Changing POV within a scene

[Namatu]

Yes, head-hopping is bad. If you want to change POV within a scene between two characters (not very often, mind you, but do change), is there a "best" way to do it? I have a very long scene, containing many characters, including two key ones from whom the reader needs insight. I could break scene and then switch POV, but as it stares at me now, I don't want to.

Just wondering how others have approached this.

[Azraelsbane]

##

That's all there is to it. :)

I separate my chapters by time, because there are often years between chapters. Therefore, I might have 2 or 3 scenes in a chapter that happen in the same time frame, but from different povs. Some might swap from one to another in a scene, others might swap to a different MC that is elsewhere.

I swap pov a lot. Probably...2-3 times per chapter. I don't have a specific rule of thumb for pov swaps. Usually, I play a scene out in my head as each of my MCs, whichever pov is most compelling for that particular section, I use.

It is jarring to constantly swap povs every few paragraphs though, imo. My chapters are pretty long 4-8k, and so 2 or 3 scene breaks isn't that jarring (I hope. :) ). Just my opinion on it.

[NicoleMD]

I know what you mean.

For me, sometimes a scene break is more jarring than a POV shift. How I approach it is I try to take a step back from the first POV by having a couple sentences serve as a neutral buffer before switching to the second POV.

I try to limit myself to one shift per scene so I don't get too indulgent, but do whatever works best for you.

Nicole

[ccarver30]

I did this the other day and it was not really intention. Lemme find it...

[ccarver30]

Doh. Apparently I changed it. LOL Sorry. :(

I tend to overlap. I have scene A from Clay's POV then the very next break is the same scene from another character's perspective. It doesn't get redundant either. *shrugs*

[Gillhoughly]

I think you're stuck with the ## break--BUT when it goes to print it won't look nearly as horrible as it does in standard MS format. The layout makes it read much more smoothly.

The main thing is your overworked editor--who might possibly be me--will be grateful.

I have a very serious antipathy to head-hopping and usually figure the writer either doesn't know any better or is just sloppy/doesn't care. I've seen both.

I'm currently editing an anthology and emailing writers I've not yet worked with, giving them fair warning about my hot buttons: head-hopping and too! much! exciting! punctuation! in narrative sentences. (For those who enjoy writing the way Captain Kirk speaks.)

Thankfully they are on my side for both. It is to be noted that they have had books on the Times bestseller list, so their opinion is worth considering!

Good luck! http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Namatu]

I'm revising a work that I wrote for fun and heads hop all over the place. Gilloughly, yours would explode if you saw this scene. Brains! Everywhere! Ah!

I'll try out both the break and the several neutral sentences tactic and see which one works best. Head-hopping has become a peeve of mine since I read several books in a row with incessant and unnecessary activity.

[Garpy]

You can signal a head hop with a character action/gesture. For example: -

Bob pulled on his cigarette, and studied the wallpaper.
That's real nice wallpaper the lady's got in this apartment. Jeeeez, just look at that lovely paisley pattern. He realised it would be a long time before he could afford wallpaper like that to dress his place with, especially on the crappy wage he took home every week. His mum always warned him that being a flea-keeper wasn't going to make him a particularly wealthy man. But, it was the kind of job that interested the ladies, and Hell, it got him outside often enough. Better that than being stuck behind a desk all day.

The smell of Bob's cigarette smoke was beginning to bug Betty.
'Hey Bob, stub that out will ya?' She hated the smell, doubly so when it was stale. And that kind of stink settled into the wall paper like you wouldnt believe. etc etc etc etc

It's not unlike the way that you can attribute a line of dialog by getting a character to DO something minor/subtle. Minor point...just don't hop too much. In a scene I might hop from A to B...and maybe even back to A. But definately not A, B, A, B, A etc .

[Namatu]

Yeah, an A to B and maybe back to A is about all I've been considering. I always love the examples that people use. :)

[Gillhoughly]

Sorry, but the insertion of several neutral sentences still counts as head-hopping. A writer tried that on me a few years back. I asked for a rewrite. She wasn't happy, but after she fixed things the story flow was stronger and I bought it.

You may have to go for a 3rd person omniscient to get in the information you need.

Good luck!

[Namatu]

Can a POV switch within a scene ever be well done?

[Ava Jarvis]

Even the good books that do POV switch in scenes don't do it well enough to keep from making the scene jar.

Try the scene breaks for now.

Get _Self Editing for Fiction Writers_ and read the Point of View chapter that discusses this sort of thing. You will basically get Gillhoughly's answer but in more detail, with other discussion, examples, and exercises.

[Raphee]

I would say use scene breaks. I am trying to write omni with a mix of 3rd limited. I know its against the rules.
Anyway I am finding the scene break is much better even if you do it every few sentences or paragraphs or so. It keeps the flow smoother as one of the posters above said.

[Garpy]

Sorry, but the insertion of several neutral sentences still counts as head-hopping. A writer tried that on me a few years back. I asked for a rewrite. She wasn't happy, but after she fixed things the story flow was stronger and I bought it.

Yes it is head hopping...but it's a rule I've guiltily broken from time to time when needs must. I'll admit though that if I can, I'll seperate a scene with a '***' to cut between heads.

