Switching MC 3rd Person POV

ACEnders · Dec 9, 2007

I don't know if I worded that correctly. But my question is this - I have 4 MCs. 2 are much more "main" I guess you you could say, than the other 2. Needless to say, I wrote my MS in 3rd person POV, but sometimes I switch the MC....

Does that make sense?

How do you guys feel about that? Most people who've read my ms have never even commented on it, but one person mentioned she hated it. I guess I just want to get some sort of general consensus.

Thanks!

Danger Jane · Dec 9, 2007

Multiple POVs is fiiiine as long as you are aware of headhopping, which is when you jump into whomever's head you please during a scene or a paragraph or a sentence. It's a good rule of thumb, when learning, to stick to one POV character per scene, but the masters of POV can switch heads paragraph to paragraph.

ACEnders · Dec 9, 2007

Okay...maybe I should've mentioned that I only switch POV MC's with a change of scene. I don't change them within the same scene. I actually started doing that without even realizing it - I was telling the reader everything that was within every character's head - I guess that's 3rd person omniscent.

Anywho...thanks for the reply!

Novelhistorian · Dec 9, 2007

I imagine that if you switched, scene after scene, that might try the reader's patience. But if it's done skilfully, and if the narrative associates a particular character to a certain activity or locale, then that may be easier to follow. The only thing I'd want to know is that when I began reading a particular scene, I knew whose head I was in, so if you develop a character's "signature," the reader will quickly pick that up.

No doubt you've read novels in which series of chapters, or alternating chapters, are narrated by different characters, even to the point of putting the character's name at the title of the section or chapter. But that doesn't sound like what you want.

ACEnders · Dec 9, 2007

No...and I don't switch every single scene. I think it flows nicely, and as I said, only one person has said she doesn't like that - but she hasn't even read past chapter 3 - and chapters 1-3 are all the same person.

Danger Jane · Dec 9, 2007

It sounds like you're doing fine. Maybe consider replacing that sour beta with another :tongue

virtue_summer · Dec 9, 2007

Multiple third person POV is very common in novels. I can't see any reason at all why a reader would complain about it. You should be fine as long as you make it clear at the beginning of the scene whose POV it's in.

Maryn · Dec 10, 2007

Good points made already, so I don't have a lot to add.

Make sure each POV character has a distinct voice. Whoever's POV you're in when a new scene starts (which of course you're going tell us, right?) should be fairly obvious because of each person's distinctive narrative voice.

Make sure the changes in POV are purposeful and necessary. If, for instance, you change a scene solely to tell us what Susie Creamcheese is thinking, maybe you could tell us the same thing by her actions or dialogue, and stay in the previous POV. Working out ways to transmit information is part of the writer's job.

Don't shift too often. Readers tend to prefer fairly good-sized chunks of one person's POV rather than frequent jumps.

Although a highly skilled writer can jump into a bazillion heads per novel, try to minimize the number of POVs you employ. If two of your characters are more important than the other two, maybe the main two characters' POVs will be sufficient?

Maryn, not sure this helped at all

David I · Dec 11, 2007

Four POVs is fine.

What I'd wonder about is if you really have four protagonists. Most stories have one; two can be done (cf Romeo and Juliet). Four is mighty crowded in terms of whose story it is.

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding how you use the term "MC".

RickN · Dec 11, 2007

4 MC's? Tough to do. As other folks have mentioned, keep a unique voice for each and clear transition from one to another.

It reminds me of King's The Stand. He mentions shelving the novel for a couple years because he had too many MC's and the plot was getting too cumbersome. Finally, had a brainstorm, killed half of them off, and finished the book. At the end only 2 of the original half-dozenish are still alive.

Dustry Joe · Dec 11, 2007

Like many buzzwords you see writers use, "headhopping" is a myth. It's very common to move POV around, often the same sentence.

