Is head-hopping always bad?
The general consensus nowadays seems to be that being in the head of more than one character is bad. We should be "on the shoulders" or "in the head" of one character, and one character only, if not throughout the novel, then at least throughout a "part" (chapter etc.). Often the POV change (note we have a POV concept,) occurs together with a geographic change - the characters we're following are in different places, experiencing different things.
However, I look at older literature, and find that this is not a universal truth. For example, in Les Misérables, we start the first part with Bishop Myriel. knowing both his thoughts and those of his sister, then we switch to Jean Valjean, then we have all three in the same scene, dipping into the heads of all three.
(I would have added quotes, but I only have the book in French. If anyone can edit in anything relevant, it would be appreciated.)
I say 'dipping into' as most of the time we are not in the head of anyone at all, we're not following any POV, but listening to an omniscient narrator, a sort of reporter who is a person unto himself, who tells us what we should know, and often comments on the occurrences, on the characters, or on relevant history and philosophy.
A more modern example, The Lord of the Rings, still has in the same passage (LotR II, chapter 3 - The Ring Goes South):
Frodo took only Sting; and his mail-coat, as Bilbo wished, remained hidden.
Frodo's POV, since he's the only one at this point who knows about the mail? Or omniscient, Frodo-centred?
Aragorn sat with his head bowed to his knees; only Elrond knew fully what this hour meant for him.
Omniscient narrator, in Elrond's head.
Sam eased the pack on his shoulders, and went over anxiously in his mind all the things that he had stowed in it, wondering if he had forgotten anything
That's clearly Sam's head.
Right in the next scene (same chapter):
At first it seemed to the hobbits that although they walked and stumbled until they were weary, they were creeping forward like snails, and getting nowhere.
Collective POV?
Away in the south Frodo could see the dim shapes of lofty mountains that seemed now to stand across the path that the company was taking.
Finally, we're in Frodo's head! He's the MC, right? (Arguments about whether he or Sam are the MC should be held elsewhere, please. Not in the comments either.)
The above examples show that, (unless someone wishes to argue that Hugo and Tolkien didn't know what they were doing,) hearing the thoughts, feelings and knowledge of more than one character in the same scene is sometimes OK. (Is it head-hopping?)
When is it OK? What about the above examples (and other similar ones) makes it OK, whereas it is not OK under different circumstances?
My first thought was that maybe the older novels don't go quite as deep into characters' heads as we do nowadays. But then I saw this is not true: right in Myriel's house, Hugo goes deep into Valjean's internal conflict, to steal or not to steal the silver. Throughout the novel, Valjean's soul is not "dipped into", but laid bare before the reader. Similarly, Tolkien gives us Frodo's (and Sam's) thoughts and feelings, his internal journey.
What is the answer, then?
This question is related, but the answer it has is "head hopping is bad", whereas I am trying to understand the examples where head hopping is apparently not bad.
1 answer
I am a scientist, and my first reaction to poorly argued questions is often to criticize the logic. Which I will do here, but before I do, I will say there is nothing inherently wrong with head-hopping if it is done right.
The bad logic here is arguing that because famous, one in a million authors have done something, it is fine for me to do it too. JK Rowling uses "-ly" adverbs all over the place, and she's the richest living author. Dan Brown's writing is heavily criticized, he's in the top 10. If you accept the logic that if something is in a million-seller book, it must be alright to do that, then we can find all sorts of terrible passages and practices in million-sellers that put together, would simply never sell. They are excused because the mistakes are overwhelmed by the imagination of an ultra-genius story teller. And 99.99% of us, including me, are just not in their company.
That said, the problem with head-hopping is not cheating the reader, or leaving the reader feeling like they have been cheated. The same problem with omniscient, the same problem with even a single POV inside the character's thoughts and feelings.
When you expose the thoughts and feelings of multiple characters, there is an implied understanding by the reader that you will expose any important thoughts and feelings of those characters. Or, if your POV jumps by chapters or geography, that while you are in a POV, you will not conceal anything important from us about that character's thoughts and feelings.
I know there are exceptions, but in general, once most readers finish a passage on what Joe is thinking, and another on what Mary is thinking, they feel "privileged" to such knowledge, and if they find out later Joe or Mary had an important secret (a plot point, a reveal, etc), they feel cheated. They were supposed to be informed of any important thoughts Joe or Mary might have, and finding out later Joe was the villain all along feels like a cheat by the author.
As other posters here have said, you have created a "contract" with the reader by the narrator revealing the thoughts and feelings of character X: Obviously the narrator always knows, so failing to report something important to the plot and story or guilt or innocence of X feels like a lie of omission, an intentional deception. Or when it comes out, it feels to the reader like an ass-pull.
These "contracts" with several or all main characters make writing some stories rather difficult, because so little can be kept from the reader without violating the contract. Sticking to a single POV character (or one at a time) with a limited narrator (not omniscient) has two advantages: In the modern market, readers like character driven stories, and identifying with the characters, or at least their struggle. IRL we are not omniscient, and that is the source of many problems. We don't know what is truly in other people's heads. We don't know what will happen or how an experiment will turn out, like a truly omniscient narrator might reveal.
So it is actually easier (IMO) to write single POV stories, and stick to the discipline that requires. It feels more intimate and I can have things going on my MC doesn't know about, so it is easier to develop surprises, twists, and have failures occur that the MC (and reader) do not see coming.
So head-hopping can and has been used successfully, but because of the implicit contract you create with the reader, it is extremely easy to screw up and create a story the reader wants to throw against the wall. Don't point at masters for your justification. Like any art, they are masters because they were successful at something extremely difficult to pull off, and on top of that, it was in their time and for their audience, both of which may be extinct!
0 comment threads
0 comment threads