Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/16498
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

As Lauren Ipsum points out, whether it is necessary to employ different POVs depends on the story you want to tell.

Personally, I try to keep my stories as simple as possible. This includes limitting the number of narrators to the smallest possible amount that is still able to carry the story. The reasons are manifold:

- A clear structure allows the reader to follow you easily. This will help people to pick up your book and stay on track. 
- Equally, telling a story of just one character is easier than juggling three or even more. There is authors who excell at this, Hans Fallada for example was a master of telling multiple stories at once. I, on the other hand, fail when faced with a story that demands more than one narrator, because: 
- If a characters acts as a narrator, he should contribute something substantial to the story. Plus, he must be a convincing character. Developping convincing characters, however, is time-consuming. Finally fitting these characters into a coherent story, for me, is close to impossible, because there will always be contradictions and passages during which one character does all the narrating and the other is basically silent. This is my problem: If I read a story told by multiple narrators, what I essentially expect is multiple novels that are elegantly braided together to make up one story. This, in my experience, is a tedious amount of work that will generate a lot of frustration and structuring problems. 

However: Even limitting your number of narrators to the bare minimum does of course not imply that the other characters have to stay silent. There is a vast amount of "tricks" that allow you to tell their stories as well, if you wish, even without granting them "screen time". I explored these tricks years ago when I wrote a novella about a teenage boy who shot his best friend. I was very interested in how his relatives dealt with the situation, but couldn't bear to give each of them a narrator, because that would have bloated the text unnecessarily and obscured the story I was mainly interested in, i.e. the story of the boy himself. What I did is I actively looked for ways to incorporate the feelings and anxieties of the boy's relatives in the story. I found ordinary diologue to be immensely useful - not only between my narrator and the character in question, but between other characters as well, eavesdropping be praised! -, but obviously more subtle possibilities exist, too. Unearthing these possibilities takes time and intuition. But it improves your manuscript, since you actively think about what you want to tell and why it is important (or is it?).

Original score: 0