August 18, 2005
Who's your main character? In each scene--and yes, I'll break it down into scenes, not chapters--who's your main character? More specifically, in each scene, who is your point of view character?

That final question, ultimately, is what needs to be decided by the writer. Yesterday we talked about limited 3rd person omniscient, and I don't think I've ever read a novel written entirely that way, although I suppose it's possible I have. None come to mind. It's not uncommon, however, to read an entire novel written in the third person from a single character's point of view. And in thrillers in particular, it's not uncommon to have multiple points of view, each pov being part of a scene/chapter--often, as in the case of my 2 upcoming Derek Stillwater novels, the chapters are short, basically single scenes, each from a single character's pov. The trick there is to make sure the readers know who your main character is, even if you show the story from 20 different povs. Today's audience is very sophisticated. They watch--literally--thousands of 30 minute, 60 minute, 90 minute and 120 minute plays usually written in the third person with multiple povs every year, and moreover, have grown up doing so from about the age of one day. It's been said that earlier generations had problems with multiple points of view. Well, folks, TV and film has taken care of that problem. But ultimately, commercial fiction is about heroes of some sort or another--our main character or characters--and no matter how many characters in the story, it's a good idea if the reader knows who to root for and identify with.

If you want, pop on over to author Paul Levine's new website, www.paul-levine.com and read an excerpt of his upcoming novel Solomon v. Lord. I've been a fan of Paul's work for years and wasn't thrilled when he quit writing novels to write for TV ("Jag" and "First Monday") but I'm pleased he'll be back writing novels and look forward to his new one. Anyway, if you do visit, note that he's giving us a chapter broken up into scenes alternating between the two main characters, Solomon and Lord. They are in jail for contempt of court and each character's pov is clearly broken up.

Now, let's look at my two examples, #2 and #4.

Example 2:
Frank thought the device gave off a caustic stench. He and his partner Joe were kneeling over the bomb. The housing was covered in grease and there were dozens of many-colored wires jutting out around the digital clock that was counting down: 1:01; 1:00; 0:59...

Joe said, "We don't have to to think. We have to make a decision."

You mean I have to make a decision, thought Frank. I wouldn't trust your decisions in a situation like this. "Red," he said, and brought the blades of his wire cutter toward the red wire. "We'll cut the red wire."


Example 4:
The bomb stank, thought Frank. Joe, squatting next to him, wondered about the grease covering the device's housing. Why had Bombardier done that? Was it part of the device? Frank was focused more on the wires, multi-colored and sprouting from a dozen small holes in the device, framing the digital readout. Joe couldn't take his eyes off the readout, thinking, we're running out of time. "1:01; 1:00; 0:59..."

"We don't have time to think," said Joe. "We have to make a decision." Let's either do something or get the hell out of here.

"Red," said Frank, jamming the blades of his wirecutters against the red wire. "We'll cut the red wire." No guts, no glory. You only die once, he thought.

First, let's look at #4. We're inside both Frank and Joe's heads simultaneously. It very much has the feel of watching a pro ping-pong match from the vantage of the net. In short, it sucks. It's confusing. It's weird. DON'T DO THIS. And, in my opinion, don't do it even a little. I read a lot of novels in the third person where the author does this. Even though we've got a main pov character, they're just dying to have the reader know what some other character is thinking or feeling, so they slip in something from their pov. It's awkward. It's amateurish, and it's ineffective.

Disagree with me? Fine. Disagree. Sometimes it works. Sometimes people win the Lotto. Sometimes people get hit by lightning. It doesn't mean buying Lotto tickets is a sound investment strategy or that it's wise to stand on your roof during an electrical storm. By the same token, it's not a good writing strategy to be inside the heads of multiple characters in a single scene. You want to do that, give them a separate scene and show it from that character's pov. It'll cause structural headaches and there are a lot of decisions and choices to make about how and when to do that (different subject for a different day), but most importantly, it doesn't confuse the reader. Remember: THERE REALLY ARE NO LAWS GOVERNING GOOD WRITING. BUT THERE ARE GUIDELINES DEVELOPED LOOSELY BASED ON WHAT WORKS FOR READERS. AND IT'S 2005 AND READERS CAN BE HARD TO COME BY AND THEY ARE EASILY DISTRACTED BY TV AND MOVIES AND THE INTERNET AND THEIR CHILDREN AND THEIR SPOUSES AND DINNER PLANS AND THEIR GOLF GAME AND SEX AND FLOWERS AND RAINBOWS AND FAMINE IN AFRICA AND TSUNAMIS IN ASIA AND TOM CRUISE'S WEIRD BEHAVIOR AND JENNIFER GARNER'S PREGNANCY AND...--DON'T GIVE THE READER A REASON TO PUT YOUR BOOK ASIDE FOR SOMETHING ELSE (THEY DON'T NEED YOU TO GIVE THEM A REASON, THEY HAVE PLENTY OF THEIR OWN).

One of the advantages of limited third person, of course, is you have control over the distance between the reader and the narrator. It's possible without freaking out your readers to go to a limited omniscient and provide the reader with information that pov character may not be privy to, depending on how you structure your story. You can be as intimate as your technical skills allow you to be (for an example, read Harlen Coben's Myron Bolitar novels, which are written in the limited third person, by and large, but have the intimate feel of first person. Harlan once described it as "cheating third person.") or as far out as you care to go (again, see yesterday's comments about Michael Connelly), depending on what you're trying to accomplish and the overall feel you want your book to have. PJ Parrish, a pair of sisters who write excellent thrillers starring Louis Kincaid, have an in between feel. It works and it's questionable if they purposefully chose that distance, but it felt right for them and for their character and books. Or, perhaps, it came about from the collaborative process they (Kristy and Kelly Montee) use. Whatever, it works.

Tomorrow, first person and I'll try to wrap this up this weekend or Monday by talking about some of those naughty folk who have successfully and unsuccessfully mixed and matched within the same work, and a few other options that you can make and why I kinda, sorta wish you wouldn't.

Best,
Mark Terry