How to resolve this POV problem?

[TheNovelist2000]

I've chosen a third-person omniscient point of view for my story because there's a lot of world-building and lore to explain. However, it's starting to backfire in Chapter 3. This chapter is supposed to focus on Anne being accused of murder and the impromptu trial that takes place aboard the ship.

I began the chapter with a bird's-eye view, describing how the main deck is being prepared for the trial and how the crowd is gathering. Since various witnesses are brought in and out of the forecastle deck throughout the trial, I maintained that distant perspective. But that wide view is reducing the emotional impact of Anne’s experience.

To address this, I started dipping into Anne’s fears and anxieties. At the same time, another character, Luca, needs to notice that Anne’s father, Anselmo, is missing from the crowd. This discovery will lead into another subplot involving Anselmo’s plan to blow up the ship.

Now that I’ve written the chapter, it just doesn’t feel like it’s coming alive. It’s not popping. On top of that, I’m running into issues with head-hopping.

As experienced authors, how would you resolve these issues? What is the preferred POV for a chapter like this? Should everything be filtered through Anne like in a 3rd person limited?

Excerpt: (The whole chapter doesn't fit in this thread)

This is an example of the distant bird eye's view I wrote.

The morning came, and the whole crew—except for the helmsman at the stern—gathered on the main deck. The sun had barely risen over the horizon, and sprays of seawater lashed against the men standing near either gunwale.

Luca himself stood near the main mast, surrounded by his men, with Anne kept close at his side—a quiet insurance in case the tide turned against him. His gaze was fixed on Anselmo, who stood opposite, his back to the forecastle deck. Anselmo, in turn, had his eyes locked on his daughter, while Anne kept her gaze shifting between the sky and the deck beneath her feet.

Standing on the forecastle deck was Señor Gaspar Villanueva—a private notary clerk travelling from Puerto San Julián to Paita. Due to his legal background, he had been chosen amongst the passengers to oversee the trial. With his ledger tucked beneath one arm and his quill case strapped to his belt, Gaspar was the closest thing to law aboard La Fortuna Dorada. Though no officer, the crew respected him enough to trust his hand in recording every testimony.

“Let’s get the rules clear first,” Gaspar called out from the forecastle deck, his voice carrying over the gathered crew. “I’ll summon one man at a time to come forward and stand here to give testimony — for or against whomever they choose. Questions will be asked, and testimonies weighed.” He cleared his throat, glancing down at his notes and the speech he’d prepared beforehand.

“Then, the jury—which will be all of you—will decide to either accept or reject each testimony. Every accepted testimony shall count as one vote toward a man’s guilt. And when the counting is done…” Gaspar’s voice dropped a little. “The man with the most votes against him shall walk the plank.”

This is a scence in the middle of the chapter between Anne and Luca during the trial break.

Back in the great cabin, Anne was worried. She wasn’t worried because she was naked. She wasn’t worried because she was bent over Luca’s table with her hands behind her back. She wasn’t worried because the cabin boy Dandy was knocking on the door, perhaps to deliver Luca’s lunch. She was worried because of the trial.

“What if they find out?” she whispered, her voice low, her hands clenched into fists in the small of her back. “What if someone says something they shouldn’t?”

She felt Luca’s hands that were keeping her ass cheeks apart pulled back as she heard him stepping towards the cabin door. “Is he gonna let the boy come in?” She wondered. The shame of being seen was only trumped by the fear of somebody squeaking at the trial.

She heard Luca opening the door, saying “Give me the platter and scram.”

Then came the sound of the door closing.

The wooden platter was set on the table beside Anne, and she could see the contents — bread, salted meat, and wine. Luca tore off a piece of bread, and then she felt it — the coarse crust being swiped against her cunt, her wetness likely soaking into the rough surface.

This is when I dipped into the head of Luca because the plot needs him to notice Anselmo missing.

Luca looked at Anne from his bench, with no intention of giving out the pardon he had promised. In fact, what he promised was impossible. Not only would people disagree with him that the person who killed their late beloved captain and the young innocent apprentice should be pardoned, but they would also suspect him to be a co-conspirator.