[Shane Fitzsimmons]

Unless you're going omniscient, head hopping in a single scene is bad. Whenever you approach a scene, you should decide who is going to be the most interesting perspective to see things through, and then stick with it. There are some instances where it's necessary to get multiple perspectives out of the same scene, but in this case you should probably write the same scene several times over from different perspectives, without really retelling the scene over again in the same way. Obviously if the perspective is omniscient then this isn't an issue, but unless your entire book is omniscient, you should almost never switch to that perspective. The only exceptions I've experienced where this was okay was when the author took a step back from any of the perspectives, and instead talked about the world or a large location.

For instance, if Bob is about to bring his army to Castle Mountain Dew, and rather than wanting to tell the story from any specific character's head, you just want to give the general feeling of what's going on in the village about to be attacked, then switching -- briefly -- to omniscient to describe an old woman going into her underground shelter, then to a family boarding up their windows and barricading their doors, etc. That sort of thing is usually okay in moderation.

Anyway, if you're not going omniscient, and you're not approaching your story like Quentin Tarantino, then you should approach every scene from the most interesting, and most relevant character's perspective possible. Switching up to another point of view in the middle of a scene just so that we can know ahead of time that Jackie is about to pull a knife is pretty lame and unnecessary.

[scarletpeaches]

Head hopping? Again?

AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHH!!!!!!!

[Azraelsbane]

Head hopping? Again?

AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHH!!!!!!!

Get ye back to yer tankard and hush, heathen!

[Doogs]

IMO, Philip Pullman pulls this off quite well in the His Dark Materials trilogy, and particularly in The Amber Spyglass. I normally detest head-hopping, but he pulled off the POV changes in a way that didn't bug me in the least. Might be worth checking out.

[donroc]

I have used it in the opening chapters of my horror novel to show husband and wife are on same "page" regarding goals until she has new secrets and he cannot know what she is thinking or has been doing -- nor should the reader -- until the end.

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com

[Gillhoughly]

Not to worry, head-hopping is sometimes hard to avoid, it just takes a bit of practice.

We've ALL done it.

My books are usually in 1st person, so it's not a problem, but I wrote a 3rd person novella for an invitation-only collection. I did a head-hop without realizing it. The editor sent my piece back with a gentle admonishment to "fix it."

As she was and is a multiple-Hugo winner whose work I adore I looked at the bit through new eyes, blushed mightily, and fixed it. The rewrite was better and stronger for staying in the hero's head.

I collaborated with a non-writer on a series, and he turned in an otherwise smokin' hot love scene that bounced between the characters like a slow motion tennis ball. I let him know that was not the "done thing" and though it was news to him, he instantly got it and did a fantastic rewrite. For the rest of the series he never made the mistake again. (Fast learner!)

Now there is a very well known fantasy writer who had head-hopping in his first bestseller that came out in the mid-70's. I don't know if he still does that because I've never read another of his books since. Life's too short for me to waste time on sloppiness. http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif

[nevada]

If you want to see how to change POV within a scene succesfully, check out some good romance novels. Try Suzanne Brockmann. Susan Elizabeth Philips. Stay away from Nora Roberts and Elizabeth Lowell. Notorious headhoppers. Anyway, while you normally wouldnt want to switch pov's in the middle of a scene. romance writers do it all the time, usually during the naughty bits, to get the feeling of what both characters are feeling. The trick is to find a bit in the scene that is a natural beat, a breathing space if you will. Don't just switch willynilly. Find a natural beat and switch it there. Good luck

[maestrowork]

My books are usually in 1st person, so it's not a problem, but I wrote a 3rd person novella for an invitation-only collection. I did a head-hop without realizing it. The editor sent my piece back with a gentle admonishment to "fix it."[/IMG]

Head-hopping is not my problem, but slipping into omniscient while in 3rd limited is... When I write in 1st person, it's not problem because I'm in the narrator's head all the time. But in 3rd limited, sometimes I have troubles keeping my POV with the character. There would be slight POV violations (e.g. describing his clothes or what's happening behind him, etc.) -- they are not bad, easily fixable in rewrites.

Yeah, don't worry about it... rewrites can be fun that way, to catch all these little niggles.

[Doogs]

Head-hopping is not my problem, but slipping into omniscient while in 3rd limited is...

This is a problem for me, too. Not so much for describing clothing as for covering larger events. Battle scenes, for example.

[Julie Worth]

I could break scene and then switch POV, but as it stares at me now, I don't want to.


You don't have to break the scene, in my opinion. Just be clear whose head you're in, and don't do it too often. The readers who aren't writers won't fault you for it.

[jodiodi]

OK, there are way too many 'dos and don'ts' in this thread alone, not counting all the other PoV threads I've seen on here. I'm now completely confused.

I admit to headhopping. I was told it was bad. I corrected myself and tried to attone for my sins. So I stay in one PoV per scene/chapter. However, I've always seen my stories in an omniscient manner. So what's wrong with omniscient and how is it different from head-hopping?

I write romance (of a sort) and as in one of the previous posts, I find it difficult to stay in one POV during character interaction in 'the naughty bits'. I do it, but to me, it lacks depth and emotion.

I've got a headache now. :(

[maestrowork]

Writers always see things in an omniscient manner since, well, we are writers and we are the creator of the entire story and we know all our characters. The trick is to find your specific POV (like finding your camera angle) so that the readers can attach and identify with particular characters for a certain scene -- it is a matter of focus and empathy. That means we, as writers, will have to choose what details to reveal directly, and what to reveal indirectly.

