I was thinking about how POV is used in contemporary fiction. At the cinema some films use frequent POV switches and audiences seem able to cope with them, yet it's common to see POV switches being decried in critiques here on WW. So, why should it be different for literature? Are we underestimating our potential readers? What are the factors that influence the effective use of POV in fiction?

smudger

Smudger,

I posted some thoughts on POV that you may find useful, on 'Imagine Your Are Me' by Ava. Regarding films, I'm not sure the POV switches quite as much as you may think. In most films there is a main character who's followed; and even in multi-character stories, the director will often show an early scene focussing on one of them, which you then unconsciously follow (because you know them)in later more character-packed scenes. A good example is the Narnia film, where the later scenes are indeed multi-viewpoint, but the early scenes feature Lucy strongly; hence, she becomes our emotional POV throughout the rest of the story.

Terry

Hi Smudger,

Don't those POV switches you're referring to in films occur from scene to scene rather than mid-scene? I think the critiques on WW might pick up on a mid-scene POV switch, but if it's chapter to chapter surely it's just about an effective voice and just the right number of signposts. That sounds as though I think it's easy to do, which I don't, but I often feel it's worth the struggle.

Myrtle

The reason that PoV switches are decried is because they're so often done badly. There is absolutely no reason for a writer not to use them if she/he can do it properly, but that's harder than you'd think.

You need to know

Whose head am I inside?

How far inside it am I - am I writing in their voice (even if 3rd person), or putting their interpretation on the events described, or is it just that physically, I'm telling the story from their place in the room?

Am I absolutely sure that I'm not doing/saying/seeing/reaching/smelling anything that is incompatible with that PoV

When I change PoV, to someone else's, those questions need asking and answering all over again.

If the change is to a neutral, omniscient-narrator view, that needs to be just as clear - it's worth thinking of it as another PoV, with its own rules.

The transitions between all these different kinds need to be both very clear and very smooth, which is why you need to know exactly what you're up to, and go over passages like this with a magnifying glass.

Jane Austen is the absolute master (mistress?) of this and if I can find a good example I'll post it.

Emma

I now stick to one point of view per scene, it is possible and acceptable to switch points of view within a scene but the mechanics of doing so always seem like an intrusion to me, the writer interrupting the flow of the narrative to explain that the reader is switching from one character’s head to the next.

Establishing who’s head the reader is in early in the scene is essential to avoid confusion, then I stick to that point of view until the scene ends. It’s cleaner and allows the reader to get immersed in a character without the writer butting in.

Films are a completely different medium. If a film maker allows the viewer into a characters head it is invariably done as a voice over using the same actors voice so its obvious who’s “thinking”. I’ve seen films where characters talk to each other, but voice overs tell the viewer what each character is really thinking as the conversation is going on. This is fine for films as they are a naturally more immersive medium.

However, a writer needs to work harder to remove any trace of his interference, sticking to one POV per scene is one way to do this.

What?

Using this simple line is easy and effective when you immediately know who’s thinking it. If the writer has to explain who’s thought that is then you lose some of the transparency and the reader is allowed to come up for air.

Sorry, gone on a bit there.

Grinder

It depends on what you are trying to achieve. Multiple POVs can work very well - for example in Talking it Over by Julian Barnes - a menage a trois where chapters are narrated from the POV of each character. As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner is a classic and I couldn't imagine reading it as a novel with a single POV - in this case, assuming you haven't read it, chapters are narrated by different characters. Another example is Orhan Pamuk's My Name is Red - a murder mystery told from multiple viewpoints. Writing from multiple POVs is difficult to carry off because it can get confusing for the reader. It's easier for the reader to get accustomed to one voice. Separating by chapters makes it read easier. When jumping POV within a chapter, things become more difficult for the reader but that doesn't mean to say it's an ineffective technique - it can add richness and depth to a work that would be otherwise be missing from the 'easy' option of using a singular POV.

I think a 'neutral' PoV is a good buffer zone between two characters' PoVs: it smooths the transition. I'm sure most 19th novelists slide happily between their characters and their narrator's voice (which may or may not be themselves). I still think it can be done, but it's a very sophisticated technique.

Of course the difference with film PoV is that it's just that - physical view, and nothing else, unless you add voice over. In fiction 'view' is a metaphor as well, encompassing opinion, perception, analysis, emotion.

Emma

<Added>

Dickens is brilliant at it too, and Heyer.

