I just have it labeled "Chapter 7: Justin Thompson" in similar font and font size. I'll be enlarging it later to make it more obvious, since people have gotten confused in the past. But overall, for my seven main characters, it works well. It's a common technique. Many books do it and it works very well for telling multiple stories in one book. Just don't have them overlap in time (have the same scene twice with different perspectives).
Martin did not invent that wheel (nor any of the other wheels he uses, to be frank). It's a very standard dynamic employed in novels where POV changes from one chapter to the next. Robert Silverberg's The Book of Skulls... Michael Cunningham's A Home at the End of the World... Octavia Butler's Clay's Ark... The example by Butler doesn't use POV names, though. In her novel, the switching from one chapter to the next is temporal and interlaced and she indicates the when, not the who of each chapter, though the who changes as well as the when.
Thanks guys. I had a feeling George R R Martin didnt invent it but the technique is probably associated with him. Thanks for the great feedback.
The earliest example I know of that uses character names as chapter titles to show that each chapter has a different POV is Faulkner's As I Lay Dying, which was published in 1930. So yeah, it's nothing new, and several authors have used it. If you feel comfortable doing this, go for it.
So that's what it's called (having a dingbat moment). Firstly, I've never read George R R Martin but I've a feeling this is how I wrote my book. I wanted to tell a story from two sides and so under each chapter number (after a gap) comes the name of the Character who's POV I am writing from, in bold. BUT, I don't only make these swaps every chapter. Sometimes, a chapter will end with Character A and the next will start with character A but I still put their name there AND, I sometimes swap over mid-chapter, in which case I will put Character B's name before I start writing. Also, Character A is in first person present, Character B is in third person/Omni past. (yes - it actually works). I am currently experimenting on book two with more characters, all of them written in third person/Omni past with only the one main character (Character A from the first book) in first person present.
I believe, reading from reviews, that Shattered, the upcoming release of the third Iron Druid Chronicles (7th in the series) is supposed to use three POVs (probably first person POV, if Kevin Hearne sticks to what he's used in the past). I guess he is going to have a picture that represents Atticus, Granuaile or Owen Kennedy, at the beginning of each chapter to denote whose POV is repressed. While a chapter title or an image can be used, the beginning of a chapter can be crafted such that the reader immediately knows who's POV is being used, and is common place. The choice is wide open, depending on the choice and writing style of the writer.
For Lonesome Dove, the author Larry McMurtry doesn't use any chapter titles and he changes POV nearly every chapter.
I find conversations about naming chapters, or otherwise indicating something about them with text to be highly interesting because the thought never occurs to me. I just have Chapter One, Chapter Two, etc. I do write longer works primarily in multiple close 3rd POV. I think I'll go back and make sure it's instantly apparent whose POV each one is in, or perhaps this type of naming method would work.
well my idea is based on moments in time but from the view point of different characters so it made sense to use this convention, possibly. Plus I just finished "A song of ice and fire" so that was an influence
I write in both, it depends on the work. I find that it's harder to write a fight scene in first person, and I can write the action and keep suspense much more easily if I'm writing in third. That being said I do tend to write VERY deep third. I like to jump perspectives here and there, and that's far less jarring if I'm writing in third person than in first. As a reader, I don't really care that much about the perspective. It's about the story, how immersive it is, and how it makes me feel. I've read fantasy in first person [another HUGE Robin Hobb fan here!] that worked brilliantly, and an emotional story about a girl with anorexia written in third that was, equally, absolutely incredible. It had me sobbing. I can't remember the title, sadly; it was several years ago and I've read a large number of books since then. So while typically, fantasy works better in third person and emotive stories in first, a good author can write in whatever perspective strikes his/her fancy and have the story be equally effective in both. Most erotica is written in first person, but the hottest scene I have EVER read was written in third. That was part of a sci-fi and was one of [I think] two sex scenes in well over 80,000 words. It was absolutely magnificent. Almost too hot to handle. Because of how I write most of my work wouldn't change much if you changed the perspective. I have a POV character regardless of the perspective. I write to the character, so my own voice doesn't tend to come into it much if at all. I recently wrote a short story during which I was arguing with the POV character through most of it over how much detail to include... I ended up letting him have his way lol.
About half of my favorite stories are told in first person and half are told in third person. There is no single perspective that I absolutely prefer. However, there is a special place in my heart for epistolary stories (my all-time favorite story happens to be framed as a journal), which are first person by nature. One of my favorites is even first and second person, written in the form of correspondence between an uncle and a nephew. I love a good story that is framed as a conversation. Sometimes the choice of perspective is not a matter of preference, but of necessity. There are many reasons why my favorite story would not work at all in third person. On the other hand, I have read stories that would not work at all in first person. One preference of mine, which is admittedly dogmatic, is that I hate when internal monologues, or even emotions, are told in the third person. Sentences like "_____, she thought" or "he couldn't believe _____" or "she wondered why _____" make me inexplicably angry. Every time I encounter something like this: "He sincerely believed it was the right thing to do." I want to rewrite the entire story in first person just to turn that sentence into this: "And can you blame me? What would you do if _____?" People will say that third person is more flexible than first person. While it does offer greater flexibility in some ways (delivering knowledge to the reader), there are just as many ways in which first person is more flexible. First person allows the author to use the narrative itself as a way to develop the character of the narrator. Instead of writing thoughts in third person (which is annoying) or setting up a whole conversation and a whole pretense just to get the character to communicate his thoughts, the author can conveniently interject a line of commentary and attribute the thought to the narrator-character. Commentary has been a fundamental part of storytelling ever since people have had stories to tell. First person is a way to use commentary to develop a character.