We need to translate our omniscient views as authors into a different and more realistic view for the readers, and that's the kind of translation that is the most difficult for, especially, new writers. "More realistic" because that's the way we see the world in real life -- we only see our own perspectives, from our own point of view -- everything else is by inference.

I think the gap lies in what we see and think as writers vs. what the readers experience as a person. The closer the POV, the more intense the experience because it matches the real human experiences.

In a love scene, for example, we only experience and feel from one side even though the experience seems so overpowering -- it's still from one point of view... we don't get to experience the other person's feelings or orgasms. In writing, we may think we do since we are the writer, but how we translate to the page is different -- and one trick is to assume the identity of the person you want the readers to attach to the most -- say, if both the man and woman are protagonists, but your readers are mostly women, the logical decision would be to assume the woman's POV. If you, however, decide to assume the man's POV in a love scene, that can be EXTREMELY interesting to the readers as well, to go through what a man may feel or experience as a female reader...

If you write the scene in omniscient... then it creates a distance and the readers don't get to experience the story at a close level, or they would be confused -- who am I supposed to identify with here? -- and it would be like watching a porn video.

So that's the kind of decisions we writers must make. The more we care about what the readers experience, the better -- I believe -- we can find the right POV. The direct observation and experience makes the POV personal and powerful, but the "inference" part makes it interesting, intriguing and perhaps suspenseful as well.

And if you switch POVs between scenes, then you have the best of both worlds. You can tell the story from BOTH POVs but attain that level of closeness for your readers. Not only do they experience the woman's POV during the love-making, for example, they get to experience the man's too -- or at least experience how he feels -- only a scene or two later.

[FennelGiraffe]

It's not unlike the way that you can attribute a line of dialog by getting a character to DO something minor/subtle. Minor point...just don't hop too much. In a scene I might hop from A to B...and maybe even back to A. But definately not A, B, A, B, A etc .

Yeah, an A to B and maybe back to A is about all I've been considering. I always love the examples that people use. :)

I'm not sure about the back again. A single mid-scene switch from A to B, if handled well, can still look like you're in control of POV. Once you go back to A again, though, it's likely to read like "POV? What's that?".

Digression: I've often thought there should be a special term for the POV used by so many romance writers--where you can headhop freely between the two romantic leads, but you can't go into anyone else's head at all. Maybe something like "romantic third" or "dual third". Because it isn't the same mishmash you can get when a writer hops around into everyone's head.

[Chasing the Horizon]

I think how difficult it is to smoothly change POVs within a scene depends a lot on how deep a third limited POV you're using. If the narrative style changes significantly depending on which character's POV you're in, then it's going to be very difficult to smoothy switch mid-scene. But if you use a more distant third limited where you maintain a consistent narrative style regardless of POV, then transition from one to another mid-scene is much easier to do well. As someone already said, choose a natural beat in the scene, then start a new paragraph with the character's name followed by something which could only be from their POV (saw, heard, felt, etc.). Obviously you don't want to be switching too often and for no reason, but I think it's just as bad to only switch three or four times in the entire novel. If you use mid-scene POV switches from the beginning, most readers will quickly become accustomed to it, but if your first switch is on page 150, then it's going to be almost impossible to keep it from being jarring.

Remember that everyone on here are writers, and look at books very differently from your average reader. The average reader has no idea what POV is, and will only care if they get confused or jarred out of the story (which can happen for many reasons other than POV shifts). All they care about is an interesting story told well. If head hopping meant a fraction as much to readers as it seems to mean to writers, Nora Roberts wouldn't sell so many millions of books.

Write the story the way you think it works best, then let some people who are avid readers in your genre but NOT writers look at it. If they find a problem, then you know you've screwed up. If they don't notice, then you've done it right.

I can't give you specific advice on what would make the transition work best without looking at the actual scene.

[wayndom]

Can a POV switch within a scene ever be well done?

Clearly, a question from someone who's never read Shogun. Because the values and mores of the classical Japanese were so different from western values and mores, their behavior and even conversations would make no sense to westerners, if Clavell hadn't taken the reader inside the heads of the characters to show how and why they spoke and acted as they did. In some scenes, the POV changes from character to character, every time any character says anything.

(The Japanese are the source of the old phrase, "the inscrutable east.")

My book THOR is an adult novel told almost entirely from the POV of a German shepherd dog. But it couldn't be told entirely from his POV because there's so much human behavior that dogs cannot understand. So the story switches POV fairly frequently, up to four or five times within a scene. Of course I'm in no position to say how good THOR is, but it was published in six countries and made into a crappy movie, so I have to assume the POV switches didn't ruin it for everyone.

By the way, I'd never read anywhere that POV changes are bad before coming here. I don't buy it.

[Ava Jarvis]

Clearly, a question from someone who's never read Shogun. Because the values and mores of the classical Japanese were so different from western values and mores, their behavior and even conversations would make no sense to westerners, if Clavell hadn't taken the reader inside the heads of the characters to show how and why they spoke and acted as they did. In some scenes, the POV changes from character to character, every time any character says anything.

Are you sure the POV was switching, or was it actually the single POV, third person omniscient?

Also, _Lone Wolf and Cub_ did just fine with a Western audience, despite that its original audience was Japan, and the historical period is similar to Shogun. And it's manga; there's no sitting inside of a person's head.

(The Japanese are the source of the old phrase, "the inscrutable east.")

No comment.

