Post: Reply | Quote

Hi Everyone,

Me again with more questions and problems. I recently joined a "How to Write a Novel" group. I have learnt heaps already from the instructor, but I find the course very strict. There is no room for creative differences.

Recently I came across the problem of "head hopping". This has been described to me as a mistake common to amateur writers who frequently swap perspectives during a scene.

We have been told to focus only on the POV of the character who will be most affected by the scene. Other characters reactions can only be seen by their physical reactions to the events unfolding. We therefore shouldn't hear the thoughts or reasoning from other characters perspectives.

I don't wholly agree with this. I think some scenes, especially complicated scenes featuring several characters need to reflect the thoughts of more than one character.

I'd like to hear others thoughts on this.

cheers,
Darren.

---

Life is a containment field for thought. (A Slatz original.)

Post: Reply | Quote

Gees, Brad, perhaps you should start charging for your services. ">

..............................
"the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference - Richard Dawkins
Asteroid B-612

Post: Reply | Quote

I do 'head hopping' all the time. But for me, I can see where I did it out 'ignorance' for the concept of POV. Now that I understand it better, I think I will follow the one POV per scene.

But I do like the idea of slipping into a couple of heads all within the one scenario. I guess the trick is defining in no uncertain terms that there has been a POV switch, like don't do it in the middle of a paragraph.

I think I've asked this before... but can anyone define omnicient POV clearly?

..............................
"the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference - Richard Dawkins
Asteroid B-612

Post: Reply | Quote

Hmm. In 3rd person limited, which is the generally accepted standard for 3rd person, there is little room for anyone but the POV character. I would say for a young writer that it would be unwise to focus on anyone but the POV character, anyway.

To stray from that rule is to risk confusing the reader. It also risks an editors wrath. Good or bad, that's what Editors look for (this wasn't always true, but it is today). Mostly, I agree. Why? Because sticking with one POV character brings you in close relationship with them. You see what they see, and more importantly, you feel what they feel. It's closer to real life. No one can hop heads in real life, so why should they in a book? I know, I know, we can do anything in books, but you risk lack of immersion for the reader when you stray into omniscient.

Another reason is that you can be much more subtle with your writing by sticking to a single POV. Let us know what the POV character thinks, but drop hints about what other people think with their words and their actions. It's nearly as good as flat out telling us, but it's so much more elegant. To me, having someone fling a glass across the room in anger is much better than saying, "Henry was angry."

3rd person omniscient is one in which there is no POV character. We can see what any character sees, and feel what any character feels. There is a spectrum of sorts for POV. 1st person is on one end, and it's the most intimate view; the most immersive view. Next up is 3rd person, in which we still sit in one person's head, but it's limited only to them. It's still somewhat intimate, but not as much as 1st person. Finally, there's omniscient, in which we rarely rest in one person's head for very long. This is the least intimate of the three.

As always, this is just my .02,

Brad.

Edited by: bbeaulieu at: 8/4/02 1:30:32 pm

Post: Reply | Quote

I agree with most of your thoughts Lisa and Brad. But I think there are certain situations, that POV shifts - if done well, are acceptable - and needed.

I'll give an example of what I mean by certain circumstances that we will all know well. The last paragraph of page 23 of Destiny (where the Gynts and friends have only been shortly reunited), seems to be an omniescent POV since on this page we have "seen" reactions from nearly all the characters.

The first new paragraph of page 24 describes Gyl's thoughts. 3rd paragraph of page 25 moves onto Tor's thoughts.

This is all the same scene. The transitions of POV are done so subtely and skillfully that they caiuse the reader no problem whatsoever, but they certainly enhance the feeling of the scene, because it has a different relevance for the main characters present, and it is important to show this.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting something concerning POV?

cheers,

Darren.

---

Life is a containment field for thought. (A Slatz original.)

Post: Reply | Quote

Thanks Brad and Fiona.

This is something I really haven't thought about too much myself until it was brought to my attention by the instructor. It certainly gets confusing!

Fiona you feel inadequate!? I had to laugh when I read that! Wow. But I tell you all this technical stuff is messing with my head. I think I was like you - I just wrote. Now I'm checking myself all the time.

Am I head hopping? Is this a consistent POV? Do I really need a plot map? (cause I don't have one). Have I got too many adverbs? How I can say this without using a pro noun? Am I showing or telling?

Suddenly I'm questioning everything more and writing far less "> .

cheers,
Darren.

---

Life is a containment field for thought. (A Slatz original.)

Edited by: Slatz  at: 8/5/02 8:22:25 am

Post: Reply | Quote

Forget the 'rules' and just write. That's always been my policy, even before I knew there were any rules.

The hardest thing, as far as I am concerned, is not adhereing to any rules, it's keeping at the page/keyboard long enough to get the silly thing finished. Once it's finished, even in a rough form, you're at the peak of the mountain. It's all down hill from there. Rewrites, honing direction, defining characters, drawing out an underlying motivation for someone that suddenly showed up unexpectedly and trimming down the places where you overstepped the 'rules' is easy once you have the beginning, middle and end all there on the page in front of you.

And a side point on head hopping... I think I have mostly encountered it with Aus authors. Fiona and Sara Douglass pop into my mind at the moment. Can't think of any others at the moment.

..............................
"the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference - Richard Dawkins
Asteroid B-612

Post: Reply | Quote

Blimey this is all so technical - I feel suddenly inadequate. I have never ONCE considered POV in my writing and it has never occurred to me to double check whose head I'm in.

Slatz, don't analyse and don't let anyone tell you what you can and can't do. There are NO rules.

