Is it acceptable to break the story up into POVs to show how the characters' stories all tie together?
I'm writing a novel. At 56k words, I've become a little nervous about how I've been building the story.
BACKGROUND:
I started this book with the introduction of the main character, Jules and a brief introduction to the major character Derek.
The second chapter introduces a major character, Loren.
The third chapter introduces a major character, Kale.
From then on, I cycle through all four until I reach a point where they all finally come together. They do actually cross paths. I wanted them to have a very close and connected story line. It's just a fun sort of thing for the reader.
Jules meets Loren by chapter 5.
Derek finds Kale by chapter 8.
All four of them are brought together by chapter 10.
They stay together until chapter 13, where they split up in pairs to accomplish two tasks.
This is when the major plot comes calling and chaos (so to speak) is unleashed.
When split up, I've focused mostly on Jules as he faces the antagonist and ultimately stops them. This is worded poorly.
Most of the resolution of the conflict occurs in Jules' scenes (with Loren and a minor character). The others are not forgotten or abandoned. One is injured, but they have a chapter of what happens during the same time that Jules is working to end the chaos.
Please don't worry about my plot so much as the question below. This is only the first draft.
ACTUAL QUESTION:
From a publisher's standpoint and a reader's standpoint, assuming that the story is compelling and the ideas are interesting:
Is it acceptable to break the story up into POVs to show how their stories all tie together?
In other words, will a publisher want to publish the novel and will the reader want to read it?
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/34842. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
3 answers
Of course. Yes. All the time.
One advantage of this approach is that the reader can (almost) always know more that the point of view character.
Another advantage is the ability to explore a complex issue from multiple sides. Imagine your POV alternating with that of whomever you imagine to be your worst nightmare.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/34845. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
It is fine to do that, many authors do that. However, the question the reader will have is what happened to the other two characters? You made them prominent in the beginning, getting equal time for all, now they are sidelined while one guy finishes the story ... You have wasted my time talking about those two.
At least that is how it sounds from your description. Don't they have a job to do? Why aren't they involved in this to the end? Your story would have more suspense if you still gave them equal time, and a job to do that at least contributes to Jules finally winning, instead of making it all a one-man show.
The publisher only cares if the reader's will be satisfied enough to recommend the book to others, she wants to make sales to pay her rent. So they will not be interested if you don't keep your "promise" to the reader. The beginning of the book "promises" (indirectly) to the reader that all four characters are equally involved or responsible for the outcome, (be they heroes or villains), and it sounds to me like you break that promise after the split up.
Perhaps you fell in love with Jules and decided to give him all the responsibility. Fall out of love and make him need the help of his friends, even if it is Jules that delivers the final blow.
0 comment threads
What you are describing is quite acceptable. G.R.R. Martin uses this method in "Song of Ice and Fire", with many many more characters: each chapter follows a different POV character, with 7+ POV characters per book. Another example would be Diana Wynne Jones's "The Merlin Conspiracy", alternating between two POV characters, or Michael Ende's "Neverending Story", again alternating between two POVs, in many publications also using different text colours for the two.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads