BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Changes of Point of View in Fiction

 
 
Loomis
12:02 / 17.11.05
As a reader, how much notice do you take of changes in perspective in the narrative? Do you think a novel should be told either from the point of view of one character or from a number of characters who are each given a proportionate amount of time? And does your answer change if the book is told in the first or the third person?

I’m asking this question both as a reader and also for my own selfish reasons as a writer. My writing is usually almost all from the perspective of the main character, but sometimes the plot requires a scene where that character isn’t present, and I worry that if there are only a couple of scenes like this in a book then it will jar with the reader, and will seem to be of great significance because it only happens infrequently.

As a reader I don’t think it’s a problem. I think whatever suits the novel best is fine, but I wonder if others feel the same?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
12:44 / 17.11.05
I would agree that if you only do it for these one or two occasions then it may look forced, alternatively if you can do it in such a way that a person is relating something in a 'and then I did this, and then I did that' kind of way it might not matter (I'm thinking of 'The Two Towers' here, most of what happens to Merry and Pippin is related by them in flashback after the battle of Helms Deep). Perhaps find a nice little subplot for your other character to take part in so it doesn't seem so obvious when they come into the A plot might be best.

I think Iain M Banks has written books where some chapters are first person from one person's point of view, others are third person. Others have too but that's the only one I can bring to mind at the moment...
 
 
makeitbleed
18:01 / 17.11.05
Greg Rucka and Michael Connelly have used varying points of view in novels to drive theie stories and increase suspense.

In Shooting at Midnight, Rucka tells the first half of the novel from the perspective of a private investigator and the second half from the point of view of the body guard who goes looking for the PI. On a personal level, I liked it a lot, not only gaining insight into the characters, but it added a lot of suspense. Don't want to go into too may details or I'll spoil the story. I highly recommend all of Rucka's books, especially his Atticus Kodiak series. The novel I've referenced is 4th or 5th in that series. That one is a good read on it's own, but works better having read at leat the one before it.

Michael Connely has about 11 or so novel about Detective Harry Bosch. Most are told 3rd person. One is 1st person and another is alternating 1st and 3rd from chapter to chapter. It all works to serve the storytelling.

Also, Anton Wilson's Illuminatus Trilogy goes from 1st person to 1st person to 2nd, to third and all around again. Takes some getting used to but is enjoyable and really is critical to one of the main themes of the books.

This is just my opinion, but it's a technique that should arise from a specific storytelling function, such as building tension or presenting seemingly conflicting character points of view that are more interesting when the reader is aware of the differences. I think Faulkner has used this technique a lot, and Toni Morrison in Jazz (to hepll with the premise of the book, to be written like a jazz musician would play a music piece), but I read those for an English Lit class about 10 years and I'm a little fuzzy on them.
 
 
matthew.
03:05 / 18.11.05
Dan Simmons is a fan of this in his Hyperion Cantos and his Ilium. Two parallel narratives: one in first person past tense, and another in third person present tense. Or vice versa depending on the situation. In the Endymion books of the Hyperion Cantos, this is left unexplained but hinted at. The first person narrator comments on why he knows about things halfway across the universe. By the end of the second book, the reason why becomes revealed, and it is remarkably clever. This trick being pulled off is very difficult.

I generally try to stick to one perspective and allow the focus of the perspective get their information third hand. If I'm forced to, and I have to shift perspective, I keep my narrator extremely passive and sparse with commentary. My reasoning being because any commentary or opinion in another perspective is jarring.

For example, in popular fiction, we follow Jack or Mike (or whatever "hard" first name) as he fights Nazis and albinos. When another character needs to "narrate" the story, and they meet Jack, the narrator simply describes Jack. See this:

Mary stood up from the computer after hacking into the CIA to learn about the sinister Mistoffelees Corporation. She turned around and saw a very tall dark and handsome man.
"Who are you?" she asked in a stern and firm voice.
"I'm Jack. Ex-cop. Who are you?" said the strange man with the dark hair and the dark eyes, eyes that held pain and anger.
"Mary, a former prostitute, but I've got a heart of gold," she answered with her head held high and her shoulders back.
(Excuse the quality of the prose, but it's satirical)

But for a hundred pages, we've been following Jack as he fights the evil corporation which killed his faithful wife and soccer-playing son. So when Mary meets him, the reader finds it incredibly jarring. The readers think to themselves, "I thought Jack was blonde," and this pulls them out of the narrative. Hence why I keep commentary to a minimum. Here's how I'd play the scene:

Mary stands up from the computer and turns around. Jack comes in and stands at the ready. They've never seen each other before, and they're on the edge already.
Jack says quickly, "Who're you?"
Mary says her name and asks who he is.
He says his name......

