What is your opinion on multiple POVs (3rd person)

vhilal said:

Hi, I've written a speculative fiction novel, and I've been told to "watch out for multiple POVs"--that agents (and readers) hate them.

Click to expand...

I've never heard this. Most romance novels are written in two povs at least (the FMC and MMC), and it's pretty normal in epic fantasy and in many thrillers. Some mysteries also switch between viewpoint characters, and I've read mainstream and contemporary fiction where this technique is used as well. Maybe it's less popular in some genres than others, but I've seen it done quite frequently in the genres I tend to read. This doesn't mean all readers and agents like it as a rule, nor does it mean all will agree on when it works best for a story, but this "advice" doesn't sound to me like it's coming from a well-read or well-informed place.

This doesn't mean there aren't techniques that are generally best practices when switching narrative viewpoint, or that one should switch povs "just because" or give every secondary and support character pov time. It doesn't mean it isn't challenging to pull novels with many (say more than three or so) pov characters off, but it's a perfectly legitimate technique if it's needed to tell the story at hand.

Now I've read posts by members claiming that every possible pov is "hated" by agents (and readers).

"Don't write in a single first-person viewpoint, because many agents and readers hate it, besides it's too limiting to keep a story in one viewpoint throughout."

"Don't write in multi first, because it's gimmicky and too hard to get the voices right, besides, lots of people hate it."

"Don't write in omniscient third, because many agents and readers think it's too impersonal and old fashioned."

"Don't write a single limited third pov, because it's too limiting, and anyway, you might as well write in first person if you are going to do that."

And now, "Don't write in multiple-limited-third viewpoint, because lots of agents and readers hate it."

And of course hating on second person is a time-honored tradition.

Nonetheless, novels written in all of these narrative viewpoints continue to be written and published, even by new writers. All have their challenges and their detractors, but all are the best choice for some stories. New writers who do a good job and select the narrative viewpoint (and number of viewpoint characters) that works best for their stories (and who have a certain amount of luck and timing on their sides) continue to find agents and sell books.

There used to be a member here who insisted that critique partners and beta readers and the study of writing advice were harmful, and writers should just write and submit to agents. They said that only an editor at whichever publisher picked the writer up should provide input about their work. I disagreed vehemently with this person and still do, but I sometimes see his point. There is so much soul-killingly bad writing advice out there, and there is an endless stream of newer writers who post asking if it's "okay" to use some perfectly legitimate technique a critting partner, beta reader, friend, or writing blogger insists is against the "rules" or is the universally hated kiss of death for manuscripts.

If it's wrong, I'm wrong too!

I'm too close to the subject to answer objectively, but I was relieved to read some of you think it's perfectly acceptable if the story calls for it.

My novel is also written in multiple POVs (2). I wrote different voices in different chapters. I think my story called for it because there was a plot point never exposed to the MC, but nessecary to move everything along.

As another poster said, I like it. It's how i wanted to tell the story and how I thought it best told.

As a reader, I echo what other posters have said, if it's done well it can be really marvelous (i.e. The Time Travellers Wife).

Piers Anthony did it unbelievably well with different voices in different novels in the Incarnations of Immortality series.

Just my $.02.

Roxxsmom said:

There is so much soul-killingly bad writing advice out there, and there is an endless stream of newer writers who post asking if it's "okay" to use some perfectly legitimate technique a critting partner, beta reader, friend, or writing blogger insists is against the "rules" or is the universally hated kiss of death for manuscripts.

Click to expand...

Hell to the yeah.

I'm wary of multiple POVs. As a reader, sometimes they're great, sometimes they're not. My preference is for a single or very limited number of POVs. The minds of others, as has been said, can be gotten across in other ways. In fact, discovering the motivations of characters -- through action, description and dialog -- without necessarily being in their minds or seeing through their eyes is one of the fun things about fiction. Too much knowingness can spoil a story.

A wonderful example is Charles Portis' "True Grit." Mattie Ross is the sole narrator but there are many scenes where you know what the other characters are thinking and why they do what they do (even though Mattie does not!). The effect is often hilarious and sometimes tense or frightening.

There are sooo many books with multiple POVs.

As an example, “The Underground Railroad” by Colson Whitehead has ‘em and it won the Pulitzer, National Book Award and Arthur C. Clarke Award. Oh, and it was a #1 NYT bestseller. Published within the last couple of years too.

Like anything in writing, execution is key.

I use multiple povs because for me the differing perceptions is the point.

Current project was meant to be single POV but still devolved into dual POV (imbalanced, 30/70).

