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.

Using the Omniscient Voice Isn't Wrong

I usually advise students to avoid the Omniscient Voice in their prose. This is because the current market prefers the 'up close and personal' feeling you get from using first or third person. But that doesn't mean using the omniscient voice is wrong.

The omniscient voice is when the story is told by an all-seeing, all-knowing narrator. It's also called the authorial voice. The narrator knows what's going to happen in the future, what each character is thinking, what the implications are of actions and so on. 19th century novels use authorial voice a lot - "it is a truth universally acknowledged..." or "All happy families resemble each other, but each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way" can only be said by an omniscient narrator.

It can be a distancing voice, putting us at one remove from being inside the heads of the characters directly ourselves. But it also has its uses. I was re-reading The Hobbit, and was struck by how JRR Tolkien's omniscient voice added to the telling of the tale. It told where they made mistakes - "actually, as I have told you, they were not far off the edge of the forest; if Bilbo had had the sense to see it", poked gentle fun at Bilbo and his fondness for home comforts and food, went into amusing digressions such as how the game of golf was invented and filled us in on what was happening when Bilbo wasn't actually present.

So, the omniscient voice isn't wrong. For the right book it's just right.

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.

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.  

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).  

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.

When the Right Person to have Viewpoint is the Wrong Person.

Generally, the right person to have viewpoint is the person to whom the most exciting stuff is happening, but there are some notable exceptions....

When the right person knows too much.

Sherlock Holmes is the classic example of this. He spends a lot of time knowing who dunnit, but keeping the solution back until it's certain (or until Arthur Conan Doyle has written enough pages). If we were in his point of view we would know what was going on in his head, and the solution would be revealed. If the writer keeps crucial information out of the character's head despite them knowing it, then they can expect to run into problems with readers when the solution is finally revealed, as Agatha Christie did in The Murder of Roger Ackroyd.

When the right person is too far away from 'us'

Again, Sherlock Holmes is the example. He's just too darn intelligent, talented, superhumanly gifted for us to engage with him. We are fascinated by his glittering brilliance, but that's because it's at a distance. Instead, Dr Watson becomes our viewpoint character. He's a decent enough chap, but sometimes a bit slow on the uptake. The reader is always one step ahead of him, and several behind Sherlock.

When the action isn't really in the events that are happening

The example of this is The Great Gatsby. Nick Carraway observes Gatsby, Daisy, Tom etc as they dance around each other. He is the onlooker, not an active participant, in their relationships. But he's the one who is changed by the experience, so while he's not that affected by the external events, he's very affected by the internal changes to himself.

6 Reasons to have Consistent Point of View

P of V, P of V, how I don't love you, P of V. Which is what some people must sing. Point of View has never been something I've struggled with, but I know that some people do. We all have blind spots - I don't see the appeal of Strictly Come Dancing, no matter how many times people tell me it's brilliant and addictive. Back to point of view.

"Jane picked up the carving knife" is from no particular point of view.

"Jane picked up the carving knife, her hands trembling" is also from no particular point of view - Jane could notice her hands were trembling and so could an observer.

"Jane picked up the carving knife, her eyes blazing," has to be from an observer's point of view because how could Jane know her eyes were blazing?

"Jane picked up the carving knife, thinking it was now or never" has to be from Jane's point of view, because only Jane can know what she is thinking.

It's really that simple. Where it gets complicated is when people like me ask that scenes are written from a consistent point of view. In other words, once we're in Jane's point of view for a particular scene, please stay in Jane's point of view, and not go into Jack's point of view, or the cat's, or anybody else's who may be hanging around.

Why bother?

1. It can confuse the reader. For example...

Miranda washed up the dishes, thinking Eleanor was incredibly lazy for not helping. Eleanor examined her fingers, admiring the expensive manicure she'd had done only yesterday. Billy was bound to fall in love with her now. Miranda slapped down the last tea cup. What a cow.

"Have you been watching Strictly Come Dancing?" she said.

Who is speaking? It could be either Eleanor or Miranda.

2. If you go backwards and forwards from one character to another, even if the reader can follow, it can feel like being at a tennis match and watching the ball going between the two players. At worst, you can feel almost seasick.

3. Even if the reader can follow easily, it takes them away from what is happening in the scene and a bit of their brain is distracted into working out something technical which should have been hidden. If their brain gets too distracted they'll put the book down and go and do something else.