By the way, I'd never read anywhere that POV changes are bad before coming here. I don't buy it.

It's a difficult technique that has wide range for abuse like few others. You can do anything if it works. But you have to be honest about the working.

Third person omniscient is also very difficult to deal with.

[Ava Jarvis]

By the way, Uncle Jim has an interesting discussion about POV, POV switches and third person omniscient, in reference to Mary Higgins Clark. See this summary post and page down to #45 and start clicking on the links through to #50:

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=116478&postcount=7

Continues with links #50 through 58 here:

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=116868&postcount=9

Yeah, yeah, referring to what older folk have to say and all that stuff.

[Garpy]

By the way, I'd never read anywhere that POV changes are bad before coming here. I don't buy it.

IMHO it's best to consider that, and many other writerly 'rules' as a guideline, and not absolute gospel. If a scene works and you've gone and broke every rule in the book, so what? I also start some sentences with 'And', occasionally but hypens where commas should be, use triple periods within narration, and indulge in a multitude of other sins...so shoot me.

[donroc]

Perhaps those so doctrinaire about switching POVs being a no-no also do not split infinitives and never end sentences with prepositions? If it works, it is all right.

[Julie Worth]

Perhaps those so doctrinaire about switching POVs being a no-no also do not split infinitives and never end sentences with prepositions? If it works, it is all right.

You can do anything you want if it works. And you can follow all the rules and still not sell a book. The main thing is to keep it interesting, to keep people turning those pages.

[Mud Dauber]

Head-hopping is not my problem, but slipping into omniscient while in 3rd limited is... When I write in 1st person, it's not problem because I'm in the narrator's head all the time. But in 3rd limited, sometimes I have troubles keeping my POV with the character.
This is precisely why I find writing in 3rd person limited to be difficult. And a big reason why I prefer to write in first person. There's no room for POV confusion.

Slightly off topic, but... I think I read on here somewhere that the Harry Potter series is considered omniscient, because some of the scenes are not from Harry's POV. :e2shrug: Yet most of the series follows only Harry, but because she throws a few scenes that aren't, it's suddenly 3rd person omniscient? I don't get it.:o

OK, there are way too many 'dos and don'ts' in this thread alone, not counting all the other PoV threads I've seen on here. I'm now completely confused.
<snip>
I've got a headache now. :(

Me too!:tongue

[scarletpeaches]

If anyone here dares to head-jump, be warned God shall inform me on his special hotline and I will come round your house with a big can o' whupass.

[Ava Jarvis]

Perhaps those so doctrinaire about switching POVs being a no-no also do not split infinitives and never end sentences with prepositions? If it works, it is all right.

No, it is not because we are all tight-arsed about following The Rules (which indeed are only guidelines).

Basically, you must do the following:

1) Be interesting and move the plot forwards
2) Do not confuse the reader

1) is not usually affected by POV switching, no matter how poorly handled. But 2) can be very adversely affected by POV switching. It's just more difficult to get right than splitting infinitives, ending sentences with prepositions, and whatnot. Those are grammatical rules, and are easily hung loose when writing fiction and even non-fiction. POV is more of a narrative technique and more difficult to get right, particularly in terms of 2). Not all "rules" are created equal.

But a lot of rules are created mostly for 2). And usually 2) _is_ confusing, particularly if you are not very consistent about 2) (e.g., it happens "sometimes" or happens at different kinds of breaks).

If one is not sure that something is working or not, particular with 2), just give the read over to a beta reader and ask if the POV switches are confusing or not. Very simple.

Don't confuse general guidelines with absolute rules; and don't confuse general guidelines as "do whatever you want". Do what works. We don't particularly care; just make _sure_ that it _really_ works.

"Does something work or not?" can be a difficult question to answer by yourself. Nothing wrong with that, As Swain puts it, something you end up with a) You guess and b) You hope.

[scarletpeaches]

I think one of the main problems with headjumping is it can lead to the reader saying, "Huh? Whose head are we inside now? But...last paragraph we were in his head and that sounds like something she would think..." This problem can be made even worse if the writer uses impersonal pronouns.

I'm in the middle of reading a book which does this a lot. For example:

John crossed the road and said hello to Jim. Oh god, not him again. [Huh? Why cross the road to speak to Jim if he didn't want to see him?] He crossed the road to speak to me and I can't be bothered with him. [Ah, now I see...we're in Jim's head, even though it's the same paragraph which described John's action.]

Once you make the reader backtrack to clarify something, you've lost them.

[javili]

I'm in the middle of reading a book which does this a lot.

Once you make the reader backtrack to clarify something, you've lost them.

Apparently not.

[Azraelsbane]

If anyone here dares to head-jump, be warned God shall inform me on his special hotline and I will come round your house with a big can o' whupass.

And a smexytime Camel o' Lurve!

[maestrowork]

Are you sure the POV was switching, or was it actually the single POV, third person omniscient?


It's been a while, but I think you're right that Shogun was written in 3rd omniscient and not 3rd limited with head-hopping.

By the way, there's nothing wrong with 3rd limited with switching, as long as you don't switch in mid-paragraph or sentence.



Slightly off topic, but... I think I read on here somewhere that the Harry Potter series is considered omniscient, because some of the scenes are not from Harry's POV. :e2shrug: Yet most of the series follows only Harry, but because she throws a few scenes that aren't, it's suddenly 3rd person omniscient? I don't get it.:o


Hmmm... I've only read two books but IIRC, except for the first chapter (when Potter is still a baby), everything else is written in 3rd limited...

