POV questions

Very slowly working our way through your emailed questions--

Judy asks--
POV and head-hopping: some writers are of the opinion one must write an entire scene from only one character's POV, but there are times when a scene's impact can be enhanced by giving details from the POV of different characters. I've been told this is 'head-hopping'. Can you shed some light on how best to change POV? I know this is something with which many writers struggle.


POV-- well, first, there are no rules. Well, there are rules, but let's start with anarchy and work out from there!

The Point of View of a passage or a book should accomplish what you want to accomplish. And not all passages convey what you want through single-third POV. Let's say that you're setting this scene at a battleground, and you want to juxtapose the cold strategic planning of the general with what the grunt in the infantry line is facing. Well, a single-third wouldn't accomplish that, as we'd get only one of those two perspectives.

Or say that you're aiming at a comic effect in a scene taking place at a lecture, and the professor is using high-falutin' language but thinking about where he's going to eat lunch, and then we switch to a bored student, who is trying to take notes but also thinking about lunch, and then to the teaching assistant, who is in love with the professor and thinking about where prof will eat lunch so she can accidentally on purpose run into him there. Again, a more multiple-POV approach will really work here.

This isn't head-hopping. Head-hopping is the indiscriminate uncontrolled shifting that occurs because the writer doesn't know what he/she wants to accomplish and how to use POV to accomplish it. And if you're thinking, "This passage needs more than one viewpoint, because (whatever)," you're already controlling your POV approach.

How to shift... well, the most important thing is to keep the reader knowing whose head we're in. So if you're going to shift within a scene, do it as smoothly and surely as you can, so that the reader is immediately oriented in the new mind. Some techniques:

a) Use the new POV character's name right away: Judy glanced around the prison cell....

b) Quickly use a head word (like thought or felt or mused or wondered or ached or tasted)
to convey thought, feeling, or perception from the new perspective: Judy glanced around the prison cell, feeling claustrophobic....

c) Use some action for transference of perspective: Bob slammed the cell door, deciding to give her solitude to contemplate her future.

d) Use some object for transference of perspective: Furious, Bob held out the warrant. Judy took the paper, hoping he didn't notice that her hands were shaking. (Usually we'd go with a new paragraph with a change in POV, but sometimes, especially with object transference, that's sort of clunky-- try both ways and see what works best.)


e) Try skipping a few lines when you shift if you're only shifting once in a scene– but not if you shift frequently, as it will get annoying. Try it out, and feel free to go back to unbroken text if it looks/feels better.

Alicia

Good reasons for multiple POV

JewelTones said...
Alicia, the topic of switching POVs in the same scene is a touchy one and I would love to hear your thoughts on the difference between shifting those POVs for "a good reason" in a scene vs. head hopping and and those "good reasons" are. I get into arguments about this all the time with my fellow writing friends. I tend to be a one POV per scene kind of girl, but I've been known to shift halfway through and slide into another (say from hero to heroine) for the rest of the scene. Some argue such "hopping" is their style. So how do you try to distinguish between a shift for a reason/doing it well vs. rampant shifting?

I also tend to be a single-POV type of gal, but some of my favorite writers are multiple POV writers, so I have to admit-- that can be done well. (I also have to say this-- it's discussed in my Writer's Digest book. :)

First, let's distinguish between omniscient and multiple POV. Omniscient can shift from mind to mind, but with omniscient, there is a controlling "above" narration, a mentality (not necessarily a person or the author) which knows more than the characters individually or collectively know. Most non-first-person British stories in the 19th century used omniscient point of view ("IT is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife. However little known the feelings or views of such a man nay be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of heir daughters."), perhaps because of the Victorian reverence for authority-- the omniscient point of view is all about authority.

But the multiple point of view doesn't have that controlling overall authority. The narration is always in the head of one character or another. All the information and knowledge and perceptions of the narration come from the characters-- there's nothing (in the multiple POV passages-- there is nothing wrong with omniscient passages, especially at the beginning and end of scenes... remember, the only rule is, it works if it works... just know if it works) that is "above" or "inserted" from a more knowledgeable non-character. This makes it like single-POV, that is, the narration is confined to the character immediately in viewpoint (just in single-POV, it's just in one character).

