Head-hopping POV in scenes

[SwiverGuy]

Lately I've been reading and enjoying the work of Charles_Petersunn, which I find to be highly entertaining and often very funny.

However, I have one question about his style, and wondered what other writers thought about it. Specifically he employs head-hopping POV in the same scene; that is, he switches from the point of view of the main character briefly to another, and then switches back again. It doesn't detract from the story; on the contrary, I think it adds to it, since we see the main character from the POV of other characters.

The books on writing that I've read so far suggest that head-hopping in a single scene is not a good idea, since it weakens the reader's identification with the main character and reduces their emotional involvement.

If you have any thoughts on head-hopping and whether it has any merit or should be avoided at all costs, please let me know.

SwiverGuy,
Australia

 

[jomar]

So it's sort of first person plural? I'm trying to recall if I've read a book like that. I have read authors that swap first/third to get the story told.

Welcome to the AH.

 

[rgraham666]

Some writers can pull it off. Nora Roberts is (in)famous for doing this.

But generally it's not a good idea in my opinion. If you're writing in third person omniscient it's possible to pull it off if you keep POV to one person to chapter or scene. Too much can lose the reader. "Who is talking now?" thinks the reader. "I got lost back at the liquor store."

If you head hop in third person limited it becomes third person omniscient.

If you're writing in first person the advice about third person omniscient becomes even more strict. It's way too easy to lose the reader.

I don't believe it's possible to write well in second person and head hop.

My $0.02

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

To each his/her own, I suppose, is my most honest response. For me personally, I am not fond of that kind of shifting viewpoint especially within one scene. On the other hand, I do recall reading a Hemingway story once and in it he very briefly left the viewpoint of the main character to inhabit the mind of the lion he was hunting. That's the only time I have ever seen it work because the scene felt truer as a result. If you can do it and achieve a 'truer' scene, then I think it certainly can be good for the reader, but you have to be dammmmmn good at it to pull it off. Just my two cents worth.

 

[SwiverGuy]

Head-hopping: Thanks for the quick replies

Thanks everyone for the quick replies.

It's occurred to me that all fiction, especially erotica, is about entertaining the reader and giving them a good emotional experience. Ideally they will form an emotional bond with the character, and switching to another POV during a scene would weaken that.

Given that, the art of writing a scene using a single POV would be to convey the inner world of the other characters by describing what the POV character sees, hears, smells, etc. More difficult, but more rewarding and powerful when done well.

SwiverGuy

 

[TheeGoatPig]

I think you need to be a really good writer to pull off first person head hopping.

However, I plan on doing it one of these days purely to torture my readers with the worst story ever written

 

[CWatson]

I'm with RG and TGP. It's not easy to head-jump inside a scene without losing The Reader mid-leap, especially if you do it multiple times. That's the main reason How-To-Write books tell you to avoid it: the sort of person who reads How-To-Write books probably isn't skilled enough to handle the technique properly (no offense intended to you or anyone).

The book I always suggest for examining this technique is Dune. Frank Herbert has a really good handle on the head-hopping and, in the formal-dinner chapter, uses it to get between all three members of the Atreides family, showing multiple facets of multiple characters by letting Paul, Jessica and Duke Leto all observe different things. However, this scene takes place a good third or quarter of the way into the book, meaning the characters have already had a chance to establish themselves; and, again, Herbert has to take enormous pains to establish whose head he just jumped into.

I wouldn't write an entire story using this technique (well, I did try it, years ago; the results weren't pretty), but if used judiciously it can be very effective.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

A great example of changing viewpoints in movie form is Watchmen. The "modern day" scenes are mostly in 3rd person omniscient, unless Rorschach is talking in journal mode, which are in first person. The flashbacks are mostly in first person of the person recalling those memories, except the credit sequence which is in 3rd omniscient. It's a very well done example of how to "head-hop" a story.