[scarletpeaches]

Apparently not.

Heh. Well I did say I was in the middle of reading this book. Not that I had read it. Sheer bloody-mindedness is what's keeping me going - and it's taken me weeks to get 300 pages into it. I suppose I could give up, but...well, I'm too stubborn.

The author has lost me on occasion, so I've put the book down until I've recharged my 'glutton for punishment' batteries. ;)

[Ava Jarvis]

Slightly off topic, but... I think I read on here somewhere that the Harry Potter series is considered omniscient, because some of the scenes are not from Harry's POV. :e2shrug:


Correction: you've read some folks' opinion on that.

I don't think it's true, not even technically, not just because 98% of the series (or whatever) is definitely 3rd person limited in Harry's head, but because the POV switches that do happen are very clearly in clearly demarked sections---in particular, chatpers---where there is only one head that you are hopping into, even if it's not Harry's.

For instance, the Song of Ice and Fire series is usually considered 3rd person limited; there are just a lot of people that Martin looks inside the head of---but he does it as single chapter, single full POV.

Terry Pratchett's works, hmmm. I think he does that too, within clearly demarked scenes. So do other books considered 3rd person limited.

So no, I think evidence is strongly on the side of 3rd person limited.

[Shane Fitzsimmons]

So what's wrong with omniscient and how is it different from head-hopping?

Omniscient is usually the most lazy, most juvenile, and least identifiable way to write a story. I'm not saying that it can't or hasn't been done well, but it is without a doubt the easiest way to write, which means that not only do you have to put less effort into it, but it's also the most approachable way for new writers to, uh, write. And when I say least identifiable, I mean when you write to a specific character's point of view, be it first or third person, you're allowing your readers to see into their heads in a much deeper way than is possible with simply the occasional "Here's what Bob's thinking" sort of thing that goes on with omniscient.

People who are capable of writing strong characters are neutering their work by sticking with omniscient.

It's just more difficult to get right than splitting infinitives, ending sentences with prepositions, and whatnot. Those are grammatical rules, and are easily hung loose when writing fiction and even non-fiction. POV is more of a narrative technique and more difficult to get right, particularly in terms of 2).
...
And usually 2) _is_ confusing, particularly if you are not very consistent about 2) (e.g., it happens "sometimes" or happens at different kinds of breaks).

While it's true that changing POV's can be difficult, I'd hope that any published novel would be written with skill. I suppose if we're giving out n00b advice to people who aren't planning on getting published with their current WiP, then yeah, okay, "is difficult" might be fair warning. But for anybody who wants to get good at writing quality stuff, learning how to PoV switch is a required skill.

A lot of these posts (not just your's, Ava) are basically along the lines of "it can get confusing." Well, it's only confusing if the writer doesn't know what s/he's doing. So, if you're gonna do it, do it well; should be the opportune advice.


John crossed the road and said hello to Jim. Oh god, not him again. [Huh? Why cross the road to speak to Jim if he didn't want to see him?] He crossed the road to speak to me and I can't be bothered with him. [Ah, now I see...we're in Jim's head, even though it's the same paragraph which described John's action.]

Well, what you're referring to is omniscient. Headjumping in omniscient is just a matter of putting character's thoughts in Italics and typing ", Bob thought." at the end of every thought. The specific example you cited was just crappy writing, pure and simple. If the author is writing in omniscient and then starts a paragraph with one character's actions and another character's thoughts, without even letting you know it's the other character thinking... well, then it's not a problem with PoV switching, it's a problem with the writer sucking.

[Ava Jarvis]

People who are capable of writing strong characters are neutering their work by sticking with omniscient.

Well, Shogun is quite successful and hits consistent stars over multiple reviews over at Amazon, which I know is not the be-all and end-all of "does it work", but I suppose it might be along those lines.

Lonesome Dove is also third person omniscient (I think...) but the characters are powerful enough to drive the story through.

But for anybody who wants to get good at writing quality stuff, learning how to PoV switch is a required skill.

Depends on what you mean by PoV switch I suppose. Folks in general switch between chapters and scenes, not in the middle of one. I would not call the recommended reading lists by ALA---I forget what each are called---evidence of lousy writing because the authors have never done PoV switches in the middle of scenes in their career, or that the authors cannot do high quality stuff.

Doing it from chapter to chapter and scene to scene is generally considered kosher; doing it in the middle of a scene raises question marks.

A lot of these posts (not just your's, Ava) are basically along the lines of "it can get confusing." Well, it's only confusing if the writer doesn't know what s/he's doing. So, if you're gonna do it, do it well; should be the opportune advice.

Which I believe others have also said; at least that's what I said in my previous couple of posts. And also what Uncle Jim says.

[FennelGiraffe]

I admit to headhopping. I was told it was bad. I corrected myself and tried to attone for my sins. So I stay in one PoV per scene/chapter. However, I've always seen my stories in an omniscient manner. So what's wrong with omniscient and how is it different from head-hopping?

Doing omniscient well is hard. Merely slopping all over the place in every character's head doesn't make it well-written omniscient. For that, you need an implied omniscient narrator and you always stay in his head. He just happens to have the ability to see into everyone else's head. But you're never in their heads directly--you're always seeing them filtered through the narrator.