Now your question is what are good reasons for using multiple POV.
1) Let's start with the biggie: It's right for you. It's the way you think. It's your natural POV.
I can't stress that enough. You have to write from your own mind, and if you naturally write in multiple POV, why fight it? Better to just do it really well so readers and editors will get a great experience. Now that most people grow up not just reading but watching TV and film (which are usually in multiple POV, if they can be said to have POV), it's not at all "wrong" that the more visual writers, the ones more cinematic in their mentality, are likely to write in multiple. Go with it-- just do it well. And ignore all those single-POV puritans who act like you're sinning. You're having more fun. However, the natural-multiple writer is likely to become a headhopper if he/she doesn't understand POV and its power when controlled.

2) So that's the best reason, that it's your natural approach. But there are other reasons, and even naturally-single writers can occasionally use multiple to their advantage. Second good reason-- to juxtapose the understanding or perceptions of different characters. This is one of those LESS IS MORE situations, by the way. If you're constantly switching from one character to another to show, for example, that Joe loves the curry and Mary hates it, it's just going to feel incoherent and bipolar. But if you want to juxtapose something interesting and important, to show that two characters have different understandings of the current reality, multiple is a great way to go. For example, I am working on a scene where the protagonist and his best friend see a couple walking hand in hand. The protagonist has a secret crush on the lady in the couple, but the best friend assumes his interest has to do with the illegal activities of the young man. Switching from Pro (who is longing for the lady) to the the clueless best friend not only shows the difference in their understanding, but also something about their relationship-- Best Friend might not know Pro as well as they think, and Pro might not trust Best Friend all that much. I thought it might be even more interesting to have the best friend cavalierly point out that he's surprised that a cool dude like the young man is wasting his time with the lady, because she isn't very pretty. This of course is going to get some reaction from Pro, but I've given him reason not to be honest about his feelings. So I might consider switching to his POV to show his internal conflict-- he wants to slug his best friend for dissing the lady. Then again, I might stay in the best friend's POV and show him misunderstanding yet again, this time interpreting the Pro's sudden tension as evidence of fear of the illegal guy. Anyway, juxtaposition will show the difference in knowledge and in perspective in a vivid way.

3)This is related -- multiple POV allows more perspectives in crowd scenes, such as, oh, to be timely, a group of disparate people watching the inauguration. The old civil rights worker who never thought she'd live to see this day will have a different reaction than the McCain voter who thinks the country made the wrong choice and the snarky ironist who is contemptuous of all the enthusiasm around him. Now of course it has to be important and worthwhile to "sample" all these different perspectives. But if you have decided you want this, it's much more efficient to do it in multiple than to have a scene-shift with each shift in perspective, that is, show the whole event from the civil rights worker's perspective, then do another version of a scene from the next perspective, etc. That method-- single-POV multi-scene-- is bound to get repetitive. This sort of "crowd control," btw, can be used effectively in some comic scenes, to show how different characters apprehend what's going on.

4) Multiple POV can be useful in controlling larger settings or multiple settings. Actually, I tend to think that when you shift from one setting to another, you're probably starting a new scene, but going with multiple POV will allow for more expeditious narration of events happening at the same time in different places. This is almost impossible to do effectively in single POV (we generally have to bypass the multiple-event challenge with some single-POV trick), but it can produce tense scenes and a lot of action. Perspective can shift whenever action starts to lag.

5) POV-shifts can delay gratification to create suspense. This is not about shifting to a new POV in order to give a trivial, momentarily spurt of gratification, but actually shifting AWAY from one character so you can hide something (like a reaction or a thought) that later will be revealed in a different way. That is, POV-shifting can be a form of information control, keeping something from the reader without cheating (as it might be sort of cheating to stay in the character's POV and not report some thought or reaction).

Those are just a few good reasons. But really, the truth is, you don't generally choose your POV-- it's a reflection of your own approach to writing and the kind of stories you choose to write. That is, it's all connected. If you're naturally interested in stories with a lot of action and multiple settings, you're probably just not likely to be a single-POV writer. I'd also suggest that the worldview that inspires writers to tend naturally to POV will differ. Single-POV writers are more likely to think that what's important is how reality is perceived and experienced inside a character, while (I think) multiple-POV writers are more suspicious, perhaps, that reality is an absolute-- rather believing that only by getting a collage of different versions can the reader begin to understand what's really going on.

Now... headhopping can't be dignified with an assumption of its worldview. It offers no worldview beyond chaos. Headhopping isn't about control, suspense, reader experience, character exploration. It's all about instant gratification for the WRITER, and just on those grounds, it should be rejected by good writers. (Good writers should be far, far more concerned with the READER.)

