Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Username:
Password:
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

There aren't any users online.

[Pomorzany]

I know we've chewed this thread over time and time again (kind of like frayed dental floss?), but whenever I see a mid-scene change in POV done successfully, I'd like to throw open the subject once more.
Just finished reading a new guy---Jess Walter---a book called "Over Tumbled Graves." Was impressed by many aspects of the book, but particularly by the effortless way he achieves one of the ultimate "no-nos" (or so I've been led to believe)---changing the POV  smack in the middle of a scene.
So, my question is this. Is this the sign of"the amateur writer," as I've seen it referred to in a writing manuel, or...are editors more flexible in this regard?
Can't  I let go, relax and ...just do it?

Jane Berman

[ArlineChase]

Jane,

RE: viewpoint changes

Editors call it "head hopping" and make great fun of authors who switch viewpoint in mid-scene. Agents glance askance at that as well, as it IS usually one earmark of the amateur. BUT if the rest of the book is good enough any or all of the above, even those who have scoffed, will find the work acceptable. Best-selling authors who are respected for their skills, Dick Francis for instance, have broken this rule when they felt the story would be enhanced. But Francis only did it once in ONE book (as far as I know) and he did it deliberately because there was no other way.

Usually, first agents and publishers  will try, as I have tried myself with authors whose work  my committee has accepted but whose grasp on viewpoint was less than comprehensive, to explain what the rules are and why head-hopping shouldn't be done. But some authors will never "get" viewpoint. Speaking for myself, it took me 6 years of patient explanation from agents and editors to get it myself. Then they are left with the decision to publish "as is" or NOT. My committee makes the decisions at Write Words,  so if I can't explain well enough to get corrections made, I'm still stuck with the acceptance. You will find books I've published with viewpoint flaws. I'm not exactly happy about it....

OTOH if everything else looks great and that is the only flaw it probably wouldn't stop a great  book from getting published, though many will be slower to say yes. What WILL stop it from getting published is if ALL the rules are broken  right and left.  Head hopping, plus confused pronouns, plus misused homonyms will add up to a big fat zero.

John Gardiner said it best when he said, "First you learn the rules, then you choose when to break them."

arline

[Kathy Wendorff]

I still maintain that shifting POV mid-scene is not a flaw, in and of itself. If poorly done and confusing to the reader -- then it's a flaw. If unpalatable to editors and agents, no matter how smoothly done -- then it's a matter of being unfashionable.

But it was often done in the past, and handled without a problem. I've seen multiple POV changes in "crowd" scenes which really enhanced the scene -- you shift from person to person through the party or hospital waiting room or stagecoach robbery, and get a sense of movement and life. I've also seen it done well in a few romance novels, where partway through the 1st meeting scene, you shift from her POV to his. (And romance writing groups loathe mid-scene POV changes.) It may help if the POV shift has a direction to it, if you're talking multiple POV shifts, or only happens once, rather than bouncing back and forth between 2 people throughout the scene.

Anyway, Arlines's a publisher and I'm a reader and  unpublished writer, so take this for what it's worth.

Kathy W.

[Ingrid]

Arrgh!  I posted on this earlier today.  Don't know what I did wrong.  Well, here goes again, or at least something similar.

I might as well repeat my "rule" for this venue:  no rules!  In other words, if the POV switch in midscene works and makes the scene better, do it and forget about all the rule-makers.

Now the finer points:  I see POV changes (often multiple times) in mid-scene all the time in books of well-known and best-selling authors.  That means they are not the mark of an amateur.

On the other hand, usually there is not a terribly good reason for doing it.  It happens because the author suddenly thinks mid-scene: Hey, I wonder how the other character reacts to this.  In other words, it's careless.

It is best the think ahead of time which character is the best choice for the POV of a particular scene. Sticking with that POV allows the author to develop his character's personality via internalizing, and it is more natural and believable, since we all see the world only from one point of view.  There is nothing to prevent him from having a break before switching to another scene or allowing the other character to express his/her thoughts in another chapter.

The thing that is amateurish is when the reader ends up confused.

