How to resolve this POV problem?

[Britva415]

All I'm trying to say is that I think your chapter is going to be easier to fix by other means besides reconsidering the 3p omniscient POV you have already established. Keep that, and change the pacing and the emphasis instead. You specifically worried about the chapter "popping" and "coming alive," and I really just don't think that the 3p omniscient POV is contributing to that difficulty.

 

[TheNovelist2000]

Discovering limited third, or whatever names it goes by, was a key moment for me, for my erotica. It immediately made so much more sense for my type of story, nearly always couples or threesomes, very intimate small scale stories about people.

The folk who seem to struggle more with the "choice of pov" seem to be those writers doing lots of world building, constructing their worlds first and foremost, then trying to figure out how to put their characters into it.

In my stories, that's never really a problem, because the world of my stories, the cityscape, is the place I live; those little suburban cafés, the girl at the pedestrian crossing in the city who looped her arm through mine when we crossed.

Yes, your approach is very common for erotica as sex at the end of the day is a very personal thing. So, most stories are character-driven. The plot happens because the main character wants to do something sex-related, and he tries to get closer to it. But in the genre of BDSM and power exchange, it is more erotic if the characters themselves are not doing it for the sake of getting personal pleasure but are enduring the dynamics that are brought upon by the very circumstances they are in. For example, it is hotter to see a women getting belted by her husband she can’t ditch because she depends on him financially or emotionally than to see a women getting spanked by her lover as part of a bedroom game. So, in order to sell authenticity, characters themselves cannot exist solely to dominate or submit to others, but the submission or domination have to be brought upon by the plot. So, since other characters’ motivations and the resulting circumstances must drive the plot, it becomes necessary to explore outside the bedroom play and to build the world a bit.

 

[TheNovelist2000]

Yeah, I think they've got world-building backwards there, in any case. I mean, that's certainly a thing you can do and has been done to great effect. But that's all prep work for an actual story, not something that ought to be in the story.

Did Tolkien start by giving us an overview of the politics between Gondor and Rohan and how that effects the conflict with Mordor? Nah, he made a hobbit go on an adventure.

Did he come up with said political dynamic before he told the hobbit story? Yeah, very probably.

But Tolkien still has to write and let the readers in on what Rohan is or how they are a country of horse lords. He might not write the entire history of Rohan and Gondor, but he still has to write the necessary parts for the plot. If he only lets the readers in on what Frodo knows, then we all would be lost because Frodo knows nothing. That’s why Gandalf is a very important character in the LOTR. He is needed to fill in the readers when they need to know something for the plot.

 

[TheNovelist2000]

Then it's no good.



Head-hopping means confusions, so, unconfuse your writing.



You've written version 1 of this chapter. It didn't work. Set it aside and start with a blank page, only now, off to the side, write some notes or an actual outline of the chapter or jot down the key points you want to hit.

Also, understand you can 'widen' your view or 'narrow' your view as you see fit. Omniscient means knowledge, but it doesn't mean they have to share that knowledge all the time. What you share and what you withhold is supposed the make the writing interesting. Readers want an intriguing story, they don't want "John Doe had a problem, but he solved the problem, the end."

Now, start version 2 of the chapter on a blank page and when you switch perspectives, make them more seamless.

Many people make the mistake of thinking they have to fix sentences within a chapter when they really have to fix the entire chapter, from scratch.

Ok I agree.

 

[TheNovelist2000]

Sure, you gave an example of the omniscient narrator revealing the inner thoughts of more than one person, but that isn't what's meant by "headhopping," and it's not (automatically) a problem, by itself.

The only thing wrong with the two-paragraph example you provided is how clumsy it is, not that we're being shown what different people are thinking.

Headhopping is the problem when the narrative is already established as limited 3rd person, close to a particular character, and then that precedent is broken by shifting to a POV which is close to a different character. This isn't an issue at all in omniscient POV, because nothing breaks.

You said it yourself - "when we write a story in 3rd person closed or 1st person POV, we know that we are supposed to stick to just one head." That leaves 3p omniscient out - and rightly so.

You mention the temptation to maybe do too much of the mindreading, and I agree, that's a temptation which should be reeled in, or we get stuff like the example you contrived, where there really is just too much "thinking" happening and absolutely zero action happening. Again - this is a problem, but the problem isn't because of head-hopping or because of using the "wrong" POV, it's a problem because of the excessive concentration of thoughts crammed in to an actionless, plotless sequence.

The only thing that I see actually happening as action in these two paragraphs are the various characters' eyes shifting around the room. The plot isn't moving at all, and that's the problem.