However, multiple POV by definition isn't headhopping. It's the controlled and purposeful presentation of more than one viewpoint on an event. Each shift should give the reader some benefit from the transfer into a new mind. And while I'm not saying you should always be conscious and analytical about everything you do as a writer, I do think that after you write a passage, you should probably be able to elucidate why you made each shift-- in retrospect, what the purpose of this shift is. (And if you can't make a case for it, I'd suggest reconsidering the shift.) That is, go with your inspiration, ride the wave, write the wave-- but when you revise, get analytical. Maximize the power of shifting by minimizing the occasions-- Less is more. Shift because you need to in order to create an effect, not just because it feels good.

So multiple POV gives me more options for scene presentation, but of course also more responsibility to know what effect I want to have on the reader and how best to attain that.

Alicia

A Little Contest To Celebrate Alicia's New Book

My wicked little mind wants to do something fun to amuse Alicia today. Her book comes out today, and we weren't going to make a fuss about it on the blog -- she's one of those low-fuss people, you know. But I sort of want to fuss over her anyway. (Deal with it, doll.)

Announcing a New Contest!

So here's what we're going to do. Alicia had to wade through thousands of pov examples for her book, so we're going to kick that up a notch. Or down a notch, as the case may be.

Send us your made-up, original, 300-word examples of pov disasters. Head-hopping? Check. Can't tell who's controlling the pov? Check. Suspect, but can't prove, that the teakettle is the pov character, and the humans are mere spectators? Check.

Send your entries to edittorrent at gmaildotcom. We're going to post them here and let readers cast votes for their faves. S/he who gets the most votes, wins!

And the winner will get ... um, lessee ... we'll make it a copy of Alicia's character building booklet, because I think that would be useful to any of our readers, regardless of the genre you write in.

(Don't you love how I do that? In one neat post, I manage to fuss over someone who's shy of fusses, spoof her book, invite you all to spoof it with me, and offer something of hers as a prize. dusts off hands.... My work here is done!)

Theresa

ETA: In a display of my formidable powers of organization, I failed to specify a deadline for entries. Heck, I failed to even think of the possibility that we might need one. (sigh) We'll call it March 21 -- ten days ought to be enough time to indulge your inner crappy writer. Best not let that monster out of the cage for too long, eh?

Also, thanks much to those of you who have already entered. I needed a laugh today.

Responses to Comments: Scaffolding

Today is the first official day back after a holiday, and even though I worked quite a bit last week, not everyone else did. Now most of us are back at it, and it appears as though most of us are not too happy about that. The prevailing weather today is partly crabby with the chance of occasional panics, with flurries of e-mails continuing all day and probably into the night.

Here's hoping tomorrow is sunnier.

Way back when we were talking about polluted nose holes, Shalanna said two things worth addressing. First, she said,

I don't know what they mean by the buzzword "scaffolding," anyhow. That might be an interesting subject for one of your entries. (An example of "removing scaffolding" from a sentence is, apparently, changing it from "He jerked his hand back from the fence, realizing his palm was scorched" to "Painted wood scorched his palm." I think the first phrasing makes sense on first reading, whereas I had to re-read the second version to see what was really going on.


You got me, Shalanna. I don’t know what scaffolding is, either. Must be some new term they’ve cooked up in the years since I finished my fancy-pants creative writing degree and was learning all the jargon. I could guess, but I might guess wrong, so I’ll just back away quietly from this one. Alicia, you have any ideas on this?

I think the most significant difference between your two sentences is not the structural change but the potential impact on point of view. In the first, the viewpoint character is the subject and is taking the actions. In the second, we’re distanced from the point of view character’s viewpoint, and the whole thing feels disembodied. In context, the second sentence might work. Out of context, it seems wrong.

Point of view is an extremely tricky subject. The basics are easily grasped -- first person takes an “I” narrator, head-hopping can be disruptive without proper transitions, and so on -- but beyond those basics, there are many tiny ways a writer can break point of view. Be vigilant for any moment which strays outside your viewpoint character’s direct experience. There are times when you can and should stray, but an action as dramatic and immediate as pulling his hand away from a fire is probably not one of those times.

Shalanna also shares this anecdote.

I was once in a crit group that insisted I must change the lines
_The kitchen stank of burnt piecrust_
to
_The stench of burnt piecrust assaulted her nostrils_
I quit the group the next week.

To which I can only give the kind of linear, direct response such a story warrants: Smart writer. Very smart indeed.


Alicia said,
Theresa, at some point, we should talk about voice, and how it's no more "natural" than Maria Callas's singing voice. :)

Yes, ma’am. Should we start by defining voice? And we ought to talk a little about critiquing groups and editors, too. Editors ≠ CPs!