A novel series with multiple viewpoint characters?

As the title implies, I'm starting a new novel, possibly a series, and have been toying with the concept of having multiple point of view characters. I've never attempted this sort of thing before, and haven't spoken to anyone that has. So, question is, how would one go about it? Would it flow more naturally if each book was in only one character's POV, or could it function equally well with each chapter subtitled with the character narrating it?

Both are widely used, but the chapters thing is recommended if you have more narrators than books in a series.

Huh. This is something so natural to me that I actually had to think about how I do it. I normally switch POV when I start a new section (not necessarily a new chapter), though I've seen the "subtitled with character's name" version quite frequently as well.

I typically have multiple different viewpoint characters per chapter, and I don't bother saying who it is outside the narrative. I usually begin each subdivision with a location, a time and date, and such, and then simply establish who's talking through the story itself.

I don't really have any specific advice to give otherwise, though, without knowing what you want to do...

Flyboy/USAF I've got a question, what kind of stuff do you write?

It's easiest if you use Third Person, since in First Person you have to jump through a few hoops to make sure the audience knows who's narrating, but it depends on your writing style. What POV do you normally use?

Speaking personally, third-person limited.

I'll almost always state a POV transition with the new character's name ("Bob knew this was going to be a bad day"), except in rare circumstances.

The story I was references specifically in that post is an alternate history war drama set in a version of World War I with steampunk technology.

Otherwise, and in general, however, I write all kinds of things. Predominantly science fiction, with some fantasy here and there. If you really want to know specifically, PM me, though, so we don't derail this thread.

Oh, for multiple viewpoint characters, I must say, don't be afraid to do little snippets from the POV of irrelevant background characters with no name or importance.

For example, in one scene I have some random baker guy we never see again as the POV for the German initial invasion of France, because it was amusing and because it demonstrated that there are more than just soldiers who see warfare first hand. So, don't be afraid to use the equivalent of NPCs in a video game to show interesting and perhaps previously unconsidered viewpoints in a story past what the protagonists see.

Edit: Oh, and I kind of meander back and forth between third person limited and third person omniscient.

edited 1st Jan '12 7:14:12 PM by Flyboy

For Manifestation Files, I'm currently using 1st person. In the first two drafts, there was one chapter that goes into 3rd person limited with another character, but I deemed them pointless after revisions. In general, I tend to have close viewpoints.

However, in the sequel, I'm probably going to use two viewpoints.

I shift POV somewhat frequently in Endless Conflict. Between shifting to the main protagonist Mathias Watkins, Hilancer Anzan, Samantha Watkins, Admiral Mei Lin, Captain Roy Jansen, several one-off characters and more it happens a lot.

While ostensibly the series is about Mathias proper and his friends from a character perspective, the shifts offer their own little viewpoints into things happening elsewhere in the 'verse or on other characters. The world of Endless Conflict is simply too big to leave it as one POV and have everything else be vague cryptic references and unseen adventures.

edited 1st Jan '12 7:38:33 PM by MajorTom

Hm, all interesting takes so far.

I write all urban fantasy in first person.

I personally loath the idea of multiple first-person. I don't think it makes any sense. Multiple third person however I think is fine.

One mistake I notice some beginners, I guess you'd say, do, is they have all the viewpoints share knowledge that they shouldn't actually know, based on their place in the story, sometimes with some hasty justification. Basically they just make all the characters too knowledgeable. Be sure to watch out for that, I guess. Also try to give every character their own distinct 'voice'.

edited 2nd Jan '12 7:34:34 PM by NoirGrimoir

That last bit is actually the very reason I want to do this. To write in multiple, distinct styles, and also to justify the reader not knowing certain things.

Noir: Let's not bring personal biases into the equation. Plenty of authors use plenty of devices as a perfectly legitimate means of telling a story.

The Merlin Conspiracy by Diana Wynne Jones came to mind as an example of first person multiple, as does K.A. Applegate.

edited 1st Jan '12 9:41:59 PM by Leradny

I do a lot of multiple third person. It's a good device. Little extra perspectives are kind of fun; also, if you've got something going on that's kind of subjective between people, then it more or less has to be from the perspective of one of them to make any sense (example: recent writing of mine has a fight in which one character is casting illusions directly into the mind of the other).

I'm currently writing a novel with multiple points of view, all in first person present tense. I don't even want to think about how many people I will rub wrong. I'm having lots of fun developing several distinct voices.