Ingrid

[Chase]

Jane, Kathy, Ingrid and others calling "bogus" on the spun-from-nothing “rule” that point-of-view must be locked in a certain character’s head for a scene or chapter is saying the emperor’s new clothes don’t exist.  They’re right.  In Anderson’s version of the fairy tale, the weavers convinced enough people that only the stupid or unfit for their posts could not see the fine cloth the Farabutto brothers wove.

It’s the same with these bogus rules which may have never been anything more than suggestions to novice writers tending toward overuse.  Fed by the idea that we have to dumb down writing styles to a narrow scope “for the average reader,” they become rules for those wanting to appear smart and fit for their posts.

Before the trend to dumb-it-down, the unrestricted, omniscient narrator was popular and accepted.  Examples in modern creative prose are profuse, but the most recent I recall is a paragraph from Stephen King’s Cell:

Silence from the street in front of him; silence from the house behind him.  After a while, Clay leaned back in the       couch and let his eyes close.  He thought he might doze but doubted he would actually go to sleep again.  Eventually, however, he did, and this time there were no dreams.  Once, shortly before first light, a mongrel dog came up Tom McCourt’s front walk, looked in at him as he lay snoring in his cocoon of comforter, and then moved on.  It was in no hurry; pickings were rich in Malden that morning and would be for some time to come.

Who knows the innocent beginning of some of these “rules” so many of us hold so dear?  Maybe a harried third grade teacher needed to curb her young authors from beginning every sentence with “and” or “but,” so she made a rule against it, unaware it would grow as an urbane legend to affect the writing of millions.

For instance, there’s never been a rule in U.S. publication against ending a sentence with a preposition.  If it were ever a U.K. publications rule, I can’t find it. It’s more likely a wishful idea borne of a school of snobby literary style.  It’s certainly not followed by every British writers. Most of us have heard the story when an aide suggested Churchill change a sentence to conform to the bogus "rule."  Winston quipped something like, "Interference with my prepositions is something up with I shall not put!"

The general caution is actually to avoid unnecessary prepositional endings, such as "Where are you going to?" or "He decided to continue on" or "Where is it at?" Better, clearer grammar is "Where are you going?" and "He decided to continue" and "Where is it?"

However, we hear the bogus, vinegary rule over and over from the urban sour grapevine never to end a sentence in a preposition.  Bunk!

The list of faux rules goes on and on, but here’s a relatively new one: To avoid using "awkward his or her," it’s okay to substitute plural "their" in singular constructs. For example, instead of the correct, "Every child should confide in his or her mother," the addlepated assure us that "Every child should confide in their mother" is now correct. Please!  It’s confusing to careful readers. An obvious remedy to avoiding that "awkward" phrase (possibly only awkward to uneducated ears) is to recast the sentence in plurals: "All children should confide in their mothers."

Why torture perfectly acceptable English practices?  This seems far deeper down dumb than necessary. 

I don’t know, but the “rule” makers seem all too eager for all of us to see the emperor’s dandy new duds – even to wear them ourselves.

Chase

[Ingrid]

Yes, we know that, Chase, but when I surf some of the blogs by editors and agents, I read this crap.  And since both agents and editors are in those powerful, godlike positions of judging submissions from writers, the rule-making has become worse, more damaging, and more ridiculous.

We all know that those folks receive hundreds of submissions every day.  Their whole objective is to whittle down the sludge pile.  And so they develop rules that will allow them to reject with a clear conscience. Miss Snark regularly publishes the things that are automatic no's for her and makes fun of people who have broken her rule.  She had one recently on novel length stated in a query (this is before she reads the book). Fortunately my agent did not do this to me because most of my books exceed Miss Snark's limit.

This is not to say that inexperienced writers cannot make a terrible muddle of head-hopping.

[Susan August]

Chase,

You have made my day with your comment:

For instance, there’s never been a rule in U.S. publication against ending a sentence with a preposition.  If it were ever a U.K. publications rule, I can’t find it. It’s more likely a wishful idea borne of a school of snobby literary style.  It’s certainly not followed by every British writers. Most of us have heard the story when an aide suggested Churchill change a sentence to conform to the bogus "rule."  Winston quipped something like, "Interference with my prepositions is something up with I shall not put!"

