How many point of views do you need?

[sethp]

So I'm writing a Fantasy Novel. It's third person and mainly follows my main character around. Is that enough...? Just one point of view? What happens as later on in the story.. my group of characters gets split up as they might do...is it okay to go from one person to another...even if for the first 5-6 chapters I haven't done that? Is it okay to only switch to another character 1-5 times in the entire novel or would that make it uneven? What do you think?

 

[Karenas]

3rd person omniscient is a very common pov and can be done throughout the entire work. That gives you the actions of everyone, with the thoughts of some to all of them.
3rd person limited is also common--that would give you the thoughts of one character, with the actions of everyone else.

Readers often do not like switching pov as it can be very confusing if not done well.

 

[PennLady]

I think you can switch POV as many times in a story as you like, so long as you do it clearly, such as changing to a different character after a delineated section break. However, I do think you could have too many POVs and that might bore a reader.

I wrote a nonhuman book and probably had a total of six to eight different POVs from characters, total, although some happened only once or twice. I might do it differently if I were to start over today, but no one's complained, so I figure it worked, or mostly worked. The last story I finished, I switched only between the two main characters. I've also written short stories that were told only from one person's POV -- the 3d person limited, I guess it is.

Now, I just finished a Danielle Steel novel, first of hers I've read, and she had more of a 3d person omniscient, and it bugged me. For one thing, I felt like I didn't need the info. She'd have a conversation between the mom and daughter, for example, and you'd get the mom's feelings and dialogue, and then you'd get the daughter's response and her feelings, and that back-and-forth got on my nerves.

I'm not sure what a general rule might be. You could limit yourself to those characters most important to the plot, I suppose; the characters who impact things and drive the story. That could still be many characters, depending on your story. Or you could decide to keep it to the "main" two or three or whatever.

 

[sethp]

Thanks I think that made sense.

My short stories are generally from one point of view and thoughts of one person, but not always. Though, being short, they don't lose rhythm or get confusing.

I started reading a fantasy novel Gardens of the moon and it switched time and characters so often that I was confused and stopped reading after one chapter. There it sits on my bookshelf all alone.

I just read the Hunger Games series (Loved it) I know it's 1st person, but it is one point of view all the way through and it works well.

I'm just afraid that I'll want to jump do it as third limited and then start jumping to third omniscient half way through and back again. hmmmm.

 

[MaxSebastian]

3rd person POV tends to be much more engaging, I think a reader likes to root for a central protagonist, and when you start switching too much it can make the reader feel detached.

I think Harry Potter was generally 3rd person from Harry's POV, but JK Rowling as narrator occasionally told us what other characters were thinking or feeling.

When your group/characters split up, you can then either continue following your central character, or start a new section/part/volume and follow another character, I think that would work fine. It would just seem odd if you were following one character for ages and then without a significant section break you switched.

 

[BONNIEBREA]

I've always used first person, and found it to be a great POV to write from. Usually that only involves the perceptions of one character, but I have had occasion to write a story in which the first person POV shifts back and forth periodically between the two title protagonists. It can work as long as you're clear about the change, and I found that making the change in the middle of a dialogue or action exchange between two characters to be the clearest and most effective way to do it.

Here's how I handled a couple of the changes in that dual first person story. It begins with the perceptions of a character named Ellen.


Just then the waitperson brought our salads. I always hate it when you have to pause in a conversation when food or drink comes. The waitperson knows you’ve been talking about something very personal that’s for the ears at the table only. So you fiddle with your napkin or adjust your silverware while he or she delays having to leave the table. We went through this little pantomime now.
When he was at last gone I asked, “OK, you were about to proffer a for instance?”


Emily

I rolled my eyes at Ellen and smiled. I wanted to seem hesitant and bashful, but truthfully this is one of my favorite stories from my glory days in college. I’d never had occasion to tell it before.



Then the next change, back to Ellen, was handled like this.




My story had lasted right through our salads and into lunch. When I finished Ellen was looking at me with naked amazement. I also noticed her color was high, her face ruddy and her cheeks a deep red.
I’d ordered the veal piccata with sautéed summer squash. It was delicious, and I pulled us both back to the present by saying, “You just have to try a bite of this.” I picked up a small piece with my fork and proffered it.

Return to top


Chapter Three

Ellen

I took the veal Emily offered and let it roll around my tongue. She was right: simply mouthwatering. In return I offered her a bit of my chicken marsala, and she made noises of enjoyment at the rich taste.



