# READERS: Does multiple character POV bother you when reading a novel?



## Russell Brooks (Dec 23, 2010)

Some novels are written in a way where the reader only experiences one character POV. Usually it's that of the protagonist. Other books I've read present multiple character POV. I've written with both types of POV, however, less than a handful of readers complained that the multiple character POV hurt the story for them. Oddly, they never explained why. So out of curiosity, does multiple character POV bother you when reading? If so, why?


----------



## Eliza Baum (Jul 16, 2011)

Multiple character POV within the same scene (head-hopping) drives me batty, and I will usually put down a book if I see it. Multiple character POV between scenes (i.e. Chapter 1 is Bob's POV, Chapter 2 is Jane's, Chapter 3 is Bob again, etc.) is completely normal and expected. It doesn't seem as common these days (at least, in what I've been reading--which seems to be mostly 1st person, single POV), but I definitely don't mind. Sometimes it's necessary to portray the depth and breadth of story and world.


----------



## Richard Raley (May 23, 2011)

First, open third-person, just sucks, I can't read it.

The thing about closed third-person is you have to make the characters equally entertaining to read, or at least close, because if you don't, then you've got the reader thinking about when the favorite characters are going to pop up and complaining about seeing the dreaded pov. When that happens the non-favorite characters can turn into _hated_ characters just by not being the "awesome" ones.

As an example, almost every Wheel of Time fan I know stops their reading sessions when the Elayne and Faile chapters pop up.


----------



## fancynancy (Aug 9, 2009)

Personally, done well, I MUCH prefer changing POV.  I love it because it's a way of looking at things that life rarely offers.  I have also loved books where the chronology is out of order so we can see where someone wound up and then find out why.  We read "Old Filth" by Jane Gardam in my group, which jumps around chronologically and from POV to POV, and most of us loved it.  It was done so well, I did not once feel confused.  If the story had been told in the usual way, it would have been far less interesting.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

It depends how it is done. When you change perspective, there needs to be a clean break between the two perspectives, such as a chapter or section break. Otherwise, it is a mess. Think of it like cleansing the mental palatte. If it shifts from one paragraph to the next, it's a problem. It's like when you lose track of who is speaking, and have to go back and untangle it.


----------



## Amera (May 22, 2011)

Multiple third person limited POV all the way! I think it's the most interesting way to build characters (both with their POV and how other people view them) as well as suspense. I particularly like it in battle scenes; it kind of makes me visualize it more like a movie with the camera moving around. Like anything else it can stretch to bad extremes, though, which a lot of epic fantasy has a problem with. 

That being said, limited POV can certainly have its advantages and is more appropriate for some genres. I personally haven't written in a single POV in a long time and I've pondered busting out a few short story ideas with first person or the like. 

Edit: And yes I agree, third person omniscient is almost always terrible.


----------



## Grace Elliot (Mar 14, 2011)

In the hands of a skillful writer, shifting POV (with a clearly defined break so as not to confuse), adds to character development. I like to see the other characters perspective and see how they react to events. It can deepen my involvement with the plot dilemma. 
In the hands of a bad writer, shifting POV is just plain irritating!


----------



## scottnicholson (Jan 31, 2010)

"What she said," he said, using telepathy to get into that other guy's head.


----------



## Writtled (Jul 19, 2011)

Personally, I hate multiple POVs, in most cases. As a reader, I feel normally you don't get enough "head time" with the character you like. More often than not, you're with a character you like, and when you start really liking being with that character...the author has moved on to the next, leaving the reader frustrated. I have to hear the book is AMAZING before I'm willing to give multiple POVs a chance.

As an author though, I feel it's fun to have multiple POVs. It keeps you from getting bored with one character, and it keeps the momentum up. BUT, as a I said as a reader, it's hard to make the reader happy with this format. 

Hope that helps?


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

I think this has already been said:
It is a great technique if used by a good writer.
If you are not a good writer, don't do it.

Just sayin.....


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

I really like it when it's done well.

The one advantage books have over movies IMO is getting inside the heads of characters, so I love books where you get inside the heads of multiple characters rather than only staying with the protagonist.

