Last week I talked about a scene in which an author (Delia Owens) switched seamlessly, and delightfully, between two different characters. So the scene started with Kya, dipped into Tate\u2019s perspective, moved back to Kya, stayed with her for a while, then moved \u2013 decisively and perfectly to Tate \u2013 before drifting back to Kya.<\/p>\n
OK, that\u2019s clear. But I got a number of responses which asked about the validity of various different point of view (POV) arrangements through the course of a book.<\/p>\n
And look: there\u2019s a short answer to that question, a long answer to that question, and a wide answer too.<\/p>\n
The short answer is: anything goes.<\/strong> Don\u2019t worry about it.<\/p>\n The long answer is: anything goes.<\/strong><\/p>\n You can have a first-person, single point-of-view structure that endures, not simply through a single book, but through an entire series. My Fiona Griffiths series doesn\u2019t have one single page \u2013 not one single paragraph \u2013 that isn\u2019t narrated by her, and strictly from her point of view.<\/p>\n You can also have a third-person, single point-of-view structure. That\u2019s a bit less common (because part of the power of third-person lies in the way it liberates the author to enter multiple heads), but it\u2019s common enough. \u00a0It\u2019s certainly absolutely fine as a technique.<\/p>\n Then you can have books that alternate points of view, often between two halves of a couple (The Time Traveler\u2019s Wife<\/em>, say) or a sort of couple (All The Light We Cannot See<\/em>).<\/p>\n Or you can have books that play with a limited, but larger, cast of characters. My first novel worked with three brothers (George, Matthew, Zack) and one sister (Josephine) who played a somewhat lesser role in the story. There wasn\u2019t a strict alternation between those three-and-a-half viewpoints, but there was an approximate one. Readers knew that if they had just finished a George chapter, the next one would probably be either Matthew or Zack, except that every now and then Josephine claimed a space.<\/p>\n Or you can have books that play with a really huge cast of characters. There was a fantastic example, a while back, Maynard and Jennica<\/em>, by Rudolph Delson. Some big geopolitical thrillers work with huge numbers of characters. (Hello, Tom Clancy.) Some highly literary work does the same.<\/p>\n It all works. The only real constraint on the number of characters is that the more characters you play with, the reader inevitably has a weaker bond with them. Authors have, broadly speaking, three options to deal with that problem:<\/p>\n I don\u2019t really recommend the third of those choices. The other two are fine.<\/p>\n And finally, the wide answer is: anything goes.<\/strong><\/p>\n Whatever the specific issue \u2013 points of view, timelines, first \/ third person, tense or really anything else \u2013 the thing that readers need most is clarity. So give them clarity. Once they have that, they\u2019ll be happy to sit with you on whatever journey you care to take them on.<\/p>\n Dual timelines give another good example of this wider answer.<\/p>\n So take Where the Crawdads Sing<\/em>, again. There are two timelines in the book, which end up meeting and merging. That could feel messy, but it never does, because the rhythm is established early and communicated clearly. The book\u2019s structure is roughly:<\/p>\n In the first three-quarters of the book, the two timelines alternate. Short chapters deal with the 1969 murder investigation. Much longer sequences deal with Kya’s childhood and coming-of-age.<\/p>\n Towards the end of the book, the two timelines meet and merge \u2013 and the merging is expected by the reader from early on in the book. Because Owens\u2019s plan is clear, the reader accepts it without demur.<\/p>\n In that case, the two timelines merge, but they don\u2019t have to. In AS Byatt\u2019s Possession<\/em>, a hundred years separates the protagonists, so no merging is possible. But again: so long as the author has a clear structure for the book, and so long as that plan is plain to the reader, there\u2019s no difficulty.<\/p>\n And, to bundle this email up, tie it off, and make it ready for shipping, here\u2019s an answer that is simultaneously short, long and wide:<\/p>\n Make a clear plan. Stick to it. Communicate it to the reader. Do those things with purpose and clarity and \u2013 anything goes.<\/strong><\/p>\n Easy, huh?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Last week I talked about a scene in which an author (Delia Owens) switched seamlessly, and delightfully, between two different characters. So the scene started with Kya, dipped into Tate\u2019s perspective, moved back to Kya, stayed with her for a while, then moved \u2013 decisively and perfectly to Tate \u2013 before drifting back to Kya.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":32,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[29292],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6627","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-harrys-friday-email"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n\n
\n