I’m a purist when it comes to Point of View, but I have a critique partner who writes literary novels
and he loves to move from omnipotent to male character’s head to female character’s head. His justification?
“Too often, this rather fussy doctrine pointlessly constricts writers’ options and narrows their range. As for the claim that the reader can’t follow multiple or shifting points of view, it is simply false on its face. The whole history of the novel is testimony to the contrary, from Jane Austen to Thomas Pynchon. In masterpiece after masterpiece, the narrative point of view readily changes from page to page, or even from sentence to sentence and only delights as it does so. In fact, one of prose fiction’s grandest strengths, which it exercises for once in effortless superiority over all other narrative media, including the movies, is its ability to dart in and out of any character’s mind at will. To forgo this splendid artistic advantage in the name of some pallid academic theory is really madness.”
–Stephen Koch, The Modern Library Writer’s Workshop, page 90.
I don’t know if these POV changes bug me because the “no head-hopping†rule has been so thoroughly hammered into me or what, but it really does bother me. Now, I don’t mind changing viewpoints once during a scene, but back and forth from paragraph to paragraph or sentence to sentence? Drives me crazy.
That said, I have to confess that I’ve see it very effectively done as a compare/contrast mechanism. I also found intriguing Koch’s point about writing being the only medium that can head-hop. My critique partner argues, “People who teach point of view in writing classes will sometimes use the camera lens analogy — you’re ‘seeing’ the scene through one character’s eyes — without realizing that this imposes one of the limitations of film on an art form that is free to dispense with it.â€
So what do you think? Purist or non-purist?
No related posts.
Like anything else.
If done well, it works.
And if it works….
“Rules are made for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.”
Sorry,though I’m careful not to bounce about like a yo-yo on crack, I get impatient with absolutes and rigid doctrine applied to an imaginative and creative medium.
The tail should not wag the dog.
And such peremptory dogma treats all writers as children.
I’m impure.
So long as I know whose eyes I’m seeing the scene through then I really don’t notice. For me that’s the key thing, if you notice a change which jars you out of the story then it’s not right.
As a writer — I am a purist. From my first attempt at a novel, I’ve been unable to head-hop. I just can’t do it.
As a reader — I don’t mind it at all and as a matter of fact, I don’t even notice it.
Good omni is a fine thing, but it’s a world away from ‘just jump into whatever head you want’ – it’s hellishly difficult to write, and every change of focus serves the story, and the author needs a good idea of _why_ he’s changing PoV.
Most of the time frequent changes of PoV and bad omni are a result of lazyness – you need to work harder if you haven’t got access to a character’s thoughts – you need to weave it into conversation, or describe their expression and body language, or make them do something that will betray their emotions.
Ooh! My ears are burning! For what it’s worth, I’d say that as long as the author reproduces that quote from Koch on the flyleaf of the book, he can do whatever he likes on the page. Seriously, I agree with Bernita that the question is whether it works, and like Karmela, it’s something I tend not to notice when reading.
Again, It’s All In The Execution.
I’d say I’m an impure purist.
The problem I find too often is that when authors hop around too much, it leaves me feeling a little clueless about whom I should connect to, cheer on, etc. I really enjoy getting deep into the characters, both as an author and a reader. Bad head-hopping drives me crazy because I don’t know where to ‘latch on.’
However, I love skillful, expert use of head hopping for humor, character development, and plotting. I agree, though, it can lead to laziness and distancing. But, then again, I love deep third perspective, so that could just be me
Warmly,
Jenny:)
I don’t care. Give me a good story and don’t make me feel confused. That’s my reader’s opinion.
My writer’s opinion–there are few absolute rules in writing. And those change depending on what’s being written. When I’m helping my son edit his college essays, I don’t suggest he use the same techniques or follow the same rules I’d use in writing fiction. My goal as a writer is to write the best way I can to communicate what I want to say.
As someone who writes omniscient most of the time, you can guess what I think about those POV rules.
It’s just the POV that comes naturally to me. I wrote it before I even knew the word.
As a reader I seldom realise its existence except if it’s done badly, and in those cases there’s usually more wrong with the book than only the POV. Like boring characters that don’t grab my attention away from the writing techniques. Or a combination of several stylistical pet peeves like elaborate speech tags, adverb overuse, wordiness and repetitions that sharpens my Reading As A Writer-senses and sends the books against a wall sooner or later. Sooner, most of the time.
I have seen omniscient done well, and I’ve seen it done very badly. Head-hopping is NOT good omniscient view, and it bugs me so much that sometimes I can’t finish the book.
I love when omniscient POV is as it should be–a separate narrator from the action. The narrator’s distance from the story allows for a bit of tongue-in-cheek in the prose, or subtle commentary on the characters.
I’ve read head-hopping where I’m deeply entrenched in one character, then violently wrenched deep into another. There’s no gentle distance from the characters, which would make that transition smoother. I dislike the feeling of being in a person’s skin and then pulled away to be clothed as someone else.
Camy
I’ve only read one book that headhopped well and it only happened about three times in the entire book. The author did it intentially.
On the whole, I have to say I agree with Camy. It’s just jarring, especially when you have to backtrack up the page just to figure out whose head you’re in. That’s just poorly done.
I do believe “rules” can be broken. In this industry, we see this kind of thing done all the time. But if you’re going to do it, do it well. And be prepared to get the criticism that comes with it.
Purist!
However…I’m of the “screw the rules” camp for the most part. I believe writers should learn the rules so they know how to break them effectively. There is nothing more distracting and annoying than badly done POV switches, and unfortunately, many people who THINK they do it well…don’t.
So for the most part, I’m a purist when it comes to POV. But I won’t throw the book across the room or judge it harshly for seamless POV switches mid-scene. It’s just that I don’t find seamless ones very often.
POV is one of those things I don’t think much about when I’m reading it, unless it’s done very badly. There was a book I tried reading once where the head-hopping was so bad I threw the book across the room. I had no clue who was thinking what & it made my head hurt.
I think one of the best examples of multiple POV is Diana Gabaldon’s books. She goes into quite a few, but they’re done really well.
As for when I’m writing? I tend to stay between h & H, otherwise I end up getting confused. LOL!
As a reader, I don’t notice it at all. No matter how bad the book is. I won’t flunk a book for head-hopping.
As a writer, if it happens, it happens.
Definitely not a purist.
Hi my name is Dennie and I am a purist.
I think I am because it was once of the first things that I got caught on when I joined my crit group. I don’t mind it in a book if it is done well, but writing… again purist
As a reader, I don’t really care. As long as I can follow the story and enjoy it, I’m fine.
As a writer, I have to stick to one POV per scene. This nothing to do with any rule (I don’t believe in writing rules — grammar rules, yes, but not writing rules). Rather, it has to do with how I construct a scene. For me, the core of the scene is the POV character’s experience with whatever is happening. If I switched POV in the middle, or tried to write omniscient, I would lose my ‘anchor’ on what the scene is about.
–June