will be vague), then, as Bufty said, you've pretty much given away all the suspense of whether she'll survive her ordeal.
JD

I don't see this as a problem either. I'm currently reading through Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe novels. I know Sharpe survives every one, because he has to come back for the next. The suspense is in precisely how he survives the seemingly impossible situation, and how he overcomes the odds to win.

 

[Cheryll]

I'm about half-way through Dean Koontz' Intensity. Perfect example of how you can switch voice all through the book and not lose the reader.

As others have said, you can do most anything if you do it well.

Cheryll

 

[Dr. Zeus]

I don't see this as a problem either. I'm currently reading through Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe novels. I know Sharpe survives every one, because he has to come back for the next. The suspense is in precisely how he survives the seemingly impossible situation, and how he overcomes the odds to win.

Good point. Another example is Robert Deniro's charactor in Casino.

They start the movie in the present and flash back to the beginning. But even as the plots twist, you know Deniro survives, stays out of jail, keeps his money, and remains on top of things, because in the beginning scene he introduces himself and the story while smoking a cigarette outside a casino lobby and wearing an expensive suit.

 

[RG570]

Cory Doctorow did this a few times in Someone Comes To Town, Someone Leaves Town. It was quite seamless and ehnahced the impact of the events pertaining to it.

 

[JanDarby]

Not that much of a risk, she's already bought it by then.

Don't forget, though, that you want her to read the NEXT book and the next and the next, too, and if she has thrown the first book at a wall, she's going to remember the author's name and NOT buy the next book (or any others by that author).

You may think a given risk is worthwhile, and that's a perfectly valid conclusion, but I'm just suggesting that decisions with respect to storytelling techniques aren't subject to a simple yes or no answer that applies to all situations, but require a sort of cost-benefit analysis, comparing the pros and cons: what are you gaining by using a given technique and what are you losing (or risking losing)?

JD

 

[JimmyB27]

Don't forget, though, that you want her to read the NEXT book and the next and the next, too, and if she has thrown the first book at a wall, she's going to remember the author's name and NOT buy the next book (or any others by that author).

You may think a given risk is worthwhile, and that's a perfectly valid conclusion, but I'm just suggesting that decisions with respect to storytelling techniques aren't subject to a simple yes or no answer that applies to all situations, but require a sort of cost-benefit analysis, comparing the pros and cons: what are you gaining by using a given technique and what are you losing (or risking losing)?

JD

Yeah, I know - that was meant to be a tongue-firmly-in-cheek comment

 

[JonnyBGood]

Read The Testament, by John Grisham.

Chapter 1: 1st person
Rest: 3rd person

 

[JustinThorne]

Every writer should read Jeff Vandermeer's City of Saints and Madmen... the guy writes in every POV and every tense and even presents one tale in an academic journal style, complete with references.

Tremendous.

 

[procrastiwriter]

Thanks to everyone for feedback!

I'm going to check out a couple of the books mentioned here and have a good think about what this approach would achieve.

 

[Marlowe]

Stephen King used the exact same structure in Christine.

 

[Akuma]

There's a brief example of this in American Psycho, during the chase scene. For that story, it indicates a change of menatl gears in the pro's head, sort of like he's swtiching into insanity (or watching himself from afar). He returns to normal afterwards.