More writing: Head-hopping

[TheEarl]

What's the general opinion on 'hearing' the thoughts of more than one character within a scene written in third person? I've heard this decried as a fiction no-no, but was wondering whether it was a hard and fast rule, or more of a general stylistic point.

Is it acceptable to head-hop? Or must each scene only have one main character and be in their head only?

The Earl

 

[minsue]

My 2p

It's hard to do right, methinks. I've read 3rd person omniscient that changed POV from one person to another within a scene, but it tends to get confusing.

 

[Vermilion]

I've done it in at least one of my stories. Would you like me to find a link so you can see how it works?
x
V

 

[TheEarl]

I've done it in at least one of my stories. Would you like me to find a link so you can see how it works?
x
V

Oh, I've done it. I just wasn't sure whether it was good form/good writing.

The Earl

 

[Darkniciad]

I do it all the time. That doesn't mean it's the right way to do things, but I do it anyway.

I usually only do this when two people are interacting in a very close way ( sex, for example ) without the names, or other such identifiers, in the second character's thoughts, it does get confusing quickly.

If you try to throw a third character into the mix, you add to the confusion factor, I try to avoid that.

Most of the time, I just describe the second character's thoughts, rather than the actual transcription of what they're thinking.

If you don't get inside the heads of both people in a sex scene, one of them may as well be an inflate-a-date. You can only do so much with dialogue in that situation, without it coming out sounding like a B-grade porn flick. With a mix of dialogue and body language, you can pull it off, but switching POV works for me. It all comes down to identifiers.

 

[Vermilion]

maybe not approved style, but it can work if you do it carefully. I think it can lend an air of intimacy to the writing if it's done well.
x
V

 

[impressive]

Depends on what the story demands. Bel & I did it in Switch because there was no effective way to tell the story without doing so.

It's difficult.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I usually do this in my third person omniscient stories. I consider it a very effective way to experience an action from the POV of two characters. I don't think I would ever try it for more than two, though.

 

[rachlou]

I do it all the time. That doesn't mean it's the right way to do things, but I do it anyway.

I usually only do this when two people are interacting in a very close way ( sex, for example ) without the names, or other such identifiers, in the second character's thoughts, it does get confusing quickly.

If you try to throw a third character into the mix, you add to the confusion factor, I try to avoid that.

Most of the time, I just describe the second character's thoughts, rather than the actual transcription of what they're thinking.

If you don't get inside the heads of both people in a sex scene, one of them may as well be an inflate-a-date. You can only do so much with dialogue in that situation, without it coming out sounding like a B-grade porn flick. With a mix of dialogue and body language, you can pull it off, but switching POV works for me. It all comes down to identifiers.

Inflate-a-date?! lol

I have done the same in a sex scene. I have switched between the two as the action unfolds. It may not be correct, but i still do it.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Oh, I've done it. I just wasn't sure whether it was good form/good writing.

The Earl

Good form?

King does it; that's all I need to know. The rules, change, y'know?

Q_C

 

[Guest]

Good form?

King does it; that's all I need to know. The rules, change, y'know?

Q_C

i have nothing to add to the conversation. i saw your nick and wanted to drop in and do a drive by *hug*
we dont see you often enough.

 

[floweringquince]

You're the author, so (as long as it clearly coveys what you want it to, and serves the style you're trying for) you can do anything you want.


But it seems to me that actually quoting the character's thoughts as dialogue would be hard to do without it being awfully awkward, e.g:

Bob thought "Hot Diggity! This is the best sex I've had in a month of Sundays!" as he plumbed Carol's darkling depths.

Carol thought "Mmm... this is *tasty*!" as Ted's manhood Macarenaed in her mouth.

Ted thought "My face is buried between Alice's big bazongas, 'Little Teddy' is having a grand old time, and all really *is* right with the world!" as his sweetest dreams came true.

Alice thought "Gee, I wish the Earl weren't such a hophead."


Now, you should be able to write something better than that (my *cat* should be able to write something better than that , but I don't see how that jumpy, split-screen feel could be avoided while keeping the thoughts quoted-as-dialogue for multiple characters.

(Unless you *want* that jumpy feel, for whatever reason...)


If you did all the other characters' thoughts as description, you could still quote one character's thoughts reasonably smoothly:

As Bob plumbed Carol's darkling depths, he realized he was enjoying the best sex he'd had in a very long time. Carol was thinking of nothing but the sheer tastiness of Ted's manhood as it Macarenaed in her mouth. With his face buried between Alice's big bazongas, and 'Little Teddy' having a grand old time; Ted felt all his sweetest dreams coming true. Alice thought "Gosh, this really is much better."

My humble opinion,

- quince

 

[CeriseNoire]

I don't mind reading all the characters' thoughts if it's well-done. When I write, I prefer third person limited. For some reason, if the protagonist doesn't know what the other characters are thinking, I don't want the reader to know either.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

I do it all the time as well (when I'm actually writing that is ) I just make sure that I say who is thinking what, and always start a new paragraph when I swithc characters.

 

[Darkniciad]

I do it all the time as well (when I'm actually writing that is ) I just make sure that I say who is thinking what, and always start a new paragraph when I swithc characters.

Another key to getting it right is to have more than just their thoughts in there. The paragraph needs a little meat on the bones in order for the POV switch to have time to settle in the brain. A one liner with just a thought in it is going to get confusing and choppy real quick.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

Another key to getting it right is to have more than just their thoughts in there. The paragraph needs a little meat on the bones in order for the POV switch to have time to settle in the brain. A one liner with just a thought in it is going to get confusing and choppy real quick.