He felt bad as one man from the crowd reached underneath the hem of her dress, saying “The whore isn’t wearing any undergarments.” Luca reached into the inside of his coat to feel Anne’s drawers, which he took from her during the trial break. It was still soaked with her wetness, and he remembered the petticoat that was still piled up on the cabin floor.

As Luca watched Anne, she stood there with her head down, tears rolling down her cheeks . “Captain, please”, she repeated. “Mercy!” He could only avert his gaze, her shrill voice breaking his heart.

 

[TheWritingGroup]

The answers will mostly be, "Whatever works for you in this scene."

I personally have become fond of tight third-person, where we see only what one character sees, but the story is told in a narrator's impersonal voice, not by the viewpoint character. OTOH, one novel-length thing I'm writing now is in first person, because stories are different.

--Annie

 

[ElectricBlue]

As experienced authors, how would you resolve these issues? What is the preferred POV for a chapter like this? Should everything be filtered through Anne like in a 3rd person limited?

You've been caught in your own world building trap, wanting to paint the big picture. Which means you either stay with your omniscient narrator and forgo the intimate emotional detail, or zoom into one character and forget the other until it's their turn. But then your world building might get clunky, because it's info-dumping, expositional. You've got yourself between a rock and a hard place.

If it were me, I'd not worry about the info-dump, and let the world in when it's needed. In other words, limited third. Keep in mind, when you're walking down the street on a bright sunny day, you don't need a map of the whole city, nor do you need to know what time of the year it is. The woolly hat or the tee-shirt tells you that.

 

[SimonDoom]

What I would do at this point is, when necessary, focus on one of your characters' points of view throughout a chapter, but still using third person. Resist the temptation to jump back and forth too much between perspectives. Question your own desire to make sure every perspective gets heard.

I question the need to switch from Anne's perspective to Luca's. Here's the problem with that. Anne is worried about the trial, which creates tension. But Luca has some control over that outcome, so revealing his thoughts dilutes the tension and uncertainty created by Anne's inability to know the future. It's like if you tell a story from the POV of one character who is worried about what lies around the corner, and then you suddenly switch to the POV of a character who IS around the corner. Resist this.

Focus on two things: Who are your most important characters? And whose perspective creates the most dramatic interest? Maybe it would be more dramatic if we DIDN'T know what Luca was thinking.

If you do choose to tell the story from both perspectives, separate them at an appropriate break so it doesn't seem like you are hopping around from one person to another.

 

[TheNovelist2000]

@Annie @ElectricBlue @SimonDoom


Okay! The problem is that at the beginning of Chapter 3, before any witnesses are brought forward, it’s heavily implied—because of what Luca did in Chapters 1 and 2—that he is the one who killed Captain Russell. But the scene can’t revolve around Luca, because he isn’t worried at all. He already knows Anne did the deed for him. So, using Luca’s perspective would spoil the mystery.


By the same token, Anne is anxious, but she also knows that everyone believes Luca committed the murder. So for most of the trial—about two-thirds of it—she’s just standing silently beside him. You see? Whoever is brought forward to testify doesn’t really talk about her. Even though she has a general stake in the trial, she can’t keep reacting to every witness when none of them are discussing her. That would feel forced.


Also, it was never hinted earlier in the story that Isabella (the whore) would eventually come forward and claim she saw Anne with Captain Russell on the night of his disappearance. So until that moment, Anne isn’t directly involved. When Isabella finally accuses her, Anne reacts, insisting that Isabella is lying. Then more witnesses are brought in to build a case around that, which leads to Anne being given a chance to defend herself. Only then does her POV make real sense.


At that point, she confesses—encouraged by Luca, who promises her a pardon. She’s found guilty and is groped and stripped by the crew as they prepare the plank for her execution. Her POV must end there, because Luca has to realize that Anselmo (Anne’s father) is missing from the main deck. Luca, suspicious, goes looking for him—only to find Anselmo already in the storage hold, igniting the barrels of gunpowder.


Then chaos erupts. The scene ends with Anne and her father escaping on a boat while Luca swims for his life.


Now, here’s the structural challenge: if we need a POV character for the earlier part of the trial, Señor Gaspar is technically the only one who’s busy and in control. But he’s a one-off character who hasn’t been introduced before and won’t appear again. His observations of Anne would remain superficial—unless Anne were visibly wrecked by fear. And if he’s the one witnessing her stripping and groping, his POV wouldn’t carry any emotional weight.


So here’s what I think might work:


I could break Chapter 3 into five sections, like this:

1. Bird’s-eye view with an external focus on Señor Gaspar (before the break).
2. Anne’s POV in Luca’s cabin during the recess.
3. Bird’s-eye view again, focused on Señor Gaspar resuming the trial.
4. Anne’s POV again during her confession, stripping, groping, and leading up to her execution.
5. Luca’s POV, noticing Anselmo’s absence, uncovering the sabotage, and seeing Anne and her father escape.

---

But my question is:​

Is it permissible to change POV this many times within a single chapter?
If so, how can I do it seamlessly?
Should I use a break marker like *** or xxx between sections?

 

[AlinaX]

If you establish early in the chapter that the POV drifts, it’s workable. Don’t ever hop mid-paragraph, and always invest in the new POV.

I guess that keeping the readers in the dark requires either distance or a degree of unreliability, both of which distance the reader.

You could introduce a new character, one who is spying through a crack…

 

[TheNovelist2000]

If you establish early in the chapter that the POV drifts, it’s workable. Don’t ever hop mid-paragraph, and always invest in the new POV.

I guess that keeping the readers in the dark requires either distance or a degree of unreliability, both of which distance the reader.

You could introduce a new character, one who is spying through a crack…

What do you mean when you said, "You could introduce a new character, one who is spying through a crack"?

 

[AlinaX]

The peephole was positioned perfectly. With a guilty excitement, Gaspar surveyed the banquet both spread before him and denied him too. His cock was too hard to be contained, too urgent to be left untended, and he cursed the need to be subtle about it.

Anne was naked - which in itself was delicious, but the where! She was bent over Luca’s table with her hands behind her back. And worried, as well she should be, though not, apparently, because the cabin boy -Dandy - was knocking on the door.

“What if they find out?” she whispered, her voice low, her hands clenched into fists in the small of her back. “What if someone says something they shouldn’t?”

Gaspar sighed with wistful loss as Luca’s hands, that had been keeping Anne’s ass cheeks wickedly apart, pulled away as he stepped towards the cabin door. Would the boy come in, Gaspar wondered. Would he see her laid out like an illicit dessert?

Luca opened the door. “Give me the platter, and scram.”

The wooden platter was set on the table beside Anne. Gaspar could see the contents — bread, salted meat, and wine. Luca tore off a piece of bread, and swiped it against her cunt, her wetness likely soaking into the rough surface.

With a quiet moan, Gaspar spurted against the timbers, and withdrew.

 

[XerXesXu]

There's no reason you can't switch between narrating some passages in 3rd person close when narrating in 3rd person omniscient to achieve the effect you want. The chapter you describe seems linear; it'd be a matter of personal judgement whether you needed to mark the change between omniscient and close characters. It's not obvious from what you've written why you would.

Omniscient not only sees and hears everything, it gives access to all characters' interiority, however, there's no obligation to always give access to the interiority of all characters present, at any point in time.

 

[TheNovelist2000]

The peephole was positioned perfectly. With a guilty excitement, Gaspar surveyed the banquet both spread before him and denied him too. His cock was too hard to be contained, too urgent to be left untended, and he cursed the need to be subtle about it.

Anne was naked - which in itself was delicious, but the where! She was bent over Luca’s table with her hands behind her back. And worried, as well she should be, though not, apparently, because the cabin boy -Dandy - was knocking on the door.

“What if they find out?” she whispered, her voice low, her hands clenched into fists in the small of her back. “What if someone says something they shouldn’t?”

Gaspar sighed with wistful loss as Luca’s hands, that had been keeping Anne’s ass cheeks wickedly apart, pulled away as he stepped towards the cabin door. Would the boy come in, Gaspar wondered. Would he see her laid out like an illicit dessert?

Luca opened the door. “Give me the platter, and scram.”

The wooden platter was set on the table beside Anne. Gaspar could see the contents — bread, salted meat, and wine. Luca tore off a piece of bread, and swiped it against her cunt, her wetness likely soaking into the rough surface.

With a quiet moan, Gaspar spurted against the timbers, and withdrew.