You get the point.
 
 
Cat Chant
09:28 / 18.11.05
In fanfic beta-reading and editing, one of the things that gets jumped on from a great height is random shifts of perspective, because people have learned somewhere that you Mustn't Do It. But if you have a look at Diana Wynne Jones, she shifts point of view all the time - when Cat catches fire in Charmed Life we suddenly go into Janet's POV after having been in Cat's POV for the first hundred or so pages of the book, and there are places where she'll throw in just a few sentences in another character's POV, although she's mostly writing in tightly-focalized third-person perspective.

In the Harry Potter books, Rowling is pretty careful to have Harry as the narrator of everything that happens (apt. from introductory, 'while the credits roll' chapters sometimes), but this often strains the narrative to near breaking-point (b/c he is constantly having to do unmotivated eavesdropping, have long dreams or visions, look in the Pensieve, so that scenes which are actually not from his POV can be presented as such). I think it's worth having a little fudge over POV for the good of the story. But I'd really suggest (re)reading Charmed Life,* taking note of when DWJ switches perspective, and seeing whether it bothers you and why - then maybe you can work out a way to do it in your own work. Good luck - this is a problem I really have with writing too, so please come back to share whatever solution you find...

*Or other book that people can recommend that does this. DWJ is the only example I've noticed, because this is something that bothers me much less as a reader than as a writer...
 
 
grant
14:15 / 18.11.05
Also, Anton Wilson's Illuminatus Trilogy goes from 1st person to 1st person to 2nd, to third and all around again. Takes some getting used to but is enjoyable and really is critical to one of the main themes of the books.



This was one of his rip-offs of Ulysses, I think. Or, at least, the one character shift I remember best was a great satire of Molly Bloom's section at the end of Ulysses. Turning the affirming YES into the defiant NO.

I think shifts in person are fine as long as they're delineated by chapter breaks.
 
 
Ariadne
14:36 / 18.11.05
I really enjoy shifts in perspective - I think it can be wonderful to see the various sides of an event, and give the story a lot more depth.

I think it has to be done carefully - if a novel has been told by one person for a long time it can be disconcerting to suddenly switch heads. But I think if it quickly becomes clear a) that you HAVE switched and b) why, then it can work.
 
 
P. Horus Rhacoid
00:42 / 19.11.05
Shifts in perspective in and of themselves don't bother me, but inconsistency does. If the perspective changes at a relatively constant rate- say in The Wheel Of Time (can't think of an example other than that)- I don't tend to notice it, and third-person omniscience rarely bothers me (Dune, f'rexample).

Changes in point of view (1st to 3rd etc) are more likely to bother me, though it depends on how well they're done. It's one of the things that irks me about China Mieville (as well as the occasional tense changes), though there it tends to be structured pretty consistently (interludes between large sections of the book, letters, etc) so I generally get used to it after awhile. I found the shift from third person omniscient to Dylan's first-person narrative hugely jarring in Fortress of Solitude although that might be chalked up in part to the fact that Dylan ages about thirty years between the first and third part of the book, with the only thing in between an extremely short interlude. I didn't really feel much of a connection between the adult Dylan of part three and the young Dylan of part one, and I think the narrative shift made the disconnect a lot more pronounced than it might otherwise have been.

I also generally loathe the Chapter From The Perspective Of The Murder Victim Just Before They Get Killed, and the Occasional Chapter From The Perspective Of The Super-Evil Assassin Who Is All Evil And Stuff As Demonstrated By His Need To Kill And His Twisted Sexual Desires. This might be due to negative association though, since they tend to be the realm of bad thrillers. It might also be that when I say 'generally loathe' I really mean 'loathe them when they're done poorly' and that they're rarely done well. This might go back to the consistency thing- when it's only one chapter thrown in in every six, and the other five are from the perspective of one person, then it tends to bother me. Now I think about it, Tony Hillerman's written some excellent books utilizing chapters from the perspective of an assassin, but all the ones I can think of treat the villain with similar importance to the protagonist(s). So I guess it comes down to the treatment- when it's done well and the Super Evil Assassin exists as a character in hir own right rather than simply as a means to put the main character in danger (worst instance I can think of: Angels and Demons, a fantastically crappy book), it works.