People nitpicking writing don't give the readers enough credit. In "Sometime A Great Notion", Kesey suddenly has a chapter narrated by somebody who is obviously not the MC's who have been doing so. It takes a while to figure out who it is. People don't wander off scratching their heads, they don't go get their money back. They read it, understand it, get a kick out of the stunt, congratulate themselves for figuring it out.

"Ron looked at Sally and thought, Sure, Princess. Ken caught the look and wanted to slap Ron's head off. Uh, oh, Sally thought, I'd better water the drinks.

Is this confusing? Do you get blown away because you're seeing point of view and interior dialogue from three characters? I don't think so.

This is actually pretty normal in third person. Trying to stick to one POV is rigid and amateurish.

But somebody calls it "headhopping" and all of a sudden it's a alarm button. Like using adverbs or other sins of commission.

Don't worry about POV in stories. If you have a good narrative voice and style it takes care of itself.

Dustry Joe · Dec 11, 2007

What I'd wonder about is if you really have four protagonists. Most stories have one; two can be done (cf Romeo and Juliet). Four is mighty crowded in terms of whose story it is.

This is part of the problem with using creaky, limiting terms like "protagonist". MC means main character. Most books, in fact have several main characters.

Only certain books have one protagonist and an antagonist and all that rot. It is more usual to see a constellation of characters moving things.

That terminology was created to ANALYZE old dramas. It is not helpful to writers or creating work. As you have seen and shown.

Doogs · Dec 11, 2007

RickN said:
4 MC's? Tough to do.

I beg to differ. I think it depends on the story. Ken Follett's latest, World Without End, has 5 POV characters, and doesn't suffer for it. Same could be said for Michael Shaara's The Killer Angels, and a host of other titles too numerous to go into here.

My own story has three MC's, and I couldn't imagine getting along without any one of them. Each as a role to play, and events to witness, which are entirely their own.

ACEnders · Dec 11, 2007

Lots of advice...

David I said:
Four POVs is fine.

What I'd wonder about is if you really have four protagonists. Most stories have one; two can be done (cf Romeo and Juliet). Four is mighty crowded in terms of whose story it is.

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding how you use the term "MC".

My book doesn't really have protagonists. I know you learn in English class that every story has them, but not really. Mine is a women's fiction, and I meant MC exactly as it is - main character.

Dustry Joe said:
Like many buzzwords you see writers use, "headhopping" is a myth. It's very common to move POV around, often the same sentence.

People nitpicking writing don't give the readers enough credit. In "Sometime A Great Notion", Kesey suddenly has a chapter narrated by somebody who is obviously not the MC's who have been doing so. It takes a while to figure out who it is. People don't wander off scratching their heads, they don't go get their money back. They read it, understand it, get a kick out of the stunt, congratulate themselves for figuring it out.

"Ron looked at Sally and thought, Sure, Princess. Ken caught the look and wanted to slap Ron's head off. Uh, oh, Sally thought, I'd better water the drinks.

Is this confusing? Do you get blown away because you're seeing point of view and interior dialogue from three characters? I don't think so.

This is actually pretty normal in third person. Trying to stick to one POV is rigid and amateurish.

But somebody calls it "headhopping" and all of a sudden it's a alarm button. Like using adverbs or other sins of commission.

Don't worry about POV in stories. If you have a good narrative voice and style it takes care of itself.

Man I wish I'd known this before! I was warned against doing these things, and my whole novel changed. I don't change pov within a scene anymore. But that's okay. it turned out fine.

Dustry Joe said:
This is part of the problem with using creaky, limiting terms like "protagonist". MC means main character. Most books, in fact have several main characters.

Only certain books have one protagonist and an antagonist and all that rot. It is more usual to see a constellation of characters moving things.

That terminology was created to ANALYZE old dramas. It is not helpful to writers or creating work. As you have seen and shown.

Thank you. You answered to that quote better than I could!

Doogs said:
My own story has three MC's, and I couldn't imagine getting along without any one of them. Each as a role to play, and events to witness, which are entirely their own.

