Showing posts with label POV. Show all posts
Showing posts with label POV. Show all posts

Monday, 12 March 2012

Why Choose An External Narrator?

The usual choice for which character has viewpoint is to choose the person the important stuff is happening to. An external narrator is just that, an outside observer, so on the face of it a bad choice. But there are several good reasons why you might choose them...

1. Because while the obvious action is happening elsewhere, the really important stuff is happening to the narrator. In The Great Gatsby the action happens between Gatsby, Daisy, her husband Tom, and Tom's mistress, Myrtle. It's observed by the narrator Nick Carraway who apparently doesn't have much to do with events, he's just tagging along. But he's the one who is changed by what he witnesses and by the end is a different person. The Great Gatsby is really the story of Nick's internal journey.

2. When your main clever is just too clever for their own good. We might admire super clever people, but our human reaction in most cases is to knock them down. Ditto anyone who is incredibly talented/rich/beautiful. It's very hard to work up much sympathy for them. If we want to write about a character who is extra clever/beautiful/rich/whatever, it's easier if we use an external narrator who can be normal, and so readers can identify with them. Sherlock Holmes is fascinating to read about from Dr Watson's point of view, but I think we'd get very fed up with him if he was the viewpoint character. Too full of himself, apart from anything else.

3. When your main character knows too much. Sherlock Holmes again comes to mind - he works out the answer much earlier than anyone else, so if we were in his mind, the stories would be that much shorter. Gandalf, in The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, has lots of adventures but remains a shadowy figure in the background while the hobbits take centre stage. Gandalf knows more or less everything already, so the story wouldn't be able to unfold if he were centre stage. And Tolkien wouldn't be able to spring the 'we knew it was an impossible task from the start, but if you'd known that, you wouldn't have been able to do it' line. An interesting example is The Murder of Roger Ackroyd where the narrator is actually the murderer, but of course, isn't revealed until the end. Christie's readers were appalled by her playing this trick on them as it didn't seem fair.

4. When your narrator is unreliable. The unreliable narrator may be knowing, like Barbara in Notes from a Scandal, or unknowing, like the butler in The Remains of the Day, but either way, the person who is learning and changing as they see events unfold is the reader, rather than any of the characters. As a reader I like an unreliable narrator, but they are tricky to get the balance right between what they reveal and what they don't.

Generally, the rule remains - point of view should be with the person who the important, exciting action is happening to. But in this case there are always exceptions to rules.

Tuesday, 13 September 2011

When You Know the Rules, Feel Free to Break Them

One Day by David Nicholls is a great example of rule breaking.  Two viewpoints throughout, swapping between paragraphs, sometimes her, sometimes him, back and forwards.  It's against all the rules and shouldn't work - but it does.  The book I read before - Family Album by Penelope Lively - did just the same, skipping between all the characters in the large family.

But but but, you splutter.  The Rule says No headhopping!  The Rule says Stay in one character's viewpoint in each section.  These books break the rules.

Yup.  The Rules are there, and writers break them all the time.  But that doesn't make the rules less valid.  You need to understand the reasoning behind the rules, and then you can merrily break them.  

The rules are there to make life easier for the reader.  That's all.  Readers often find headhopping (ie switching from one character's viewpoint to another within a scene) confusing or distancing.  Confused or distanced readers stop reading. That's why it's inadvisable.  

However, if you set up a multi viewpoint scenario from the beginning (as both Lively and Nicholls do) then the reader is prepared.  For example, the opening page of Family Album alternates viewpoint from paragraph to paragraph: ABABA.  Once the reader has realised this they can follow the story.   

The trouble comes if you are starting out as a writer.  The chances are you don't understand why the rule is there.  I've come across many new writers who can't see that they're headhopping,  They're confused, the writing is confused, the reader is confused. 

Exactly the same is true for flashback.  Many new writers don't realise they're doing it, many don't understand why the rule is there.  They're confused, the writing is confused, the reader is confused.  Plus, it often slows down the action, doesn't add new information, goes over old ground. 