 

[Loring2]

Head hopping

To each his/her own, I suppose, is my most honest response. For me personally, I am not fond of that kind of shifting viewpoint especially within one scene. On the other hand, I do recall reading a Hemingway story once and in it he very briefly left the viewpoint of the main character to inhabit the mind of the lion he was hunting. That's the only time I have ever seen it work because the scene felt truer as a result. If you can do it and achieve a 'truer' scene, then I think it certainly can be good for the reader, but you have to be dammmmmn good at it to pull it off. Just my two cents worth.

I tend to agree with you on one hand and still say that it adds a lot to a story to head hop. It's used in TV shows quite often and so I think of it differently.

In crime shows it's almost mandatory that we know what's in the mind of the suspect at various times in a 1 hour program. Often the story can't be written without this ploy. In the show called "Criminal Minds" which is about a very real segment of the FBI that relies on 'Profiling'. It's absolutely necessary that the viewer knows what's in the mind of the suspects.

It's done of course with a separate scene but the problem we face is how do we get to that scene without losing continiuity. Good dialogue is the answer.

You won't lose any readers (viewers in our case) with the ploy if the scene is interesting in and of itself and the transition is natural in both directions.

Just a few ideas about viewpoint but remember: Noone can be in two different places at the same time, true but not so obvious.

Loring

 

[sr71plt]

The better written works will be written so that the reader discovers/discerns what is necessary to understand for him/herself. That head hopping is used in TV programs just emphasizes the shallowness of this technique.

 

[English Lady]

My by far and away most popular and well selling story head hops. We start out in Terri's head and move to Johns. I keep it to scenes to give some kind of shape and form and even repeat cetain parts of scenes to get the viewpoint form both characters. Getting Phyisical is still one of my best selling stories. Oh, and I write in 1st person, not as a narrator concentrating on one or the other Character. We are firmly in that Characters brain box in each scene.

It certainly doesn't work for all stories, but it does for that one. I used the same approach with Moon Shy which is part of the over the Moon anthology. I had to think long and hard about the story before I decided to go with it. I have the POV of 3 different characters there and I revolve them from scene to scene in an order that is established and carries on from begining to end, again to help out my reader know who's head they're in.

These are the exceptions to the rule though.

 

[Loring2]

Couldn't agree more

The better written works will be written so that the reader discovers/discerns what is necessary to understand for him/herself. That head hopping is used in TV programs just emphasizes the shallowness of this technique.

I agree sr_ but remember the episodes of 60 minutes minus commercial times isn't really conducive to great or even good writing in the sense of responding to a higher critic. To tell what is essentially a novella in the time restraints is not easy. We can't handle "The Great American Novel", that's true but then again, it hasn't been written yet

Also remember, TV is an entertainment medium not an education medium in this sense. Don't be so snobbish good buddy, we have watchers galore and the bell curve representing viewers IQs is precisely the same one that represents the entire nation... including LIT readers

Besides, there's a good chance that you and I could enjoy tapping a bottle of Glengarry and talking about this man-to-man for the good part of a night; at the end of which each of us would go our separate ways with much the same thoughts we had at the beginning. Having gained only a new friend.

Regards

Loring

 

[sr71plt]

I agree sr_ but remember the episodes of 60 minutes minus commercial times isn't really conducive to great or even good writing in the sense of responding to a higher critic. To tell what is essentially a novella in the time restraints is not easy. We can't handle "The Great American Novel", that's true but then again, it hasn't been written yet

Also remember, TV is an entertainment medium not an education medium in this sense. Don't be so snobbish good buddy, we have watchers galore and the bell curve representing viewers IQs is precisely the same one that represents the entire nation... including LIT readers

Besides, there's a good chance that you and I could enjoy tapping a bottle of Glengarry and talking about this man-to-man for the good part of a night; at the end of which each of us would go our separate ways with much the same thoughts we had at the beginning. Having gained only a new friend.

Regards

Loring

It's not a case of remembering, Loring, it's a case of not emulating in short story style what is lower realm in TV script style because it's limited and is gauged to the lowest (and dumbest) denominator.