For the purposes of a course and to help you understand aspects of writing, your tutor is probably doing the right thing in generalising and keeping you all on the safe track. There are potholes waiting for you so I guess, he/she is trying to make you aware of how you can confuse the readers if you are not aware of how to make leaps successfully.

But if you are very clear about who is thinking, and you feel confident doing it - then go the way your instincts take you. I leap about ALL the time and the readers are more than capable of going with me. Keep it clear, don't crowd the scene and always return to the main thread but trust the readers - they are one of your characters and can handle subtle shifts.

The safest way is to have a scene break as I think Lisa said - so you make it abundantly clear that you have just swapped - but it's not necessary. Just keep writing and keep test marketing your work. Readers will soon let you know if there are clumsy moments.

Good luck.

Post: Reply | Quote

Good point Lisa. Perhaps head hopping doesn't matter if I'll be subbing to aussie editors anyway?

---

Life is a containment field for thought. (A Slatz original.)

Post: Reply | Quote

I don't have Destiny, so I can't comment completely. However, one of the books I have describes a technique to slip into a story (or perhaps a scene). The scene starts omniscient and describes various characters thoughts, flitting around as we get to know them a bit. However, as the scene moves forward, we drop into the POV character and stay there from that point forward. I've used that for a few short stories and it seems to work well.

I'm not sure about the necessity of omniscient, though. Yes, it's *a* technique, but there are so many ways to get things out that I just can't see where authors must (or should) use it. Certainly, many fine stories are told from 3rd person limited, and they stick to that for the entire story. Certainly there are others that jump into omniscient for brief periods.

Just my .02,

Brad.

Post: Reply | Quote

Hehehe. Don't think I haven't considered it. ">

Someday, when I make the jump to "professional author", maybe I'll do that.

For now, though, I really do learn by critiquing. It helps me reinforce ideas, learn new ones, and just get exposure to different styles.

Brad.

Post: Reply | Quote

Thanks for your suggestions Brad. Actually I did start with short story writing and I've written quite a number over the years. I thought I had developed a style I was comfortable with, but I admit I just wrote, and didn't have much theoretical knowledge about it.

I guess my best teacher to date has been the vast number of books I've read and my own practicing. I've always wanted to write a novel though. Ever since I first read Enid Blyton when I was very small.

I've attempted it a few times - but I've fallen short on enthusiasm, or perhaps knowledge to make it the whole way. This time I'm determined to make it- and this is my third atempt. Reading my first novel now - "Blood Stains Twice" - I probably got about a third of the way, I can see the idea was sound, but oh boy do I need to start again if I ever get back to it!

This is a reason I thought this course would be a good idea. One of the objectives is to teach students how to finish the book, so we don't give up half way.

I've learnt many things already, but I am having a problem with some of the theory as it is a completely different concept to how I have always written - which is basically just naturally.

Now thinking about all these rules is new to me. I don't really want to map my plot at this stage, as I don't know what's going to happen yet. It's not so much that I'm a completely inexperienced writer (although I'm not suggesting in anyway I'm an expert or that I'm any good!), it's just this course has thrown me off my stride somewhat, and I'm struggling to decide whether I take my medicine and change my method (which hasn't been too successful - at least by way of finishing to date) or do I keep my faith in what I've written so far and just plough on regardless.

---

Life is a containment field for thought. (A Slatz original.)

Post: Reply | Quote

Oh and thanks for your generous offer of reading some of my work. I may well send you something if you don't mind, it may help explain where I'm coming from.

Btw - I've been to your website - I liked it very much.

cheers,

Darren.

---

Life is a containment field for thought. (A Slatz original.)

Post: Reply | Quote

Sure, Darren. Send me a chapter if you like. Perhaps the one you're debating over when you're done with it.

Brad.

Post: Reply | Quote

A modest suggestion, Slatz. I'm not sure where you are in your writing. I seem to remember a Chapter 12 post, but I can't recall if that's you or not.

I'm a bit more rules oriented than either Fiona or Lisa are. I'm not saying that's better or worse. Just letting it out so you'll take this comment for what it's worth (exactly what you paid for it "> ).

As an aside: regarding "rules", I'm a firm believer that one should follow the rule until you understand the ins and outs of it. Once you're confident what it can and cannot do to your writing, you then have the knowledge to ignore whatever rules you like when appropriate. To do it blindly is, to me, to risk knocking your shins on the coffee table (or perhaps fall down the stairs). By this, I don't mean write by the rules for your entire novel. I mean consider it, perhaps practice it until you see both sides, and then decide for yourself in a conscious manner.

On to my real suggestion: I found that writing short stories helped my style immensely. I wish I had started there instead of on a novel. There are many pluses to this, but in your current dilemma, I think you find yourself wondering what your style will become as you mature as a writer. One way to find that out is to complete a shorter work, get it read, and evaluate.

Were there any common threads in people's comments? Do I agree with them?

It also lets you experiment, whereas in a novel that's much more difficult. You could, if you were so inclined, create 2 versions of the same story. One with strict 3rd person, another with head hopping as you deem fit. How do they read to you? To others?

I knocked out only 6 short stories in the last 1/2 year and I felt like I learned years worth of novel writing during it (short stories are rather like chapters, anyway). It's so much easier to evaluate where you're at with shorter works because people can finish them quickly and get you feedback. And as I said, you can play with so many different techniques whereas with a novel you have the continuity of the work to think of.

So, perhaps give that a try in your copious spare time. I'd be happy to read one for you.

Cheers,

Brad.