I agree that if properly done, switching POVs can be permissible in the 3rd person POV. If we don’t want the distancing effect of it, we can spend more time inside one head before moving onto the next. But I must argue against your claim that it is impossible to head hop in the 3rd person omniscient POV because I believe the term ‘head hopping’ itself is invented to point out the problem of writers abusing the omniscient narrator’s ability to read minds of the characters. And it is notorious for stories written in the 3rd person omniscient POV and rarely happens in closed POVs. In fact, in POV discussions, headhopping is only brought up when the omniscient POV is concerned. What you are describing in relation to the closed POV is not called headhopping. It is called “breaking the POV”. But the argument is solely over the semantics.

 

[XerXesXu]

I agree that if properly done, switching POVs can be permissible in the 3rd person POV. If we don’t want the distancing effect of it, we can spend more time inside one head before moving onto the next. But I must argue against your claim that it is impossible to head hop in the 3rd person omniscient POV because I believe the term ‘head hopping’ itself is invented to point out the problem of writers abusing the omniscient narrator’s ability to read minds of the characters. And it is notorious for stories written in the 3rd person omniscient POV and rarely happens in closed POVs. In fact, in POV discussions, headhopping is only brought up when the omniscient POV is concerned. What you are describing in relation to the closed POV is not called headhopping. It is called “breaking the POV”. But the argument is solely over the semantics.

I agree. Head-hopping is changing POV in a way that’s noticeable and annoying to the casual reader. It’s a defect of skill rather than an impermissible form.

I always describe my preference as writing in 3P O. And why not? It’s the most versatile POV. Sometimes you might be forgiven for thinking I’m writing in 3P C, but I’m not; that’s not my intention. My antagonists can have thoughts and feelings too, as can characters in sub-plots where the protagonist doesn’t appear.

It’s a little like the writer who writes in 1P past and who’s omniscient at the time of writing. To some it won’t sound like 1P if omniscience is slipped in unskilfully.

 

[TheNovelist2000]

I agree. Head-hopping is changing POV in a way that’s noticeable and annoying to the casual reader. It’s a defect of skill rather than an impermissible form.

I always describe my preference as writing in 3P O. And why not? It’s the most versatile POV. Sometimes you might be forgiven for thinking I’m writing in 3P C, but I’m not; that’s not my intention. My antagonists can have thoughts and feelings too, as can characters in sub-plots where the protagonist doesn’t appear.

It’s a little like the writer who writes in 1P past and who’s omniscient at the time of writing. To some it won’t sound like 1P if omniscience is slipped in unskilfully.

Absolutely! I just want to add that I used to think writing in third-person omniscient was the easiest of the three common points of view. But in my opinion, it's actually the most difficult to pull off properly.

 

[TheWritingGroup]

... since other characters’ motivations and the resulting circumstances must drive the plot, it becomes necessary to explore outside the bedroom play and to build the world a bit.

It really isn't necessary in any absolute way. I'm not actually saying "You are wrong." I'm saying that it's perfectly possible for the story (or a story) to play out without explaining every character's motivation in detail. In fact, it could be a cool, disorienting thing if your protagonist doesn't understand what's happening, and you follow his/her/their increasing confusion and feelings of helplessness, and they only find out the main bones of the behind-the-scenes stuff at the climax, in first person or tight third.

Not saying you must write that story. I'm saying that could be a very cool tale, if someone (not necessarily you) chose to write it (she said, as she puts the last chapter on her novel-length story told in first person, in which the reader doesn't find out the details of the plot until the climax).

--Annie

 

[TheNovelist2000]

It really isn't necessary in any absolute way. I'm not actually saying "You are wrong." I'm saying that it's perfectly possible for the story (or a story) to play out without explaining every character's motivation in detail. In fact, it could be a cool, disorienting thing if your protagonist doesn't understand what's happening, and you follow his/her/their increasing confusion and feelings of helplessness, and they only find out the main bones of the behind-the-scenes stuff at the climax, in first person or tight third.

Not saying you must write that story. I'm saying that could be a very cool tale, if someone (not necessarily you) chose to write it (she said, as she puts the last chapter on her novel-length story told in first person, in which the reader doesn't find out the details of the plot until the climax).

--Annie

Ok Thank you!

 

[filthytrancendence]

There seems to be an assumption that I’m falling into the common trap many novice writers do—that everything must be explained in detail

Look, I'm not making an assumption. I read your excerpts and that was my exact first thought. The moment you went into great detail about who Gaspar is and why everyone listens to him before he even speaks is pretty strong evidence that you might have a little more to learn, as we all do.