My thoughts on my own novel! Exactly... I can't do it without the 4 MC's.

maestrowork · Dec 11, 2007

Dustry Joe said:
Like many buzzwords you see writers use, "headhopping" is a myth. It's very common to move POV around, often the same sentence.

People nitpicking writing don't give the readers enough credit. In "Sometime A Great Notion", Kesey suddenly has a chapter narrated by somebody who is obviously not the MC's who have been doing so. It takes a while to figure out who it is. People don't wander off scratching their heads, they don't go get their money back. They read it, understand it, get a kick out of the stunt, congratulate themselves for figuring it out.

You may be confusing head-hopping with omniscient.

Telling a newbie writer to head-hop at will is damaging. Seasoned writers can get away with that because they know what they're doing. To shoot something down as "myth" or "amateur" is doing all writers a disservice. They're there for a reason. Writers do certain things because they have been proven to work, even if the readers don't necessarily understand the techniques.

And no: "It's very common to move POV around, often the same sentence" is not common, even in omniscient.

It takes a while to figure out who it is. People don't wander off scratching their heads, they don't go get their money back. They read it, understand it, get a kick out of the stunt, congratulate themselves for figuring it out.

To me, it's just that readers are tolerating the "stunt" because the book's been published, they like the author, and they are willing to put up with it. To me, "it takes a while to figure out who it is" is taking your readers out of your story and making them aware that they're reading. It's the #1 sin in fiction-writing: taking your readers out of the fictive dream.

Published authors may get away with it. It could be a disaster for writers who are trying to find an agent.

ACEnders · Dec 11, 2007

maestrowork said:
You may be confusing head-hopping with omniscient.

Telling a newbie writer to head-hop at will is damaging. Seasoned writers can get away with that because they know what they're doing. To shoot something down as "myth" or "amateur" is doing all writers a disservice. They're there for a reason. Writers do certain things because they have been proven to work, even if the readers don't necessarily understand the techniques.

And no: "It's very common to move POV around, often the same sentence" is not common, even in omniscient.

To me, it's just that readers are tolerating the "stunt" because the book's been published, they like the author, and they are willing to put up with it. To me, "it takes a while to figure out who it is" is taking your readers out of your story and making them aware that they're reading. It's the #1 sin in fiction-writing: taking your readers out of the fictive dream.

Published authors may get away with it. It could be a disaster for writers who are trying to find an agent.

Well, that makes sense. Thank you for confirming the changes I've already made. As I've said, I change POV's in different scenes - not a new POV every scene either. But I change between the 4 MCs. I never changed within the same sentence, but I did have an omniscent pov until I was warned agains that as a new writer. Thanks.

David I · Dec 12, 2007

Dustry Joe said:
Like many buzzwords you see writers use, "headhopping" is a myth. It's very common to move POV around, often the same sentence...

..."Ron looked at Sally and thought, Sure, Princess. Ken caught the look and wanted to slap Ron's head off. Uh, oh, Sally thought, I'd better water the drinks.

I've never noticed it happening in the same sentence, though I suppose it's possible. The example you quote is in the same paragraph, not the same sentence--three POVs, three sentences--and I'd argue it isn't really point-of-view in any case; that's narrative summary from an omniscient narrator.

But, yes, Ken Kesey and Larry McMurtry headhop a lot--by any definition of headhopping--especially in their later works. There are some passages in "Lonesome Dove" that have become (in)famous for that. And I wonder if being fellow students in the same grad program has something to do with this (they were both in the writing program at Stanford together).

You'll often find me on the opposite side of prevailing writing wisdom. I think it's often better to tell than show. I don't think exposition is a sin. Hell, I don't always even prefer the active to the passive.

But I'm not sure what you mean by "headhopping is a myth." On the face of it, that doesn't make much sense, no matter how I read it. Do you mean headhopping doesn't exist? Or that headhopping has important archetypal elements? Or that headhopping is part of our legendary heritage?

David I · Dec 12, 2007

ACEnders said:
My book doesn't really have protagonists. I know you learn in English class that every story has them, but not really. Mine is a women's fiction, and I meant MC exactly as it is - main character.