4. Staying in one character's viewpoint means we feel we're in the head of that character, and if we're in their head, we're engaged with the character, the story and the writing. Which is what you want, isn't it?

5. I know that lots of best selling writers do change point of view within a scene but if you noticed then it means you came out of the story for a moment. Are you certain your story telling is so good that you can afford for a reader to come out of the writing and work out who is speaking now?

6. It's such an easy thing to spot. On a first page it shows carelessness at best, ignorance at worst. An agent or publisher may not bother to read on simply because of shifting POV. In class I have to admit it's wonderfully easy to give POV comments, and not strain the brain into coming up with something else, As a tutor, if I spend time commenting on POV - which is important for the above 5 reasons - I may not have time to get round to other comments, like getting all the easy jobs done on the To Do list and putting off the tricky stuff.

Just be consistent. If you start a scene in Jane's POV, stick with it, don't get sidetracked into Jack's (or Jill's). Write the next scene from Jack's POV if you want, and the scene after that from Jill's, but don't mix them up within a scene. Keep us in the POV character's head, and keep us reading.

Keep Cinematic in the Cinema

Third person is my preferred choice for point of view, but it's not without its problems either. I hate reading what's called cinematic third person. This is when the scene is described - dialogue and actions - but we're told nothing of what is going on in a viewpoint character's head. You get things like...

'Hello Mary,' Janice said, flicking her hair back over her shoulders.

Mary gave a brief smile. 'Hi.' She was dressed as Snow White, right down the the sparkly slippers on her feet. They twinkled as she walked over to the drinks table. 'Damn. They've got no cider.'

'Cider?' Janice echoed, pulling a face. She ran her Freddy Krueger hands over the bottle tops. 'Who on earth would be drinking cider at a party like this?'

'Me,' Mary said, pushing the black wig away from her unnaturally pale face. 'I need to get drunk fast.'

And so it goes on, batting action and dialogue back and forth, but never getting into anyone's head. It's like watching a description of a film - hence the term cinematic. Now, I'm not suggesting for one minute that every bit of dialogue or action should come accompanied with an interior monologue like a perpetual running commentary, but to never go into a character's head is missing a trick.

One of the great advantages prose has over other art forms is that we know what's going on in people's heads. We know what they're thinking. A great actor or dancer can convey some of this, but essentially it's deduction. We don't know. And I for one am really curious about what other people are thinking - because they never really tell you either. I love reading a novel or a short story and discovering a character thinks exactly the same as I do, or understanding why they're behaving in the way they are, even though it's a way I would never behave myself.

Cinematic writers often defend themselves using words like sparse, understated and subtle. Well, yes. And so is beige. Why not be sparse, understated and subtle with emotions and thoughts too?

We read for stories, but I think we also read to know how other people think and feel. Cinematic third person takes that away from the reader. It's like writing with one hand tied behind your back, possible but not necessarily desirable. It's a bit like a Kelly Hoppen interior, copied by hotel rooms all over the world. Acres of subtle beiges and good taste taupes...unless you get the flash of scarlet or contrasting chocolate, it's subtle, understated and - let's face it - just the teensiest bit dull.

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!

More Me Me Me - Writing in First Person

Jenny's comment yesterday has pointed out one of the big advantages of using first person - the unreliable narrator. As human beings we live a lot of our lives on trust which is why con men can be so successful. We just don't expect people to make up stuff about themselves. If I told you I have two children, or was brought up in London you'd believe me. Even people who put more of a shine on things that is usual - Jeffrey Archer springs to mind - stick fairly closely to the truth. So when a first person narrator tells you X, you don't automatically assume it's a lie. The unreliable narrator may be deliberately unreliable, or they may have been deceiving themselves as well as the reader. Part of the joy of reading the unreliable narrator is the slow dawning that all is not as it seems. Jenny mentioned Robert Browning's My Last Duchess; my example would be Zoe Heller's Notes on a Scandal.

Other first person advantages. I mentioned yesterday that if the reader doesn't like the character then the writer is stuffed, but the opposite is also true: if the reader likes the character then the writer has it easy. It's very easy to identify with a first person narrator if you like them, probably one of the reasons so many teenage/young adult books have a first person narrator. You've got a hot line into someone's brain, and they're thinking just the same stuff you do! Reader identification is a big plus.

