3rd person ltd head hopping

I don't know of any reason that the protagonist shouldn't be in a scene when the story isn't being told through his eyes. If anyone has that opinion, I'd be really interested in it because it's something I've done but I'm open to being corrected.

I think you're right that you just switch at a scene or chapter break. Beyond that, as far as I know you just start writing in the new PoV, making it clear to the reader whose PoV it is, of course.

First, try to see if you can reveal information about those scenes through the POV characters. Perhaps after the fact in dialogue, etc. etc. It's generally not a good idea to switch POV just to reveal scenes, unless a) those new POVs have been established already -- that is, those are main characters as well, and b) it is utterly important to SHOW the scenes instead of retelling them (through dialogue, etc.).

More often than not, when you write in 3rd limited, you would find that you need to change the way you construct your story -- that is, you don't have the luxury to tell everything from every angle anymore, so you need to pick and choose and reveal information your POV characters may not know. But what you gain is better control of POVs, better intimacy with characters, and also suspense and mystery that you could use to build tension.

That's not to say you can't switch to a different POV -- scene breaks would be a good way to do it. But I'd recommend you think on the above before deciding if you need those scenes at all.

I have the same problem, I have a few point a veiws in one chapter, and a recent beta of mind as said she does not like the head hopping. I also need some help about how to do this properly or make it flow better.

I don't think maestrowork was saying that it has to be told through the eyes of one protagonist the whole way through. Look at how many PoV characters an author like George RR Martin has and he writers in very close 3rd.

Switching PoV should only be done for a good reason but that's true of any writing decision. If the story would be improved by including some scenes in another PoV, then that's a good reason. I've been told that if you have one scene in a PoV, then it is a good idea to have at least one additional in the same PoV.

It is still third person limited even if there is more than one PoV character.

Having several PoVs in the same chapter would probably be excessive though.

RikkiKane said:

So basically, a novel in 3rd person limited should really be told through the eyes of the protagonist the whole way through? I suppose switching POV should always be avoided unless absolutely necessary?

Click to expand...

I didn't say that. I said you could switch to different characters if they were also POV characters. But you shouldn't switch to them just for convenience (that is, only when the protagonist is not around in those scenes).

You have to decide whose story this is and how many POV characters you need to tell the story. But just "jumping to character X for two scenes because the protagonist isn't there" is not a good reason to have character X as a POV character.

This is such a tough one for me, as I could easily tell the whole story through the eyes of my protagonist, but I think there would be a few scenes that could be included where my protagonist isn't present and it would serve the story well I think.

Click to expand...

Nobody says storytelling isn't tough. Like making a beautiful building -- sometimes you need to make sacrifices for the sake of the entire project. But the end result is the masterpiece.

So is a novel still classed as 3rd person limited even when different pov's are used throughout or in some chapters? This is driving me nuts! I am so confused!

Click to expand...

3rd limited has nothing to do with the number of POV characters. You can have 200 POV characters if you like (if you can do it well). 3rd limited has to do with the narrative point of view: when you're in a character's POV, you are only allowed his or her observations, perceptions, etc. That's why it's called "limited."

The question you're asking is whether it's good idea to switch to a different character just for a few scenes where the protagonist isn't around. It's, of course, allowed. But I'm just asking: Would it be the most effective way for you to tell the story? Can you tell it even better without jumping temporary to a character? Or can you actually make that character one of the POV characters instead of just for "convenience."

For example, I have long decided that my WIP would be told from only two people's POV: the two main characters. Adding new POVs would only dilute my story, because ultimately it's these two characters' story.

When I get to scenes where neither of these characters are present, I have to make decisions:

a) is it important enough that I show the scenes without the characters there? Is it worth breaking my "two POVs" mode?

b) can I reveal the information and events of those scenes some other ways (dialogue, etc.)?

More often than not I was able to work around those events and stay true to my 2-POVs storytelling, and it only makes the story stronger because the readers are now deeply invested in these two characters.