That's my point--head hopping POV is lowest-common denominator spoon feeding. It doesn't give the reader credit for having a brain or deductive reasoning--or a wish to exercise their brain. I often watch TV or go to a movie so that I don't have to think. Head-hopping POV in short stories serves the same thing in readers.

There's a market for it, certainly, but it remains a lower-realm technique targeted to the lower-realm thinkers, whether naturally or by choice.

I agree it's snobbish to try to write to a better level of reader. It's what a lot of writers tend to do, though. I certainly do. I don't see much thrill in having zombies as a reader base.

 

[Arotico]

Well, I have to say that head-hopping doesn't work for me most of the time. I get confused and frustrated by it if the writer wasn't careful when using it. But then, even the overuse of pronouns can drive me crazy.*

I'm sure head-hopping has been used well in some instances and not only by the likes of Hemingway. However, as a rule of thumb, writers probably shouldn't try this technique unless they have a solid, well thought out, intentional reason for presenting a scene from more than one POV.

Books and teachers most likely discourage the practice because it is more difficult to write a head-hopping scene in a way that the average reader can follow than it is to just stick with one point of view. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure that losing track of the storyteller's POV is one of the most common mistakes inexperienced writers make. The experts are simply trying to make it easier for us to keep from having to rewrite confusing parts of our stories.

One reason that head-hopping works more often on television (or in movies) is because in those mediums we can see a change in POV and instantly understand that we're in someone else's brain at that moment. Readers on the other hand, are more often visualizing a story in their own head as the plot progresses. An unexpected shift in where the storyteller's voice is coming from can make the audiance stop reading to re-orient themselves within the scene. Again, that might be the desired result in some cases, but most of the time an author wants the reader to stay in the flow of the piece and not have to break from the story line to think.


*If I may further indulge myself...
Example of the confusing use of a pronoun:
Bob and Tom were watching porn together when he said, "This chick is hot!"

WHO said that? Bob, Tom or the guy getting his cock sucked in the video?!!! I don't want to have to think about this, nor do I want to have to figure out who I just head-hopped to. But that's me. I get confused easily.

 

[Loring2]

It's not a case of remembering, Loring, it's a case of not emulating in short story style what is lower realm in TV script style because it's limited and is gauged to the lowest (and dumbest) denominator.

That's my point--head hopping POV is lowest-common denominator spoon feeding. It doesn't give the reader credit for having a brain or deductive reasoning--or a wish to exercise their brain. I often watch TV or go to a movie so that I don't have to think. Head-hopping POV in short stories serves the same thing in readers.

There's a market for it, certainly, but it remains a lower-realm technique targeted to the lower-realm thinkers, whether naturally or by choice.

I agree it's snobbish to try to write to a better level of reader. It's what a lot of writers tend to do, though. I certainly do. I don't see much thrill in having zombies as a reader base.

The more we talk the more we agree. TV producers don't begin to give a damn whether Literary critics ever see our output or not. As a matter of fact it's better if they never look at us because none of what a critic would call 'good literature' exists on TV. It can't and some of our stuff is almost rancid.

Occasionaly Movies can achieve it but seldom.

One area in which we can and do excel is creating dialogue that serves story line purposes and simultaneously is the primary way to go head hopping, to show the passage of time.

No matter all the visuals, dialogue moves the story. I'll venture to say that dialogue is the new writer's major problem.

 

[Verdad]

The more we talk the more we agree. TV producers don't begin to give a damn whether Literary critics ever see our output or not. As a matter of fact it's better if they never look at us because none of what a critic would call 'good literature' exists on TV. It can't and some of our stuff is almost rancid.

Occasionaly Movies can achieve it but seldom.

One area in which we can and do excel is creating dialogue that serves story line purposes and simultaneously is the primary way to go head hopping, to show the passage of time.

No matter all the visuals, dialogue moves the story. I'll venture to say that dialogue is the new writer's major problem.

If I may interject, I wouldn't say the issue is inferiority of TV. There are brilliant TV series and offensively stupid books. Same with movies, comics, stage plays. They're different media, and precisely because they are different, a technique that works to a great effect in one doesn't necessarily work in other. They just can't be compared.