Omniscient, even done well, exacts a heavy price. It makes it more difficult for the reader to relate to the characters, because the reader can't get up close and personal with them[1]. Sometimes a particular story is worth that price; writing it in omniscient gains more than it costs. When a story like that works, the writer has used every other trick in the book to increase the reader's involvement.

In my opinion, it's also difficult to read an excerpt and tell whether it's omniscient or head-hopping (OK, except for the most gratuitously bad cases). I think you have to read at least a significant portion, if not the whole thing, before you can know whether it's working.

[1] This sounds contradictory. You might think that being able to know a character's thoughts and feelings should let the reader feel closer. It never gets a chance to do that though, if you never stay with any one character long enough. Also, if you see everyone's thoughts and feelings, then every character has the same small tug on the reader's emotions. If you see only one character's thoughts, or a very small number of characters, they stand out from the crowd and it's a lot easier to relate to them.

[scarletpeaches]

Well, what you're referring to is omniscient. Headjumping in omniscient is just a matter of putting character's thoughts in Italics and typing ", Bob thought." at the end of every thought. The specific example you cited was just crappy writing, pure and simple. If the author is writing in omniscient and then starts a paragraph with one character's actions and another character's thoughts, without even letting you know it's the other character thinking... well, then it's not a problem with PoV switching, it's a problem with the writer sucking.

Uh, no, what I'm referring to is headhopping. The example I cited wasn't from the book, it was just my example (to a lesser extent) of what goes on throughout the book.

And putting thoughts in italics and ending with 'Bob thought' isn't the way to go about it. The writer should make it clear who's thinking by his style of writing, rather than mixing a few characters' thoughts and actions in the same paragraph. It's similar to dialogue tags. You don't need them if the writer makes it clear whose head he's in and who is speaking. The same would apply to thought tags.

But the book I'm referring to jumps heads from one sentence to the next and definitely isn't written in omniscient. There's no narrator there and we're told what various characters are thinking with no clear distinction between each one or any feeling that the writer or a narrator is in control.

It was one of her early books though, so hopefully her later ones are tighter.

[JoniBGoode]

Pete Hautman does a really exceptional job of shifting POV within a scene. In his award-winning novel Mortal Nuts, on page 19 of the hardback, there's a scene where he seamlessly slides the reader from one POV to another, within the same scene. (He does it all the time, and makes it look easy, but this is where I noticed.)

I'm still studying how Hautman does this, but I've noticed that he includes a brief transition. At the top of page 19 we're in Dean's POV as he is talking to Carmen. (Dean wondered...) At the middle of the page, it's more like 3rd person objective, showing both characters' actions only. By the last third of the page, we're still in the same conversation, but in Carmen's head (Carmen always found...a bit startling).

The reader doesn't feel the least bit disoriented and doesn't really notice a POV shift. Dang, that guy is good!

For those of us who have characters suffering the disembodied blues, Hautman is also a master at creating a fully rounded universe with just a few lines of pithy description. Just reading the first page of Mortal Nuts (page 9) will show you what I mean.

(And no, I'm not Mr. Hautman's mother, or affliliated with him in any way. Just admire his writing.)

[aadams73]

Omniscient is usually the most lazy, most juvenile, and least identifiable way to write a story. I'm not saying that it can't or hasn't been done well, but it is without a doubt the easiest way to write, which means that not only do you have to put less effort into it,

Bullcrap. It's an incredibly difficult and controlled POV if done properly.

[Namatu]

And putting thoughts in italics and ending with 'Bob thought' isn't the way to go about it. The writer should make it clear who's thinking by his style of writing, rather than mixing a few characters' thoughts and actions in the same paragraph. It's similar to dialogue tags. You don't need them if the writer makes it clear whose head he's in and who is speaking. The same would apply to thought tags.
Agree. This is my preference when reading, if the heads must hop, they hop with distinction.

No "rule" is inviolate if it can be broken well. :D In my opinion, the "rules" are good guidelines for honing your craft. Breaking them can help you learn even more.

[Azraelsbane]

Apparently not.

I think the main thing this does for me, when I read, is it distances me from the characters. Doing that is killer. If I hit on something with a good story and strong characters, I can read two 400ish page books a day. However, when I hit a book that jumps me around a lot, I care less for the characters (because I know just when I think I'll get their opinion on something, oops, nope, that's someone else's in the next paragraph). It takes me about 3 weeks to read anything by Christine Feehan or Nina Bangs for this very reason. Well...their first books, because I won't be buying a second of either, despite the cool vampire stories.

[Julie Worth]

I can read two 400ish page books a day.

I wish I knew what they were. I haven't been able to finish a book in years. I'm always looking at the defective mechanics, shaking my head over every little thing.

[scarletpeaches]

Bullcrap. It's an incredibly difficult and controlled POV if done properly.

I'm with you on this one. I find third limited easiest to deal with, so that's what I stick to. I may venture into other PsOV one day, but for now, I'm sticking to what I know I'm good at.

Personally I think omniscient is the most difficult to deal with because it's so easy to lose control and slip into headjumping and telling, rather than showing.

[Shane Fitzsimmons]

Bullcrap. It's an incredibly difficult and controlled POV if done properly.

It's harder to capture the voice of a character. With omniscient, you just tell people what's going on, and you get to tell them everything you want to. First person or third limited are significantly more difficult because you're limited in what you can tell your reader: You can only tell them what the character knows. Plus, you have to capture their voice with every line, whereas with omniscient you only have to capture their voice with their thoughts and dialogue.