I guess I perceive first and third person as having opposite purposes. Third person is for giving details to the reader and letting the reader interpret them; first person is for delivering a story and a message simultaneously. I take "show, don't tell" very seriously in third person, but I find it to be a silly constraint in first person.
Ambling over here from the "how many main characters..." thread, I'll agree that the above annoys me. But not because it's a thought expressed in third person. It's because I read it as coming from the narrator, observing the character, rather than the actual character. There's a jolly avuncular uncle feel about it. I just dug out Five Red Herrings by Dorothy Sayers to find some third-person thoughts, and am curious as to whether you'd hate these just as much: Wimsey turned these thoughts over in his mind as he ran back to Kircudbright. The doctor's report made those two eggs and rashers a suspicious circumstance. and On the Thursday morning, Sergeant Dalziel woke unrefreshed and irritable. He had rather counted on the young man at Stranraer. To have a murder reported at lunch-time on Tuesday, and to catch the murderer at 6:30 the next morning would, he felt, have been a smart piece of work. Now he had to start all over again. and "Better than yesterday," sad Strachan, and realized at once that he had said a foolish thing.
There are subtle differences between some of those. They actually illustrate four different forms of third-person commentary: identifying the process of thinking identifying the meaning of the thoughts identifying the significance of a situation to a character identifying feelings Wimsey turned these thoughts over in his mind as he ran back to Kircudbright. Process of thinking. I can tolerate this. There is not really a good alternative way to show that a character is thinking. The doctor's report made those two eggs and rashers a suspicious circumstance. Significance of the situation. In general, I actually like this. Sure, it is commentary in third person (which I said is for the purpose of delivering details and letting the reader decide how to interpret them), but every once in a while, commentary makes a nice change of pace. However, I doubt that the reader really needs to be told that a circumstance is suspicious. If anything, I prefer a question: "If the doctor's report was true, then who really ate those two eggs and rashers?" On the Thursday morning, Sergeant Dalziel woke unrefreshed and irritable. Feelings. Not even feelings, more like "level of comfort". This is perfectly fine, because it is a simple physical condition. Readers know what it is like to wake up unrefreshed and irritable. He had rather counted on the young man at Stranraer. To have a murder reported at lunch-time on Tuesday, and to catch the murderer at 6:30 the next morning would, he felt, have been a smart piece of work. Now he had to start all over again. Significance of the situation. This is fine, although I prefer it to be more directly narrator-to-reader: "It would have been a smart piece of work for the young man at Stranraer to report a murder by lunch time and to make an arrest at 6:30 the next morning. Now Dalziel had to start all over again." Not sure if I am doing a good job of connecting these examples to the principle, but I am trying to illustrate the point that I prefer when the narrator blurts out thoughts and lets them fall into context, instead of explicitly attributing the thoughts to a character. And I think narratorial questions are severely underrated. Don't you? ;-)
Good question. Though I don't always write in first person, it is the POV I am most comfortable with. I suppose because I get more immersed that way. Rather than writing as an observer, I'm writing as one who experienced said story. Poe wrote mostly in first. You can spend some time reading him for a while. ~Chad
I started writing first person when I was younger, then I wanted to have another point of view of a certain character. I went back and forth on the story, so I just changed it entirely and stuck to third person. Occasionally I'll give myself a bit of first person action, but I can't really write as much in first person as I used to. After writing in third person, I got more comfortable with with reading third person work rather than first.
Have you tried writing it in both perspectives? If he is keeping a journal, you could drop a journal entry in every now and again, I'm sure that could be done well to make an interesting way of telling a story. Say for example a third person written part leads up to an event of sorts, or a cliff hanger, then the following chapter could be the journal entry that tells how that was overcome (or not overcome) from a personal perspective. As long as it isn't too far ahead from what just happened, I'm pretty sure that's the kind of thing I'd like to read!
Generally, when ever I start in first person I have to go back and make changes to make it third. I personally always find myself sliding back into the third person; it just feels more comfortable for me. I like to describe in detail settings and characters and I find the third person lends it self to that more to that type of heavy description. Like NanashiNo above said, if you can work in both and do it well, more power to you!
If your book has very few characters then first-person is probably the better option. This perspective allows for a much deeper insight into the character's thoughts, feelings and motives. Hope this helps. Good luck with your writing.
I believe, it totally depends on what you want to portray. If you want to write, something which would motivate or say anything personal or an experience,writing as a "first person" will make more impact. But if you want to talk about something else, then go for "third person". This is what I do.
I prefer third person, but I think first person is easier to write. In third person I often feel too often that I have to describe everything. My first thought always goes to rap.
So I've noticed that I have a (bad?) habit of following one character's mind into a room, having them have a conversation, then have them split up and follow the OTHER character out of the room. That's one of those things that of viewpoint advice usually tells you not to do - even with multiple viewpoints - and I'm trying to hone and tighten my style. Personally I enjoy passing the viewpoint around like a hot-potato and enjoy when movies do that, but I get that it's potentially jarring. So, should I work on making my viewpoint more static? Shift to full omniscience? (not sure I want to do that, I only like access to one head at a time, I just shift too often). Or is there a way to hone veiwpoint-passing? Any good books that do that as examples? I'm pretty open-minded and just musing. Lots of musing lately