I went back and forth for a while about actually labeling the change with the character's name. I really didn't want to, but in the end decided it would be safest to do so.

 

[PennLady]

I think the answer here is that there's no one right answer. I've read a lot of Nora Roberts, and she will switch POVs within a scene, but I find it pretty smooth. And she switches for a length of time, not every graph or something. And sometimes, bringing in even one or two sections from a minor character's POV can help a story along (I did that, too, in a story).

 

[HankDolworth]

I started writing my current story as a first person narrative. Through the first few parts that worked, then my characters had to leave. I had to figure out how to bring actions from a remote distance (one set of characters) into the light of my main character. I used telephone conversations and email. Which helped to introduce a second first-person voice. Keeping it up was too awkward, and I'm lazy, so I switched back and forth with clear sections/scenes and eventually brought all the characters back together.

All of that hasn't been published yet, so I'm not sure how well that transition works. I'll find out as the readers start reading that section sometime next week.

 

[SydneyBlake]

How many points of view do you need?

As many as it takes to tell the best story possible.

 

[HankDolworth]

How many points of view do you need?

As many as it takes to tell the best story possible.

Or, as few.

There are no absolutes, he said authoritatively.

 

[SydneyBlake]

Or, as few.

Absolutely!

 

[sethp]

So, If I'm using Third Person Limited is it okay to...

"Fuck!" Alyss said as she picked up the blood soaked sword again. Her massive breasts jiggling obscenely as she stood up. She wondered if Grifflett had found the troll yet. She prayed to the Gods that he was having an easier time of it than she was.

Outside, and across the courtyard, Grifflett pushed himself up from the ground and spit blood out of his mouth looking around for Alyss.

Is that third person Limited or Omniscient? Alyss can't see Grifflett and doesn't know he's pushing himself up across the courtyard.

 

[HankDolworth]

Omniscient. In limited, you'd only narrate what one person (usually the protagonist) can observe, though more details than a first person narrative.

I think.

 

[emap]

Generally limited third person is simply first person without the whole I thought and felt stuff. Third person limited is popular because well actually I don't know. Probably because you simply follow one person and that is most to all of what you read about. So it's first person but you are a fly on the wall.

Omniscient first person is when you jump around to everyone involved. Which oddly enough rarely happens, even thought that is the point of it. Stephen King for example use a combination of the two, follows for the most part one person, but relates what happens elsewhere. He also foreshadows over much, but personal opinion and I still read his novels anyway.

There is actually another POV nobody has mention yet. Narrator POV, which is like omniscient but it's first person centered on a fly sitting on the wall. A person watches what happens while knowing what people think and everything that happens. More or less the same idea as a historian except well the narrator knows what happens. A historian has theories based on diaries from the time and what the evidence points to.

 

[Ironiclaconic]

"I always doubted my ability to succeed with beautiful women"

"John always doubted his ability to succeed with beautiful women"

The first example seems whiney to me. It's hard to do first person without making your lead a narcissist. Most successful attempts at it use a lot of self-deprecating humor.

 

[PayDay]

3rd person omniscient is a very common pov and can be done throughout the entire work. That gives you the actions of everyone, with the thoughts of some to all of them.
3rd person limited is also common--that would give you the thoughts of one character, with the actions of everyone else.

Readers often do not like switching pov as it can be very confusing if not done well.

This------^

There is actually another POV nobody has mention yet. Narrator POV, which is like omniscient but it's first person centered on a fly sitting on the wall. A person watches what happens while knowing what people think and everything that happens. More or less the same idea as a historian except well the narrator knows what happens. A historian has theories based on diaries from the time and what the evidence points to.

Indeed. I like to throw a 3rd person narrator emotion in every now and then, but matter of factly: "As if nothing else could be done" or "obviously it was a bad idea" or "Despite the way it appeared" etc. Just an extra tweak for the omniscient minded reader.

 

[tolyk]

I enjoy writing in both third person limited and omniscient. Though, I will oft mix it up a bit with a journal entry or something in first person. That's a way I attempt to seamlessly integrate multiple POVs.

 

[damppanties]

"I always doubted my ability to succeed with beautiful women"

"John always doubted his ability to succeed with beautiful women"

The first example seems whiney to me. It's hard to do first person without making your lead a narcissist. Most successful attempts at it use a lot of self-deprecating humor.

The second sentence seems to me like the narrator is looking down on 'John'. To each his own.

First person has the immediacy and feel of hearing a kind of confidence from someone almost. You're inside their head. Sometimes that kind of intimacy works better than a distant third person.