All of this, I guess, is an extremely long and roundabout way of saying that when shifts in perspective are done well and fairly (as in, not used as a cheap way to ratchet up tension or something similar) then they work for me. Worth noting as well that tense changes bother me waaaay more than any shift in perspective.

Deva- when Jones is switching perspectives, is she also switching POV's to first person, or does she remain in third person throughout? Just curious, I've never read anything of hers.
 
 
matthew.
03:34 / 19.11.05
fear of muesli - Exactly. Like most of Angels and Demons when the assassin gets his mysterious and holy orders from the mystery villain. The language used by the narrator is so unbelievably cheesy and filled with commentary....

In the case of cheesy thrillers like this, I'd like to present why this doesn't work. First of all, the conceit of Angels and Demons is that the narrator is pulling a huge con on the reader. We, as the reader, assume that there will be a reveal. We assume this because the novel is labelled a "mystery" and we expect to be hoodwinked. This is where Angels and Demons fails ultimately. In order to ratchet up the tension in thrillers such as these, the author employs a form of foreshadowing to force the reader to continue on. In this case, the foreshadowing is done by interrupting chapters about an assassin getting cryptic phonecalls by the villain. (Be patient, I'm getting there...) By withholding the identity of the villain, the author makes us wonder who the villain is. So we search for suspects. In this novel, we only have, like, five characters. Unless Dan Brown is going to pull a Twin Peaks, we assume it's one of the four or five main characters. It can't be the protagonist; this isn't postmodernism. It can't be the love interest; this isn't James Bond. So that leaves us with two possibilities: the obviously bad guy in charge of some mysterious organization and the obviously good guy in charge trying to do the right thing. Okay, ladies and gentlemen, here we go.

Since we assume that the author is pulling a con on us, we know it actually since it's a mystery novel, and there's an obviously bad guy and an obviously good guy, it CANNOT possibly be the bad guy because we know there is a twist ending. Therefore it must be - logic be damned - the good guy in charge. Ta-dah. I had Angels and Demons figured out in about thirty chapters (AKA ten pages of a Dan Brown novel)

How does this relate? It's the change of perspective that gives it away. From revealing the assassin and planting the seed of the villain, we ultimately figure out the identity. The reason why I bring this up is because this is a detailed example of why changing perspectives is dangerous. Thank you for your patience.
 
 
Cat Chant
09:29 / 21.11.05
Deva- when Jones is switching perspectives, is she also switching POV's to first person, or does she remain in third person throughout?

Third person throughout, but it's striking/noticeable when she switches POV because she usually writes in limited-third-person (ie, we only know and see what the third-person narrator knows and sees) rather than third-person-omniscient.

The most stunningly crafted use of POV shift (also with switches from first to third person) that I've ever seen is in Dennis Cooper's Frisk, which starts out in the third person and remains in the third-person perspective for a while even after the first-person author/narrator is introduced. I just think it's so clever and smart. In general, Dennis Cooper is the master of third-person-omniscient, whether mixed with limited-third and/or first-person or not (I'm thinking particularly of Guide here, which continually uses third-person-omniscient to switch perspective between all the characters, even after they're dead, despite having a central first-person narrative). And it's not annoying, because it's something he's doing on the level of the craft, it chimes in with the rest of the novels' ambitions: it's not just a fudge to get information across that he can't present in his chosen POV.
 
 
sibyline, beating Qalyn to a Q
14:48 / 15.02.06
POV shifts are not bad in and of themselves, as long as they're done elegantly and in keeping with the spirit of the novel. To do a POV shift just because the main characer's not there to witness is not a particularly good solution, IMO. Better to find ways to relate the themes of what you're writing to the shifts in perspective. Good examples of this are Ian McEwan's "Atonement," in which three parts of the book are narrated from the POV of three different characters, and Helen DeWitt's "The Last Samurai," in which the POV shifts from a mtoher to her genius child.

Another good author to look at is Alice McDermott, especially "That NIght," because she solves this problem by taking advantage of the human tendency for hearsay and gossip in small communities, so it doesn't feel strange at all that her narrator (the novel is told in the peripheral 1st person) ends up hearing about a bunch of stuff she didn't herself witness.
 
 
GogMickGog
17:14 / 15.02.06
Aldous Huxley's "Point Counter Point" uses a helluva lot of changing perspectives, and pulls that whole cross social-strata, multi-character trick with the greatest of ease. Huxley builds motives and histories for even the most incidental of characters.

Huxley is vastly under-rated, name checked either for "Brave New World" (wonderful) and "Doors of Perception" (embarassing), when in truth there is a wealth of his other stuff which far outstrips these two for insight, humour and humanity of vision.

Ahem...
 
 
DaveBCooper
10:46 / 16.02.06
Funnily enough, as my current reading is ‘Wild Highway’ by Bill Drummond and Mark Manning, where the narrative alternates between their wildly differing recollections of events, diary entries, and flashbacks, all within the same chapter if not page, the issue of ‘who tells the tale’ is kind of on my mind (especially as it’s not always clear which of the two is writing).

In mainstream thrillers, I’d say that the Jack Reacher books by Lee Child deal with this pretty well; the first book was from the main character’s POV all the way through as I recall, and then the next five or so books were omniscient narrator, and a recent one was again through Reacher’s eyes. Child appears to have looked at which angle most suits the story he wants to tell. Similarly, Stephen King has pretty much admitted that the middle-section POV shift in ‘Christine’ was needed if he was to give details of the car running amok, as opposed to it happening off-page.

I guess that my personal take on it would really be that the decision to use a particular POV or selection of them should be in service of the story. As a callow youth I remember liking the way that Swamp Thing Issue 36 gave additional input on events by reporting them from various viewpoints, but not liking Heinlein’s ‘Number of the Beast’, which appeared to shift narrator each chapter for no immediately discernible reason. So I seem to like the Rashomon approach, as opposed to the author just appearing to want to show off. Also, changing POV runs the risk of reminding the reader that they’re reading, and that can be jarring.

I guess a lot of the time, stories with a big reveal, and in which the reader has to discover things through the eyes of one character, are probably most suited to first person narrative. This would generally apply to thrillers and mysteries, and when I read books of that nature which are predominantly first-person, but with the odd chapter in omniscient mode, it rather makes me feel that’s a bit of a fudge (I seem to recall thinking that when reading ‘Along Came A Spider’ by James Patterson, which I think had this ‘mix’).
 
 
Saltation
11:09 / 16.02.06
I find whether i like it or not depends most on the skill of the writer. kim stanley robinson's "red-green-blue mars" trilogy for example very powerfully cuts between characters, and often you can tell within a paragraph who is now narrating. and like dick's "confession of a crap artist", the book benefits from the addition.
 
 
Loomis
12:42 / 16.02.06
By the way, just in case it wasn't clear from my initial post, I'm not necessarily talking about a change in narrator. I'm more interested in third person omniscient narration, but primarily following the exploits of one character. So when it changes to another character, it's not as jarring as jumping from one person's head to another, because the general tone is the same.

Sometimes you want to focus on another character to a degree that warrants more than just finding excuses for them to spend time with the protagonist in order to get them into the narrative. There seems to be something of a view that unless you're devoting equal(ish) time to each character then, even with a third person narrator, it's best to tell the story only from one perspective. I suppose my question comes down to asking what proportion of a novel do you need to devote to a secondary character for it to be permissable to change to their point of view (even in third person)? Fifty/fifty split? 70/30? A couple of half-chapters?
 
 
ShadowSax
13:19 / 16.02.06
the short answer is that you can do it as much as you want as long as you do it well. for just one or two scenes, making the transition very clear might be best - using a sudden obvious change of perspective or a sudden (not necessarily dramatically different, just sudden) change in the narrative style, like tone of voice or a new pattern of sentence structure, for intance, might work for those few occasions you want to shift away from the main character. the trick if you want to do it more often, even 70-30, for example, is that you risk shortchanging the characters that you focus on for less than half the story. there is a tipping point, in other words, where devoting 1 or 2 scenes to a secondary character might work, but once you give (maybe) 3 or 4 scenes to that character, you're then cheating that character (and the reader) by not giving that character the same attention you're giving the rest of the characters, and this imbalance would then be transfered from the narrative to the overall compassion on the part of the reader towards that character. the reader will think you're doing it for a reason. maybe you are, in which case that will work.

i hope this helps or at least gets more towards what you're thinking of.
 