Some books that do the multiple POVs really well are George R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series and The Imperfectionists by Tom Rachman.


----------



## chloe777 (Jul 19, 2011)

I JUST read a book with different chapters in multiple POV. I can't stand it when it's head hopping, but I *LOVE* it when it's clean. I finished When the Tiger Smiles, and just started The Help. Both POV chapter-changers.


----------



## mscottwriter (Nov 5, 2010)

"The Help" is an excellent example of how multiple POV can enhance a story.  I agree that I like to read from more than one perspective.  I just finished an indie fantasy ("The Wrath of Kings and Princes") in which the author did a terrific job of using multiple POV's.

One pitfall in this, though, is that each POV must be unique.  Everyone's thoughts should sound different.  If you're reading a multiple POV book and all the inner voices sound the same, then something is wrong.


----------



## kchughez (Jun 29, 2011)

The Help threw me for a loop with the mutliple characters POV. But I ended up loving it! Others, like James Patterson's Witch and Wizard, not so much.


~KC


----------



## HDJensen (Apr 20, 2011)

I personally enjoy reading books with multiple 1st POV's if they are written well. The POV change needs to occur at the change of a major scene, preferably a new chapter. Also, each POV character needs to have a very distinct voice that is unique to them. The author should also let the reader know which character's head they are in within the first line or two of the change. If these things are done smoothly then I enjoy reading a book where I can learn about the separate experiences of more than one main character. I think two POV main characters is easy to read, but if you get more than three or four it gets hard to enjoy.


----------



## LunaraSeries (Jun 19, 2011)

Changing POV is fine with me. The issue is when the writer doesn't reveal something that the POV character should know because he/she wants to create mystery/suspense for the reader.  If the POV knows it and its relevent, it should be written out or the reader gets disillusioned. The key is to not write a character who knows too much or it kills a lot of the suspense/mystery or if you hold back, the reader gets frustrated.  That is where POV falls apart to me.


----------



## StephanieVoid (Mar 11, 2011)

I like multiple POV's. It enables the story to be richer and more layered. 

However, if does annoy me when the author cuts from a beloved character's POV and starts telling the story of a character I don't like too much. Sometimes when that happens I flip forward and read what's happening to the character I'm concerned about. This happened all the time when I was reading George R. R. Martin, though I did start to like some the other characters once their stories got more interesting.


----------



## anne_holly (Jun 5, 2011)

I prefer multiple POVs in novels, but shorter works are likely best in single since there's less time to spread around. I can't dig romance novels where we only see one POV - presumably more than one person matters in the relationship, so we should have some investment in both, IMO.


----------



## mscottwriter (Nov 5, 2010)

> The issue is when the writer doesn't reveal something that the POV character should know because he/she wants to create mystery/suspense for the reader.


Definitely! That's kind of a cheap trick.

And I completely agree, Stephanie. I guess it would be hard for the writer to know which character a particular reader is going to bond with, but I feel cheated when I have to move on from a character, and I'm just not ready to leave him/her yet!


----------



## Ilyria Moon (May 14, 2011)

I prefer multi.


----------



## lillady83 (Jul 12, 2011)

Personally, it really doesn't matter to me very much.  Each story works better with a certain POV so it is really going to depend on the book.  I love reading well-written books with multiple POV and books with just one POV.  It just depends.


----------



## anne_holly (Jun 5, 2011)

lillady83 said:


> Personally, it really doesn't matter to me very much. Each story works better with a certain POV so it is really going to depend on the book. I love reading well-written books with multiple POV and books with just one POV. It just depends.


This is true, of course. It's just easier for me to believe a story, and have sympathy for characters you are supposed to root for, if I can move around a bit. But, I won't toss a book simply because it is single POV.

I just have bad memories of those old romance novels where the hero hardly ever spoke, made all these weird decisions we never accessed and then just randomly swept the heroine up at the end, crushing her into his broad chest, and gave her the kiss that made the world end... and that's it. I kind of don't trust "love" unless I know the hero has something going on in there other than hormones. He's basically a testosterone filled piece of furniture at that point.

