I have just read a short story of about 500 words, the gist of which is this-

A man widowed 6 months ago is standing at a cliff top contemplating suicide. He comes here regularly with similar thoughts. As he thinks about what to do he hears a woman scream and rushes to her aid. She has seen a grass snake and is terrified. All the reassurance the man gives is to no avail so he takes her for a coffee.

The screaming woman smiles inwardly, knowing that snakes are not out at this time of year.

So, the first 470 words are from the man's POV. The last 30 from he woman's. This surly should be forbidden and make it a terrible story!! But it isn't terrible, it's good and heart warming. I showed it a couple of others who liked it too!

So, does this mean that the "Don't change POV" brigade are wrong? Am I missing something?

Please help as I'm doubting my own sanity now!

Nick

Nick, I think the only unbreakable rule of writing is: if it works, it works Clearly this shift in POV works, equally clearly there are other cases where a shift in POV doesn't work. What I'd do is closely compare this story and another story where a shift in POV doesn't work for you, and see if you can come to some conclusion about why the one works and the other doesn't - and then deploy that in your own writing.

(Sorry if the above omes over as very 'teacherly' by the way - it isn't meant to).

So, does this mean that the "Don't change POV" brigade are wrong?

Yes.

That is, if they're insisting on it as unbreakably as that. As Leila says, does it work? Obviously here it does. I would say: have a look at how the author handles the switch, versus other stories where it's badly handled, or the decision to use more than one is a bad call.

Does s/he come gradually out of one head before going into the other, so the reader always feels secure and knows where they are?

Is there a solid sense of a narrator who can choose to narrate whatever seems right - take the reader whereever they choose to take you?

Is there a good reason for moving to the other head? Is it not just for convenience of plot (conveying some facts the other PoV couldn't, say) but actually adds to our experience of the story as a whole?

This is me exploring how to handle moving points of view:

http://emmadarwin.typepad.com/thisitchofwriting/2011/10/point-of-view-narrators-4-moving-point-of-view-and-other-stories.html

There is a next-level problem that once someone's sensitized to a particular issue - however daftly doctrinaire - then it may mean a story genuinely doesn't work for them... And the risk is that this daftly- but now uncurably-doctrinaire person is someone who has some power over your writing. Lorrie Moore say she sometimes has trouble with editors who think that you can't switch point of view.

I blogged about that here: http://emmadarwin.typepad.com/thisitchofwriting/2012/06/real-readers-wont-notice.html

if it works, it works

Agree totally with this. I'm currently reading my way through the novels of Elizabeth Taylor and she switches POV constantly. But it works because her characters are all so individual that there is no way you can confuse either their inner thoughts, their mannerisms, their physicality or the way they speak. I wonder if this rule came about because in novice hands it is easy to confuse two characters because they're not delineated strongly enough. So it's best in that case not to switch POV at all so as not to confuse the reader.

I wonder if this rule came about because in novice hands it is easy to confuse two characters because they're not delineated strongly enough. So it's best in that case not to switch POV at all so as not to confuse the reader.

I think this is partly true - but on the whole readers aren't conscious of PoV: they don't think "Who is it who thinks this church looks like a mortuary? Jane or Bob?". But the sense of the scene and the characters just doesn't build properly: the potential for that image to strengthen our intuitve sense of a character is wasted, because it's not attached to anyone.

Having said that, of course, it could just be the narrator telling us, as a matter of fact rather than subjective perception by the character, that the church looks like a mortuary.

I think the don't-switch came about because people handled the switch badly: hopped straight from the inside of one head to abruptly to inside another, or dodged about purely so that it was easier to tell the story, without thinking about whether that distanced or disengaged the reader.

Nick, I change POV in my stories a lot and have never had a problem with it - I've sold several written with multiple POV, so, as Emma says - was it Emma? - if it works, it works.

I like different or multiple viewpoints - as long as it's clearly defined whose POV we are in, I think it's okay to do.

I know some people who absolutely hate it though - it's down to personal choice.


Kat x

Hi everyone thanks for taking the time to reply. I read lots of novels and know that in those you can (often have to) change POV and it makes a richer story. However what bothered me in particular was a)This was a very short story. b)The story was not in the MC's POV when it ended. c) The huge difference in word count to each POV

In some ways the POV shift was only there to give the reader info he/she couldn't already know and make the twist work, so for that reason it felt like a 'cheat'.

But I'm heartened by the fact that so many feel that if a story works, it works. End of!

Thanks again folks.

Nick

You could think about it as the final shot of a film which has been very close and involved with the main protagonist, and all sorts of things have happened, and as the last, concluding thing happens, at the point at which everything has happened to him the camera pulls back, so we see her/him in context, in the wider world...

In some ways the POV shift was only there to give the reader info he/she couldn't already know and make the twist work, so for that reason it felt like a 'cheat'.

Funnily enough, I took a writing workshop yesterday on POV with people totally new to writing, which is always good because it makes me question my own views again, for fear of giving them a 'rule' that, well, isn't.