I didn't learn any of this stuff in English class, and if I did I'd go back and re-examine it, since I haven't found classes to be a reliable guide to craft. But I still don't know what you mean by "Main Character."

If you mean someone who is vital to the movement of the plot, or without whom the story wouldn't work--a tentpole, as it were--then my recently published novel has ten of them. But only five of them have points of view. And only two of them are protagonists--their story arc and the story itself are one and the same.

I also have one POV character who isn't a Main Character by any possible definition of the term.

Does the fact that it's "women's fiction" change things in some way I don't understand? Stories can survive without personified antagonists, but can you point me to a good story without a protagonist?

Raphee · Dec 12, 2007

Just finished Stienbeck's 'When The Sun Goes Down".

Define it as headhopping or omni; it's beautifully written. The POV changes every few sentences. I do think that writers are being cheated on the headhopping debate. Too many of us , including myself, have started to contain and make our writing too rigid by sticking to one POV when we wanted to have more.Readers really dont give a damn as long as they get a kick out of a good story.
of course the beauty of the prose and the story still needs to be there.

David I · Dec 12, 2007

Raphee said:
Too many of us , including myself, have started to contain and make our writing too rigid by sticking to one POV when we wanted to have more.Readers really dont give a damn as long as they get a kick out of a good story.

I see your point. But readers do give a damn when it diffuses the focus or leaves them suspended in mid-air, floundering to figure out who is telling them what. And that's what happens to many writers when they get sloppy with POV.

Some writers--Ann Patchett is a master, check out Bel Canto--do brilliant segues from one consciousness to another inside the same scene. There's nothing morally wrong with switching POV within a scene, but it requires excellent craft and a good reason for asking the reader to follow you.

There's a big difference, though, between simply swapping POVs and writing in an omniscient voice. In Tolstoy or Henry James, the omniscient voice (or as James would have it, the "centre of consciousness') IS the POV. The fact that it can dip into the thoughts of various characters doesn't mean that there has been a switch in POV; it simply means the godlike narrator has decided to peer into someone's head.

I think it would be beneficial if everyone started out writing in first person, as there is a clarity and discipline in first person: you know exactly what can and can't be told. After that was mastered, then writers could move on to more challenging tasks. Most POV swapping I see within scenes (and believe me, I've seen a buttload) is just laziness and self-indulgence.

I recently finished writing a novel with three third-person POVs plus a possibly unreliable, possibly omniscient, intrusive narrator who leaps in whenever he/she pleases--often in the middle of important action, suspending what the reader ought to care about (if I've done my job)--and then holds forth on preposterous topics, like a commercial break at an intense moment on a television show. I think it works. I think it's funny and alarming. But I wouldn't recommend it as a model to anyone--I was on damned thin ice, and for all I know, I may have fallen through. (We'll see if it sells.)

My point is, your mother was right. You can put your eye out like that. That doesn't mean no one should ever run with scissors or play with matches or Evel-Knieval their way over the Snake River Gorge. But you won't catch me recommending that they do any of those things.

Raphee · Dec 15, 2007

David,

I understand your opinion and you make some excellent points. I did write the disclaimer that the story must be well written and engaging enough for the reader.

Just reading Kate Atkinson's:Case Histories. Multiple POV's, with quick shifts of POV at times. Yet it doesn't engage me; even though the writing is solid.

All I wanted to say is that we are all at different skill levels. Some might be geniuses and others like myself are novices learning the craft. Yet we need to understand and find our level of talent and skill and work on it.
It wont happen overnight and by not challenging ourselves.
I understand that you did challenge yourself and are on thin ice, like you said. Guess that's the way to go if you are upto it. Best of Luck.

FennelGiraffe · Dec 15, 2007

Raphee said:
Just reading Kate Atkinson's:Case Histories. Multiple POV's, with quick shifts of POV at times. Yet it doesn't engage me; even though the writing is solid.

