posted
This goes along with the "Going separate ways" post. I've seen two ways of approaching this. One is the "one chapter for one character, switch to the other character for the next chapter" approach. I'll call it the finely diced approach, so that time flows pretty smoothly, and the flavors of the stories blend nicely. Then there's the chunky approach, where whole stories will be told at once before switching pov. This is done (but maybe not perfectly) in LotR. I like it, because I can focus on one problem at a time, feel like I am Merry or Pippin wondering whatever became of Frodo and Sam, while I live their life for a while. But there's the big problem at the end of Two Towers, where I had to wait 150 pages to find out what happened. I agree with Kathleen that ending on cliffhangers, especially when going for chunky, is a bad idea usually. But is there one approach that is better than the other? Does it depend on the story? What kinds of stories fit each approach?
And then a poll: which approach do you personally prefer?
posted
LOL---when i read a story like this, either way, I read one POV at a time. In other words I skip ahead to read about one person and then go back and read the other POV's.
Game of Thrones (can't think of the author right now)(rats) anyway it was a well written fantasy told in the diced style.
posted
Ha! Great question. I prefer, in the best of all reading worlds, one perspective, one character. Period. Except, of course, when i love a rolling POV. But mostly, i prefer one. However, in a novel with multiple povs, I like the ones that, though diced, are in a continuos time pattern. So, I read about betty, then the chapter ends. Now I am in Bill's pov, but it is taking place AFTER what happened to Betty. That is my vote. Liz
Posts: 16 | Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted
I just finished book 2 of THE SWAN WARS, which is called The Isle of Battle. AWESOME!! But, it was a multiple perspective, continuous time thing. He did it to perfection. Again, I highly recommend his writing, any of it. Liz
Posts: 16 | Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted
My preference is for the vast majority of the story to be told from a single character's mind, with other POVs put in only when absolutely necessary; usually so that the reader can witness an important scene that the main character isn't part of.
Coincidentally, this happens alot in OSC's work...
posted
SR--I think Game of Thrones is George R.R. Martin...one of my personal favorite writers.
For me, it depends upon the characters. If I like them, I'm interested in their POV and don't mind jumping around throughout the story. However, if one character isn't engaging and/or their portion of the story is less interesting, I may skip their section and move onto the character/storyline I prefer.
posted
So I guess the consensus I'm getting is that I should jump heads as little as possible, that if I'm going to do it, both characters should be equally (and highly if possible) compelling, and that going back in time to find out what happened "back at the ranch" is annoying. Right?
Posts: 814 | Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted
From an objective viewpoint, I think you should jump heads exactly as much as you need to in order to tell the story well. Though certainly having compelling, solid characters won't hurt a bit...
posted
I just finished reading Game of Thrones! What a coincidence. I love that series (which, you are correct, is by George RR Martin) and cannot wait for the fourth book to come out. The style allows a lot of good character interaction, and I love how it can be told from the point of view of two enemies at different times. It lends real depth to the story as a whole. On the other hand, half the time I'm left screaming "No, wait, I don't want to go to his point of view! Go back to hers!"
With a book like ::fishes around in memory:: Mercedes Lackey's Winds of Fury, Winds of Fire, Winds of Change series, every other chapter was by one character's POV, and every other by another. I just read one POV at a time and went back to the other. I guess Tolkien is the same thing without the fuss of doing it manually. To seperate stories back to back in the same book.
On the one hand, I found it difficult to get involved in the multiplePOV story until I was well into the book. On the other hand, once I got used to it, the style really made me appreciate the benefits of multiple points of view. I think "dicey" can fail spectacularly, but when it works well, its wonderful.
posted
I must point out that one of the best action-thriller books ever written, The Hunt for Red October (does not apply to the movie) has several sections where it jumps from one POV to another very quickly. Basically, as the book reaches its climax, it jumps back and forth between the American and Soviet vessels that are hunting for Red October.
Tom Clancy resorted to this risky strategy to build tension. Since groups of characters were on different submarines, each side had to guess what the other side was doing (they sometimes had to guess what their own side was doing!) You might get 2-3 paragraphs of an American sub guessing the Soviets' next move and plotting their own move. Then you might get 2-3 Soviet POV paragraphs showing that five Soviet submarines had mistaken the American for Red October and were about to open fire on it. Then you might get 2-3 paragraphs of Jack Ryan on an American Destroyer trying to guess which sonar blips were American, which was Red October, and what the Soviet submarines would do next.
If the reader had a favorite POV, he/she did not need to wait long before getting back to it!
As far as I know this example is unique. Because most characters are not confined to nuclear submarines their writers can use personal observations to build tension. But in The Hunt for Red October, one or two chapters of the jumping POV method was a very, very effective way to build tension!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