What isn't said is absolutely a very strong thing to draw on... But I'd argue you can multiply that effect across many povs.

Just depends what you're going for.

Harlequin said:

I use multiple povs because for me the differing perceptions is the point.

Click to expand...

This is my opinion as well.

Are the invading armies an occupying force bent on conquest? Or a liberating force? Is this resistance made up of heroic freedom fighters or criminal terrorists?

Those are dramatic examples, but it's that sort of conflicting viewpoint that interests me when I write multi-PoV manuscripts.

I'd certainly agree that multiple POVs are common - certainly in the broader fantasy genre, but also in SF. Wheel of Time and Game of Thrones are the obvious examples, but even the Discworld novels often do it, as to many of the Star Wars novels (EU novels, I should say). Ok, that's not speculative but it still shows that mainstream agents and publishers will take them. But, I second the members above who point out that you need consistently - each of my examples are cases where an entire scene/chapter is written specifically from the POV of one character - and each author makes sure we quickly know who we're "with" - GoT tags every single chapter with the Main Protags name.

I'd also say that even if you've given Character B a whole scene or chapter, you should ensure that we learn something about B during their piece - we shouldn't just be in B's head to find out what they feel about Character A. It doesn't stop you from touching on A but, for example, we don't just want to hear what B thinks of A, we don't want to just re-tread Chapter 12 (which we walked through with A) with B - we want to know how what A did in Chapter 12 makes B's life harder and how B is changing/having to adapt to that and what they think about A now.

Also, don't just drop us into B for that one-shot. Take us back to B later. We don't want to be in B's head for one scene only, which simply serves to tell us that A is pretty; then have a one-time visit to C to find out A reminds C of C and then take our only trip to D to learn that D knows A is The Chosen One.

And avoid the mid-scene flip. The quickest example that comes to mind is that short bit in the middle of Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone, in the Quidditch match, where we go mid-scene from Harry's 3rd person POV, drop into 3rd person omni for a couple of chapters and then 3rd person-Hermione so we can see her solve the broomstick problem and then go back into Harry's head - where we stay for the next 2-and-a-half books. It was confusing, and utterly bizarre and remains her only example of ever doing that (because the few other scenes where we leave Harry's POV are entire chapters within their respective books) and it's disruptive to the narrative even when one is listening to the amazing Stephen Fry doing everything in his power to make it seamless.

I'm certainly not opposed to multiple POVs. Exploring different perspectives is one of the great things about fiction. Lonesome Dove is one of my favorite novels and McMurtry is quite a head-hopper. An instructor once offered an example snippet from the novel with three points of view in one paragraph. But sometimes uncovering different perspectives by the protag is part of the point of a story. A hero might be fighting terrorists, for example, and come to learn to see things from their perspective. It might actually diminish the impact to write scenes from the terrorist's perspective.

The only time I dislike multiple POVs is when they switch roughly every three paragraphs.

But sometimes uncovering different perspectives by the protag is part of the point of a story. A hero might be fighting terrorists, for example, and come to learn to see things from their perspective. It might actually diminish the impact to write scenes from the terrorist's perspective.

Click to expand...

It's also tempting to put the camera on the villains to see what evils are in the making... but sometimes it's more interesting to keep the reader in the dark along with MC, so have to guess at what evils are unfolding together. It's never fun to have all the answers right at the start.

Almost all the books I really like or love are multiple POVs.

Single POV stories can feel too small to me, especially if the author held strictly to only what that POV did or knew at that moment in the story. The single experience can get boring or flat after a while even if it's done well in a technical sense. I was recently reading a single POV 3d person that felt so me, me, me after a while, though it was beautifully written. A single 1st person POV can feel very egotistical after awhile, especially if it isn't done brilliantly.

First person POV that takes a long view is different; someone narrating from years later can weave in the stories of other people, giving everything a bigger feel like a good multiple POV story can. I like the changing perspectives as long as it's truly needed for the story the author wants to tell. It broadens the scope and gives me as the reader more insights into the story world. This is all totally subjective and just my opinion.

What I have heard from agents is that authors should beware of multiple POVs that muddy the central storyline. In general, the story centers on someone in particular. One of those POVs is dominant. (Not always, of course!). In romance books, for instance, you have a standard dual POV but the woman is usually the protagonist, the driving force, the one who has the most at stake. Stories with an epic scope like in a fantasy series or a family saga may not have a single protagonist, and that's fine too. But in general, stories with a smaller scope tend to lean toward a single character even if there are multiple POVs.