Also, I have POV switches denoted by the character's name written above the chapter. I saw GRRM do it with third limited multiple PO Vs and it just seemed to me like something that makes sense. Some books that have two first person PO Vs also use that, like The Shamer Chronicles and Bloodtide by Melvin Burgess, so I just kinda assumed that it was standard procedure.

@Leradny We all bring personal preferences into everything we do and say here. I knew my opinion was a personal preference and labelled it as such, I don't see a problem with that, as long as I acknowledge that it is a personal preference, and not something that was universal. Please don't scold me for something so small and silly.

I don't like the idea of having to label where each character switches in, but if you are going to write multiple-first person, it's the best way to make sure no one is confused.

edited 2nd Jan '12 7:42:02 PM by NoirGrimoir

Multiple first-person, if not executed with the utmost cleverness, is a bitch to write and read alike. Unless you plan to leaven the mix with some nice, old-fashioned third-person limited, tread carefully.

Third-person limited is Newer Than They Think. Sorry, just had to point that out after your "nice old-fashioned".

Pretty much everything I write is multiple first person. When the viewpoint gets too choppy for first person to handle, I go full-out omniscient. Again, this too is only my own personal preference, but I just cannot do third limited in any shape or form. If I'm going to be limited anyway, I want to use first so that I'm getting fully inside the character. I don't see the problem with it, since first-person narrative is an artifical device anyway (no-one remembers action, and especially not dialogue, to that level of detail) so I don't need to see an explanation of how this text came to be — I just accept that an author is pretending to get inside his or her characters.

Oh, I forgot. An example of multiple 1st-person (with present tense and hints of dialect syntax to boot) is The Help.

Since The Help became a best-seller, it can be done well.

I had a story three or four years ago that had multiple first person narrators. I think I did a pretty okay job of giving them their own unique voices. I wouldn't do it now though because my characters have annoying tics that would show up in the narration like cursing too much or using too much Buffy Speak. It's fine for dialogue but an entire story like that? I would annoy the readers very quickly.

As of right now my stories are all rotating narrators in the third person. I still need to work a bit on giving them unique voices, even if it is third person.

Why?

Well, if you think of it in terms of the narrator is telling you this story after it's happened, which is the original way stories were passed on, in most cases it makes no sense for the story to jump around in different people's perspectives (the exception would be if they were acknowledged as written documents, like diary entries or case files or such things, or if the narrators acknowledge that they are taking over the story, but most stories that use this don't do any of those things, so it makes no sense from what you'd call a meta-perspective, I guess). If someone were telling you this story it would make no sense for them to suddenly be talking about someone else while still saying 'I' and even if it did, it would be really confusing and weird, and if multiple people were telling the story, there would be some kind of interaction or other indication the perspective was changing that writing can't do well.

So basically we are just hopping around in people's minds back and forth and it's often pretty jarring, and what's worse, it's really jarring and awkward when you have to straight up label whose perspective you're in, and if you don't it's downright confusing. Even if the individual perspective are good and well written, having them switch-off back and forth is just annoying. It's not going to immediately turn the writing to trash but it is going to bring it down a bit, IMO. Besides there's nothing first person can do that Third-Person Omniscient can't, and on top of that TPO is not confusing and makes more sense from a logical perspective.

Also, popularity or profitability is not necessarily reflective of quality.

edited 13th Jan '12 10:20:12 PM by NoirGrimoir

But what's the point of using TPO when you can just write in multiple first person? I like reading TPO, War And Peace is one of my most favourite books ever, but really, what's the point in having that barrier between you and your characters? Something not matching your personal preferences is not an indication of low quality.

And the story doesn't need to be told by someone. I always saw first person as the character's stream of consciousness, in-the-now (especially when written in present tense), not a story being told after the fact (unless that's the established framing.)

(Though I do find the idea of the narrators interacting and acknowledging the switch in perspective in a first person past-tense story. I'll try writing something like that one day.)

edited 14th Jan '12 5:42:01 AM by fanty

This is my opinion of the matter. Personally, I find it more jarring when a 1st person narrator addresses the audience, since it's something 3rd person narrators don't do as often.

I never got the concept that if a character is narrating a story, that means they survived the story. What keeps them being killed at the absolute end anyways? Unless there's a framing device in place, I'm always presuming that the narrator is telling what just happened.

Thinking about it, I think I might have adopted this mind-set when writing 1st person past tense to fix plausibility factors, like how they can remember everything after the fact. Another problem is when the narrator is recounting stuff he didn't understand at the time but does later.