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.

 

[TheNovelist2000]

There's no reason you can't switch between narrating some passages in 3rd person close when narrating in 3rd person omniscient to achieve the effect you want. The chapter you describe seems linear; it'd be a matter of personal judgement whether you needed to mark the change between omniscient and close characters. It's not obvious from what you've written why you would.

Omniscient not only sees and hears everything, it gives access to all characters' interiority, however, there's no obligation to always give access to the interiority of all characters present, at any point in time.

Yes…the reason I’m convinced that I should mark the change between omniscient and close characters is because I want to avoid headhopping, where the reader becomes confused because the author is bringing them inside the heads of too many characters too quickly. But I was reading Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina, and he did it quite often, and it wasn’t confusing at all. So, yes. I should be able to change the viewpoints as I am writing in 3rd person omniscient.

 

[filthytrancendence]

I strongly suspect the story would be more interesting in 3P close (or locked, as I like to say), or even 1P.

I think you're overestimating what NEEDS to be explained to the audience. I think some mystery of the unexplained and unknowable would add to it, not detract from it. It's good to know what those things are as the writer. But it isn't necessary for the audience to know, and it is usually more interesting to have it implied or inferred though coded language, body language, or facial expression, than it is to outright tell the audience what's going on.

Just as a for instance, I imagine you'd cite this passage as a reason omniscient is good and useful:

Standing on the forecastle deck was Señor Gaspar Villanueva—a private notary clerk travelling from Puerto San Julián to Paita. Due to his legal background, he had been chosen amongst the passengers to oversee the trial. With his ledger tucked beneath one arm and his quill case strapped to his belt, Gaspar was the closest thing to law aboard La Fortuna Dorada. Though no officer, the crew respected him enough to trust his hand in recording every testimony.

But you can just behave as if all of this is the case without explaining any of it, if your PoV character doesn't know any of it. We don't even need his name. An important-looking man is speaking authoritatively and people are listening and nodding their heads. Happens all the time. In fact, you're characterizing the crew subtly by demonstrating them to be behaving in this way without explaining why.

The mystery of what is going on and why to a character is mirrored by the audience. That's part of why limiting the perspective can be compelling and useful. Don't be afraid to leave things unexplained, especially the how or why of something.

 

[Britva415]

I’m running into issues with head-hopping.

How is that even possible with "omniscient" POV?

The example you posted doesn't seem problematic to me at all.

"Head-hopping" describes a problem which happens with 3rd person limited or close POV, where a head-hop breaks the logical frame previously established.

If the problem isn't with the logical frame (Alice's close narrator knows too much about Bob's secret feelings) then it's just with pacing, phrasing or other adjustable parameters within the omniscient POV.

Of course the omniscient narrator is allowed to know both Alice's and Bob's stuff which each don't know about the other - and of course the omniscient narrator is allowed to tell it to the reader, too.

I'm not even seeing a problem at all, but if you are, then, I don't think the omniscient POV is it.

 

[Britva415]

either stay with your omniscient narrator and forgo the intimate emotional detail, or zoom into one character and forget the other until it's their turn

This isn't an either/or to me at all. Omniscient means narration can include intimate detail, and can also include zoom-ins to anywhere. Omniscient narration can still give turns.

 

[Britva415]

I genuinely don't understand the problem people are postulating, with regard to omniscient narration allegedly not being capable of intimacy or of zoom-in on individual POVs.

Is it perceived as some kind of a logical contradiction? Like - if the narration reveals information which is intimate, is it that people think that that's no longer omniscient because the information isn't knowable to all characters? Or do they think that by revealing this info in narration, it breaks in-universe reality because now the other characters somehow know it too since it was narrated?

 

[Britva415]

If you do choose to tell the story from both perspectives, separate them at an appropriate break so it doesn't seem like you are hopping around from one person to another

I don't see it as two perspectives. I see it as a perspective which has visibility into both of these people's perspectives.

I understand what you said about dilution and about serving the dramatic need, but to me that isn't a matter of "the right POV," that's a matter of writing the right details the right way at the right time. Limited POV is a tool, but it isn't the only one, and if the POV is omniscient, there are plenty of other linguistic, literary and compositional tools which can serve the story without treating the omniscient narration like that's the problem.

