Is it generally acceptable to dip into the thoughts of different characters in a single chapter when writing in the third person? I read somewhere that each chapter should be in the head of one character and you shouldn't mix this up. Views?

It doesn't have to be limited to chapters. If you look at Terry Pratchett he has done away with chapters and instead splits the text into scenes. Most of those scenes are from the pov of whichever mc is 'starring' in that scene, but he often slips into other povs. It works for Pratchett because he writes in the 3rd person, but it should probably be avoided in 1st.


- NaomiM


<Added>

...in 1st person, it is that character's job to interpret the thoughts and feelings of the other characters when appear in the same scene.

<Added>

oops, when they appear

It works less well if you're switching povs like a ping pong ball.

Yes, that's what I meant Naomi re switching POVs quite often. Perhaps it disrupts the flow of the piece. I'm still confused and am editing it all out of my chapters now.

The problem with a pov ping pong ball, is it's difficult for the reader to know which character to root for. Sometimes it's a lazy man's way of writing the scene because then the writer can leave out all the non-verbal signals, and other little descriptions that pad out a sectio of dialogue and make it easier to read. Also you run into probalbem of one character or other knowing more than they should because they've 'read the other person's thoughts', important info is left out of the dialogue, but given to the reader, so the reader knows more than both characters. This can nullify te tension in the scene - what's the point continuing to read the chapter if you know what's going to happen; what the other characters are eventually going to find out about eachother. What's the point of the diaogue if you're telling the reader via the pov, rather than by what and how they are saying it. And you risk alienating the reader by telling them what they should think, rather than leaving them to find it out along with the character(s). The sum of what the reader should knows should always be less than what the characters know.


- NaomiM

<Added>

oops loads of typos, sorry.
...the reader knows.. [not, should knows]


<Added>

Don't ask me to explain that last sentence - it sounded good when I was typing it, but then it is the middle of the night and way past my bedtime. I probably mean, the reader likes to find things out for themselves by putting two and two together and maybe making five, rather than the writer stepping in and telling them it's four and can only be four, goddamit....

<Added>

You have to ask yourself, what's the point of this dialogue if I'm having to interpret it for the reader by switching povs. Is there another way of getting the point across? If not, then go with it.

I think it's fine - until not very long ago no writer would even have bothered to ask themselves this - but the key thing is to make sure you take the reader with you, so that they always know where they are, and as Naomi says, to keep track of what the characters know about each other, as opposed to what you and the reader know about them. The story - Russian Tea - which I've got in the archive began as an exercise in this process: it takes its time setting up each PoV, but owards the end it changes PoV fairly often.

Emma

Ok, just musing on the subject and I may well disagree with myself in the morning, but for every scene it may well be worth bearing in mind there will be a number of povs:

The writer's: maybe it's explicit in the form of an authorial narrative, but in most cases should be stamped on when it rears it's ugly head.

The reader's: nothing you can, or should do about that. You have litle or no controll over it. Best case scenario you've written the scene well enough so the reader's pov is the same as the writer's.

The MC's pov: the gatekeeper of what is known for certain (except in the case of the unreliable witness), because the character is telling the reader directly; interpreting part of the scene for them.

Any other pov: usually unnecessary, sends mixed signals and can sound like the writer butting in again, telling the reader how to interpret the scene. Often helps if it's treated as a funny aside, cf. Pratchett.

I'm just reading a Deborah Moggach (You Must Be Sisters) in which she moves between the POVs of the sisters, even during scenes. I wondered how come this didn't jar, but she does it in a logical way - she gently moves POV according to the emphasis on each character. I think it works because she then remains with that character for a satisfying (and logical) period of time before moving to another.
Susiex

You've certainly got to be pretty skilful to get away with shifting the POV within a scene or chapter. I think Naomi's 4 points above sum it up pretty well. On the other hand, I'm not over-happy about the general 'fear of the authorial' which seems to have taken a firm hold these days. I think that, for example, it can be quite satisfying when a gentle authorial voice is heard in the first or last paragraph of a chapter, setting up or concluding the developments, but I do agree that it can be quite ghastly to have the author's POV intrude in the middle of a scene which is being narrated from somebody else's. Yes, when in doubt, cut it out.

Chris

Like most things in writing, it's okay to swap POV within a scene or chapter as long as it's done well and for a good purpose. I guess you have to ask yourself why and what does it add to the narrative if the POV is changing.

In my WIP the POV switches between the two main characters in fairly sizeable chunks. The only time I have used the POV of another character is for short very dramatic chapter at the centre of the book.

I agree with Emma, that it can work if the writer takes the reader with him. It's when the writer isn't conscious that they've changed POV in mid-scene, or is but miscalculates the reader's grip on the narrative saddle, that it can harm the story-flow. I'm reading a book at the moment, by a mega-selling author and every so often she makes just one short POV switch, away from the main character, then back again. The fact that each time, the result is to conveniently let the reader know something that would have been difficult to impart through the mc's POV, doesn't soothe the jolt at all. I really can't tell if she just wrote the book very quickly (possible, with 150 published books to her name) and didn't even notice, or intended it. But if the latter, I just don't see how she thought readers wouldn't feel like they've hit a sleeping policman at 50 mph.

Terry

Thanks everyone - confused as ever, but thanks.

The writer's: maybe it's explicit in the form of an authorial narrative, but in most cases should be stamped on when it rears it's ugly head

Why? I don't understand why authorial intrusion is looked down upon. Could someone please explain the position? Surely it can be used to clarify things and to feed the reader extra information.

If the author's POV/voice has not been established early on, and with story-legitimacy, then its unexpected appearance has a similar effect to if a film director suddenly appeared in front of camera to explain what his characters were feeling or thinking. It breaks the spell upon the reader of believing he's witnessing these characters as they are, not as author puppets. Yes, you could say they're author puppets anyway but, apart from the story spell being easier to cast if the author isn't obviously present, I think characters stand more chance of taking on their own lives when the author isn't meddling first hand, so to speak. I suspect there are all kinds of psychological elements here, including changing expectations of readers; perhaps one shift is that these days readers/viewers prefer to believe they're sharing in a story experience, rather than having it controlled for them by the story-teller.

Terry

Yes, it often doesn't work when it's mostly in one PoV, with a quick flick into others, particularly if that other isn't a character whose point-of-view (in the general, not the technical sense) isn't something we're already familiar with. I think it's absolutely true that writers often resort to doing this because they've hit a bit of a plot-snag, and it's the easiest way out. Once you've got several characters established, then picking up what one or other of them's thinking, and then another, comes very naturally. Myself, I usually do it via something neutral and external - literally emerging from one head, into the outside world, before going into another head - but that's only one way.

But I do honestly believe that except for writers who've been taught to look obsessively out for PoV switches, the fact that it switches simply isn't an issue - though of course it can be done better or worse. Which is why we do need to learn to spot them, of course, so as to get them right, not cut them.

Can you hear me trying to keep my temper? I can't, can't, can't bear the doctrinaire approach which says some perfectly good narrative technique is suddenly old-fashioned or can't be done. Of course it can! Anyone who says it can't is just - in their turn - taking the easy way out, by refusing to consider that instead of telling other people not to do something, they should bugger off and learn to do it properly themselves!

Emma

<Added>

No, I'm all for authorial intrusion. Actually, it's not authorial, is it, it's narratorial intrusion. If you have an external narrator in your novel you choose how much personality, if you like, they have. Do they have explicit non-narrative opinions? Or do they just know more and narrate more than a single character-bound narrator could.

I've said this in your other thread, Traveller, but think the anti-authorial-intrusion brigade are reacting like adolescents to the idea that anyone - even a narrator - should be explicitly telling them what to think. It's a development of the lit crit idea that authorial intention is irrelevant, and only the reader's interpretation matters. But then narrators tell us what to think all the time, don't they, either explicitly - which you could argue is honest - or implicitly, which you could argue isn't.