But in prose, head hopping is pretty much anathema, or it is as far as I know; Pilot can correct me if I'm wrong. Magazines tend to reject it automatically, and while a publishing standard isn't necessarily a divine wisdom, I'm in agreement with this one. Especially because it doesn't mean you can't possibly show the thoughts of more than one character. A limitation like that would be clearly ridiculous.

Some stories require following more than one character. In some stories, the contrasting POV's are the point of the story. But such stories are done either in third person omniscient or in alternating chapters/sections clearly belonging to one character or the other, and head hopping is neither. Head hopping refers to gratuitous shifts from one limited POV to another, a lazy, confusing, and largely pointless technique.

 

[sr71plt]

If I may interject, I wouldn't say the issue is inferiority of TV. There are brilliant TV series and offensively stupid books. Same with movies, comics, stage plays. They're different media, and precisely because they are different, a technique that works to a great effect in one doesn't necessarily work in other. They just can't be compared.

But in prose, head hopping is pretty much anathema, or it is as far as I know; Pilot can correct me if I'm wrong. Magazines tend to reject it automatically, and while a publishing standard isn't necessarily a divine wisdom, I'm in agreement with this one. Especially because it doesn't mean you can't possibly show the thoughts of more than one character. A limitation like that would be clearly ridiculous.

Some stories require following more than one character. In some stories, the contrasting POV's are the point of the story. But such stories are done either in third person omniscient or in alternating chapters/sections clearly belonging to one character or the other, and head hopping is neither. Head hopping refers to gratuitous shifts from one limited POV to another, a lazy, confusing, and largely pointless technique.

I almost responded to the "all TV stinks" suggestion, but didn't want to just keep contradicting what others were posting. I agree that there is some brilliant TV work--mainly British, though, not too much American. As an aside, I recently was lambasting a TV producer friend (a producer of the old Diana Rigg The Avengers series) who was retired from it, so he didn't have to be defensive about it--that not only could you predict the conclusion of nearly everything on TV now because they were trying to pack too much story/action into too little time, but also you could instantaineously identify the villain, because the actor playing the villain got more pay than those who just might be, so you just looked for the actor who, TV watching told you, got more/better role work in the past than the others did.

The problem with TV programs is just about the same as the problem I see with head-hopping POV short story work. The networks feel they have to spoon feed everything to the viewer because they are dummies to be watching TV in the first place--and they try to cram too much plot/action into the time they have.

On head-hopping short stories, yes, commercial publishing is down on this, figuring that those buying prose still have some interest in engaging their minds in what they are reading--and wanting to figure some things out for themselves.

So, for Lit., I think head-hopping POV is fine. But for any writer using writing for Lit. to try to hone commercial publishing skills, no, this isn't a good way to go. It's hurting rather than developing marketable writing skills.

 

[fifty5]

In some stories, the contrasting POV's are the point of the story. But such stories are done either in third person omniscient or in alternating chapters/sections clearly belonging to one character or the other, and head hopping is neither. Head hopping refers to gratuitous shifts from one limited POV to another, a lazy, confusing, and largely pointless technique.

With all due respect, I disagree.

First person usually has more impact: it is easier for a reader (who can identify with the protagonist) to visualise themselves as the protagonist.

Head-hopping usually disrupts that.

As far as I know, that's why the manuals say it is a bad idea.

Skilful writing can overcome that problem - and, given that problem, doing so means good writing, not being, "a lazy, confusing, and largely pointless technique."

It may do, but may not. I feel that any generalisation is likely to be misjudged; it all depends upon the story in question.

[Challenge to the trolls]The one of my stories that has attracted the most flattering compliments from authors I respect - and has preserved an H rating for a considerable time - does head-hop.

What I wanted to do was to show the same events from the POVs of all three people involved (while keeping the reader turned on). They all have different motivations, but all are relevant to why the events related followed the path that they did.

Of course that could have been told from a single 3rd person omniscient perspective, but this was intended as literotica - something to turn on the reader (and, I'll readily admit, the writer). In that context, first person has advantages.

