Why do so many writers on here seem to opt for multiple POVs? I've always stuck to a single POV or used omniscient. I feel like it's too easy to get confusing when there are too many POVs involved, and I've never realized a benefit for the story or the reader when this is involved. I have read books where the POV switched between sections (like when the book is divided into four sections) or when a single chapter dips into another POV, but then the rest of the book and the story return to normal. Other than that I just find a jumping POV hard to follow and a distraction from the story. Maybe it's just me, but why would anyone (in most circumstances) want to work with multiple POVs? It seems like it could be a big risk to the overall story, and, IMO, maybe not even the best way to tell a story. I know there are so many ways to tell a story, but I feel like juggling multiple POVs could actually be making things harder for a writer and damage the consistency. Is there something about a single POV that some people just don't like or want to work with? What am I missing?
For my last book, I chose multiple POV because it made for a richer narrative and allowed the reader deeper insight into each character than either single POV or omniscent narration would've done. That doesn't mean I disdain single POV or omniscent narration. Those just weren't right for that story. I didn't become a writer to avoid taking creative risks or to make things easy on myself. Writing from multiple points of view was a fascinating challenge that forced me to find solutions to problems I hadn't encountered before. I thoroughly enjoyed the experience and am very happy with the results.
There are benefits to multiple pov's - you can cut away from a scene causing natural cliffhangers thereby drawing out the suspense from 2 or more separate angles. This was done marvelously in an 80s horror book by Andrew Neiderman called Playmates - a mother and daughter are held captive by a crazy family when their car breaks down on a road trip, and when her husband tracks them down to the house he's stopped by the crazies from rescuing them and dumped in a well. For the last tense chapters you have papa trying to climb out of the well, while it cuts to the daughter who is being put in the boo-box - a coffin for discipline, and the mother is on the verge of being raped. The tension is ramped up as you wonder if the father will make it out of the well in time, if the daughter can get out of the box, or if the mother can get to the daughter or the husband. Two of the downsides I've seen is cutting to less exciting storylines (this happens in beach books with multiple heroines like Valley of the Dolls) or rehashing info the reader already knows - I've seen this done in romances - he said/she said. I've used multiple POV's twice - my first novel had an mc with amnesia and he wasn't present for some events - I also needed to throw shade on his love interest so I had scenes from her pov. In that novel I switched between about five or six pov's. But not always. The mc was the main focus. I was heavily influenced by Twin Peaks and the novels Kings Row and Peyton Place. My WIP had 2 pov's switching from director to child actor. I liked it but it was overly long. I've since switched it to the directors pov which has drastically changed the story - because you could see from the child's pov the directors suspicions were either confirmed to the reader or shown up to be just suspicions. But now with no cut away - the director and reader remain in limbo until/or if I ever decide to address them.
Frankly, I often DNF anything with more than 2 or 3 POVs. It's very, very hard to get it right when writing or reading.
There are tons of reasons to use multiple POV's. It just depends on the type of story whether or not it's needed or even justified. So many books would be impossible to write from a single, limited perspective, books like The Stand, for instance. We need to know what's going on all over the place with different characters, many of whom never even cross paths, and I suppose you could write it omniscient, but you'd be missing out on the intimacy of limited third. For decades now, the majority of novelists, to my knowledge, have been writing in either limited or first. I really only see omniscient in the books I read with my kid. You primarily write shorts, if I'm not mistaken though. I don't know much about that world. I could see wanting to stick to one POV if your word count is in the 2K or even 7K range, but some longer fiction demands multiple POV's. It's not right for every book, maybe not even most, but sometimes it's the only way to go. I think perspective is dictated by the particulars of the story. My first novel is written in first person. I was frustratingly four chapters into a third person first draft before I realized it had to be first. No other perspective would have worked. Similarly, my current WIP absolutely had to be close third with multiple POV's. I have too many characters and arcs to be able to follow one person through the whole thing. I'm taking some big risks with this book. I do worry that some readers might not be able or willing to follow this many lines, but you can't please everyone, and the friend who alpha read the first two of three parts had no problem. He was able to comment on or ask questions about pretty much any character by name and had a total handle on the story. I mean, it's far from flawless. It's a first draft, but I'm fairly confident in my choice of perspectives at least.
There have been quite a few reasons for me to need another POV. My first novel is sympathetic to its opposing forces, and I think I've mentioned before that it's good fun to play with differing perception from view to view—that along with general immersion is why I prefer third limited over all. Large POV casts might have a greater risk of not being well honed by the author, though. ASoFaI's first Dany chapter killed my progress. She was so boring I never picked up the book again. Pacing, too, is a deadfall. I had to be very careful with that strong witch/knight dual narrative that there wasn't a lurching flow brought on by view switches.
Harry Turtledove does this to great effect in his great war series. You have multiple POV characters, in different locations, but a single time line. The combination of these POVS gives a bigger picture to the events, and each POV has their own part in those events. The series is an alternate history, where the south successfully succeeded. So you see events from the views of a New York Jew, a southern slave, a female plantation owner, and a fighter pilot just to name a few. It is something very difficult to pull off, but when done well it really add to the whole.
