Point of View

[Theleb K]

I've heard editors complain about switching POV within a piece. What do people think about this? Surely it depends on what's going on and how you're telling the story?

For example, some narratives just deal with one principle character's perspective whilst others might want to get inside the heads of a few different characters. I have read perfectly good stories where the narrative 'voice' is quite removed - like that of an observer looking in and watching how a situation involving a number of participants unfolds.
I have also read stories where the action develops solely from one person's POV almost like a first person account. Is it just a question of style?

 

[Culhwch]

It's a question of what suits a story. If the work is a sweeping epic about a number of factions across a vast continent, you're going to need a few points of view. If it's entirely set in one town and is centred around a single character, on the other hand, one is sufficient. I find it hard to believe that editors in general have an issue with multiple points of view - just thinking about the current market, possibly the two most successful fantasists, Martin and Erikson, both favour multiple points of view.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Multiple POV through the course of the book is popular right now. Changing POV within one scene is the thing that is frowned on.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

Like has been said before, it can be effective when used in moderation.


Not only that, but to describe multiple characters, one probably almost needs to switch POV.....

 

[Theleb K]

Thanks all for your thoughts.

Multiple POV through the course of the book is popular right now. Changing POV within one scene is the thing that is frowned on.

Is it always so bad? What about for an intense confrontation between two characters, neither of whom is 'central' to the story as a whole?

 

[Peedee]

It's not bad, it's just that it's so easy to do badly. That's the trick. when I edited, and read slushpiles (there's fun for you), I'd see stories where they would be nearly slip-sliding between points of view, and mostly it took away from the stories. It jarred.

On the other hand, off the top of my head, I can think of some well-known writers who regularly wander points of view within a given scene: Neil Gaiman, Charles de Lint, Terry Pratchett. (examples respectively, are Anansi boys, Moonheart, and Thud!). So if you can do it, and do it well, go for it.

I think most things that are called "rules" in writing, or aren't supposed to be done, should just be looked at as thing that come with a higher difficulty level. Not "you shouldn't do this," just, "you should be aware of how much harder it will be to do this correctly."

Myself, I use a narrator's voice routinely in short stories. Not in first person, but still, there's someone who's telling this story to you. That too changes what you can do with POV and view switching.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

What about for an intense confrontation between two characters, neither of whom is 'central' to the story as a whole?

That's a very good example of when not to do it.

Along with other problems, changing POV within a scene breaks reader identification with the characters. It doesn't add to the intensity, it works against it. Showing one POV allows the reader's sense of that character's tension to build throughout the scene in a way that interrupting that POV in order to use another does not. The reader "hears" what both characters are thinking but doesn't connect to either of them.

In general, unless it's done just right, it's distracting and confusing for many readers, and it looks very amateurish. It works well when the story is heavy on narration and never goes into "deep" POV, but that happens to be a style that is out of favor with SFF editors, because current genre readers tend to prefer a deeper, sustained identification with the characters.

So it's not only hard to do right, it's risky (and not in a good way) to do it at all.

 

[Peedee]

I dunno, I guess I don't think it hurts to take the risk once in awhile, for good or ill, so long as you remember that it IS a risk. So much of writing can be treated as a delightful game of "Oh yeah? Watch this!"

check out how others have done it, and how successful it is. Ask yourself what you're using it for and what it accomplishes. All the tools are on the table for you, but you've got to know them and know when to go for the ball peen hammer, or the rubber mallet (just to use a dopey analogy).

In Anansi boys, for example, it's definitely not going to help you get deeper into a POV, or a character. Maybe not a tense argument. But what about two tetchy friends, hungover, talking over coffee in an outdoor cafe, each of them trying to one-up the ohter one on how awful they feel. THAT would be a delightful scene to wander in and out of both their heads, and make your own dry comments as a narrator.

So. Don't shy wildly away, just approach carefully and watch out for the teeth.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

The big risk is that you'll turn off an agent or an editor before they have a chance to find out any of the strengths in your writing. With the writers mentioned above, editors already know their strengths. You've already said that you've heard editors complain about it. Asking all of us here whether we approve of it doesn't get you one step closer to publication.

Experienced writers can break the "rules" because they know why the rules exist and when and how they may not apply, but when new writers try it they mostly come off as stumbling and inept.