But, yes, it can be done well, especially in non-romance or short romance, so I agree it does depend on the book.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Anything can work when it's the right tool for the job at hand, and it's handled by a wordsmith who knows how to use that tool to good effect -- which probably explains why it often does not work for me. 

I think one of the reasons I like first person narratives is that -- at least usually -- they have just one POV, so there is no temptation for the author to jump around, play games with internal cliff-hangers, needlessly complicate the story, and confuse me with undifferentiated characters, some of whom I'm not interested in. When it works, the mutli-POV 3rd person can be great, but when it doesn't, it can quickly become an annoyance that has me looking for something else to read.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

The Independence of Miss Mary Bennet had the craziest POV head hopping ever...and I loved every moment of it. No other work has even been able to replicate that for me.

I don't mind novels with several POVs in different chapters.


----------



## JMJeffries (Jun 13, 2011)

I like multiple points of view, but I like it when the writer gives me a chance to identify the POV character before moving on to another point of view.  

I dislike when a mystery/thriller writer goes into the criminal's mind and keeps everything really vague about not only the identity of the character, but the gender.  If this is supposed to keep me reading, it usually doesn't.  

And I don't like characters who keep important pieces of information from me for reasons that generally don't work.  Like having a POV character answer the phone and then keep the other character's information a secret.  If we're in the POV character's head, then we get to hear the conversation, too.  Several authors I have read in the past have done this as a means of creating a suspenseful chapter end, and then in the next chapter never explain what the POV character heard, and on one occasion acted as though the phone call never happened, because the reader is just supposed to trust the writer who may or may not reveal what the phone conversation was about.  

Too often writers will assume the reader will just figure it out.  I never do.  I have a mantra, never assume anything, never assume a reader will just figure anything out without the clues.  Usually the reader will arrive at the wrong conclusion.


----------



## KateEllison (Jul 9, 2011)

I personally think it can be a fantastic technique, if used correctly. I love this technique when it's used to show the reader various facets of the story that the MC doesn't see. It's also a great way to pull back and prevent melodrama by having a tangential character view a dramatic scene rather than the MC. _Mara: Daughter of the Nile_, one of my favorites as a kid, comes to mind.


----------



## navythriller (Mar 11, 2011)

I prefer multiple POVs.  If done properly, it adds richness and complexity that are difficult to achieve through the eyes of a single character.


----------



## anguabell (Jan 9, 2011)

Most of the time, I hate it, particularly in mysteries and thrillers. It interrupts the story line, it is indeed a "cheap trick" and ii definitely disrupts my suspension of disbelief. But there are exceptions, when it is necessary to describe something that is going on in parallel with the main story ("The Day of the Jackal" comes to mind). It must be done well and it must make sense.


----------



## Tamara Rose Blodgett (Apr 1, 2011)

Geez...if it's done correctly the multi-POV is terrific and fully dimensional for the reader! I used this [method] in my second book and it added more depth and detail. Is the multi as intimate? I don't think so...but, it offers a rich reader experience and it's something different! Fun!


----------



## navythriller (Mar 11, 2011)

anguabell said:


> Most of the time, I hate it, particularly in mysteries and thrillers. It interrupts the story line, it is indeed a "cheap trick" and ii definitely disrupts my suspension of disbelief. But there are exceptions, when it is necessary to describe something that is going on in parallel with the main story ("The Day of the Jackal" comes to mind). It must be done well and it must make sense.


Hmmm... I have almost the exact opposite reaction regarding suspension of disbelief in mysteries and thrillers. It usually strikes me as ludicrously convenient that one person (our intrepid POV character) just happens to witness every noteworthy event, or somehow comes to learn the salient details of any significant happenings that occur outside of his/her sight and hearing.

While I've seen some fine exceptions, the plot machinations required to put a single character at the center of a complex mystery nearly always seem too contrived to me. I have to work much harder to suspend my disbelief.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

For complex stories and large plot lines, a multiple PoV (properly done with no head hopping, please) works best imo.


----------



## Casper Parks (May 1, 2011)

It's nice, giving the POV of major players in a story.


