I rather like the way Jodi Picoult writes chapters from the POV of each of her different characters. One chapter, one different POV. How do people feel about this? I always thought you should stick to one POV for the entirety of the book?
You are perfectly entitled to change p.o.v characters in a book, in theory, it should work very well. It is strictly a matter of opinion and taste, but it is worth considering how readable the book will be if the p.o.v changes. There should be no reason why a book should be negatively affected by shifts in p.o.v as long as the p.o.v is changed correctly. Most people would consider that a p.o.v should only be changed with a new scene or chapter. This is the way I would do it. Just a point, dialogue is a great way to show how multiple characters react and show their feeling to the p.o.v character. I think it fits really nicely to stop head hops and it can make dialogue dynamic and interesting without slipping into many point of view changes. It also allows the pace of your story to remain up tempo. P.ov is a can of worms in my opinion which can become a very distracting tangent, so try and keep a peripheral perspective and don't get sucked into the technicalities. For me, p.o.v is something to learn along the way rather than completely immerse oneself in. It is definitely a slow burner subject that requires a high skill factor and execution. Beware, it is an easy way to find writer's block.
Telling a story from more than one intimate perspective can be very effective. You just have to keep the reader in mind: they were not in the situation or in your head when the events took place. So you have to provide them with sign-posts. (A reader who can't get his bearings soon becomes frustrated and a frustrated reader often turns into a reader who throws your book against the wall.) Chapter headings is the most obvious way. The title doesn't have to be the character's name; it can be where they are or when they lived or their occupation or their function in the story, like the Stage Manager in Our Town. A more subtle one might be a radical change of voice - only, make sure there is a break in between. The most subtle and difficult method is the segue; where one character is followed by the omniscient narrator, as "John turned the corner and hurried toward the drugstore." and then have a second character pick up the story in the same narrator's voice, as "Mrs. Kenny watched John stride past her flower shop without so much as a sideways glance, intent on whatever business he had in the drugstore." etc. A secondary narrator in counterpoint to the main one can work - that's usually denoted by italicizing or bracketing, but it can easily become annoying. In any case, it's best to keep the number of narrators small .... usually. Unless you have a terrific idea that needs a dozen different points of view to tell. The important things are: to have a compelling reason for telling it that way and make sure the reader agrees that this is the best way to tell it.
Personally, I dislike it when books use multiple P.O.V's. It seriously puts me off reading them. Although, this is only my opinion and I'm sure there are many people who like (if not, prefer) books with multiple P.O.V's. I usually write in third person omniscient, and that works perfectly well for me. With that, you can still know what characters are thinking and feeling and can jump from character to character without it looking messy.
Unless the author is a literary genius with a doctor degree in psychology on par with Shakespeare, I'm unlikely to be convinced by a character switch from the same author, especially if there are multiple genders, which is kind of the whole point of swapping point of view. Women are suddenly lesbian tomboys in the closet and constantly trying to prove how typically female they are. They might lack a woman's vocabulary for the most basic things like horse-riding, flowers, sewing and dance, while describing the metal junk as "metric 3.5x10mm Philips screw in 410 stainless steel". Most authors also fail at transitions (including Stephen King), so the scene feels like a blank canvas without scene details for the next five pages until the reader figured out the new location by going back and forth between pages many times. Changing character at the same time only adds to the confusion.
Of course most of us don't have the natural genius for character that Shakespeare had, but that's a ridiculously high standard. Not all men write or talk like Tim the Toolman Taylor from the show Home Improvement. And not all women are feminine and sensitive. To be honest, we all contain both feminine and masculine elements, though one may be largely undeveloped. In fact, the more creative artists often have both quite well developed, it's what causes creativity to flow. The way I've always seen it described (and this has been known since ancient times) is that an artist is a person deeply in touch with their own opposite-gender side (the Anima or Animus in Jung's terminology, your masculine or feminine side in the ordinary parlance), and therefore more complete than the ordinary folk. Though at times even the most hardass ice-queen female can suddenly say something very feminine/sensitive, or the most feminine male could come across as a Marine momentarily. This applies to characters as well as readers and writers. But, especially in this day and age when extremely masculine female action heroes are all the rage, I don't think most readers would blink an eye to see female characters written just like the males ones, or vice verse. Basically, I don't think it's a very big issue, unless a writer has a lot of trouble with one or the other and is trying to use that as a POV character.
