We’ve discussed perspective quite thoroughly in previous
posts—first-person, third-person limited, and third-person omniscient, as well
as a host of perspective errors. But we haven’t much discussed stories with
multiple perspective characters, where the narrative jumps from point person’s
point-of-view to another’s and back again.
Multiple-perspective stories can be written with any type of
perspective, but these days third-person limited is the most common for these
types of stories. Third-person omniscient stories are uncommon these days in
general because they are difficult to write and to read (though they are all,
by definition, multiple-perspective stories). First-person stories, on the
other hand, can often be confusing if there is more than one perspective
because readers can easily lose track of which narrator is speaking, since all
of the narrators simply refer to themselves as “I”.
The number of points-of-view in a multiple-perspective story
can vary widely. On one extreme, you have the Harry Potter books, which feature
only two or three chapters across seven books from perspectives other than
Harry’s. On the other extreme, you have stories like George R. R. Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire series, which
follows dozens of different points-of-view and switches perspective with nearly
every chapter.
There is nothing wrong with writing a story from multiple
perspectives—if it’s good enough for Homer, Shakespeare, and Tolstoy, then it’s
good enough for the rest of us. Keep in mind, however, that writing from
multiple perspectives is much more difficult than writing from a single
perspective. If you choose to undertake this sort of difficult task, make sure
it’s a choice that serves your story. If your story needs multiple perspectives in order to cover all of the plot, then
put in multiple perspectives. If you’re only doing it because George R. R.
Martin did it, however, then that’s not a good reason.
Here are some reasons a story might need multiple perspectives:
One person can’t be
there for the whole story
Take a story like The
Empire Strikes Back. At the beginning, the rebels are driven and scattered
from their hidden base on Hoth. Luke goes to Dagobah to train with Yoda; Han,
Leia, and the others evade the Empire through a strangely-cluttered asteroid
field and then flee to Cloud City. Plot happens, and they’re (mostly) reunited at
the end.
If Luke were the only perspective character, the audience
would miss Han and Leia falling in love, the dark intrigue of their arrival at
Cloud City, their capture by Darth Vader, Han being frozen in carbonite, Lando’s
change of heart, and Leia and the others’ escape from Cloud City. If Leia were
the only perspective character, we would miss Luke’s plot-important training—from
Yoda’s reluctance to train him, “Do or do not. There is no try,” Luke’s vision
of Vader, lifting the X-wing from the swamp, Luke’s decision to disobey his
trainer to go save his friends, all the way to the climactic duel between Luke
and Vader and the famous reveal of Vader’s identity. If we were to follow only
one perspective character, then we would miss half the plot—therefore, multiple
perspectives are needed.
To avoid an
overabundance of convenient coincidences (Chosen One Syndrome)
Almost every story from any place or time relies on a
certain amount of coincidence. Characters just happen to be in the right place
at the right time to overhear just the right conversation, or Luke just happens
to crash on Dagobah within walking distance of Yoda’s house—those sorts of
things. We all accept a certain amount of implausibility for the sake of story.
But single-perspective stories tend to necessitate more
implausible coincidences than do multiple-perspective stories. Look at the
Harry Potter novels—across seven books, how many times does Harry conveniently
overhear an important conversation that he wasn’t supposed to? How many more do
Ron and Hermione happen to hear and relate to him? The sheer amount of
coincidence can get to be a little staggering. In a multiple-perspective novel,
you can give the audience all of the important plot information that they need
without having to get all of that information to a single person.
To avoid boredom
(More Chosen One Syndrome)
When plotting a story, it is a good idea to follow the
action—show whatever part of the story is most interesting and engaging, and
skip over parts that are dull or repetitive. The problem that arises in a
single-perspective character is that this means that your single protagonist
has to be there for almost every
plot-important event or conversation that ever
happens. Everything! J.K. Rowling even had to invent the pensieve so that she
could have Harry be present for plot-important events that happened before he
was even born! (And it was an excellent way to handle this problem, in my opinion.)
But not every story can whip out a pensieve when the main character needs to be
present for something plot important. More often, they have to rely on yet more
convenient coincidences and implausible situations.
When single-perspective stories try to handle this more
realistically, the story tends to become less engaging. One of the most common
complaints that I’ve heard about Mockingjay
(book three of The Hunger Games) is
that so much of the actual story happens “off-screen” while Katniss is doing
little to nothing on-screen. It was realistic to have her suffering from a
PTSD-esque problem; but planning a big, daring mission to finally go save Peeta
and then not showing us when it
happened? That was disappointing, to say the least.
Multiple-perspective stories can handily side-step this
problem. If one character has to drive for three hours before they’ll get to
where something interesting will happen, switch to a different character in a
more interesting situation. More characters get to share more of the spotlight,
and the story will usually be a bit more plausible for it.
To give greater
understanding or increase tension
Have you ever read The
Wheel of Time? There’s a character named Galad who is in and out of the
story throughout the entire fourteen books, and almost everyone hated him. He
was cold and strict, a man whose devotion to what he believed was right led him
to throw in his lot with dangerous, unthinking zealots. Or at least, that’s
what he was for ten books or so. Then, I think in the eleventh book, we were
for the first time shown a scene from Galad’s point of view. For many people,
it was a revelation. Once we could see things from his perspective, he became
sympathetic and understandable. Once scene was enough to make him suddenly
likeable for the rest of the series, even when we weren’t in his perspective.
Writing a scene from a character’s perspective is an
excellent way to get the audience to understand and sympathize with the
character, if that’s what you need. (Or, if they’re despicable enough, it’s a
good way to get the audience to quickly dislike or fear the character.)
Multiple perspectives can also increase tension. Show us a
scene from a side character’s point of view that reveals that they are a
traitor with a plan to bring down the other characters. Bam. All of a sudden,
the audience knows that something bad is coming that the main characters don’t.
That’s dramatic irony, folks, and it’s a handy tool that is only available in
multiple-perspective stories.
So there’s some handy reasons for using multiple
points-of-view in a story. Next time, we’ll go over some of the difficulties
and hazards to look out for when composing multiple-perspective narratives.
No comments:
Post a Comment