It always come back to the writer's vision, and what the writers want to accomplish. If you believe having random side POV characters to tell those scenes is important for your story, then you do it. Otherwise, there's always a workaround. That's why storytelling is not a science, but art.

RikkiKane said:

So basically, a novel in 3rd person limited should really be told through the eyes of the protagonist the whole way through? I suppose switching POV should always be avoided unless absolutely necessary?

Click to expand...

The scene in question doesn't have to be through your protagonist's eyes, does it?

Doesn't every character think it's all about them?

This is such a tough one for me, as I could easily tell the whole story through the eyes of my protagonist, but I think there would be a few scenes that could be included where my protagonist isn't present and it would serve the story well I think.

Click to expand...

Then change to another character's POV when you need to, but stay there for the duration of the scene if you can.

So is a novel still classed as 3rd person limited even when different pov's are used throughout or in some chapters? This is driving me nuts! I am so confused!

Click to expand...

Yes. As long as you're in one head per scene.

It's only in 3rd Omniscient that you can tell us that dear Mrs Murgatroyd went to fetch the arsenic with a view to murdering our gentle Mr Jackson, dear reader.

That gives me a question. Would that mean 3rd Omniscient is mostly tell and hardly any show?

In 3rd Omniscient, the author is a character too and has an authorial voice, even if they don't use such smarmyisms as dear reader. The problem with 3rd Omniscient is, the character relating the story knows stuff and we know they do and we might wish to strangle them for tantalizing us by withholding info.

Personally, I think it's abominable script writing or directing when you see just the boots of the bad arse when he's walking across the parking lot or when you see just the hand with the knife plunging into so-and-so's back, in a movie. It's like, hello? If we're in the fucking room, we can see the killer! We're being patronised severely here!

I could be misunderstanding something, but for me, the movie examples illustrate what can be seriously wrong with Omni POV if it's used inappropriately.

Rufus Coppertop said:

That gives me a question. Would that mean 3rd Omniscient is mostly tell and hardly any show?

Click to expand...

Of course not. Show vs. tell has noting to do with what you can or cannot reveal. Certainly an omniscient narrator can show just as much as anyone else.

In 3rd Omniscient, the author is a character too and has an authorial voice, even if they don't use such smarmyisms as dear reader. The problem with 3rd Omniscient is, the character relating the story knows stuff and we know they do and we might wish to strangle them for tantalizing us by withholding info.

Click to expand...

That's one way to look at it, but often the narrator is just the narrator, not a character. The story IS told from the narrator's POV, but the narrator doesn't have to be a "known" entity in the book. The important thing is from what POV is the story being told.

maestrowork said:

Of course not. Show vs. tell has noting to do with what you can or cannot reveal. Certainly an omniscient narrator can show just as much as anyone else.

Click to expand...

The times I think Show vs Tell could come up in omni are when we are 'in nobody's head.' I just mentioned Cesar Aira's Ghosts in another post; he begins with all the goings-on at a building of residential suites under construction, showing all the workmen, owners and new tenants without a POV character (most of the time). The narrator still wouldn't say "The woman in red was angry." So he could 'show' there. But he's not trying to get deep into anyone's emotions, so he won't do the kind of show that makes the reader feel what the POV character feels.

Does that make sense? I think when not 'in' a mind, omni writers could make the mistake of telling too much. A related mistake would be to forget emotions and senses entirely because the reader isn't in a body. But that doesn't mean omni does that as much as it would be a bad habit when writing omni, imho.

Again, I think one has to separate "show vs. tell" from "narrative point of view." Two very different things. You can do all tell and no show with any POV, and you can be all show and no tell, too. One has nothing to do with another. Just like when people believe when you write in 1st person you can just do a lot of introspection and navel gazing because "it's natural." It's not.

When you get deep in a character to describe emotions, instead of telling us "he's angry" you can still show us how he acts and feels by inferring the anger. Why do you need a POV character to do that? Omniscient is "all knowing" so there's no limit to what you can or cannot do with an omniscient narrator. Just because there's no POV character doesn't mean you can't write:

"Mary pounded her fists on the kitchen counter and gritted her teeth. She had just read the letter."