Learn how and why the rules work, and then, when you know what you're doing and the reader isn't getting confused, you can do what you like. Headhop at will.  Flashback away.  Readers don't read with a checklist beside them, but they want a smooth journey through your story. If they have to fumble around to check on who is speaking or where exactly the characters are in time then they'll stop reading.  

Serve the reader. That's the ultimate rule.  

PS Mind you, there is another reason why I advise unpublished writers to follow the rules.  Nicholls and Lively are both established writers.  They're not sending off their first 50 pages and trying to find an agent, or sending short stories out to competitions or magazines. You probably are. It's a very competitive world (in case you haven't noticed). You don't want to give anyone reasons for rejecting your story and, like it or not, headhopping or misplaced flashback could easily be a reason.  

Anyone in St Ives for the September Festival?  I'm giving a talk on Friday 23rd September at 11.00 am.  Go to the website for more info.

Wednesday, 3 August 2011

How Do I Look? Me, Through Your Eyes

As I'm typing this I have no idea how I look.  For all I know I might have a funny little smile on my face, or my brow my be furrowed, or my jaw clenched. I might even look as radiant as the morning sun. (I wish.)

Similarly, when we're looking at the world through one character's POV we have to remember that while they can see other people's expressions they can't see their own.  

So you can have this: 
Joe didn't know what to say or do. Helen looked furious.  Her cheeks flared red as she spat out the words, 'I hate you.'  He felt his jaw tighten in response as he stopped himself shouting back. 

But you can't have this: 
Joe didn't know what to say or do. Helen looked furious.  Her cheeks flared red as she spat out the words, 'I hate you.'  A muscle flickered along his jawline as he stopped himself shouting back. 

So, how do you describe the viewpoint character? The answer is obliquely. (Not looking a mirror.  That's a cliche.)

She sucked in her tummy and tugged as hard as she could, but there was no way the zip was going up to the top.  
ie the character is plump

I ran her hands through my hair, wondering what it would be like to have hair as long and straight and blonde as Gwyneth Paltrow's. 
ie the character has short, dark, curly hair

She heaved herself off the chair.  
ie the character is large and ungainly

I hurdled the 5 barred gate easily. 
ie the character is athletic and probably tall

I squirted extra sunscreen on my head and rubbed it in.  
ie the character is bald.

It's not difficult to do once you get the hang of it.  The other thing to remember is that you don't have to describe your characters in minute detail.  If anything, less is more. You want to convey just enough information so the reader can create an image in their minds.  


Thursday, 28 July 2011

Headhopping in Point of View

Yesterday I wrote about being consistent with Point Of View within the overall structure of your writing.  Today I'm writing about being consistent with POV within each section.  

I'm assuming you've decided against an Omniscient POV for your story.  Your story is going to be related by the characters as they see it unfolding before them, much as it happens in real life.  If Joe is having an argument with Helen, he can see what Helen is doing, he can hear what Helen is saying, but he doesn't know what Helen is thinking or how Helen is thinking.  He can make guesses as to what Helen is thinking by what she says and how she says it.  He can make guesses at to what Helen is feeling by how she looks as she says and does things.  But he doesn't know with 100% certainty what she's feeling or thinking.  

So, when you're writing from Joe's POV you can have him guess at Helen's thoughts, but not know them.  

Helen's cheeks flared red as she spat out the words, 'I hate you.'  

That's neutral description, what a character can see and what a character can hear. From that, it's reasonable for Joe (and the reader) to guess that Helen is cross, but neither Joe nor the reader know for sure. 

Joe thought Helen looked furious as her cheeks flared red and she spat out the words, 'I hate you.' 

You could even write Joe knew Helen was furious because her cheeks flared red etc as the 'because' shows that Joe is reasoning it out using the same clues that the reader has. 

What you can't do is this: Joe didn't know what to say or do. Helen was furious.  Her cheeks flared red as she spat out the words, 'I hate you.'

But you could do this: Joe didn't know what to say or do. Helen looked furious.  Her cheeks flared red as she spat out the words, 'I hate you.'