I still think one should be careful about assuming there is no emotional POV in films or that there is nothing but physical POV unless there is a voice-over. This may be the novelist's conclusion, in light of it being a more subtle manifestation than in books, but it is there, at least with good directors. Even in 'Revenge of the Sith', for example, in scenes where there is some kind of moral or emotional struggle taking place, the direction points the viewer to be centred in one of the characters more than the others. When the Chancellor is urging Anakin over to the dark side, for instance, we're clearly sitting more with Anakin's internal struggles rather than the Chancellor's conviction. This is because we are in a similar position to him, in that we don't know if what the Chancellor is saying (about the dark side containing important truth that the Jedi are suppressing) is true or not.

Incidentally, I'm using this film as a an example because I saw it recently, not because I think it's a good film (it isn't). The last film I saw (I'm not proud) was 'Forty-Year Old Virgin'. There is no voice-over in this film, but I would bet that most viewers will be 'inside' the main character throughout the film – because he's the one who carries the most contradictions and has the most difficult journey to undertake. Which, for most people, is closer to their own experience (not being a virgin, necessarily!). The other characters don't really change very much, so we spend very little time in their POV. I honestly think this is part of what 'Director' means: not just to direct the actors but to direct the emotional focus of a scene. And, for me, this where a lot of arty films fall short: that they don't understand the importance of providing an emotional POV character.

Terry

Incidentally, I'm using this film as a an example because I saw it recently, not because I think it's a good film (it isn't).

Blasphemy! May the force not be with you.

I watched some of the 'making of' stuff on the 'Sith' DVD. What was striking was the enormous amount of expertise employed on the effects, contrasted with how little was spent on the script. Or, rather, George Lucas was not going to let anyone else work on the script. Which for me is the film's (and the series' main failing). He says at one point that he spent years thinking about and working on the final light sabre fight between Obe Wan and Anakin - well, all I can say is it doesn't show. It's just two blokes swinging shiny swords at each other. I know he based the first three films on Joseph Campbell's 'The Hero's Journey' - which was a wise move - but it's difficult to see many universal themes in the second series, just lots of missed opportunities.

I often get myself tied up in knots about this. I find it difficult sometimes to judge which POV works best and so I make a lot of hard work for myself. In the last piece I uploaded - The Frotteur (Now a major motion picture), the story involved two people with an almost equal importance within the story. I began with a female first person present tense POV, re-wrote the story as a male first person present tense POV, rewrote it again in third person for both and then again switching it to past tense. I ended up with a load of drafts before deciding to combine them.

I find it easier not to use multiple POV's but enjoyed writing this piece as an exercise in combining two POV's in a single story

Terry, you are right on. Does anyone else think the Star wars 'Episodes' films stink to high heaven? Great effects, sure - terrible, plot-hole ridden story. George Lucas may be a competent director, but he just can't seem to accept the fact that he isn't a very good writer (trust me, I've read his books and they're hardly classics).

Interestingly, for The Empire Strikes Back Lucas did relinquish his role as writer. The result was the best Star Wars film, with the best plot/script by far.

JB

<Added>

(I still haven't seen the end of the first episode, as I always doze off somewhere. I never ever do this in any other film.)

I think the latest round of Stars Wars movies didn't work because time had moved on and they hadn't.

OK - in terms of special effects, yes but we've all got used to incredible effects now whereas when the first films came out no one had seen anything like it before.

That said. I remember going to see the first Stars Wars picture at the cinema and being disappointed because I'd heard it was so incredible and the story didn't live up to my expectations(!) And what was with those ewoks and Yoda in the second one?

But of course I've watched the originals over and over since and probably still would -but I couldn't get into the latest series.

sarah

Anyway, back to the initial question...

A useful exercise is to write a scene from as many different POVs as you can - or rather, thinking about the 'psychic distance' between you and the character (something John Gardner talks about in his superb 'The Art of Fiction'. So, you can do it imagining you are right in their head, speaking as they would speak as the character, then move away a bit and still report their thoughts, then move right out and look at the scene from an omniscient point of view. Some novellists, like Hemingway, tended to stick with the latter to often brilliant effect; others, like Rose Tremain, manage to balance inner and outer superbly. I'd always look to a writer like her to give me a model of how psychic distance can be used in a stylish and original way: just look at the opening few pages of 'Music and Silence' as an example of how well you can change from one POV to another.

<Added>

No idea how the rogue smiley got in there. Belong to anyone....?