This isn't really about writing original fiction, but I figure a discussion of storytelling technique and styles fits best in this subforum. Fanfiction is sometimes, but not very often, written like this - with dozens of multiple perspectives. The devotion to a single protagonist is one of the better habits of our sorry fanfiction crowd, I've always felt.

Finally catching up with A Song of Ice and Fire means that I got repeatedly pissed off with an otherwise great series when, a couple million or billion words into the story, a dozen new perspectives cropped up. Every chapter. Or at least it began to feel like it. Some of the characters I didn't like, so I rushed through their chapters. Some seemingly pointless new ones appeared, so I raged and fumed and called my curtains Jewfuckers.

That series is probably the most extreme example, with only the Wheel of Time one coming anywhere near the sheer quantity of perspectives. I didn't mind so much in WoT, but in ASoIaF it really began to bother me towards the end.

I've noticed a growing trend in fantasy novels for there to be multiple perspectives, but it seems that the number of different ones an author tries to cram in, on average, is rising at an alarming rate.

I hate this. But it doesn't make sense that writers keep doing this if everyone resents it the way I do, unless perhaps they are all copying what the others are doing in an endless feedback loop. What thoughts does anyone have on this? Is there something good about it that I'm missing? Does it annoy you this much?

Telling another story and presenting another view of a situation can be a useful storytelling device, of course. I can't deny that a second or third perspective can often enhance a novel. The thing is, I'm starting to see up to ten perspectives in a standalone book. Even a thick book of several hundred thousand words gets pretty small when divided into ten. Sometimes I wonder whether writers are getting stuck or bored, and bring in a new perspective to keep their interest or tell a different story while waiting for the block in the first to fade away. It makes sense as a motivational tool and a bit of a lazy crutch, but I can't shake the feeling that I'm missing something, and it's becoming a popular style for a reason. This trend is only really within the fantasy genre, so far as I can tell, too, and more common in sword and sorcery style words, and full on new realms, than it is in the likes of urban fantasy. Perhaps there's an element of exploring more of the fantasy world than one character to cover to all this.

 

There are several obvious benefits:

1. Every character is expendable. In most stories, you can be reasonably sure than the protagonist won't die. Multiple PoV stories have no protagonist. Any one character can die and the story continue. In a way, having a single PoV is a massive spoiler.

2. Multiple PoV allows for a large proportion of your cast (all the PoV characters) to have a depth of characterisation normally reserved for the protagonist. We get inside their minds.

3. As noted, it allows you to explore more of the world.

 

I tried to get into ASoIaF. I really did. I was probably as pissed off as you are.

I get heavily invested into characters. That's what I do. Probably not the best way to experience fantasy in general, but I prefer it that way. That specific character doesn't even have to be likeable, funny, heroic, entertaining or whatever, it just has to feel like it could be a real person, qualities and flaws are equally important to me. Verisimilitude is key.

The last couple of books I read that had multiple perspectives were Tigana, The First Law, Mistborn and Jonathan Strange. Unless I'm mistaken none of them had more than 5 recurring perspectives, and that was just about what I was able to handle.

Any more than that and characters don't really get enough screen-time for me to get invested in the first place, the end result is that I just stop caring about what happens to them.

 

I get incredibly immersed in things, so a change in perspective jars me out and interrupts my enjoyment of the book more often than not.

Depth of characterisation is something I'd argue can be done in just as much depth from any perspective, with the right style of writing and a sufficiently talented author, but I'll concede that it's a different experience and demonstrates the character in a very different way.

I see no reason why a protagonist can't die part-way through a novel, and would love to see it happen more - unfortunately, the publishing world and most readers disagree. :3

But other than scale, is there anything to be gained from having dozens of perspectives, rather than a few? Do they just add more detail, or does there come a point where it becomes something more? I suppose it does a little with the confluence of internal and external tensions. Going back to the ASoIF example, the Lannisters are all lumped into one group when seen from the Stark perspective, but from Cersei's eyes, Tyrion is as much or more an enemy than Ned or Robb Stark ever were. It shows the story working on a personal level and as factions moving over the entire continent.

Showing the perspective of the antagonist is one of the times when I do appreciate this, I suppose, though it gets harder to apply a label like that to anyone when a dozen characters view them a dozen different ways.

