Absinthe & Cookies (a bit bitter, a bit sweet)

Yes, some authors do that...but it's wrong, wrong, WRONG!

Your viewpoint character in a given scene should be the one who gets the biggest emotional charge out of the scene. For the reader to share in that emotional charge, which is what he's there for, you must remain viewpoint-consistent. To shift viewpoints doesn't merely confuse the reader, who has to reorient to whose consciousness he's riding on; it also badly dilutes the emotional impact for which the scene was written.

As with most other technologies, the technology of good fiction has advanced steadily over time. The old style "omniscient" narrator, who could and did eavesdrop on all characters' senses and thoughts simultaneously, is essentially defunct. They who still "use" that narrative angle aren't bold geniuses courageously blazing a new trail; they're undisciplined mediocrities whose respect for their readers needs a lot of work.

I won! My internal bet, that is :) I knew you'd be the first comment out of the gate.

I tend to agree with those who say dont do it, if for no other reason than to keep things simple for myself. I *do* like it when the POV shift is handled by divying POVs up in segments...as in, one segment is told by one character and then the next segment isnt so much a scene change as in a POV change and the events taking place in the story are viewed from another POV. I love having different POVs but it can be tricky when it comes to doing it in such a way that the reader is going "when did we get inside his/her head?!"

I also tend to see POV changes as a way to carry the story forward rather than giving a comprehensive reaction from all sides.

that the reader is going "when did we get inside his/her head?!"

I should say "that the reader IS NOT going "when did we get inside his/her head?!"

The writer who gave the workshop said there is no right or wrong; only what works or doesn't work. If it works, you can do it. If it doesn't work--don't do it.

Forget the rules. Forget structure. Do what works. Don't try to make your art - the story - fit into some vague blueprint someone tells you is the gospel. If you want to write very structured works, try screenplays. Novels should flow more freely.

Imagine the scene: write it one way, then another. Do small segments for practice, not long tracts. Think POETRY. Capture the essence of the emotions, actions, feelings, whatever in a photograph of words. Try different things for that one scene. See which one works better. And remember that the only person you need to satisfy is YOU. Not everyone you show these experiments to will agree on the best way.

Well, well, well. This is a "man bites dog" moment! I find myself in disgreement with Fran.

The two texts I find most useful on this subject are Orson Scott Card's _Character and Viewpoint_ and Sherri Szeman's _Mastering Point of View_. I am also persuaded by discussions among the writers participating at the Online Writer's Worshop -- including such folk as Elizabeth Bear, Charles Coleman Finlay, and Karin Lowachee.

Fundamentally, there are three elements to point of view and perspective.

First there is the Point of View (POV), which is a combination of the person (first, second, third) and the tension of the coupling between the narrative and a particular perspective -- tight, loose, omniscient... with infinite variability among the several possible combinations.

Second, there is perspective. That is, the specific character whose Point of View is used as the standpoint from which the tale is told.

Third, there is the complex relationship between narrator, perspective (NOT point-of-view) character and the reader. This last dictates the nature of the narrative and the success of a story depends on the seamlessness of the relationship.

If the reader perceives changes in point of view or perspective, the illusion of reality is broken and the willing suspension of disbelief which is vital to good fiction is lost.

Third person omniscient is generally viewed as an archaic and outmoded technique. However, there are always countervailing examples. Indeed, it can be argued that -- by virtue of its use in cinema -- that the "fly on the wall" POV of the omniscient narrator is the preeminent storytelling mode in use today.

Don't think so? When was the last time you saw a major -- financially successful -- motion picture in any venue or form in which the perspective character is NEVER seen by the camera? Hmmm? Doesn't happen -- except in "little" films that sink into well-deserved obscurity at twee art-film festivals.

That is not to say that there are not excellent reasons that a tightly-coupled limited third-person point of view with a single perspective character is probably the most popular in written fiction and that cinema attempts to get as close to that ideal as it can.

But to go from there to an absolute proscription on changes in perspective or point of view within a work is -- quite a leap.

There are, however, general rules of thumb which can be deduced from the success of various forms that storytellers can find useful.

1) In short works, point of view should be consistent throughout and changes in perspective characters should be kept to the absolute minimum necessary to tell the story.

What's necessary? To portray vital information or events to the reader ONSTAGE where the main perspective character is not present is superior to having the action take place offstage, be reported by narration or by a Stapeldon, and thus presented at one-remove ... in order to preserve consistent POV and perspective.

2) In longer works, point of view should be kept consistent, because shifts are jarring to the reader. But changes in perspective are not only permissable, but often desirable -- if only as a matter of pacing and enhancement of tension.

But you must avoid "head hopping" -- defined as distracting changes in perspective. Which brings us to...

3) Do not change perspective within a sentence or even a paragraph.

4) Signal changes in perspective clearly to the reader. Make sure that the character is named in the first sentence of a new section. Use inter-paragraph spacing (a blank line) to indicate a change.

5) Don't make changes gratuitously. They must flow organically from the narrative, or the reader will find them annoying and your book will end up being thrown across the room -- at best.

M