----------



## journeymama (May 30, 2011)

I really like it when it's done well. (Like so many others said.) 

And I actually like it when I'm forced to leave one character's perspective and enter another, because by the end of their chapter, or section or whatever, I don't want to leave THEM and that's a really good effect.

The Lord of the Rings comes to mind...


----------



## NS (Jul 8, 2011)

I don't really care. If the story flows it doesn't matter how many POV's. It was funny in one of Nora Roberts books (I read one). Two people were in the house, they were talking at the table and in the next paragraph, the one of them was facing a few men in the office. Or something like that. And POV also changed, of course. Took a couple of seconds to figure out what had happened. _That_ - I don't like.


----------



## Selina Fenech (Jul 20, 2011)

I like first person books, and also multiple POV books as long as it's not omniscient 3rd person. I've never been much a fan of that. But I do like jumping into different characters heads. I like the way Cassandra Clare does multiple 3rd person POV for her two big series Infernal Devices and Mortal Instruments.

Also, I recently read Hush Money by Susan Bischoff (spelling?) which had alternating first person POV between two characters, but was a little different for me at first, but I really loved it after a while.


----------



## Nancy Fulda (Apr 24, 2011)

I don't have a preference. I do think that multiple POVs -- and especially head-hopping -- are more difficult to write well, and hence more likely to fail. But yeah... done well, they can add a lot of depth to a book. Take _Dune_, for example. Head-hops like crazy, and I never even noticed until someone pointed it out to me.

That said, most of my favorite books have been single POV.


----------



## John Dorian (Jul 23, 2011)

I've never been a huge fan of first person myself, and first person between multiple people is just complicated. It forces you to sort out who's doing what to who for why and it's just unnecessary. I could however fathom a scene or two you could do that have a small amount of potential to not drive people bonkers, but you're better off just keeping things simple.

I look at it like eating food: If a food has too many different textures and flavors it makes it difficult to enjoy. "Oooh, I really like this bit, but I think this part's rubbish." Multiple POV is going to throw your consistency out the window and it'll give readers a headache.

That's my take on the opposition, anyway. Best of luck in your Kindle-fueled Literary adventures!


----------



## David Alastair Hayden (Mar 19, 2011)

The thread has probably proved that people like all sorts.

Personally, I love 3rd person omniscient, but you rarely see it these days. Modern American readers don't seem to care for it, for some reason. I think as the demographic of readers changed over the years, the preferred forms changed. That's not a bad thing or a good thing. Just a thing.

I like head-popping, occasional head-popping (like you see in many bestsellers), 3rd person limited with multiples or a single viewpoint, 1st person. I like it all, if it's done well. The only trick with multiple viewpoints is pulling them all off. 

I've written a novel in each of those manners as well, except for omniscient. Certain novels need certain structures. 

Also, multiple viewpoints is nearly unheard of in middle grade books and rare in young adult, especially more than 2 viewpoint characters.


----------



## Seanathin23 (Jul 24, 2011)

I feel that every book has got a POV structure that works best for it.  I've written two so far and I'm useing the third person limited point of view, but that is because for the first third none of the charators are toghter, but all need to be established.  In a thriller or mystory it can be better to stick with a single person, but really as long as its well writen I'll let a writer get away with almost anything. Anything exsept people not giving out inportant information when they should espeaclly when we are in their head.


----------



## emilyward (Mar 5, 2011)

I enjoy multiple POVs - not in the same scene, but with clear breaks. It gives me new perspective on the story and helps me get to know more than just one character. It seems to work best with speculative fiction because the story is broader and not focused on just one person. 

That being said, I don't like it when the author builds the story up then leaves you with a cliffhanger, and you have to read through an entire chapter of boring POV from another character before getting back to the character/subplot you really care about. 

The Help, like others said, is a good example. So is The History of Love by Nicole Krauss and Hush Money by Susan Bischoff.


----------



## Kathelm (Sep 27, 2010)

Having access to multiple POV means you have the right POV for each scene.  The author can control how much insight a character has into events, show events that one character might not be involved in, reveal secrets, and build sympathy for both sides of a conflict.  Plus, it allows for increased depth of characters and plotting.  

