An executive editor’s take on “head-hopping” point-of-view jumps

I've ranted about "head-hopping"-sudden shifts in point of view while in the close third person-that I find in published works. But then I wondered-if they're published, am I taking the wrong stance? So I surveyed a number of New York publishing pros-mostly editors, but agents and reviewers, too--and asked for their views. Here's what the executive editor of a New York publishing house has to say:

I share your peeve about "head-hopping"-apt term. So thanks for letting me blather on about it.

I think it's OK to do it so long there is only one point of view per discernible section. (RR: italics mine.) That is to say, so long as there's something to represent to the reader that there has been some kind of jump. A chapter or a space break or something.

But when it happens in the middle of continuous action, it's a serious problem. Basically, if you tell your story with recourse to everyone's head at all times, you're basically throwing out all the rules and permitting yourself everything. And if you are permitting yourself everything, then you also forfeit the right to hide anything of narrative importance-who the killer is, for instance-without cheating in a major way.

I've always tried to tell the writers that I work with that some kind of consistency of point of view-some ground rules that the reader can grasp-is an essential element of what is an epistemological problem. How does the reader know what he knows? Of course the author knows everything in advance-after all, he came up with the story. But he has to maintain the illusion that the reader and the narrative are on the same footing, discovering at the same time what the author has cooked up. After all, once the reader knows everything, the narrative is over.

Mystery stories are great examples of this kind of narrative epistemology. I always pointed out to the writers I worked with that all the Sherlock Holmes tales were narrated in the first person and by Holmes's friend, for very sound reasons. Had Doyle used third person, a reader might well ask, "If you are employing the omniscient narrator, then you know everything, including the killer's identity. In which case you should tell us!" Whereas by using Dr. Watson, he shields himself from this accusation. Dr. Watson can't possibly know the outcome in advance, and so he reports on the action and shares with the reader the process of discovery. Watson knows enough to introduce Holmes to the reader, but once the story starts, he knows as much as the reader does.

With the advent in the twentieth century of close third person, the objection on the basis of omniscience is less relevant. A writer can use a kind of limited omniscience narrative. And I think that's OK. Provided nothing is hidden. Agatha Christie used to use a Dr. Watson-like device for her Poirot novels, but then got rid of it, no doubt when she realized that simply following Poirot in close[-enough] third person was sufficient.

Still, that doesn't excuse her gross violation of this principle in The ABC Murders, where she expands her omniscience but nonetheless hides crucial elements from the reader merely as a ploy to keep the mystery going.

So I think it's very important, in head-hopping, to keep the points of view distinct through the use of clearly demarked boundaries-space breaks, chapters, etc.-and also to make sure that each point of view is seen divulging the entirety of its knowledge of the narrative. (RR: I think of this approach as "point-of-view shifts" rather than "head-hopping," the former being clearly signaled breaks limited to reasonably long, discreet segments of narrative and the latter sudden, unrestricted, unmotivated jumps in the midst of action.).

Nonetheless, I do see many bestselling works of fiction that practice "head-hopping" in continuous action, and no one seems to care. Well, not "no one," but nearly-I thought I was it until your email came along.

Perhaps in terms of encouraging writers, it's best to focus on what consistency in use of point of view can deliver, and get away from what it's meant to avoid. The masterpieces of unreliable narration, from The Aspern Papers to The Remains of the Day-not to mention Ron Howard's adaptation of A Beautiful Mind-all attest to the power of point of view. In other words, don't make point of view just a vehicle of narrative, make it a partner, or a driving force, in narrative.

I've a client who noted that head-hopping was common in her genre of romance. Yet I know an editor in romance who hates it.

More opinions on head-hopping from a top agent and others next week. What's your view?

RR

If I can help with a question about writing, email me and I'll apply a beady eye. Tell me if I can share it in a post or if you want a private consultation.

© Ray Rhamey 2004

Comments

[Vieve Montcombroux]

Hello,
I am the editor of the Calgary RWA chapter. You have a great website. Would you please give me permission to reprint "An executive editor's take on 'head hopping' point of view jumps" in the newsletter, and how do you want to be credited?
I'd be grateful.
Genevieve

[Molly Maguire]

Whenever arguments over the sanctity of certain POV protocols arises, I think of Koch's take on the furor:

“Too often, this rather fussy doctrine pointlessly constricts writers’ options and narrows their range. As for the claim that the reader can’t follow multiple or shifting points of view, it is simply false on its face. The whole history of the novel is testimony to the contrary, from Jane Austen to Thomas Pynchon. In masterpiece after masterpiece, the narrative point of view readily changes from page to page, or even from sentence to sentence and only delights as it does so. In fact, one of prose fiction’s grandest strengths, which it exercises for once in effortless superiority over all other narrative media, including the movies, is its ability to dart in and out of any character’s mind at will. To forgo this splendid artistic advantage in the name of some pallid academic theory is really madness.”
–Stephen Koch, The Modern Library Writer’s Workshop, page 90