Never again will I struggle to rearrange a sentence to this 'rule'!   

Susan

[JIM DOHERTY]

Remarks about the preposition "rule" reminds me of something Churchill is supposed to have said about it, something to the effect of, "It is a piece of hair-splitting, nonsenscial regulation up with which I shall not put!"

[Leon]

Before the trend to dumb-it-down, the unrestricted, omniscient narrator was popular and accepted. Examples in modern creative prose are profuse, but the most recent I recall is a paragraph from Stephen King’s Cell:

*********************
Silence from the street in front of him; silence from the house behind him. After a while, Clay leaned back in the couch and let his eyes close. He thought he might doze but doubted he would actually go to sleep again. Eventually, however, he did, and this time there were no dreams. Once, shortly before first light, a mongrel dog came up Tom McCourt’s front walk, looked in at him as he lay snoring in his cocoon of comforter, and then moved on. It was in no hurry; pickings were rich in Malden that morning and would be for some time to come.
*********************

The entire narration is via writer's viewpoint, not the fictitious character. Therefore, there is no change in viewpoint.

Leon

[Dave Freas]

Tom Clancy changed POVs frequently in his early novels (The Hunt for Red October through Debt of Honor), sometimes jumping into 2 or 3 heads in one scene to reveal the character's thoughts.  And it didn't hurt his writing career.

Dave

[Chase]

Leon,

Actually, it's the omniscient narrator's point-of-view, which is my point.

Chase   

[Kate Maguire]

Glad to see everyone chiming in on this! I do try not to switch viewpoint midscene for the simple reason that I'm not good enough to do it well. I love reading writers who can, and you do find them more in older fiction than in new.

And, Chase, your comment on the "their" usage is so on point. Why can't we just say "his" when the gender's unknown? We used to; it didn't diminish me then and it sure as heck wouldn't now. Instead we use a plural pronoun when it should be singular. Drives me nutty!

Kate, back from 6 days gone, and I missed you guys! And yes, Chase, when we flew over Portland, I asked the captain to tip his wings to you. Did yoiu catch it?

[Daniel Hatadi]

Personally, I'm not a fan of the omniscient narrator, even though 'head-hopping' can let you know more about the different characters. I guess it's a question of suspense: in real life, I only truly know what I'm thinking, and even then, I might not even be entirely clued into that. Everything I gather about other people is through my point of view or things they tell me or things I find out through others.

For me, I think writing works better when it follows at least this aspect of real life.

[Chase]

Kate,

I saw!  That wobbly contrail overhead was you?  What?  You threatened the flight crew with a tube of toothpaste?  I'll expect a visit from the local whale watch/spotted owl/homeland security patrol because I know you.

Speaking of whom you know . . . my spousal-rating went as high as your jet when Kay found out I was on first-name terms with Nancy Gramm.  She wanted to know if I'd read About Last Night . . . and Then Came Love.

"No, darn the luck," I said.  "They're out of print."

Took her all of five minutes to find her beloved dog-eared copies.  Book reports are due next week.

Chase

[ArlineChase]

Tom Clancy changed POVs frequently in his early novels (The Hunt for Red October through Debt of Honor), sometimes jumping into 2 or 3 heads in one scene to reveal the character's thoughts.  And it didn't hurt his writing career.

Dave

Well maybe that is why his first book was published by the Naval Observatory Press and not one of the big Mass Market publishers who were quite happy to take it over once they saw all those sales and $$$$.  I dislike "rules" as much as Ingrid, but they do serve to help you in the marketplace.

And again, as Ingrid said,  if it's ONE rule and all the others are okay, then  it can be bent.

My first writing teacher told me the two basic rules of writing were to "write what you know" and  "Show don't tell." After 25 years in the writing business my own two basic rules for writing are 1. NEVER confuse the reader. 2. Be consistent. Never make extra work for your editor.

As a teacher I've learned and taught the rules. As a writer, I've chosen to break them on occassion, because whatever the "rules" are you will often find them broken in print.

a