Headhopping is when you jump from one character's head to another and back again.  

Joe didn't know what to say or do. He flapped his hands ineffectually. 
Helen was furious.  Her cheeks flared red as she spat out the words, 'I hate you.'
Joe felt his jaw tighten in response as he stopped himself shouting back.  One of us has got to have some self control, he thought.
'Don't you have anything to say?' Helen shouted.  Why wasn't Joe arguing back?  Didn't he care any more?
Joe took a deep breath.  Stay calm, he told himself. 'Look, Helen,' he began to say but she cut him off.
'I've done enough looking. I'm leaving you.'  She picked up her bags, registering with a flicker of pleasure his horrified expression.  

The effect of headhopping to the reader is similar to being a spectator at a tennis match, you're going back and forth between the two characters.  It's exhausting and you risk confusing the reader fairly quickly.

At which point I'm pretty certain you're digging out your favourite author and showing how they headhop all the time.  It happens.  It used to happen a lot, but times change and you see headhopping less often now.  I think we're much more aware so have become sensitive to it.  Speaking as someone who gives feedback regularly, I think headhopping is the easiest thing to spot and comment on.  Any agent or editor who reads your work will notice it too.  

Headhopping is something that's as easy to fix as it is to spot, so writing that features headhopping suggests that badly edited work by a writer who isn't in control of their craft. The reality of today is that work that gets published is work that doesn't need a lot of editing. 

Some people seem to never head hop.  Other people do it all the time.  I've no idea why there should be this difference but if your nature inclines to headhopping then you need to take steps to edit it out - or accept that it make make publication harder (tho not impossible).  

Wednesday, 27 July 2011

What Consistency in Point Of View Means

Rule 1 about Point Of View is to be consistent.  You'd think that would be quite a simple rule to follow, but when you're starting out as a writer what's obvious to others isn't always to you so I thought I'd elaborate a bit about what consistency meant in practice. 

This is consistent:

Section 1: Joe's POV
Section 2: Joe's POV
Section 3: Joe's POV
Section 4: Joe's POV
Section 5: Joe's POV
Section 6: Joe's POV
Section 7: Joe's POV
Section 8: Joe's POV
Section 9: Joe's POV
Section 10: Joe's POV
Section 11-100: Joe's POV

This is not consistent...

Section 1: Joe's POV
Section 2: Joe's POV
Section 3: Joe's POV
Section 4: Joe's POV
Section 5: Joe's POV
Section 6: Joe's POV
Section 7: Joe's POV
Section 8: Helen's POV
Section 9: Joe's POV
Section 10-98: Joe's POV
Section 99: Fred's POV
Section 100: Joe's POV etc

This is consistent:

Section 1: Joe's POV
Section 2: Helen's POV
Section 3: Joe's POV
Section 4: Helen's POV
Section 5: Joe's POV
Section 6: Helen's POV
Section 7: Joe's POV
Section 8: Helen's POV
Section 9: Joe's POV
Section 10: Helen's POV
Section 11-100: Joe's and Helen's POV alternating

Section 1: Joe's POV
Section 2: Helen's POV
Section 3: Fred's POV
Section 4: Joe's POV
Section 5: Joe's POV
Section 6: Fred's POV
Section 7: Joe's POV
Section 8: Helen's POV
Section 9: Joe's POV
Section 10: Joe's POV
Section 11-100: Joe's, Helen's and Fred's POV alternating, with Joe having the majority of sections

I could do lots more examples but I hope you get the point: the pattern you set up at the beginning is the pattern you need to continue with.  That's what being consistent means.  You set the pattern in any way you like, but the reader will be disconcerted if you suddenly ditch the pattern and do something different.  

Sometimes you might want to disconcert the reader, that's fine, but it carries the risk that the reader will go off and do something else.  There is also the risk that the reader won't think you're being clever, but instead assume you don't have control over your writing.  