It has a lot of benefits over single POV, so I'm all for it.


----------



## John Dorian (Jul 23, 2011)

David Alastair Hayden said:


> The thread has probably proved that people like all sorts.
> 
> Personally, I love 3rd person omniscient, but you rarely see it these days. Modern American readers don't seem to care for it, for some reason. I think as the demographic of readers changed over the years, the preferred forms changed. That's not a bad thing or a good thing. Just a thing.
> 
> ...


I agree with your remarks on 3rd person. It gives the reader a simple view of the story. 3rd and second person are my favorite simply because of their consistency.


----------



## gatehouseauthor (Apr 22, 2011)

I tend to enjoy both, but I would say I prefer (by a slim margin) books with multiple POV.  Again, it goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway), head-hopping is bad... there needs to be a clear break between POV switches, or I'm immediately turned off by a book.  I'm especially fond of books with multiple storylines going on separately, which converge somewhere and go on as a single story.  The old "chase" format is a good example, where one character or group is trying to catch up with or find another character or group for a portion of the story.  Also, the "coincidence" format, where two characters have different experiences and stories that may not seem to connect, but as you go along, you the reader begin to see the connections, and then finally the characters come together and everything becomes clear.

As a writer, I enjoy writing both ways, but I find it difficult to keep a narrative running for an entire book from one POV.  For me, a big part of character development is handling the different characters' reactions to events within the story, one-on-one.  So almost everything I write that's over 10,000 words has multiple POV.


----------



## ashel (May 29, 2011)

gatehouseauthor said:


> Again, it goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway), head-hopping is bad... there needs to be a clear break between POV switches, or I'm immediately turned off by a book.


Ok, forgive me, but I really don't think it does "go without saying." I've been following this thread with some confusion. From what I've been able to piece together so far, "head hopping" is just a POV switch that _doesn't work_, either because it breaks up the narrative flow, confuses the reader, or, in the case of first person, makes no sense. (I may be in the minority here, but I think insisting that 3rd person omniscient has to follow a strict set of rules because it is "close" makes little to no sense. It's storytelling. It's omniscient storytelling. Do whatever you want, it's not going to result in an epistemological crisis.) And a POV switch is head hopping that does work? So, really, Nancy's point - that it's just a technique that's hard to master and easy to completely and utterly flub, but doesn't have an inherent positive or negative value - might help me here. I'm just having kind of a visceral reaction to this idea of "no, NEVER!"

Is it that this sort of free flowing storytelling style has simply gone out of fashion? That's a very different thing from saying "it's bad writing!" A lot of really insanely good books do this with abandon. And, actually, it might explain some things for me - I've noticed that a lot of the books that I love that are in 3rd are older; newer books in 3rd often seem to lack a certain confidence (to me, in my very subjective opinion) in the narrative voice, and maybe that's part of it? I dunno. I'm gonna have to reread a bunch of books with this in mind.


----------



## gatehouseauthor (Apr 22, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> Ok, forgive me, but I really don't think it does "go without saying." I've been following this thread with some confusion. From what I've been able to piece together so far, "head hopping" is just a POV switch that _doesn't work_, either because it breaks up the narrative flow, confuses the reader, or, in the case of first person, makes no sense. (I may be in the minority here, but I think insisting that 3rd person omniscient has to follow a strict set of rules because it is "close" makes little to no sense. It's storytelling. It's omniscient storytelling. Do whatever you want, it's not going to result in an epistemological crisis.) And a POV switch is head hopping that does work? So, really, Nancy's point - that it's just a technique that's hard to master and easy to completely and utterly flub, but doesn't have an inherent positive or negative value - might help me here. I'm just having kind of a visceral reaction to this idea of "no, NEVER!"
> 
> Is it that this sort of free flowing storytelling style has simply gone out of fashion? That's a very different thing from saying "it's bad writing!" A lot of really insanely good books do this with abandon. And, actually, it might explain some things for me - I've noticed that a lot of the books that I love that are in 3rd are older; newer books in 3rd often seem to lack a certain confidence (to me, in my very subjective opinion) in the narrative voice, and maybe that's part of it? I dunno. I'm gonna have to reread a bunch of books with this in mind.