It’s a bit like trying to tell The Lord of the Rings purely through Frodo’s eyes. He may be the ring-bearer, but he’s a hobbit who’s never left the Shire. He wouldn’t understand the broader geopolitics or the motivations of the enemy. Readers would be left just as much in the dark as Frodo himself—or Frodo would need to become unnaturally wise, well-connected, and insightful for the story to work. You could argue that a first-person POV might suit Gandalf better, but part of what makes The Lord of the Rings so special is that it doesn’t rely on an extraordinary hero.

You seem to be forgetting that The Fellowship of the Ring is exactly this. Tolkien spends god knows how many pages locked to Frodo's perspective. Gandalf is present for a bit and gives some context, and that's all we get except a couple morels from Strider until Rivendell. And even then, we stick with Frodo alllll the way till the fellowship splits up and the end of the first book.

You bring in characters like Gandalf and Strider and Elrond and Boromir to give that context in Frodo's earshot when it is necessary, and usually after Frodo and the reader have experienced some version of the thing without context so that the context feels like a payoff instead of a lore dump. This is part of what I meant about limitation breeding creativity. When the perspective is limited, you have to actually weave these things together deftly rather than floating about to whatever's convenient. And floating about at convenience tends to foster unnecessary indulgence, as in your detailed explanation of Gaspar before he opens his mouth. No, LOTR would be much, much worse from Gandalf's perspective. You just aren't thinking about perspective through the lens of a writer yet.

Think about Strider for a second. We don't even learn his proper name until Rivendell. Tolkein didn't even properly introduce probably the most important character, we didn't even know his name, until he was already in the story for a hundred pages. He was just a survivalist that acted like he knew Gandalf until suddenly he's the lost King of Gondor. That is the literal exact diametric opposite of what you did with Gaspar.

I'm not trying to harp on you, it's just clear you're learning some very incorrect lessons from LOTR. You're right that a lot of what makes LOTR great is that it doesn't rely on an exraordinary hero. And from a craft of writing perspective, part of what accentuates this is how closely Tolkein sticks to Frodo's eyes as much as possible and for as long as possible. He commits to this limitation ardently until the exact moment it is no longer possible, and even when the perspective splits, we return to Frodo's PoV, and that is the PoV that ultimately resolves the story.

 

[TheNovelist2000]

Look, I'm not making an assumption. I read your excerpts and that was my exact first thought. The moment you went into great detail about who Gaspar is and why everyone listens to him before he even speaks is pretty strong evidence that you might have a little more to learn, as we all do.


You seem to be forgetting that The Fellowship of the Ring is exactly this. Tolkien spends god knows how many pages locked to Frodo's perspective. Gandalf is present for a bit and gives some context, and that's all we get except a couple morels from Strider until Rivendell. And even then, we stick with Frodo alllll the way till the fellowship splits up and the end of the first book.

You bring in characters like Gandalf and Strider and Elrond and Boromir to give that context in Frodo's earshot when it is necessary, and usually after Frodo and the reader have experienced some version of the thing without context so that the context feels like a payoff instead of a lore dump. This is part of what I meant about limitation breeding creativity. When the perspective is limited, you have to actually weave these things together deftly rather than floating about to whatever's convenient. And floating about at convenience tends to foster unnecessary indulgence, as in your detailed explanation of Gaspar before he opens his mouth. No, LOTR would be much, much worse from Gandalf's perspective. You just aren't thinking about perspective through the lens of a writer yet.

Think about Strider for a second. We don't even learn his proper name until Rivendell. Tolkein didn't even properly introduce probably the most important character, we didn't even know his name, until he was already in the story for a hundred pages. He was just a survivalist that acted like he knew Gandalf until suddenly he's the lost King of Gondor. That is the literal exact diametric opposite of what you did with Gaspar.

I'm not trying to harp on you, it's just clear you're learning some very incorrect lessons from LOTR. You're right that a lot of what makes LOTR great is that it doesn't rely on an exraordinary hero. And from a craft of writing perspective, part of what accentuates this is how closely Tolkein sticks to Frodo's eyes as much as possible and for as long as possible. He commits to this limitation ardently until the exact moment it is no longer possible, and even when the perspective splits, we return to Frodo's PoV, and that is the PoV that ultimately resolves the story.

Ok! This gives me a lot of think about. Thank you!

 

[AlinaX]

I get what you mean now. It might work in other stories, but in this story, Gasper needs to be an honourable character with no association to perversion. So, I think using section breaks like you’ve already mentioned is a better choice here. Thank you for the answer anyway.

Your choice, of course, but... Gaspar may need to be perceived as honourable, but that doesn't necessarily mean he is. You can have fun with the tension between the perceived and actual.