Comments made suggest I did it well; not gratuitously or pointlessly.

I'm not intending to imply that I'm a particularly talented writer, but just to say how much I appreciated the comments that said I'd done well something that was difficult to do successfully.

Look at After the Show (link below, see: "Is it 'Incest' or 'Group Sex'?") and let me know (vote and comment as well as replying here) whether you think my opus justified the comments made.[/Challenge to the trolls]

 

[Verdad]

The problem with TV programs is just about the same as the problem I see with head-hopping POV short story work. The networks feel they have to spoon feed everything to the viewer because they are dummies to be watching TV in the first place--and they try to cram too much plot/action into the time they have.

On head-hopping short stories, yes, commercial publishing is down on this, figuring that those buying prose still have some interest in engaging their minds in what they are reading--and wanting to figure some things out for themselves.

So, for Lit., I think head-hopping POV is fine. But for any writer using writing for Lit. to try to hone commercial publishing skills, no, this isn't a good way to go. It's hurting rather than developing marketable writing skills.

I haven't thought of it as spoon-feeding, but it is an apt way of putting it. I liked what you said about over-describing the other day, too; I guess it's kind of the same problem. Too much in any way, and there's no place left for the reader to participate.

With all due respect, I disagree.

First person usually has more impact: it is easier for a reader (who can identify with the protagonist) to visualise themselves as the protagonist.

Head-hopping usually disrupts that.

As far as I know, that's why the manuals say it is a bad idea.

Skilful writing can overcome that problem - and, given that problem, doing so means good writing, not being, "a lazy, confusing, and largely pointless technique."

It may do, but may not. I feel that any generalisation is likely to be misjudged; it all depends upon the story in question.

Hi, 55, too tired to read your story, but it sounds like maybe you misunderstood me? From what you say, it seems you alternated POV's rather than head-hopped. If it's done properly, in separate sections, and if it also advances the story and isn't gratuitous, lazy, confusing, annoying, pointlessly repetitive etc, then I wasn't talking about it in the first place. Note I said omniscience or alternating chapters.

But even if it is head hopping but has its audience, there's no story police. I can only say, for whatever it's worth, I neither find it effective nor can I testify to seeing much of it in anything I've read. Ultimately, that's just my two cents.

 

[fifty5]

Hi, 55, too tired to read your story, but it sounds like maybe you misunderstood me? From what you say, it seems you alternated POV's rather than head-hopped.

I think I have misunderstood. What's the difference, please?

 

[Verdad]

I think I have misunderstood. What's the difference, please?

Well, don't get me cornered in defining it. I didn't for nothing hang the definition on 'gratuitous'. A beginner's advice is not to switch within a scene and it is a great advice, yet there are writers who can pull it off. Another definition could say it's about frequent switches, but again some writers can make a veritable patchwork and make it work. The only rather solid definition is that it is head hopping if it's not clear which character it is at a given moment, yet sometimes it is clear and the switch is still inelegant or pointless. Writing 'rules' tend to be slippery like that.

 

[fifty5]

Well, don't get me cornered in defining it. I didn't for nothing hang the definition on 'gratuitous'. A beginner's advice is not to switch within a scene and it is a great advice, yet there are writers who can pull it off. Another definition could say it's about frequent switches, but again some writers can make a veritable patchwork and make it work. The only rather solid definition is that it is head hopping if it's not clear which character it is at a given moment, yet sometimes it is clear and the switch is still inelegant or pointless. Writing 'rules' tend to be slippery like that.

Thanks for that. It seems I'm guilty.

However, I'm defensive - not against you, but on behalf of my story. It was the first I posted (July, 2003) and has consistently had the best reaction (see what Imp said below). It still has its red H.

Now either I wrote better than I think I can, or the rule must have exceptions...