I should clarify my "it goes without saying" comment... perhaps it just goes without saying, to me. I feel, and was always taught, that there's a difference between a POV switch and head-hopping. Head-hopping is switching POV in the middle of a section, a paragraph, or in such a way that there's nothing to tell the reader that a break from the previous narrative voice has occurred. And to me, that's almost always bad. The only person I've ever seen do this in a way that didn't immediately jar me out of the story is Stephen King, in his Gunslinger books. And when he does it, there's a clear demarcation... one character has walked away and left the scene, or that character's POV is now irrelevant to the scene, and the next paragraph makes it clear that we're now seeing through someone else's eyes. Yes, anything can be done well... even those things that today's writing classes teach us are "bad writing", like head-hopping. But it's rare, IMO, and even those that are considered masters can fall into the trap of not doing these things well. It doesn't have to confuse the reader; if it pulls you (or the majority of readers) out of the narrative, then to me, it's bad.

In contrast, a POV change, again IMO, is a natural progression to a different part of the story. I have always enjoyed these... sometimes it's necessary to keep the narrative fresh. If it's done well (and yes, it can be done badly too!), then you leave one POV at a point that makes sense, but keeps the reader wanting to know what's going to happen with that character next, and yet the new POV quickly draws you in and keeps your interest. This is part of what, to me, can make a book that good old "roller coaster thrill ride" that reviewers and readers are always saying keeps them excited and interested in a work. Books that do this quite well are the early Belgariad books by David Eddings, the Magician series by Raymond Feist, LoTR, Jack Chalker's Nathan Brazil/Well World books, and many more. And yes, I know, I'm a geek and just mentioned a bunch of old sci fi and fantasy books... shows both my age and my predilections. LOL


----------



## ashel (May 29, 2011)

Oh man, I _devoured_ the Belgariad books. Geek pride forever.

I think the reason I still sort of balk at the idea of saying "anything that pulls a majority of readers out of the story is bad" is that whether or not something jars a reader out of the story is largely a function of expectations. Those clearly change over time. A lot of people don't read classics because they don't meet their current expectations for narrative style, and thus require more work on the part of the reader, but I don't think that detracts from the value of those classics. It seems dangerous to me to conflate "challenging" with "bad". Just as an example, I was super tired as I was going to bed last night, so I went with Terry Pratchett rather than Virginia Woolf, who I think does require more work because she gets so deep into multiple POV. Yet, much as I love Terry, I think overall Virginia's still winning that fight. (Possibly Virginia Woolf isn't the best of example of "meeting expectations of her contemporaries" so much as "taking part in a literary revolution." Shakespeare works, though, right? Easily understood by contemporaries, yet the bane of modern high school English classes?)

And, of course, this is complicated by the fact that a lot of times head hopping _is_ just bad, but I'm not convinced that that's not symptomatic of more general issues. I googled head hopping to try to find some examples, and a lot of them were just ludicrously bad writing; head hopping was only one of many problems. Unfortunately, there were also some examples of bad writing where it wasn't really the head hopping that did it, it was that it was just boring. The thoughts or observations we were seeing as a result of the head hopping would have been just as boring if they'd been presented in a restricted POV. So I was kind of unconvinced by the various straw man arguments I encountered on my admittedly brief google tour.

I also kind of wonder to what degree our expectations of narrative might be affected by the prevalence of television and movies. Again, as a result of my googling, it seems like while it's not everybody's preference, nobody really objects on principle to an omniscient 3rd multiple POV from a great distance. So (and I think another poster actually used this metaphor already), like a camera swooping in on various characters, or like scenes with different characters as the main focus edited together. What seems to bother people is when the narration gets into deep headspace at the same time.