 

Isn't that a contradiction? One of the 'problems' of having a protagonist die part-way is that it creates a jarring change in perspective and you're forced to deal with a new protagonist that you may find far less interesting.

 

One drastic change mid-way through is not the same as being jolted into a different story every chapter.

 

I enjoy varied perspectives, when their characters are explored, which I feel GRRM does. The many perspectives give a well-rounded view of events and historical occurrences, with some characters having been witness to things we might only have heard about if we were confined to a few characters.

I do become attached to certain characters, but in general, I enjoy exploring a well crafted world and becoming versed in the history and culture of the land more than I care about seeing my favorite characters consistently. Despite not wanting there to be Cersei chapters, for example, I learned to appreciate the politicking and intrigue that went on at court, as she is frequently an oblivious eye on characters and a setting that is essential to the plot.

Basically, bring on the characters, so long as there is something to appreciate with regards to them and the general storyline, and they are somewhat fleshed out. Anything that allows me to learn more about the world will make me happy!

 

I'm kinda with Cheddar on this; my problem with multiple PoV is not multiple characters telling the story. My problem is multiple characters telling different stories.

That's one of the primary reasons I can't get into WoT and ASoIaF. It's incredibly rare for the books I've read in either to focus on the same storyline for more than a single chapter. It keeps swapping back and forth and soon enough I've forgotten what's actually going on in the previous segment of the story I'm currently reading.

I have absolutely no issue with multiple perspectives, but they need to be following more-or-less the same storyline to keep my interest at all. As soon as it diverges, I lose interest almost instantly.

 

Well, most people have probably read my opinion on the subject, I've posted it several times already, but I'll quote myself and elaborate.

This, I've reposted several times, but I should probably clarify a bit.

There are a variety of reasons this irritates me. For one, just because an author has managed to create a character that I can emphasize with, does not mean they will manage to do it again. If you have managed to create a character that is fun to read about, and has invested me in the story... Dropping the character entirely and writing about some random peasant will only irritate me, unless the author has managed to make the second character and second story as fascinating and as well written as the first.

There isn't any reason that this couldn't happen, and indeed it does, if the author is good enough. But for every character the author writes in, it's another chance that it'll annoy me. Sure, he's written one amazing character, with a believable backstory. Can he write two? Can he write ten? Usually, the answer is no.

Additionally, balancing the amount of "screentime" is something that many authors don't seem to do well. They're so caught up in creating the new character they fail to realize that perhaps I'd rather read about the protagonist, rather than read the 15 chapters about the character they are establishing. Often a character that has no real importance to the story, and isn't actually that good of a character either.

This fucking pissed me off relatively recently when I read the sequel to the Painted Man, whatever it was called. The author had always tended to spend a chapter or two with irrelevant characters in the previous book, like small beggar children.

Thankfully, it wasn't that much time, and skimming through the chapters about the irrelevant characters never really hurt the story, and I'd soon be back to reading about the protagonist.

In the sequel, however, he introduced a character that I absolutely despised, this absolutely ridiculous desert dwelling prince/king. He then proceeded to write about half the book about this dick continuing to do absolutely nothing in the desert.

I was in disbelief. And there was so much written about this character that skipping it would inevitably lead to me missing out on information important to the story.

I've enjoyed stories with multiple perspectives, but I feel as if most stories that use it would be better off sticking to a single character.

TL;DR I absolutely hate it when attempts to implement this into stories that do not need it, ruin an otherwise great story. Some stories absolutely need multiple perspectives. I cannot even imagine WOT from only Rand's perspective, for example.

But many stories don't, and the addition of more characters seems simply an attempt to pad the story to get a few hundred extra pages. Either that, or an attempt to imitate authors like Jordan or Martin to the detriment of their own story.

If your story is based around political intrigue, planned out to the letter around various plot twists and such... Well, by all means, go ahead. It'd be hard to write that from one perspective. If the only reason it has multiple POVs is to pad the length? For the love of god, please fucking don't.

 

It's one thing to express a personal preference; it's quite another to try to pass off your personal preference as an objective truth about writing.

I don't think anyone could dispute that George Martin is a good writer, even if he's not to your taste.

 

No, not at all. George Martin is definitely an excellent author.

I realized as I glanced over my post that I needed to edit it immediately, as it seemed as if I was saying that all authors that use multiple perspective are poor writers. Not at all what I was trying to say. When you posted, I was attempting to think of the best way to rephrase my ending comment.