Voice is another advantage. I can remember reading the first page of Behind the Scenes at the Museum by Kate Atkinson. It was before I started writing myself and didn't know about technical words like voice, but I could hear the first person narrator's voice zing off the page and knew I was reading something different and exciting. Your character may not be likeable, but if they have a great voice, people will read on.

A first person narrator is telling you, the reader, a story. This has the disadvantage that you know that they must have survived to tell the tale (otherwise they wouldn't be telling you) so if the denouement hinges on whether they survived going off the cliff or not, you've got problems. But because they're telling the tale it means they can explain stuff to the reader. I love the Mary Stewart trilogy about Merlin - The Crystal Cave, The Hollow Hills and The Last Enchantment - which are all first person. Merlin tells us things that would be hard to convey quickly using other methods - the background to the Saxon invasions, the complicated kingdoms of Wales for example.

I've got a How To book which says that the other big advantage of first person is humour. I've had a quick look at three writers who I find funny - Terry Pratchett, Tom Sharpe and Stephen Fry - and they're all writing in third. I think humour is tied into voice: some people can say anything and it's hilarious. I mean, just thinking about the titles of Louise Rennison's books and I'm smiling - Angus, Thongs and Full Frontal Snogging, Knocked Out by my Nunga-Nungas, Startled by his Furry Shorts - but it's the voice that's funny.

So there we go, some advantages, some disadvantages. I think I might try writing something in first later on this year and see what happens, but I'll also remember the big big disadvantage that I forgot yesterday: people generally prefer reading third person. It's a very general rule and there are lots of exceptions, but...perhaps I'll stick to third.

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!

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!

POV and Mega Casts

Yesterday's post made me think about books with huge cast lists and written from many view points. I think we still focus on one main character, and want to follow one main story line. I loved English Passengers by Matthew Kneale, which was shortlisted for the Booker prize. The story is told from twenty different points of view so you'd think it might get confusing, but it doesn't. However, the main focus is the journey of Captain Kewley and the Reverend Wilson to Tasmania, and that's the story we follow. The other points of view skillfully weave their way around the main plot line.

Let's try some of the great C19th novelists. Take War and Peace, for instance. The focus is on Pierre and Natasha. Trollope has huge cast lists, but each novel is clearly focussed on one person, from Septimus Harding onwards. Ditto Dickens. Despite the great sweep of these novels we always know where the focus is.

I suspect it's because as people we're geared up to have intense relationships with only a few people. A large cast of characters without focus is like being at a drinks party where you talk to lots of people about superficial things; you simply can't get deep and meaningful with all of them. That's not to say the large cast shouldn't be colourful - it's best if they are - but that as a writer you should know where your main story lies.

Warthogs and Lions

Years ago I went on a safari to Kenya and on the first day out witnessed three lionesses hunting a warthog. It was a thrilling ten minutes: the lionesses took up their positions, crouching low among the sparse grasses, bellies inching over the dusty earth. Then in turn they made sudden dashes towards the warthog, who wheeled and squealed, little black tail twirling frantically as he twisted away from the claws and jaws, making a run for safety - but there was always another lioness blocking his path. Oh, how I wanted his courage and agility to be rewarded with escape, but I also wanted the lionesses to get him, I wanted to see the kill.

I was on both their sides, but if I'd been writing the scene I'd have to chose a point of view: lioness or warthog. Why? Well, imagine it. As the outside observer in real life I often didn't know where to look - at the warthog in the centre, or one of the lionesses stealthily sneaking round the side to spring a surprise attack. Sometimes I was confused - how had the warthog escaped again? where had that lioness come from?

Changing point of view backwards and forwards can be like that, confusing and lacking focus. Which character is the reader rooting for? If we were following a pride of lions and knew there were starving cubs to be fed, we might be sympathetic for the warthog, but we'd know how important success was to the lionesses. If it was the story of one little warthog then, while we'd thrill to his perilous adventure, we'd long for him to get away. Switching between the two points of view would make it harder for the reader to empathise with either. Emotions would get cloudy and muddled.

Of course, some writers do manage to write dramatic scenes from both viewpoints without losing or confusing the reader. But generally that's the exception. It's a good idea when you're writing a scene to decide: warthog or lioness. Then keep the focus, keep the tension, keep the reader. And I'll tell you what happened to the warthog tomorrow.