This is all just idle theorizing, though. Obviously everyone has their own set of personal preferences. I whole heartedly agree that voice and distance are both incredibly important and frequently underdeveloped or allowed to remain destructively inconsistent, but I can't get behind the designation of a technique as objectively bad.



gatehouseauthor said:


> I should clarify my "it goes without saying" comment... perhaps it just goes without saying, to me. I feel, and was always taught, that there's a difference between a POV switch and head-hopping. Head-hopping is switching POV in the middle of a section, a paragraph, or in such a way that there's nothing to tell the reader that a break from the previous narrative voice has occurred. And to me, that's almost always bad. The only person I've ever seen do this in a way that didn't immediately jar me out of the story is Stephen King, in his Gunslinger books. And when he does it, there's a clear demarcation... one character has walked away and left the scene, or that character's POV is now irrelevant to the scene, and the next paragraph makes it clear that we're now seeing through someone else's eyes. Yes, anything can be done well... even those things that today's writing classes teach us are "bad writing", like head-hopping. But it's rare, IMO, and even those that are considered masters can fall into the trap of not doing these things well. It doesn't have to confuse the reader; if it pulls you (or the majority of readers) out of the narrative, then to me, it's bad.
> 
> In contrast, a POV change, again IMO, is a natural progression to a different part of the story. I have always enjoyed these... sometimes it's necessary to keep the narrative fresh. If it's done well (and yes, it can be done badly too!), then you leave one POV at a point that makes sense, but keeps the reader wanting to know what's going to happen with that character next, and yet the new POV quickly draws you in and keeps your interest. This is part of what, to me, can make a book that good old "roller coaster thrill ride" that reviewers and readers are always saying keeps them excited and interested in a work. Books that do this quite well are the early Belgariad books by David Eddings, the Magician series by Raymond Feist, LoTR, Jack Chalker's Nathan Brazil/Well World books, and many more. And yes, I know, I'm a geek and just mentioned a bunch of old sci fi and fantasy books... shows both my age and my predilections. LOL


----------



## ashel (May 29, 2011)

Uh, actually, given the straw man examples I found, I'd kinda be interested in reading any examples of head hopping that people thought were awful or disengaging solely because of the head hopping. Or, like, an author who habitually drives people crazy with this. If anyone can actually think of some examples or names offhand, 1) sweet, 2) if you don't want to post 'em, I'm interested enough that I wouldn't mind a PM, if it's not too much trouble.


----------



## gatehouseauthor (Apr 22, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> Oh man, I _devoured_ the Belgariad books. Geek pride forever.
> 
> And, of course, this is complicated by the fact that a lot of times head hopping _is_ just bad, but I'm not convinced that that's not symptomatic of more general issues.


Also devoured the Belgariad, and still revisit on occasion. The Mallorean, I read, enjoyed, but find myself not revisiting as much...

As far as the head-hopping being symptomatic of more general issues, I can get behind that opinion. Most of the time (not always) when you see it, it's not the only issue you take away from the narrative. It's just one easily notable symptom of a larger problem, which I think is often why it's so harshly categorized as amateurish or bad writing. As I said, like all things that I've been taught not to do in writing groups, it can and has been done well, but I believe it takes a master's touch... and I don't have that... 



genevieveaclark said:


> Uh, actually, given the straw man examples I found, I'd kinda be interested in reading any examples of head hopping that people thought were awful or disengaging solely because of the head hopping. Or, like, an author who habitually drives people crazy with this. If anyone can actually think of some examples or names offhand, 1) sweet, 2) if you don't want to post 'em, I'm interested enough that I wouldn't mind a PM, if it's not too much trouble.


James Patterson, _Witch and Wizard_. I know he has a lot of fans, and at risk of alienating some board members, I think that's probably the worst case of head-hopping I've ever experienced in a book. And he does it in what should be, by my own rules, the "right" way, with a chapter or section break between. That may be a bad example, though... I also took issue with his idea of "modern" teen dialog. IMO, it very much seemed like he had never actually met a teenager, much less been one.


----------



## ashel (May 29, 2011)

Dude, thanks!