"Yet it doesn't engage me." That is precisely the risk an author takes when using multiple POVs, and especially by switching frequently.

Every POV shift--every single one--is a vulnerable point. It's a point where the reader might disengage, might lose immersion in the story. It's a point where the reader might notice he's reading a book, not actually experiencing the events. When the new POV is a virgin, a character who has never had the POV before, the risk is greater than when shifting to a familiar character. After a POV shift, the reader needs time to settle in, to get comfortable. If he hits another shift while he's still unsettled by the last one, that's a greater risk too.

The writer can mitigate the risk to a certain degree. A skillful shift is less risky than a clumsy shift. Limiting the number of POV characters reduces the number of "virgin encounters". Limiting the frequency of POV shifts gives the negative energy of one shift time to dissipate before the next shift occurs. But the risk can never be completely eliminated.

On the other hand, shifting POV can produce gains that far outweigh the risk. Some stories can't be told from a single POV. But every time you're tempted to shift POVs, you should question whether this shift is worthwhile. Every time you're tempted to give POV to yet another character, you should question whether this character needs POV. If it's possible to tell the story you want to tell without it, just say no.

BarbaraNC · Dec 15, 2007

So happy to see this thread because I just got on here to post something similar. I have another question though - my first 25 pages are in one character's POV, and I've since realized that I am totally bored with my own story if it's just his POV. He's coming off as a big whiner. So I want to change to multiple.

Is it ok to have 25 pages in one person's POV, or should you switch earlier to set up the multiple POV? I ask in pages rather than word count because I'm workshopping the 25 pages at a conference next month...I'm wondering if I should rewrite what I've got.Thanks! I like those 25 pages in his POV

BarbaraNC · Dec 15, 2007

mollyluna said:
lol. See my #1, #4, #5 below, great minds think alike...

Yeah I realized my book with one POV is like when you have a friend in a bad relationship and that friend calls you every day to moan about it, but won't leave it.

I can't be sick of my own character, lol! Time for some major changes!

RickN · Dec 16, 2007

Doogs said:
I beg to differ. I think it depends on the story. Ken Follett's latest, World Without End, has 5 POV characters, and doesn't suffer for it. Same could be said for Michael Shaara's The Killer Angels, and a host of other titles too numerous to go into here.

My own story has three MC's, and I couldn't imagine getting along without any one of them. Each as a role to play, and events to witness, which are entirely their own.

That may be true about Follett, but a POV character is not the same as a MC. I haven't read World Without End (it's on my Christmas list and I finished rereading Pillars in the Earth yesterday in preparation.) but I am looking forward to it.

Nearly every Stephen King book written has at least 5-6 POV characters (I bet The Stand is upwards of 20), but only a couple MC's.

Tom Clancy's POV characters number well into the double-digits, but the 2-page F-15 fighter pilot POV scene does not make him into a MC by any means.

Clive Cussler novels begin with a prologue or first chapter with a POV character who sets the historical backdrop and is never heard from again. POV, but not MC.

I agree with you that it depends on the story. I disagree that 4+ MC stories are 'too numerous to go into here', unless we're defining MC differently. I can only think of a handful and there are the big, sweeping epics, like The Stand or Pillars in the Earth. Even in the Killer Angels (another awesome book, but one I haven't read in years), I only recall three MC's.

Rick (now adding Killer Angels to his huge and growing reread stack)

Switching MC 3rd Person POV

ACEnders

Self-Banned

Danger Jane

ACEnders

Self-Banned

Novelhistorian

ACEnders

Self-Banned

Danger Jane

virtue_summer

Always learning

Maryn

I Tried

David I

RickN

Dustry Joe

Dustry Joe

Doogs

ACEnders

Self-Banned

maestrowork

Fear the Death Ray

ACEnders

Self-Banned

David I

David I

Raphee

In debt to AW

David I

Raphee

In debt to AW

FennelGiraffe

It's green they say

BarbaraNC

BarbaraNC

RickN