What I said is accurate. It's the most easy to approach of the three, which means more n00bs approach writing from that perspective. But easier isn't the same thing as easy. Nothing about writing is easy.

Personally I think omniscient is the most difficult to deal with because it's so easy to lose control and slip into headjumping and telling, rather than showing.

Oh nos! It's the tellingtubby! :P

[maestrowork]

Bullcrap. It's an incredibly difficult and controlled POV if done properly.

But it's the easiest to "attempt" without any knowledge to do it properly and screw up...

I tried to write a section of my WIP in omniscient the other day, and I found myself disliking it immensely. Sure, I can tell the story in a broader scope and a more authoritative voice... but why would I want to do that? I lose so much more -- the closeness to my characters, the suspense, etc. It wasn't that much fun playing God after all.

[Azraelsbane]

But it's the easiest to "attempt" without any knowledge to do it properly and screw up...

I tried to write a section of my WIP in omniscient the other day, and I found myself disliking it immensely. Sure, I can tell the story in a broader scope and a more authoritative voice... but why would I want to do that? I lose so much more -- the closeness to my characters, the suspense, etc. It wasn't that much fun playing God after all.

Completely agree with this. I just finished swapping my entire wip to 3rd limited, because when I read over it, omni had kicked my ass, and my story.

[Shane Fitzsimmons]

Playing God is fun, but showing your hand like that in omniscient takes away that whole "he works in mysterious ways" thing that is sort of a necessity for religions to sustain themselves.

[JoniBGoode]

Omniscient is usually the most lazy, most juvenile, and least identifiable way to write a story.

Actually, according to the professor who taught my first fiction class way back when, it's first person POV from a character much like the author that's the direct route to crappy fiction. Her only warning to us was: Don't use 1st person POV in your first story. So, of course, I had to do it BUT I choose a mentally retarded male teen murderer as the POV character, which was as different from myself as I could imagine (well, except for the I.Q., but nevermind.)

On reflection, I don't think that there is any POV that can't be ruined by a sufficiently ham-handed writer. (Tipping my hat to Uncle Jim.)

[Raphee]

OK, there are way too many 'dos and don'ts' in this thread alone, not counting all the other PoV threads I've seen on here. I'm now completely confused.

I admit to headhopping. I was told it was bad. I corrected myself and tried to attone for my sins. So I stay in one PoV per scene/chapter. However, I've always seen my stories in an omniscient manner. So what's wrong with omniscient and how is it different from head-hopping?

I write romance (of a sort) and as in one of the previous posts, I find it difficult to stay in one POV during character interaction in 'the naughty bits'. I do it, but to me, it lacks depth and emotion.

I've got a headache now. :(

I have said this before what you do is fine; as long as you do it well. To me head hopping is badly done multiple POV. Otherwise whether omni or 3rd limited you can go into different characters head in the same scene.

I am definitely in the league of those who want the word head hopping out of the lexicon, because people nowadays take this to mean omni; which it is not.

[She_wulf]

But it's the easiest to "attempt" without any knowledge to do it properly and screw up...


Chiming in, I agree.

My first work was 'screwed up' in this manner. Then I figured out a little trick that works for me.

Instead of playing Quentin Tarantino, I decided to do a Hitchcock instead. Your 'narrator' being it disembodied voice, or whatever, is a camera. For each scene you need to not violate the camera plane.

In movie terms, you can't cut from one over the shoulder shot to the opposing over the shoulder shot. You need to do a slow pan in, shift perspective to show both characters (changing the plane to somewhere around a 90 degree from the first shot) then pull in to the new character. At that point then, you can shift to the over the shoulder shot from the new character perspective.

Once I broke it down into those terms for myself, I lessened my mistakes. (That doesn't mean I still don't make mistakes, just minimized the grossly horrible ones.)

[Shane Fitzsimmons]

Actually, according to the professor who taught my first fiction class way back when, it's first person POV from a character much like the author that's the direct route to crappy fiction. Her only warning to us was: Don't use 1st person POV in your first story.

Writing yourself into your own novel is definitely the hallmark of a n00b writer, so I get why a teacher would want to tell his students that. But beyond that, you know the old saying about teachers: People who can, do. People who can't....

[Namatu]

How would the reader know? Some people have fascinating lives. What elements of that "n00b" practice could give it away to the reader and how might it impact the story in a negative way?

[EriRae]

. o 0 Those who can't, teach. 0 o .

Well, with that, you've just insulted Stephen King, J.R.R. Tolkien, and just about everyone who teaches at a tenured level in this country, not to mention those on an international level. Not to mention several...several people on here who teach for a living while writing the Great American Novel. Teachers must publish their work to keep their jobs at some Universities. And some writers just LIKE teaching, and they have published works that give credence to their teaching.

Joni's teacher gives good advice. First-person narrative isn't as easy as one would think. There are so many ways it can go wrong, ways that the writer can't see because he's too close. Omniscient is also not as easy as one would think. Just because these two styles are different does not make one right and the other wrong. I have read novels written in first person, and I have read novels written in third-omni. It's not the point of view that makes the book; it's how the story is told. If it's good narration and it doesn't pull the reader out of the text, the point of view doesn't matter.