Because, I for one really don't find that it is - not in general, and not in this specific example.

 

[ElectricBlue]

This isn't an either/or to me at all. Omniscient means narration can include intimate detail, and can also include zoom-ins to anywhere. Omniscient narration can still give turns.

It can, yes, but there's generally a distancing effect (I find, at least) from deep intimacy. It sometimes feels like the god narrator is intruding. Omniscient can still get in close, turn and turn about, but intimate third resolves this for me - it's easier, by being naturally closer to the pillow.

It's never a dilemma for me though, just a pov. It's the OP with the "problem", when as you say, there isn't one really.

 

[filthytrancendence]

It's never a dilemma for me though, just a pov. It's the OP with the "problem", when as you say, there isn't one really.

Well, I think there is one, it's just not exactly the one OP was worrying about. But I already tried to explain that above.

I think perspective is a more powerful tool than a lot of people give it credit for. It's worth a think. A lot of new writers tend to just write mirroring whatever perspective style they've read the most, I think, and that often doesn't suit the story they're trying to tell.

Limitations tend to breed creativity, and in that way, 3PO can easily become a crutch. Humans are naturally perspective-limited, and so there's a lot to be said for limiting the perspective of a story being told. Over-explaining is a pitfall that can be intentionally avoided with this limitation as well.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Limitations tend to breed creativity, and in that way, 3PO can easily become a crutch. Humans are naturally perspective-limited, and so there's a lot to be said for limiting the perspective of a story being told. Over-explaining is a pitfall that can be intentionally avoided with this limitation as well.

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.

 

[filthytrancendence]

constructing their worlds first and foremost, then trying to figure out how to put their characters into it.

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.

 

[MrHereWriting]

Now that I’ve written the chapter, it just doesn’t feel like it’s coming alive. It’s not popping.

Then it's no good.

On top of that, I’m running into issues with head-hopping.

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

As experienced authors, how would you resolve these issues? What is the preferred POV for a chapter like this? Should everything be filtered through Anne like in a 3rd person limited?

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.

 

[TheNovelist2000]

think you're overestimating what NEEDS to be explained to the audience.

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, and every emotion explored exhaustively. But that’s a lesson I’ve already learned quite early on. I understand that it’s unnecessary to describe the balustrade, the steps, or the doormat just to get a character upstairs to have sex. Readers are more than capable of filling in those gaps on their own.

The reason I’ve chosen third-person omniscient for this project is because the story isn’t character-driven in the conventional sense, as many stories on Literotica tend to be. I’ve read quite a few, and I often find myself frustrated by how the plot exists solely to serve the protagonist’s desires—especially in the BDSM genre, which particularly interests me. Too often, characters are granted narrative superpowers—like wealth, beauty, or social status—that enable the plot. The story unfolds not because of real-world pressures or conflict, but because the protagonist is exceptional.

Why does Susan submit to John? Because he’s handsome. Or he is her boss. Or because she happens to be the perfect submissive—willing to accept anything without ever questioning the morality of the acts or her own circumstances. And as readers, we’re expected to suspend disbelief to enjoy these scenarios. We’re pulled into the same mental space we use when reading about dragons or magic or alternate universes—even though most of these stories take place in very ordinary, modern settings.

In contrast, my story revolves around a protagonist, Luca, who is entirely human—ordinary, even. He’s simply trying to survive, like everyone else. He doesn’t have control over most of what’s happening around him. Even when he’s aware of potential dangers—like the possibility of mutiny—he lacks full understanding of the motives behind them. He can work out, using his intelligence, how the ship exploded, but he had no hand in it and no real insight into Anselmo’s deeper plans. He dominates Anne as an underling because he needs her for survival, and he has a good blackmail over her. The blackmail itself is ordinary. Embezzling is common in his time and him finding out about the crime of Anne’s father is entirely plausible as he is someone who deals with day-to-day ship politics.