It also depends on where you're trying to place your writing. When I was working with a small press magazine we read everything all the way to the end before deciding whether to accept it or reject it. (Writers also got extra points with some of the staff for trying something different whether they pulled it off or not.) This is almost never the case with professional markets. If they see something they don't like at the beginning, that's usually where they stop reading.

 

[Peedee]

Er, well, the risk of turning off an agent or editor exists in anything. Supposing you have a buxom blonde starring in your story, and these three editors have had it up to here wiht buxom blonde stories? Poof.

In my experience, what most editors and agents want is good writing, and good stories. Serving the needs of the story, over the needs and trends of the market, is more useful in the long run anyway.

...

Which is not the same thing as saying you should wildly bounce points of view from this point on. I've been writing for years and I think I've used it maybe twice and I can't think of anything I'm writing now when I plan to rush out and use it again.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

. Serving the needs of the story, over the needs and trends of the market, is more useful in the long run anyway.

It depends on what you mean by "the long run" and whether you're able to tell the difference between something that's a trend and something that's part of the natural evolution of the art of fiction writing. I don't think we can make that distinction, except in retrospect. But novel writing has evolved since the days of Richardson and Fielding, and no doubt it will continue to evolve. Whether that evolution will tend toward better writing or worse it's impossible for us to know.

In order to "serve the needs" of the story, we first have to identify what those needs are and how best to fulfill them. That's easier to do if we try writing things in different ways (including the approved way) to see which of them works best, rather than just continue what we're doing already.

But one of the first needs of a story is that it communicate effectively with the readers you intend to reach.

Personally, I like some of the older writing styles. I enjoy books by 18th, 19th, and early 20th century writers. Most SFF readers don't; that's the reality. And if you are going to woe them away from the kind of writing they prefer, you have to do what you do very well indeed, and even then you may or may not connect with them.

And one very good rule (which I've had occasion to bring up recently in another thread) is that writers should write the kinds of stories they like to read. If you have been reading, in between the books by modern writers that you enjoy, a lot of the older writers as well, then it's possible that you have internalized that style to the extent that you can pull off what they do in a sufficiently graceful way that you will connect with your modern readers. Certainly, there are writers who have done this successfully.

But you have to be honest with yourself, Theleb: If you do frequent POV changes is it because you really do like that style of writing, and you're willing to take the effort and make the compromises necessary to make it work -- or simply because it's a habit you picked up when you didn't know enough about writing to understand the disadvantages, and you're looking for excuses not to learn a different approach. You're the only person who can answer that question.

 

[Peedee]

(For the record, I don't actually want to woo anyone away from anything, and despite my love of pulps, I wouldn't suggest for a moment that you try and write like early E.E. "doc" Smith and hope to have success in today's market which is a different place.)

Mostly, we're in agreement. I'm just advising that there are no closed doors, just doors you should hesitate a little and think about before opening. Tha's'all.

 

[Theleb K]

All comments taken on board! I think Teresa is probably right in guessing that this issue stems from bad habits early on - which have (I hope) improved since. As Peedee states, there are a lot of 'grey' areas. I was curious as to how 'grey' people thought switching PoV's was. I have a better understanding - thanks

 

[ratsy]

There is nothing more distracting than POV's changing within a chapter. Not many really good authors seem to do this. Sometimes it feels like the author, one chapter will focus on the pov of one character then the next will forget that he was supposed to focus.

The best use of Character POV that I can think of is Brandon Sandersons Elantris. He has three main characters that he uses as a pov. Each chapter is a new pov and they rotate one after the other without fail. The only time there are more than one POV in the book is when two characters interact for the first time. There pov's are still seperated by a break in the chapter though and this was done on purpose by him.

Bradon wrote this novel while in University and wrote an essay on it. Check out his website Brandon Sanderson: Form and Fantastic

 

[limubai2000]

OK now I have rewrite that short story I just finished. I knew something wasn't right and after reading this thread I know what it is!

If I remember correctly doesn't GRRM change PoV with every chapter in Song of Fire and Ice? I remember it being really well done last time I read it.

 

[Cheehwawa]

My favorite "POV" is the kind that shows and tells, like in the "Halo" novels. There may only be a few core characters in the novels, but the authors never seem to afraid to tell us just how the more minor characters are feeling. I like that.