[Shane Fitzsimmons]

How would the reader know? Some people have fascinating lives. What elements of that "n00b" practice could give it away to the reader and how might it impact the story in a negative way?

It's not about who would know so much as what it says about the author doing it. If you're an editor working for a serious publishing house like Del Rey, who has to go through about 2,000 slush submissions in about a day, and you get one across your desk that's by a guy named Steve Connor, and the story is titled "The Wild Adventures of Steve Connor Taking On the Dark Lord" would that be a story you start reading? Why not? What would you think of an author who did this?

Writers can and do use things that happen to them in real life in their stories all the time. That's one thing. Writing yourself into the story says quite a few things about you as a writer, none of them are particularly good.

Well, with that, you've just insulted Stephen King, J.R.R. Tolkien, and just about everyone who teaches at a tenured level in this country, not to mention those on an international level. Not to mention several...several people on here who teach for a living while writing the Great American Novel. Teachers must publish their work to keep their jobs at some Universities. And some writers just LIKE teaching, and they have published works that give credence to their teaching.

I'm delighted you decided to take me off ignore. :T

[mscelina]

oh,for pete's sake.

There is a difference between 1st person POV and writing yourself into the story. Let's not get them confused. 1st person is incredibly difficult for a novice writer because the distinction between the two trains of thought is blurred. That's a distinction a writer learns with practice--and lots of it.



As far as those who can't do, teach. I'd be in the camp of those who can't teach don't insult those who do. I tried it. I sucked profusely at it. But the greatest influences in my life both as a writer and as a person were outstanding teachers who worked their lives away for little pay and (as is evidenced above) little respect.

[JJ Cooper]

I'm trying to write my WIP in third limited and of course I will slip into OMNI on occasions during the first draft. Hopefully I will pick these up on the re-writes.

Anyway, the first half a dozen chapters are from the MMC. I needed to introduce MFC at another location, and instead of cutting in the middle of the scene, I started a new chapter with third limited from the MFC.

Two characters in different locations each now devoted their own chapters. When the two met, I stuck with the third limited POV for just the MMC. No head hopping and no scene breaks.

The two character are still together and kicking goals 30 odd chapters later. Problem I am now working through is that the MFC must go alone to conduct an interrogation whilst my MMC sits in a car twiddling his thumbs. The worry I have is it may be a bit jarring if I now switch back to the MFC in third limited POV for the one chapter of the interrogation. It's going to be interesting.

JJ

[Esopha]

As far as those who can't do, teach. I'd be in the camp of those who can't teach don't insult those who do. I tried it. I sucked profusely at it. But the greatest influences in my life both as a writer and as a person were outstanding teachers who worked their lives away for little pay and (as is evidenced above) little respect.

How about this?

"I teach, therefore YOU think."

We owe a lot to teachers. A lot. And anybody who can't understand that obviously hasn't spent his or her school years trying to learn.

To answer the OP:

You could try a short transition sentence. Maybe the character's meet each other's gazes and the POV is transfered? Whenever I deal with POV switches, one of the characters walks 'offstage' for a moment, so there's only one character to interact with, and then that character follows the first to the next part of the stage.

It seems to work well. Granted, no one's beta read any of these scenes. So... don't take my word for it. ;)

[Shane Fitzsimmons]

There is a difference between 1st person POV and writing yourself into the story. Let's not get them confused. 1st person is incredibly difficult for a novice writer because the distinction between the two trains of thought is blurred.

As far as those who can't do, teach. I'd be in the camp of those who can't teach don't insult those who do. I tried it. I sucked profusely at it. But the greatest influences in my life both as a writer and as a person were outstanding teachers who worked their lives away for little pay and (as is evidenced above) little respect.

I don't think anybody's confused here. Except maybe you, for taking an off-handed comment way, way too seriously. I <3 teachers. I even considered teaching once, and on occasion still do. I've tutored, I've trained, I know what it's like to help people learn. I've got respect for the job.

But, when it comes to writing there's very useful advice to heed in regards to people trying to school you beyond the sheer basics of literacy: You can trust somebody to tell you something's wrong with your writing. You can't trust anyone to tell you what is wrong. Doesn't mean you shouldn't listen. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, but still. Writing teachers aren't these gods amongst men in the world of writing. They're just as prone to being stuck in their own ways or ridiculously biased or just outright wrong.

The best thing a teacher can do for you is show you what they've done, what's worked for them, and then set you free to find your own way. Anyone who claims to know the formula anyone can follow to write a best seller is either full of themselves, or trying to sell you something.

[Namatu]

The best thing a teacher can do for you is show you what they've done, what's worked for them, and then set you free to find your own way. Anyone who claims to know the formula anyone can follow to write a best seller is either full of themselves, or trying to sell you something.
That I agree with. :e2thud:

:D

[mscelina]

I don't think anybody's confused here. Except maybe you, for taking an off-handed comment way, way too seriously.

Trust me, dear, I am very rarely confused. I also don't have a selective memory. I'm glad to see that you have a healthy respect for teachers. I do too.

[donroc]

I have taught. I have sold to TV. I have sold to film. I have two non vanity self POD novels coming out. Regarding teachers and every other profession, career, and trade, a small % make a significant positive difference; a larger % are merely adequate/competent; and the rest can indeed be harmful.

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com

[P.C Greene]

I usually just drop a line, well atleast for the writers drafts anyway.

[javili]

Italics?

Jesuscristo!