I also agree that if it works, it works. However, I also believe that the selection of a particular POV is the author making a contract with the reader, saying I will restrict my viewpoint so that you can feel comfortable giving yourself over to just one character's set of emotions, thoughts, actions (at least directly), and so on. And it's usually not advisable to break contracts.

This sounds like an interesting case, in that you clearly liked the story but also felt the POV switch was a cheat. Do you think the writer did it intentionally? Or just took the easy way out without thinking it through? If the latter, then it's possible other readers would have liked the story but also felt somehow cheated, which may not be good for the long-term integrity of the author.

In the class, I handed out examples of first, second, third person POV writing. I also gave them the opening paragraphs of the first Harry Potter book. Which was interesting, because they had a lot of trouble working out its POV. I said - with tin helmet on - that I suspected this was because the author didn't really know, therefore it defaulted to a kind of omniscient POV.

Terry

<Added>

Jem - just read your post. Does Elizabeth Taylor switch in and out of individual characters' heads? I'm trying to imagine how that works. I take your point about well-delineated characters. But I always thought the strength of sticking with one POV is it allows the reader to strongly identify with the character, i.e. because they can only see and think what the character sees/thinks. If they can also see what all the other characters see/think, that's almost a cheat on actual life (where you can't). Not saying it can't work, by the way, but curious as to how it works.

Thanks Emma, Terry, interesting points. I think the overall message is that while you can play around with POV, ultimately it is a more satisfying read (in a short story) if you can stick with the MC. I think in the story I read, the 'goal' of the writer was to produce a twist that worked so had to sacrifice character development etc to do this. So I suspect it was deliberate, but do wonder if the writer knew of the convention about not switching.

As a mini exercise I wondered how I would have written the story - could it be done from one POV and keep the twist in?

I have come up with an alternative ending which with a bit of polishing might even be better than the original!

Nick

Was thinking about this today after reading "The Gruffalo's Child" to my little girl. As soon as the [spoiler alert] little brown mouse does his shadow trick, so scaring away the gruffalo's child, the viewpoint jumps to that of the little brown mouse. It's subtle, as the narration is third rather than first in any case, but I struggle to think of a better way to achieve it.
G

Does Elizabeth Taylor switch in and out of individual characters' heads? I'm trying to imagine how that works.

Oh yes, absolutely. Why not? In Mrs Palfrey, anyway, there are two characters who are the main focus, but we're told/shown about lots of the others at different times. Often in a reasonably discrete section, but sometimes there's just a line or three about what's going on with one character.

She handles it quite beautifully and without the least fuss and fanfare; I'm going to go back and look at how she handles the transitions, and how she chooses whose eyes to use, and how close to get to them.

Of course, she learnt her trade before all this daft fuss and narrowmindedness about PoVs. Any time till about thirty years ago no writer would even have known what we all fret about.

The thing is, is you have an external narrator, they are privileged: a storyteller can tell the reader about Snow White being sad, and then about the Queen being jealous. Why not?

The more the narrator (writer, if you like) is in control, the better the whole story is integrated, however many heads we're admitted to. PoVs just become one more tool in telling the story, not a pre-condition of how the story is told.

<Added>

" but we're told/shown about lots of the others at different times."

Told/shown in the sense of being admitted to their point of view, and their voice being allowed to colour the voice of the narrative.

Emma got here first, Terry. But yes, she does and it works. SImple as that.

before all this daft fuss and narrowmindedness about PoVs.

To be honest, it was on WW that I learned about the 'rules' that govern POV. Are we driving ourselves mad about something that ordinary folk don't give a fig about? When I mention POV to my partner she thinks I'm mad - and I suspect she might just be right...

Nick

it was on WW that I learned about the 'rules' that govern POV.

How embarrassing! Not from me, I hope... There are "rules" in the sense that some ways of handling PoV work much better than others: but that's about learning to use your tools well, not about keeping or breaking rules.

Are we driving ourselves mad about something that ordinary folk don't give a fig about?

No (I mean, we may go mad, but to a purpose), in the sense that the handling of PoV is tremendously important to the effect of the story on the reader - whether they're consciously aware of it working or not.

I blogged about this business of technical issues the reader won't notice here:

http://emmadarwin.typepad.com/thisitchofwriting/2012/06/real-readers-wont-notice.html

Yes, in the sense that the handling of PoV is SOOO not the tidy business that some people want to think it. It's not as simple as "you can't have more than X many" or "don't change PoV in the middle of the scene."

I often and often choose to switch PoV at the high point - the crunch-point - of a scene. No doubt someone, somewhere (and almost certainly not a writer I admire), thinks that's a "a mistake". But it isn't. It's a creative decision, properly (I hope) implemented, to have the effect on the reader that I want the scene to have.

<Added>

I mean, obviously they're at liberty to think that it's a mistake in the creative sense - doesn't work for them.

But it's not a mistake in the literal sense that I've done something "wrong" such as saying that 2+2=5 or the BAttle of Hastings was fought in 1067, or spelling Elizabeth Bennet's name wrong...