We're a rigid lot, here...

[Jo Zebedee]

Point of view. Shifting point of view. Here on the chons a single head hop is enough to have several point it out. Yet, I'm critting other stuff and it head hops all over the place. Now, I prefer the single pov per scene now that you have all drummed it into me, but why does sff have a preference for it when other genres don't seem to care?

 

[Mouse]

Like which other genres, springs? Cos I'm reading non-SFF at the mo and it doesn't head hop at all. Maybe it depends on the age of the thing. (Though what I'm reading at the mo is pretty old - published 1956.)

 

[SciFrac]

Personally, I'm not opposed to omniscient view, but I think I'm in the minority here.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Well I was reading guidance the other day about pov in general and it mentioned that third limited didn't have to stay limited to one character per scene, but could shift. I remember reading Captain Corelli's and it was all over the place, but well done, but it's getting old now. That terrible Sherrilyn Kenyon I read was all over the place, but I think that was terrible writing as opposed to anything deliberate.

@Sci Frac; neither am I, that's why I sort of wondered. But I think third close can jump, too. That's different from omni, where you have a narrator.

 

[Mouse]

Well I was reading guidance the other day about pov in general and it mentioned that third limited didn't have to stay limited to one character per scene, but could shift.

Yeah. I have said this before but nobody seems to listen to me*. There's no problem with using a different POV in the same scene, just stick a line break in. I've done it in my YA stuff. Not sure I've done it in TBM, (can't remember, am editing at the mo, will find out when I get there!) but I think I do stick to one POV per scene with that.

*or misunderstands what I'm actually saying.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Point of view. Shifting point of view. Here on the chons a single head hop is enough to have several point it out. Yet, I'm critting other stuff and it head hops all over the place.

So far as I understand it, if it sticks with a single character, it's Third Person Limited. If it head hops at all, it's Third Person Omniscient, full stop.

However, I'm finding omniscient is very much the norm in a lot of historical fiction. My feeling is that this is more down to bad writing and editing, though - some of it is just plain clumsy, such as a writer simply jumping between two perspectives in a scene with no real justification - or looks plain sloppy, such as looking as if it's third person limited for most of the scene, then suddenly hopping into someone else's head without warning, and very temporarily.

Either way, as aspirants, I figure we need tighter belts - not least to remove any reasonable objection. Once published, people can get away with breaking rules.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Well I was reading guidance...

Isn't it just that, guidance or a rule of thumb, that is a good thing to do until you are more experienced and confident with your writing?
A bit like 'don't mix 1st and 3rd in the same work' etc...

In the hands of the inexperienced I'm sure a lot of head hopping within the same scene can quickly lead to merging/confusing of PoVs which could leave the reader perplexed.

As for other genres, I'd be surprised as well if any suggested anything different.

 

[Erin99]

I wouldn't say it's the genre, per se, but rather the writer and the story. Amazing authors can get away with having an omniscient narrator - I recently read a fantasy series that did this, and I loved it. But if the writing is poor and there are too many other glaring mistakes, or the writer head-hops without having a reason why this is possible (since the rest of the writing seems close POV), it's more noticeable and distracting. That's why, in our genre at least, agents and editors prefer no head-hopping, I think. It's extremely difficult to head-hop well.






This is all just my opinion, though.

 

[Abernovo]

3rd Limited, according to my understanding*, can shift PoV. It's still limited, so long as each PoV is restricted to its own sphere, there's no external knowledge.

It becomes Omni when the narrator gets involved. The narrator knows all that is happening, so, omniscient.

I suppose, strictly, there should be categories of 3rd Strictly Limited (One Character), and 3rd Multi Limited (Multiple Characters).


*Admittedly, my understanding isn't always perfect. But I agree with Mouse and springs, here.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

I have read a lot of head-hoppers recently. Maybe I am out of practice but it annoyed me and I felt it ruined a perfectly good story. It also felt lazy in some of them because I could see ways of doing it differently.

 

[HareBrain]

I've found head-hopping more common in literary fiction, but that tends to have a stronger narrative voice than most genre stuff.

If SFF has a more rigid attitude to POV shifting, it's possibly because shifting breaks immersion, to some extent, and I would suggest that people who read SFF want to maximise immersion in the story-world and characters.

 

[Ursa major]

Point of view. Shifting point of view. Here on the chons a single head hop is enough to have several point it out. Yet, I'm critting other stuff and it head hops all over the place. Now, I prefer the single pov per scene now that you have all drummed it into me, but why does sff have a preference for it when other genres don't seem to care?

We point it out where we believe you intend to keep to a strict PoV style, i.e. we're saying that you've unintentionally slipped into breaking strict PoV conventions.

If you're not writing in a strict PoV style, please say so. (Because of current fashion, we'll assume you are unless you tell us). We then won't (except by accident) point out where you veer from that style, as it would be rather pointless to do so and a waste of time (for both you and us).

.

 

[allmywires]

I used to headhop a lot in my earlier, unintiated days. Now I honestly just think it's bad form and it takes me out of the story A LOT if I see it going on. No, no, no and no.