It's up to the author to be sure the multiple is needed, and that the primary story (the protagonist) isn't being buried under unnecessary detail in the other POVs. I'm guilty of this, and have had to do some painful cuts in POVs that were downgraded (or cut altogether) so that the main POV had the space to breath and develop. It's a matter of maintaining focus.

But again, as others said, if multiple is needed, go for it. It makes for a richer story, in my opinion.

Do it but do it well, and only for the main characters. For the minor ones, switch to the narrator who will tell you about the person's story. It's very good for building a back story and most of the best novelists I read use it as a tactic.

I feel like nearly half of everything I read is multiple 3rd person.

I've read a lot of traditionally published books with 3rd person multiple POV - I don't think they're hated at all. Maybe it's that it can be easy to get them wrong (repeating information, feeling unnecessary etc.)?

The biggest problem I've seen in manuscripts that use multiple POVs isn't just the multiple POVs. It's the lack of control over any single POV, which leads to a sense of undisciplined head-hopping. Every narrative POV employed in a story must be controlled on an individual basis. Every. Single. One. And a lot of inexperienced writers just struggle with the concept of POV in general. I've seen manuscripts where it was clear that the writer didn't even know what narrative point-of-view meant.

That said, it is also possible to have just plain too many POVs and POV switches, which can get tiresome for a reader., even if they are done well individually.

caw

My counter to that is they'd struggle with single pov too.

I've alternately been told that first person is the hardest to write, but that multi third is definitely the hardest. I would have thought it depends on the type of writer involved!

All that said, my most common bugbear with multi pov in beta reading is the author's inability to move the plot forward. Everything gets stuck in a rut of making sure all chars get their say. I mention this as a separate thing from nailing pov full stop; I think you can nail a character and a pov, and still stall your story.

Even in multi pov the chars having their say should (imo) come second fiddle to the story going somewhere. Novels which use multi pov right, generally seem to use it to keep momentum going (at least that is my experience as a reader). Fast-forwarding to significant events on different character time lines, sort of, and moving between them to skip the stuff in the middle.

I don't know if any of that makes sense

The more POVs the tougher it is keep the story moving, the characters interesting. Switching between the viewpoints is a problem we have to solve. Are we switching too early or too late? Have we made the switch smoothly or clumsily? And so on.

I tend to stay to close third: inside or near my main character. Occasionally I'll go up to omniscient, but rarely very far up and away from my main character.

I love a great multi-protagonist POV story, especially in a genre where it isn't common. My advice is: only use it if you have a good reason for using it.

Here's a question: for those of you who write multiple POVs, how do you determine which POVs are truly necessary to the story?

Sometimes I find single POV challenging (like a blindfolded, one-handed swordfight), because at times it would be *easier* to convey information to the reader if I took on an additional POV. However, sometimes I feel like adding POVs is like a shortcut, and with enough examination, I can find clever ways to convey that information with a single POV. Usually. So I'm curious about that fine line between economy and self-flagellation.

blackcat777 said:

Here's a question: for those of you who write multiple POVs, how do you determine which POVs are truly necessary to the story?

Click to expand...

Empathy! That's my answer to everything.

You POV the characters you want the reader to empathize with. It's easiest to empathize with them when you "see the world through their eyes": experience what they experience. Extra POVs could detract from empathy, not only by dilution, but by making your experience of the main POV unrealistic. If you experience a scene from main character's POV, but because of another POV you know something they don't, then you don't accurately empathize with the main POV character. Controlling this is key to multiple POVs. The simplest solution is to first reveal information while in the POV of the character to whom it is most significant.

I'm writing romance, and quite often you want the reader to empathize with both partners. The reader may identify more strongly with one of the two, but in romance we like to experience both loving and being loved, so empathy with the other character is also important. In an adventure there's probably a main protagonist you want to empathize with, but there may be companions interesting enough to get their own POV. You might even want to empathize with the villain, to see both sides of the story. Don't POV the villain just to foreshadow, "Mwahaha, look what's in store for our unsuspecting heroes."

blackcat777 said:

Here's a question: for those of you who write multiple POVs, how do you determine which POVs are truly necessary to the story?

Click to expand...

I wish I had a nice, neat answer to that, but the truth is, for me, I began adding viewpoints to my story when a character would start speaking to me, indicating that their story needed to be told. I don't mean they literally started talking to me or that I hear voices in my head, but when I'd sit down to write, words and scenes would start flowing from their POV. They had something to say. And so I'd braid their story into the main story. And (once again, for me) that's key: a POV character needs to have his or her own story arc. I don't use a character's POV just for convenience and definitely not because all the characters need to have their say. Some get a voice; most are shown through the eyes of others.