 
Saltation
13:30 / 16.02.06
Loomis: Pratchett does that a lot and it works really well. he describes it in terms of a camera.
 
 
DaveBCooper
15:16 / 16.02.06
Think ShadowSax is right to say that the reader will conclude you’re focussing on a character for a reason; presumably the reason is that you’re giving information or creating a sense of the character which will in some way pay off later, or feed into events detailed at a later stage in the tale. However, I think that there’s a balancing act to be performed between adding detail about a character’s background or whatever to create a greater feeling of depth, and wanting to detail this for your own non-story-serving purposes.

For my money, Tolkien was all too keen to detail the linguistic and genealogical thinking behind his creations, which I found slowed the stories down to an unreadable extent (never made it past the Council of Elrond, despite repeated efforts). That kind of thing is best left out, to my mind, or used in associated stories or whatever.

So the reason why you want to do it, combined with the deftness with which it’s done, should probably be the driving factors behind using it; shifting POV, to my mind, should be a writing tool or technique like any other, used to accomplish a specific task.

Purely my opinion there, of course. Others may disagree violently, and I welcome that.
 
 
ShadowSax
16:18 / 16.02.06
So the reason why you want to do it, combined with the deftness with which it’s done, should probably be the driving factors behind using it; shifting POV, to my mind, should be a writing tool or technique like any other, used to accomplish a specific task.

yass yass! perfectly said.

the problem with questions about writing is that they are each supplemental to the main question of: is this working?

if it "works," you can do ANYTHING.

if you think it might work, do it, just for the love of all things writerly, do it. you dont know until you've done it, and if it doesnt work, you will have proved it to yourself so strongly that the question in hindsight will seem silly.

directly: how much notice to i take of changes in perspective in the narrative? answer: it COMPLETELY depends on how well it's done. meaning: the reader must have trust in the narrator, and to do this, the writer must largely be absent, and transitions must be done within the world that the narrator has created for the reader.

if i try to think of perspective changes that didnt work, they are ones that were confusing - the writer sometimes tries to lull the reader into the transition by focusing too much on setting, for instance, at the point of transition, so that the reader is conned into thinking he's reading the same point of view and then the subsequent pronouns will create a jolt in the reader - "oh dear the writer is using 'he' all of a sudden. i thought the main character was a 'she'. what is going on?" that jolt stops the reader, at which point the entire trick fails.

other things that usually dont work are, like as been said, chapters that serve no narrative purpose other than providing the writer a new window to the story. chapter 8, for example, going to another character for no reason than the fact that the writer couldnt figure out how to describe a secondary character's suicide (something where that character is the sole witness, for instance) except by shifting the narrative. and then never returning there. because that chapter is now out of place, and the jolt may come at the next chapter when suddenly the narrative resets itself. or the jolt may come 8 chapters later when it's obvious the writer has no interest in returning to that form.

must avoid the jolt at all costs.
 
 
sibyline, beating Qalyn to a Q
15:48 / 17.02.06
loomis, i think it's important to distinguish between a close-third narration and an omniscient narration. omniscience to me implies that the pov knows everything about what everyone thinks, and is bringing that knowledge to bear all the time. if this is the case, then the issue of POV shifts doesn't exist because it would be completely natural for that same omniscient voice to be present and the main character not.

but if you're writing in close 3rd, following the narrative from the pespective of the main character, i think any pov shift would be jarring unless there's some sort of structural or thematic justification. lots of authors do this by simply lableing sections or chatpers after characters (margot livesey's "banishing verona," for example). but i think it's quite important for it to be clear whether you're writing in an omniscient or close-3rd voice, because i think there are vital differences between the two.
 
 
GogMickGog
14:14 / 18.02.06
And then there is of course distant 3rd person, as favoured by Evelyn Waugh, wherein all the character's thoughts are never really explored but their roles and prominence can shift with ease.

This is partly because Waugh always seems to carry such contempt for them (except the partially lovely Tony Last), but this is a mere aside...
 
  
Add Your Reply