"Personal" question(s) to John Jarrold

[Teresa Edgerton]

This concept that limited POV is vital (or we slip into the hell of "head-hopping") is very big very suddenly. I'd call it a lit fad, like "multiPOV's are the new adverbs".

Usually those things are blathered about among people with little actual experience, and snowball up on re-telling.

I'm not John, but the first person who ever mentioned to me that it was desirable to stick to one POV per scene was my first editor, Terri Windling. She's won numerous awards, so I wouldn't call her someone with little actual experience.

That said, I agree that it's one of those things, like adverbs (I am a firm friend to the adverb), that people can get unnecessarily hung up on. Older authors used to handle frequent POV shifts so gracefully that nobody noticed. But it's hard to do right (and when it's done badly, it does give an impression of hopping from head to head), and as such it's something that inexperienced writers should probably avoid. I think it's one of those things that most people only notice when it is done badly -- otherwise it goes right past them.

 

[Hilarious Joke]

I massively detest the adverb.

 

[Troo]

Adverbs suck. As does multi-PoV when not done well.

That's really the key. Anything can stink to high heaven if you do it poorly. The trouble with multi-PoV is that most people do it poorly because they've not yet come to grips with how PoV actually works, and are doing omnipresent third person because they don't realise they're doing it.

 

[Gary Compton]

I like big words like "omnipresent" cos I don't know what they mean but with some help from my dictionary I do now. Thanks Troo

From a newbie who didn't understand POV or even multi POV until I had my first draft edited by the master (JJ) I think listening to John, Troo and Teresa is the way forward for a new writer - start with the basics.

I am sure John will say Iain Banks is a very talented writer and he sets the benchmark that we all have to aspire to! But it has taken him years to achieve his level of wordsmithery.

 

[lin robinson]

Usually

Usually

As in the expression, "Usually...."

 

[lin robinson]

As does multi-PoV when not done well

ANYTHING sucks when not done well. Singling out something, then saying it's only horrendous, mindkilling fiend when not done well is specious.

 

[Tirellan]

The Fafrhd and Grey Mouser stories POV shift like hell -but they are still a seminal work in S+S

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Singling out something, then saying it's only horrendous, mindkilling fiend when not done well is specious.

I've never actually heard anyone put it in those terms, or anything like them. In fact, I've heard people get a lot more vehement in their condemnation of adjectives and adverbs.

Having been a member of quite a few critique groups and workshops in my time, I would have to say that the use of clumsy POV shifts is one of the most common mistakes made by beginning writers. I think this is why people get it into their heads that it's something you should never, never do.



As for Fafrhd and the Grey Mouser, Fritz Leiber belonged to a generation of writers who understood how to do these things correctly, without giving their readers the dizzy impression that they're frantically hopping from head to head.

 

[lin robinson]

That phrase "head-hopping" has popped up in the recent few years. An example of the critical fad I mentioned.

It's ********. Readers aren't as stupid as writing teachers want writers to think.


But you know.... who I'd really like to see say something about this is John.

 

[lin robinson]

I'm not saying that to be insistent, by the way.
Just that I've seen a lot of opinions on this by I'm interested in his.

 

[Gary Compton]

John is obviosly busy I am sure he will share his opinion when he is ready

 

[Havlen]

Readers aren't as stupid as writing teachers want writers to think.

I can't recall any writing teachers treating readers as stupid, but they may very well assume a certain amount of ignorance on writing -- and rightfully so.

I know there are a lot of books out there that I find difficult to read now because I've focused more on writing compared to when I didn't know as much about writing. As writers, we are also editors, and (hopefully) it becomes easier to spot errors in writing -- which makes writing that has a lot of errors more difficult to read.

As for the whole PoV-switching debate, I agree that a lot more emphasis is put on not switching point of views now then I remember in the past. But I agree with Teresa -- this just happens to be one of the common mistakes made by beginning writers.

It's like every other rule -- any writing rule can be broken if you know what you are doing -- but until you know what you are doing, don't break the rule.

Or, put another way, if you are wondering if you can break the rule, then you shouldn't break it. If you know you can break the rule, then go for it.

 

[Troo]

ANYTHING sucks when not done well. Singling out something, then saying it's only horrendous, mindkilling fiend when not done well is specious.

Adverbs suck. As does multi-PoV when not done well.

That's really the key. Anything can stink to high heaven if you do it poorly.

Quick. I'm getting deja vu.

 

[John Jarrold]

I like mixed POV - as I've said before, George R R Martin is my favourite of the present fantasy authors and he uses many POV characters - but switching POV within a scene can be very confusing. As an editor, I always say: one POV character per scene. If your POV switches, that's a new scene and you need a line-break to denote that. And obviously you can't do that every few lines.

There are changes in matters like this over the years, so a new writer needs to look at authors who have come to prominence over the last five to ten years, not those like Leiber (who I love) or other longer-term writers. That gives you an idea of where the editorial side of the genre is, as well as which areas are considered commercial in 2008.

 

[TheEndIsNigh]

I confess the one POV per scene had me confused, thanks for clarifying the point.

When you say

"And obviously you can't do that every few lines"

Is this an absolute. In my current effort I have several characters that quite often stick their six penneth into discussions and tactical situations. In those cases I like to give their thoughts and utterances (that may or may not be not be the same ) at various points within the scenario.

As in :-

Joe looked at the sad excuse for a man, pathetically struggling to regain his composer after his overwhelming defeat.

"Call youself a man?" Joe taunted.

"Stu... Stuff you," Fred spattered, wishing now he'd used the hot poker when he had had the chance.

Off the cuff probably rubbish but is the idea OK?

Or should I just give up now and find something else to do.

 

[John Jarrold]

No, I definitely would not do that as you have written it: only one POV character per scene.

There are occasions, in action scenes, where intercutting POVs is possible - but even then, not every line and only with a line-break in between.

 

[Gary Compton]

I am reading Dan Brown's Deception Point and was suprised at the length of some chapters, 2 pages in places.

In total he has 108 chapters across 580 pages. Is there a set size for a chapter or is it down to the author?

 

[John Jarrold]

Nope, no set length. Most authors vary chapter length through a novel (some scenes are simply longer than others, and varying pace is a Very Good Thing). If you look at a range of other thriller writers - say, Lee Child, Dennis Lehane and John Sandford - you'll see that. Never base your thoughts on anything regarding parameters in publishing on only one writer.

 

[Havlen]

Off the cuff probably rubbish but is the idea OK?

You definitely do not want to switch POV in the middle of dialogue like that. Try getting the thoughts of the character conveyed through the language used in the dialogue or through the thoughts of the other character.

You could try something like:

"Stu... Stuff you," Fred spattered.

Fred always stuttered when he got angry. It was one of the things Joe really liked about him -- it made him easy to read.

Also, I would tend to avoid writing "Joe taunted" and "Fred spattered" myself. "Joe said" and "Fred said" are a lot stronger -- if you don't know that Joe is taunting or Fred is (spattering?) then the dialogue and scene should be modified to reflect it.

(These are just my opinions, of course.)

 

[Gary Compton]

Nope, no set length. Most authors vary chapter length through a novel (some scenes are simply longer than others, and varying pace is a Very Good Thing). If you look at a range of other thriller writers - say, Lee Child, Dennis Lehane and John Sandford - you'll see that. Never base your thoughts on anything regarding parameters in publishing on only one writer.

Do you think chapters should be named?