(Unless it's separated by a line break, so it's clear, as opposed to having a conversation in prose where we get reactions from both sides and I'm just stop)

 

[Tecdavid]

So what divides well-handled head-hopping and poorly-handled head-hopping? If the PoV is to switch quite suddenly, and perhaps repeatedly, throughout a scene, how can you tell whether it's well-handled? I'd imagine that the new paragraph (the one marking the PoV switch), should open with this new character's thoughts or actions, so the reader knows, but...

How about omnipresent, then? Close narratives seem to be well-favoured, but are there times when an omnipresent narration (as if looking down upon the action) is best? I wondered whether action/combat scenes, for example, would work best this way.

 

[Ursa major]

I've read three excellent books, by a Chrons author**, that - at least in my view - head hop. I couldn't complain at the time, because I was too busy laughing at the jokes, puns and other humorous goings-on. Well, the real reason I let it pass is because much of the humour would have had to be deleted, as it was included in the thoughts of characters who would not be the PoV character in a strict PoV scheme.

As has been said many times, the rules (or guidelines) are only there to help us achieve, in our writing, what we want to achieve.



** - I'll let you guess which Chrons author, but he's the one who's written three laugh-out-loud-funny novels.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

We point it out where we believe you intend to keep to a strict PoV style, i.e. we're saying that you've unintentionally slipped into breaking strict PoV conventions.

If you're not writing in a strict PoV style, please say so. (Because of current fashion, we'll assume you are unless you tell us). We then won't (except by accident) point out where you veer from that style, as it would be rather pointless to do so and a waste of time (for both you and us).

.

Oh, no, i am trying to write strict pov, cheers, Ursa. I am just questioning rules. Get me!

So what divides well-handled head-hopping and poorly-handled head-hopping? If the PoV is to switch quite suddenly, and perhaps repeatedly, throughout a scene, how can you tell whether it's well-handled? I'd imagine that the new paragraph (the one marking the PoV switch), should open with this new character's thoughts or actions, so the reader knows, but...

How about omnipresent, then? Close narratives seem to be well-favoured, but are there times when an omnipresent narration (as if looking down upon the action) is best? I wondered whether action/combat scenes, for example, would work best this way.

Well in cpt corelli's i didn't notice the hopping until i looked for it, in Kenyon's i winced everytime. Execution, i guess?

 

[Ursa major]

Oh, no, i am trying to write strict pov, cheers, Ursa. I am just questioning rules. Get me!

And we'll continue to point out any... er... questionable strict PoV narration in your writing.

 

[Erin99]

So what divides well-handled head-hopping and poorly-handled head-hopping? If the PoV is to switch quite suddenly, and perhaps repeatedly, throughout a scene, how can you tell whether it's well-handled? I'd imagine that the new paragraph (the one marking the PoV switch), should open with this new character's thoughts or actions, so the reader knows, but...

How about omnipresent, then? Close narratives seem to be well-favoured, but are there times when an omnipresent narration (as if looking down upon the action) is best? I wondered whether action/combat scenes, for example, would work best this way.

For me, the sure-fire way of spotting a well-handled head-hopper is if, oddly, I’ve NOT noticed it! I've been so carried away with the story and characters, I've not noticed the head hop until much later! Also, the most successful head-hops establish that this is the norm very early on, so you know what to expect. The Chathrand Voyage did this a lot by way of an "editor" who was writing the story of the characters. In the opening book the "editor" writes that he's recording the story in the following pages...

It worked well, and readers knew the editor could head-hop because he'd known the events of the story and was merely recording them on paper afterwards. Also, the head-hops weren't so much that they were distracting. One or two a chapter or scene, usually, which flicked back and forth in such a well-handled way, you barely noticed them. And, IIRC, there weren't many (or any) in the opening chapters.



Anyway, then there's the godlike narrator, who usually knows everything everywhere but doesn't always focus on character thoughts (unlike close POVs do regularly). LotR worked well with an omniscient* narrator, IIRC (it’s been years since I read it, though!).

I wouldn't ever write a story that didn't establish head-hopping early on and then drop in head-hops during action scenes. That would look lazy, imo, as if I just couldn't be bothered with the limiting POV of my chosen character and decided to write about everything everywhere that was more interesting. I feel if you write in close POV, you find ways to make it work without losing the epicness of omniscient POVs. Your character could reflect on what others are doing, or imagine it, or find ways of keeping an eye on others. Makes the character more interesting!


* I think you meant "omniscient", not "omnipresent", since there's a slight difference in meaning...

 

[Hex]

I say this every time, but Diana Wynne Jones head hops throughout Hexwood and it's fabulous. North and South is also full of head hopping but it's probably working according to different rules.

I will also add: I don't mind head hopping -- if the writing's shoddy or lazy it's other things that will annoy me. I prefer it (in fact) to leaping between widely different POVs and forcing me to get engaged with a different character in a different situation.

 

[SciFrac]

Leisha and Hex, thanks for the examples. I'd love to hear more names of books that do this well.