Just because you're in someone's head (either in 1st person, 3rd limited, or omniscient) doesn't mean you can just write "she is angry." That's not emotions. That's just telling the reader what to think. Instead, show us how the character acts. It's more direct that way... and that applies to ANY point of view.

To me, the way a writer uses show vs. tell really has nothing to do with the POV, even though it may "seem" like that because there are conventions. Many classics were written in omniscient and they were very telling -- but that was just the way writers wrote back then. It has nothing to do with the inherent limitations these POVs have.

True, true. Then I think I might be noticing an avoidance of telling or showing emotions in some beginner omni. It's a bit robotic. You are right, they could show it if they thought to put it in there!

Omniscient does tend to have that "storyteller" thing to it... and thus easier to slip into "tell" because people tend to "tell" stories instead of describing the facts. It's more of a mindset change than anything to do with POV.

maestrowork said:

Omniscient does tend to have that "storyteller" thing to it... and thus easier to slip into "tell" because people tend to "tell" stories instead of describing the facts.

Click to expand...

It may be "easier", but that "easier" can easily be a weakness. You don't have to look very hard to find omni-POV stories that are very objective in sticking to factual description and narrative. I just used Shirley Jackson's famous story "The Lottery" for a class exercise, and in doing so noticed that she never at any point dips into any character's head for thoughts or observations. It's an enormously effective story in part because it is so straightforwardly presented, with very little "telling" and a great deal of "showing".

Personally, I'm of the belief that too many writers devote too much energy to narrating characters' thoughts, and too little to presenting external stuff actually taking place. And in doing that, too many fall into the trap of confused POV unnecessarily. If you're running into difficulties trying to figure out how to present characters' thoughts, chances are you're trying too hard to present things the reader really doesn't need to know. Every story establishes its own "rules" and framework of narrative continuity from the beginning. If something doesn't fall naturally into the flow of your story's established principles of narrative continuity, it probably doesn't need to be part of the story.

caw

Use as many POVs as serve the story.

In one story I stick almost entirely to two POVs - my male and female protagonists. Currently, there is only one other POV - the primary antagonist - for a short snippet of a chapter where neither protagonist is present. His POV is necessary for two reasons: a) it gives the reader an insight into his character; and b) the scene leads into a confrontation between my female protagonist and her brother, who was in the scene with the antagonist (delivering a challenge).

Another story is primarily from my MFC's POV, but two other character POVs slip in - her love interest, and thus the Main Male Character, and his father (who dies partway through the book).

Alternative POVs are really good for scene where your MC is unconscious, injured or missing as well. The main thing is to avoid using too many, as it can confuse the reader. As for switching - do alternate chapters or use scene breaks. I wrote a whole fanfic alternating between male and female POV depending on chapter (odds male, evens female), and while there were two main POVs used, scene breaks allowed for other characters' POVs where necessary. Sometimes those little scenes where your MC isn't present are still vital to the plot.

RikkiKane said:

So is it ok to tell a scene through the eyes of a character who is not the MC, even when the MC is present in the scene?

Click to expand...

Utterly dependent on the context of the story.

caw

RikkiKane said:

So is it ok to tell a scene through the eyes of a character who is not the MC, even when the MC is present in the scene?

Click to expand...

You can do whatever you want as long as it makes sense to the story. Why would you want to show those scenes through another character? If there's a strong reason, go for it.

The Great Gatsby was told from Nick's point of view, even though Jay Gatsby was the protagonist.

Still, if you're choosing a different POV character, make sure you have a good reason and make sure you're consistent. It'd be a mistake to shift to one character for two scenes and never again, and for no good reasons. Your readers would likely say WTF? and wonder why they're reading the story from this person's POV.

RikkiKane said:

So is it ok to tell a scene through the eyes of a character who is not the MC, even when the MC is present in the scene?

Click to expand...

Does the reader care about this character and their opinions? If they don't, I don't suggest doing their POV for a scene.