To save you the trouble of reading the story, it is in one chapter, with 2 main scenes and 7 segments (the segments are divided by rows of dashes so that readers are aware of every hop) and their lengths are:
POV 1 - 31 paras (contains main story set up and 1st POV)
POV 2 - 18 paras (sets up next POV)
POV 3 - 17 paras (sets up 3rd POV)
POV 1 - 8 paras
POV 2 - 2 paras
POV 3 - 2 paras
POV 1 - 4 paras

The story's main action starts at the end of the first segment, coverage of that increases over the next two and from the 4th it becomes the entire content.

To help story readers establish who is whom, the first 3 segments all start with, "My name is ..." and the subsequent ones have something in the first few lines to identify unambiguously who is 'speaking'. One of the 2 para segments is an exception, but in that, the speaker has lost track of who is where. It resolves that - and the identity - in the last line of the segment.

I also made each segment overlap the timing of the previous one. I hoped that would preserve the continuity, while the different POV on the same events would, I hoped, give enough novelty to the repetitions.

At the time, I didn't think about the construction objectively, but just wrote what felt right to me to achieve what I wanted.

I'm always interested in why characters do what they do - and with less-than-vanilla sex, I find that crucial for whether a narrative is convincing.

There are 'standard' sex scenarios that don't need much explanation, of course, Love, Lust and Friendship (especially when lubricated with alcohol) are the most obvious, but why on earth would two sexy young women in their early twenties want to have sex with a bloke in his fifties? If that was to believable, then I decided I had to explain the motivations. I could have done that in 3rd person omniscient, but doing that in a way that wasn't bloody boring seemed to me to be a challenge I couldn't meet. Head-hopping, so that each protagonists thoughts were written directly in the 1st person just seemed so much easier...

I'm well aware that no personal offence was intended by anyone - and I take none - but the topic of the thread was attacking my first-born; and you know what mothers, even male ones, are like!

 

[sr71plt]

If you've sectionalized your changes of POV, I don't think this classifies as head hopping. I think head hopping is extreme 3rd person omniscient--within a scene, going around the room and jumping into the head/thoughts of every character in the scene (or at least a couple of them), spoonfeeding everthing to the reader, making everything perfectly clear by stating it--the ultimate tell not show.

Sort of the Norman Rockwell approach to "literature." (Although this is perhaps a little unfair to Norman Rockwell--who gave at least a little space to the observer).

What's needed from the reader in this other than a slice of their time/money (if they bought it)? And, yes, there are some readers who just want to say they got x number of words read.

 

[fifty5]

If you've sectionalized your changes of POV, I don't think this classifies as head hopping. I think head hopping is extreme 3rd person omniscient--within a scene, going around the room and jumping into the head/thoughts of every character in the scene (or at least a couple of them), spoonfeeding everthing to the reader, making everything perfectly clear by stating it--the ultimate tell not show.

Sort of the Norman Rockwell approach to "literature." (Although this is perhaps a little unfair to Norman Rockwell--who gave at least a little space to the observer).

What's needed from the reader in this other than a slice of their time/money (if they bought it)? And, yes, there are some readers who just want to say they got x number of words read.

I asked what 'head hopping' was because I thought I'd been guilty.

Your extension (nothing personal) seems to share somewhat with the definition that denies all possibility of Artificial Intelligence because They define Intelligence as something characteristic of the homo sapiens race. Such a definition doesn't seem to me to take the debate forward...

I'm harking back to 'gratuitous' as a defining property.

As it looks to me right now, if it doesn't work (read, if you will, as 'bad writing') then it's "Head Hopping." If it does work, then it isn't.

If I'm right in that conjecture, then the debate isn't worth having: "it doesn't work" is quite enough without introducing a, "Head Hopping" concept.

To me, it is only interesting if Head Hopping is sometimes good, sometimes bad. In that case it is interesting to me to explore just what makes the good ones good and what makes the bad ones bad.

Exploring that - it seems to me - could help both new and experienced authors.

Again, that isn't something aimed at any individual (including sr) but is intended to open up the debate.

 

[sr71plt]

Sorry, 50/50, but that didn't make a lick of sense to me. No problem. Maybe someone else will figure it out and respond.