Harlequin said:

I've alternately been told that first person is the hardest to write, but that multi third is definitely the hardest. I would have thought it depends on the type of writer involved!

Click to expand...

I would guess so, too. Third or multi-third feels natural to me, and I manage the latter without head-hopping, by making sure I have clean and easily identifiable scene breaks, by not 'info-dumping' to catch up on what one character's been up to while we've not been in their head... etc.

But first-person... while I can sometimes get a bit of a flow going, there are times when I'll stumble at little things that would've come easy in third, especially if I'm writing more experimentally in first-person present tense. I'll wonder, "Did I just phrase any of that sentence correctly?" Not quite so bad in first-past, but definitely harder than third.

blackcat777 said:

Here's a question: for those of you who write multiple POVs, how do you determine which POVs are truly necessary to the story?

Click to expand...

I already know the main MCs before I start writing. If, during writer, another character demands a section of the story be told from their POV, and I can actually map out something of an arc for them in my head that is relevant or important to the main arc, then I just go with it. If, on the other hand, I can imagine removing their POV without detriment to or compromise of the story, then I don't bother. For example, I'd rarely have a character's POV if they only ever had one scene. I made that mistake in one of my stories, telling a scene from the POV of a character representing Ernst Röhm, the head of Sturmabteilung. I needed to establish that he 1) survived the Night of the Long Knives, and 2) was now working against Hitler. Seemed sensible to tell his scene from his POV, but there was another character present in that scene, one who will have a little more relevance to other, later, scenes, that I should've told it from.

That's what second drafts are for

blackcat777 said:

Here's a question: for those of you who write multiple POVs, how do you determine which POVs are truly necessary to the story?

Click to expand...

Scope and contrast.

Scope: I might ask questions like --How much of the story world do I want the reader to see? What issues or themes are developing in the story, and which characters are experiencing them the most intensely and dramatically? The protagonist isn't necessarily going to be everywhere. The camera can be removed from his or her shoulder and placed elsewhere if it serves the story as a whole *and is crucial to the protagonist's external or internal arc.* This last bit helps me keep focused.

Contrast: A strategic change in POV can be jarring, dramatic, powerful. I read a book recently about a woman nursing an old friend who is dying of cancer. It's her POV in the story present and in flashbacks of her relationship with the friend. But every once in a while, the friend was able to have a short POV all in his head (he can rarely talk with his illness), which deepened the whole story and was very moving because these are some of his last thoughts as he lays dying.

Sometimes it helps to read about how famous authors looked at POV in their works. In Graham Greene's "The Heart of the Matter," there was originally a POV from the protagonist's wife, but Greene cut it when the book was published. He'd thought that chapter violated the focus on the protagonist. Years later he re-inserted that chapter for a reprint, because without the chapter, readers had formed the wrong impression of the wife. She was only filtered through the POVs of her admirer and the protagonist/her husband, who both in their ways got her wrong. Greene decided that POV needed to be there to re-establish the balance he'd originally wanted among the characters in the story as a whole.

blackcat777 said:

Here's a question: for those of you who write multiple POVs, how do you determine which POVs are truly necessary to the story?

Sometimes I find single POV challenging (like a blindfolded, one-handed swordfight), because at times it would be *easier* to convey information to the reader if I took on an additional POV. However, sometimes I feel like adding POVs is like a shortcut, and with enough examination, I can find clever ways to convey that information with a single POV. Usually. So I'm curious about that fine line between economy and self-flagellation.

Click to expand...

Balancing what I want versus what I need, looking at hte roles they fill.

I have two main arcs; emotional and plot. I wanted twin protagonists (one privileged, one not, within their society); mostly they follow the emotional arc and are unaware of the background plot. A third pov was a character who was completely disconnected from the emotional arc and carries most of the plot. A fourth pov bridges the two and links both arcs towards the end.

The fifth pov is somewhat self-contained, and mostly serves to explain the world to the characters. I imagine most people would say that's a bad reason for a pov character to exist, but then most people haven't read the MS; the majority of people who have, tend to agree that she's necessary. She's the only one who has cause or ability to do so, and is the closest thing to a human in the setting, so the most relatable.

I started with 3 povs and cautiously expanded to 5. With each addition there was a huge jump in story clarity and I'm happy with that. They're all very different. One of the things I like is they have different strengths; I can mix talky characters with action-oriented ones. Otherwise those elements would imbalance.