What I despise is authors that aren't as good, attempting to replicate the style that Martin & others use. It's not irritating because of the perspective so much, it's irritating mostly because it seems like they're sabotaging their own work.

I start a new story, and find that I enjoy the main character. I enjoy the backstory, the world, the writing in general... Only to find that the author never stops adding more perspectives, often irritating or irrelevant. The protagonist seems to be relegated to every 9th chapter, and the chapters in-between are used establishing the identity and backstory of the various beggars and maids. This is what I don't like. The story falls to the side, as the author spends more time adding irrelevant characters than advancing the plot.

I cannot deny that Martin is an excellent author. I read several of the Fire and Ice series, fighting through the irritating perspective changes. I liked the first few, though I didn't continue reading it. I also enjoyed WOT, as that's another great author using multiple perspectives. I hated the Aes Sedai, or whatever they were called, but again, those are examples of good authors using it.

 

I work best with limited POV changes. Sticking with a single or at most two perspectives will help keep the word count down. Word count isn't a defining thing in fanfiction (the more the merrier when it comes to ff), but trying to get original fiction published when you don't have much of a name for yourself is daunting enough without adding a massive word count and multiple POV shifts. For me, it comes down to keeping it simple.

Then again, I write much of my original stuff in first person, so the single perspective works well for me. The only third person novel I've published is the unicorn one and in it I do the odd chapters from the unicorn's pov and the even from the female rider's. So there it remains consistent and predictable for the reader.

Pacing is important. Block exposition will provide the background information that the readers need at the expense of slowing the story down. Dialogue and movement/action are necessary to speed the plot along and keep the reader immersed. Good authors can walk a tightrope and balance the exposition/infodump with the dialogue and action sequences to keep the reader following the story.

Many years ago, I read the "uncut" version of The Stand (with the extra several hundred pages added back in) and realized there's a reason for editors. I could flip five or ten pages and not really miss all that much and I found some of the characters' points of view just didn't matter to me. Reading it was a disappointment. I'm sure Mr. King isn't disappointed every month when he sees his royalty statement.

 

I'm like a baby bird: I imprint reeeal early on in a story to the first character the author introduces (unless it's very obvious that this isn't going to be the main character) and then I'm stuck after that. This is awesome when I get the right character right off the bat, but it sucks hardcore if there are lots of viewpoints and the one I picked turns out to not be the one the author likes the best.

A good example of this is the Malazan Book of the Fallen series by Steven Erickson. He introduces us to a guy named Paran, who I immediately identify with, and then continues to introduce more and more people. Paran comes back every once in a while, and I'm left flipping through sections trying to find out when my guy reappears.

The saving grace in ASoIaF is that there are enough characters who I enjoy that, while waiting for Jon Snow to show up again, I am mildly entertained.

You can imagine my reaction to the third book in WoT: let's see, Rand shows up again at... *flip flip flip* the end of the book. *chuck book*

 

Hah, I can agree with that. The saving grace with ASoIaF was how well written the other characters were. I was frustrated to find out that Jon wasn't really the primary focus, but I liked the other characters enough to not just give up on the book.

Wheel of Time, actually, was one of the few books that the perspective changes didn't bother me at all. I intensity disliked some of the female characters, but I enjoyed the series quite a lot. Honestly, the reason I didn't finish it was because I stopped reading for a while. I couldn't remember which book I was on, and reading everything again was a rather daunting task. I couldn't remember what had happened, so I didn't want to continue... But I also didn't want to re-read the entire series.

 

I am also one of the 80% main-character people.. different perspectives can be a great way to show your world and aspects of you character that you can otherwise not explore (appearance etc.). But many authors seem to overuse this concept. I have to identify with the character to find a book interesting and too many perspectives make this nearly impossible. Ah and multi-perspectives often lead to too much information/Info dumping which is something I hate. I like suspense and surprises in my fantasy where I don´t know what everybody is doing or worse thinking.

 

I'm acutually quite against the 80% idea. A prologue and an epilogue, fine. But I think you should either go multiple viewpoints or just one. The idea of an alternative viewpoint once every 4 chapters just seems weird.

 

Am I the only one that identified with Ned over Jon? I mean, Jon's cool and all, but fucking Ned. I got so damn pumped when Robert died and Ned got all ready to screw Lannister bitches up. The rage I felt when he died could have crushed a thousand suns.