While Luca’s choices shape the story, the plot is also driven by the actions and motivations of others, which in turn shape Luca’s development. If I told this story strictly from Luca’s perspective in a close third-person POV, he would need to uncover every element of the ship’s internal drama himself. But that wouldn’t feel natural. It would raise the question: why didn’t he act sooner to prevent something that ultimately changes his life so dramatically? (He’s about to lose the ship—and possibly his life.) It’s impossible to tell my story through his or Anne’s eyes the same way it is impossible to tell the story “A Song of Ice and Fire” through the eyes of just one or two characters. Even someone as powerful as Tywin Lannister doesn’t know what’s happening across Westeros half the time.

A close third-person perspective could work if we used multiple viewpoint characters to reveal the many mechanisms and coincidences leading to the ship’s explosion. But once the explosion happens, only Anne and Luca survive—so maintaining all those secondary viewpoints would lose its purpose.

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.

That’s what I want to replicate. Luca isn’t unique because of special traits; he’s cautious and selfish because people have betrayed him, and he’s been pushed into life-and-death situations. Likewise, Anne’s eventual desire to dominate the sirens on the island doesn’t come from some latent kink but from years of playing the underling to Luca. The power dynamics in my story must emerge from circumstance—not from a character’s desire to role-play BDSM.

 

[TheNovelist2000]

How is that even possible with "omniscient" POV?

The example you posted doesn't seem problematic to me at all.

"Head-hopping" describes a problem which happens with 3rd person limited or close POV, where a head-hop breaks the logical frame previously established.

If the problem isn't with the logical frame (Alice's close narrator knows too much about Bob's secret feelings) then it's just with pacing, phrasing or other adjustable parameters within the omniscient POV.

Of course the omniscient narrator is allowed to know both Alice's and Bob's stuff which each don't know about the other - and of course the omniscient narrator is allowed to tell it to the reader, too.

I'm not even seeing a problem at all, but if you are, then, I don't think the omniscient POV is it.

Ok I’ll give you an example of headhopping in 3rd person omniscient POV.

John looked at his butler, Mauva, as he took the cup of coffee handed to him. “Mauva seems to be very sad,” John thought. But he knew that Mauva would be happy again soon. Mauva was thinking about his master John. Does John know that he stole $5 from him last night? Mauva wished that John did not realise that he was missing $5. He would be fired if John knew.

Across the room, Mauva’s wife was looking at John and Mauva. She thought that Mauva looked older than John, although John was two years older than Mauva. She wanted to know what Mauva was thinking because she could see on his face that he was hiding something from his master John. Meanwhile, John’s wife, Marie, looked at her childhood friend Anne, Mauva’s wife, and she wanted to know if Anne had already had her breakfast.

In fact, headhopping happens mainly in the omniscient POV as the narrator has access to thoughts, emotions and the viewpoint of every character. When the writer knows that the narrator can bring up almost anything, he is tempted to do so. When 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.

 

[TheNovelist2000]

I genuinely don't understand the problem people are postulating, with regard to omniscient narration allegedly not being capable of intimacy or of zoom-in on individual POVs.

Is it perceived as some kind of a logical contradiction? Like - if the narration reveals information which is intimate, is it that people think that that's no longer omniscient because the information isn't knowable to all characters? Or do they think that by revealing this info in narration, it breaks in-universe reality because now the other characters somehow know it too since it was narrated?

No, people consider the omniscient POV to be less intimate as the narrator doesn’t stay for long in one head. If the narrator stays for long in one head, it is more on the spectrum of the closed POV.

 

[Britva415]

Ok I’ll give you an example of headhopping in 3rd person omniscient POV.

John looked at his butler, Mauva, as he took the cup of coffee handed to him. “Mauva seems to be very sad,” John thought. But he knew that Mauva would be happy again soon. Mauva was thinking about his master John. Does John know that he stole $5 from him last night? Mauva wished that John did not realise that he was missing $5. He would be fired if John knew.

Across the room, Mauva’s wife was looking at John and Mauva. She thought that Mauva looked older than John, although John was two years older than Mauva. She wanted to know what Mauva was thinking because she could see on his face that he was hiding something from his master John. Meanwhile, John’s wife, Marie, looked at her childhood friend Anne, Mauva’s wife, and she wanted to know if Anne had already had her breakfast.

In fact, headhopping happens mainly in the omniscient POV as the narrator has access to thoughts, emotions and the viewpoint of every character. When the writer knows that the narrator can bring up almost anything, he is tempted to do so. When 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.

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.