----------



## Kathy Bennett (Jun 15, 2011)

gatehouseauthor said:


> Also devoured the Belgariad, and still revisit on occasion. The Mallorean, I read, enjoyed, but find myself not revisiting as much...
> 
> As far as the head-hopping being symptomatic of more general issues, I can get behind that opinion. Most of the time (not always) when you see it, it's not the only issue you take away from the narrative. It's just one easily notable symptom of a larger problem, which I think is often why it's so harshly categorized as amateurish or bad writing. As I said, like all things that I've been taught not to do in writing groups, it can and has been done well, but I believe it takes a master's touch... and I don't have that...
> 
> James Patterson, _Witch and Wizard_. I know he has a lot of fans, and at risk of alienating some board members, I think that's probably the worst case of head-hopping I've ever experienced in a book. And he does it in what should be, by my own rules, the "right" way, with a chapter or section break between. That may be a bad example, though... I also took issue with his idea of "modern" teen dialog. IMO, it very much seemed like he had never actually met a teenager, much less been one.


Regarding James Patterson...A book where he did an excellent job combining first person with third person was The Quickie. I know other writers have tried that. What do you all think of that idea?


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

Here's something I learned from writing a book and from George R.R. Martin's first book.

If you're going to write multiple points of view (as you almost have to do in truly epic fantasy), watch out for characters who aren't likable. Because then readers won't enjoy reading those chapters. I'd say, don't put the less likable characters up front in the book. Let the readers get settled in with characters they're going to really like.

Look at George Martin's first book. Although he uses many different pov characters, all of the ones he uses are more or less likable. So it works.


----------



## Amanda Wylde (Apr 10, 2011)

I think it also depends on the genre. For mine (Erotica) I will definitely stick with just one POV at least in my first series since it's all about her. When I read romance I most certainly love know what's going on in both heads but again like most people have pointed out here. If it's done right and only one POV per scene. Though some paranormal stuff I prefer not to know what's going on in the other characters heads. It adds to the excitement. At least for me it does.


----------



## hakimast (Jul 23, 2011)

No, I think multiple character POV is great to provide perspective.


----------



## George Hamilton (Dec 14, 2010)

I recently read The Help, and the changes in character POV in each chapter I believe enhanced the novel. I have come across POV changes within the same scene a few times, and done cleanly so that there is no doubt whose POV it is, it can work (The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas comes to mind).


----------



## Ilyria Moon (May 14, 2011)

JMJeffries said:


> I dislike when a mystery/thriller writer goes into the criminal's mind and keeps everything really vague about not only the identity of the character, but the gender. If this is supposed to keep me reading, it usually doesn't.


Haha, I hate that.


----------



## EGranfors (Mar 18, 2011)

I'm okay with it but my best friend hates it.  Hard to say for the populace at large. "Fall" by Colin McAdam was done well that way.


----------



## WriterCTaylor (Jul 11, 2011)

I love it! Can be a little hard to succeed when it comes to depth of character, but most books I've read like that are exciting and the twists are usually better. Each to their own, I suppose.


----------



## KathyGleason (May 5, 2011)

It does bother me unless the switch of POV is really obvious. I just finished reading "Little Bee" and there was a clear enough difference in the POV there to make it non-distracting.


----------



## Miriam Minger (Nov 27, 2010)

Nope, not bothered at all.  Multiple POV--in the hands of a skilled writer--only adds more depth and complexity to a novel.  

Miriam Minger


----------



## HDJensen (Apr 20, 2011)

I've thought about this since I posted last, and I've realized that one thing will make it hard to follow a multiple POV book. If the writer doesn't write the scene (or chapter or whatever) from the POV of the character that has the most to lose/gain, then it doesn't hold as much weight in the reader's mind. At least that's how I look at it. You shouldn't be head-hopping in a story just for the sake of getting in everyone's head, but if done right, multiple POV's can really enhance the plot and give the reader a great sense of the characters.


----------



## djgross (May 24, 2011)

I've read a number of great multiple character POV novels.  And a number of great single character novels.    

I particularly admire the skill of Lisa Gardner, who will sometimes write one POV character in first person and all the other characters in third.  The Neighbor, which she published in 2009 in hardcover and paperback last year, followed this approach and was spectacular.  

DJ


----------