I don't use different POV, because you need to Bec able to write each character with a different voice, something I would struggle with . I recently read The Book of skulls by Robert Silverburg . It alternated the POV for its four main Characters. They were all alike , I was struggling to know who was who .
I thought the whole point of switching POV was just to present the story from a different character's perspective. I don't think gender has to have anything to do with it. And it's just another literary technique. Genius or expertise in the field of psychology are irrelevant.
You are absolutely right not to attempt something that's a struggle for you. Every author has different capabilities, a different level of mastery and experience. You should do in your published work only what you feel competent to do. You should practice and improve different skills in experimental pieces that you share only with colleagues - that's what workshops are for.
Couldn't you say the same thing about writing in 1st person? That requires greater psychological depth than third person.
It depends on which end you attack the problem from. If you can write a real diary, you can write something authentic with your own author voice. It's the fictional part that requires skill, so you don't have to make it harder than needed. The longer you go from your own personality, the harder it becomes not to fall into a shallow stereotype. That's why I only write as male INFJ-T protagonists and use psychological profiles from people I know for side-characters. Often taking partial quotes and rewriting them into the context.
I've done it in a number of books - course it could be that I'm a literary genius on par with shakespeare, but a more likely explanation is that its not really that hard... i don't think i've ever written a female MC as a 2 dimensional lesbian tomboy by the by... even the lesbian ones Only writing characters that are essentially self inserts is pretty limiting for most writers... of course it helps if you know lots of women (see also gay men, people of colour, whatever other characteristic) its called research
A very interesting approach. For me, I write to escape from reality; I wouldn't want it dogging me in my fiction
Yes I am 69 - and just tackling my first novel so I'm a real newbie as far as writing goes. I know what I like. The thing is, what will readers like and what is commercially successful?
The focus and learning about p.o.v and other fundamental aspects of writing will be intense in the first instance. Then it gets easier as you begin to relax and enjoy it. You will, promise!
Hi There is a book How To Write A Million . It is actually three books in one .The books cover everything you need to know as creative writer . It is especially good explaining viewpoint. You can always get a used copy on Amazon for just a few pounds .
You can readily see what's commercially successful. But if you try to write like JK Rowling or Stephen King or Barbara Cartland, you will fail. This is not a likely or probably, it's an absolutely - you will fail, because you are not those people. About all you can hope for is to develop the best writer you can be and hope other people like that. It starts with being honest - about your capabilities, your subject matter and your style. PS Have I mentioned this book yet? He's a smart and very nice guy, so I'm a little bit biassed, but it really is a useful book, and fun to read.
Well, my preference with writing is to stick to one point of view in first person. I enjoy creating a world as the main character sees it. Some stories are bigger than one person though. I guess I'd call those epics. They aren't the type of thing I've ever written. That said, I do write in multiple POV when writing my contemporary romances because it's the standard in the sub-genre right now. They are cutesy stories so I don't mind it so much. It can be fun to slip back and forth between characters trying not to fall in love with one another. As far as reading, the majority of what I read stuck to one POV unless it was romance. I'm actually having a hard time thinking of a non romance book I read without multiple POV. I wouldn't be bothered by multiple POV at all though unless it was done poorly.
To be honest, I have a possibly unfair bias against multiple POV. It seems to be done a lot by immature YA novels, or likewise immature newbies. It often comes across as explaining everything to a reader -- which an author absolutely should not do. There needs to be room for mystery and interpretation. The biggest and best source of this is not living inside the head of important characters. When the reader has to figure out what a character is thinking, it engages them and makes them wonder. If it's explained outright by means of multiple POV, then all the reader is doing is waiting for the characters to understand each other -- something the reader already does. That said, very little is impossible with writing. If you're going to do multiple POV, I suggest limiting it to a small number, as well as making sure there are several important characters whose minds the readers don't see.
I have read both POV chapter change, and within chapter. If it takes more than on POV to tell the story then go for it. Try not to make them all sound the same, and you should be good.