Agreed, but I don't know how to put some of my thoughts into words sometimes

 

[slyc_willie]

I normally stick to writing in the first person, so the only thoughts you 'hear' are the main character's.

However, I have seen stories on this site that have handled 'head-hopping' (interesting term, by the way) very well, and others that have not. Jumping from thought-to-thought, as Dark said, requires some indication as to who is thinking, and why.

 

[scriptordelecto]

I've found that both styles work for me. I use whichever seems to suit the purposes of the story.

In third, I try to reveal more than just thoughts, and rarely with thought dialogue. I want emotion, observation and perception to be present as well. All of it can mix well if you do it right.

Of course, there are times when I thought one would be the right fit for a story, only to find that I had to do re-writes well into the story to change the POV. Not a fun situation.

OK, now that I've been absolutely no help here, I'll mosey into another thread. *rolls eyes and strolls off whistling*

 

[Belegon]

I try to avoid anything that could "throw" my reader out of the world I'm writing in...and I think that head-hopping can get confusing very easily.

I avoid it unless it is absolutely necessary.

...and no offense Dark, but I completely disagree that limiting yourself to a single POV makes the other party an inflate-a-date...

 

[Darkniciad]

There are ways of getting inside their head, without actually getting into their thoughts I probably worded it badly ( little to no sleep and posting on writing breaks, when my mind was still mostly occupied with the storyline ) but that was what I was aiming at there - not that a single POV damns the second party to be a blow-up doll.

Body language, dialogue, and unseen but well-felt physical reactions can involve the second party just as well as describing their thoughts, or thought dialogue - but you have to have a lot of build-up of the character beforehand. That's the limitations I was talking about in the first post. Every one of those little things has to be backed up by a lot of work in the narrative before. You have to be able to tie little quirks from the character in with those gasps and back-archings, in order to keep the character in three dimensions, with only one POV.

No matter what, you have to get into that second characters head in some fashion - whether that be actually seeing their thoughts, or getting those thoughts through the translation of the POV character's senses. If you don't bring across the emotion the layee somehow, then they're an inflate-a-date.

I'm probably still rambling and not getting out what I'm trying to say, as I'm even longer into my no-sleep mode at this point. But that's as close to clarification as my addled brain can come to right now.

I try to avoid anything that could "throw" my reader out of the world I'm writing in...and I think that head-hopping can get confusing very easily.

I avoid it unless it is absolutely necessary.

...and no offense Dark, but I completely disagree that limiting yourself to a single POV makes the other party an inflate-a-date...

 

[SimonBrooke]

What's the general opinion on 'hearing' the thoughts of more than one character within a scene written in third person? I've heard this decried as a fiction no-no, but was wondering whether it was a hard and fast rule, or more of a general stylistic point.

Is it acceptable to head-hop? Or must each scene only have one main character and be in their head only?

OK, this is the omniscient narrator. It was good enough for Jane Austen, Charles Dickens and Walter Scott... However, it has gone out of fashion. I'm not sure why it has gone out of fashion, but it undoubtedly has. If you do it now, there's a considerable burden on you to do it extremely well.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

What's the general opinion on 'hearing' the thoughts of more than one character within a scene written in third person? I've heard this decried as a fiction no-no, but was wondering whether it was a hard and fast rule, or more of a general stylistic point.

Is it acceptable to head-hop? Or must each scene only have one main character and be in their head only?

The Earl

Listen to me now, my young, well-intentioned friend, I want you to speak very slowly and repeat after me: In commerical fiction, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A WRITING NO-NO. A writing device may be effective or ineffective, marketable or not, but NOTHING is ever, "wrong."

As Minsue and others have pointed out, the problem with head-hopping within a scene is the challenge of doing it in such a way as to not confuse readers. However, that very challenge is meet in hundreds of romance novels each year. (Okay, the number was a guess. So sue me.) These instances of head-hopping occur most often during "hot, steamy love scenes" when the author reveals the inner-most thoughts and emotions of both partners as they kiss, and hug, and do all sorts of other disgusting things.

I never, ever head-hop. Other authors do. Someday, I might.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[jeanne_d_artois]

Flip through a few fiction paperbacks in your local charity shop. It shouldn't take long to find one that is written in 3rd person omniscient - Mills and Boon have a few authors that use it.

See how that style works and if it works for you.

jeanne for Og

 

[BlackShanglan]

Listen to me now, my young, well-intentioned friend, I want you to speak very slowly and repeat after me: In commerical fiction, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A WRITING NO-NO. A writing device may be effective or ineffective, marketable or not, but NOTHING is ever, "wrong."

Rumple Foreskin

Amen. I was thinking the same, only considerably more verbosely.

I think it best not to ask "may I or mayn't I?" I think the better choice is, "what will be the effect upon the reader if I do?"

Of course one might also add "will I be able to do justice to the technique?" But even if the answer to the latter is "no," it's worth trying it and learning what doesn't work; that's still a step forward and gives you something to tinker with later.

... because there was no effective way to tell the story without doing so.

Best of all possible reasons, in my opinion. A beautifully written story is one which we can imagine being told in no other way without a terrible loss of effect and meaning.

Shanglan

 

[minsue]

[threadjack]

Shanglan!!! *pounce*

The wife and I were just talking about you and wondering how you are.

[/threadjack]