We’ve all done it. We’ve all been there. You’re reading along–or writing–and discover you’ve moved from one character’s head to another. You were chummy and warm in the thoughts of Mr. X, but now you’re thrown into the unknown environs of Mrs. X’s cranium. How’d you end up there? Why?
This is a symptom of point-of-view discrepancy. Editors whip out their red pencils–not that they really use those anymore–and start scratching away. The promising concept and proposal turns to slush right there in the first few lines of chapter one, as POV rears its problematic head. What was once commonplace in the writing world is now looked upon with disdain.
Why, though?
The other day, I picked up a Helen MacInnes novel. It was rife with POV breaks. I was surprised, because in her day she was a hugely popular writer (The Salzburg Connection was a NY Times best seller for ten months!), and she garnered all sorts of praise that bordered on hyperbole. Compared to today’s thriller writers, her stories moved along at pedestrian speed. Nevertheless, I was a big fan of her textured settings and characters. I thought she was topnotch in her genre. And yet, here she was . . . a POV violator; a head-jumper; a skull-skipper. Didn’t she know better?
This got me to wondering again why we’re so fixated on the POV issue in our modern era of literature. Such notables as Stephen King and John Grisham have thumbed their noses at the idea. Did something change in the last fifty years? Did writing get better? Or did reading expectations simply change?
In honor of full disclosure, I must tell you I’m about to dive into murky spiritual waters. I’m just splashing around here, thinking through my fingertips.
But . . . Is there any chance, that cultural views of God have played a part in the POV shift? We still use the term omniscient point of view. Fifty years ago, it was common for writers to employ this POV. Now, limited POV is preferred. I prefer the limited route, too–as a reader and a writer. The differences are acute, yet sometimes subtle. They both reflect strong and weak traits in human nature.
Could it be that omniscience reflected a time in which readers were more willing to be used, manipulated, and/or deceived? Nowadays, I read with the expectation that all the facts will be given to me, and anything held back will be held back fairly. None of that Agatha Christie stuff, where a peripheral character sees the vital clue through a mirror, without letting the reader know. Could it also be that the omniscient POV kept readers from connecting or sharing empathy with the characters? Today’s readers hope for that strong link with their protagonist–or antagonist, as may sometimes be the case–and for honest disclosure regarding the characters’ flaws. None of that Leave it to Beaver gloss.
On the other hand, did the omniscient preference of yesteryear also reflect some traits we now find in short supply? Did readers once have more willingness to put themselves in others’ shoes? Did they possess an inherent trust in the relationship between author and reader, between creator and consumer, that allowed them to enjoy stories with less cynicism?
Yes, I’m one of those strange artistic types who dwells on such nebulous matters. I don’t really have any answers on this subject. Just thinking. Rambling. I do suspect, though, that there’s a connection between these changing styles and world views–some negative, most positive. I still believe in a personal God, and I also believe that it’s better to be real, even messy, than to gloss things over. I believe some cynicism is healthy. I think critical thinking is a must. Staid religion may argue against such things, but the Bible actually brims with gritty characters and a call to “test everything and hold onto that which is good.”
For now, I’ll leave weightier musings to greater mortals. I have a deadline to meet, a story to tell. And, in the style I prefer, I’ll tell it one character at a time. If I do happen to skip skulls, I promise to add a scene break.
4 Comments, Comment or Ping
Janet Berliner
An eternal debate for each story, every book. In the end, I think, our characters tell us what to do. Our duty is to listen. –Janet
Aug 3rd, 2008
Dave Wilson
I don’t see too strong a correlation between the mindset of the people and the POV in writing. Shifting POV is one of those rules you don’t want to break too often, and that must be handled correctly. I’ve been debating it on my current project and decided I have to do it…but it can be jarring.
Also it adds levels of complexity. Now I have to be aware of what two characters see and know and everything that happens must now jive with both of those sets of circumstances at once…without giving away too much to the reader. When you have only one POV to worry about, you can limit what the reader sees as you limit what the character sees.
Each story calls for a different approach, and sticking with the religious metaphors, you don’t want your “voice” to start sounding like it comes from the Tower of Babel.
D
Aug 4th, 2008
Eric Wilson
I don’t see a strong correlation either. It was just fun to explore the idea. Since literature often reflects the psyche and belief systems of its era, I do believe there’s some connection, though nothing I would put too much stock in.
Aug 4th, 2008
John B. Rosenman
Hmm, methinks there may be a significant correlation between the mindset of the people and POV. The fiction-reading “market” has declined and become lazy, and people for whatever reason, want to identify with their hero or antihero, whether it be Harry Potter or Grendel. Whatever you do, keep me in the protagonist’s or antagonist’s head! Don’t make it difficult for me. I don’t want to get lost or have to put forth an effort.
In my writers group, we often jump on shifts of POV as if the writer had committed incest. And yet we’re aware that really good writers often shift point of view effectively. One rule that usually makes sense is not to change POV within the same section. Use a pound symbol and then you can do it. But ultimately all rules can be broken if the writer is skillful enough.
I’m glad you said you don’t have all the answers and are thinking aloud. A darn good piece.
Aug 6th, 2008
Reply to “God and the Art of Skull-Skipping”