The exception is when you're using what's called Omniscient POV.  This is when there is a narrator/author/character who knows everything, the past, the present, the future, who can go into all the characters' heads and know what they're thinking.  It's a legit form of POV - lots of the great C19th novels are written from an omniscient viewpoint - but it isn't popular at the moment and if you want to write using omniscient, be aware that you'll have to work extra hard elsewhere to win the reader over.

Consistency also means sticking to one person's POV for the entirety of any one section. Breaking this rule is often called Headhopping and I'm going to look at that tomorrow.


Sunday, 20 June 2010

Me, Me, Me - Writing in First Person

In class on Friday a by-product of the fiendish exercise I'd set was the number of people who ended up writing in a point of view they didn't normally use. I never write in the first person because when I started writing I didn't want to write about myself and writing in first person blurred the lines and I found it hard to maintain the distance between the character and myself. And having had success with third person, I've just stuck with it. (At some point I must experiment with first person, but not when I've got a novel to finish writing.)

First person has some real advantages - and disadvantages. The big advantage is immediacy. As a reader you really feel you know this character, you know how they think, how they feel, their ups and downs. The big disadvantage is immediacy. If the reader doesn't like the character or finds them irritating, annoying, ditsy, too stupid to live, whatever, then you're stuffed.

A character like Sherlock Holmes would be intolerable in the first person, always condescending to ordinary mortals for not being as brilliant as himself. No wonder the stories are written from the first person view point of Dr Watson, who is amazed at how clever Holmes is. The reader is placed somewhere between them for intelligence, brighter than Watson, but not keeping up with Holmes.

Character aside, you'd also have problems with plot with a first person Holmes - or Poirot, or Miss Marple. Think of the number of times these characters work out who the killer is, but hold the information back from their companions (and the readers) before revealing all at the incredible denouement. Often is the answer, if not every time. If we were in their heads we'd have access to that information. If the writer hides the information, they risk the wrath of the reader - which is what happened when Christie published The Murder of Roger Ackroyd and Poirot's Last Case.

The final major disadvantage of first person is that of reported action which, regular readers of my blog will know, sucks. The first person character has to be present at all the major events of the story. This can lead to awkward manoeuvring to get them there or set up the dreaded reported action scene. The other solution is to start with a statement such as:

"I wasn't there, but Freddie filled me in with such detail I could imagine every minute of it. He'd been fooling around with his old jalopy when Marigold turned up.
'Hey Freddie - take me for a ride?'
'Sure,' Freddie said, revving up the engine, eyes on Marigold's legs as she slipped into the passenger seat. etc"

Hmm. Only to be used if you absolutely have to...

Advantages of first person tomorrow, when I've had more time to think of them.

Who lives near Birmingham? On 23rd June 6.30 - 8.30 Lucy Diamond, Milly Johnson, Veronica Henry and me will be talking about writing at Birmingham Library. Come and meet us!

Monday, 28 December 2009

The Twelve Exercises of Christmas: 4

Anna and Ben have gone for supper at Clare and David's house. They are all old friends and the evening has been filled with talk and laughter, delicious food and quite a bit of wine. They are now at the coffee stage. Anna, Ben and Clare are discussing their summer holiday plans - maybe they'll take a cottage together - but David is quiet.
Suddenly David pushes his chair back and stands up. 'I'm sorry,' he says as the others stare at him. 'I can't do this any more. Anna and I - we're in love. We want to be together.'

Re-write this scene in your own words, and from Anna, Ben, Clare and David's point of view in turn.

Think about the difference changing the POV makes to each piece of writing. For example, David might sit through supper feeling guilty, or obsessively watching Anna. Ben might have guessed something is going on with Anna, but not known with whom.
Another thing to think about is the best place to start the scene. For example, if Clare suspects nothing, then there's not much subtext from her POV to play with if you start very early on. But once David reveals the situation, there's much more going on.
Finally, how would it change if you use 1st rather than 3rd person? Or had an omniscient narrator?

There isn't a right or wrong answer here, but the choice of POV changes the way the scene works. Are you making effective choices?