Consider this piece:

Jenny thought about what he'd said. He was right, she was lonely and would do anything to stop him from leaving. Finally, she said, "Do you care at all?"

"Of course." Don looked away, trying to contain his angst. Should he tell her

But so it is with POV in fiction. Learn the rules first, then you can break them.

I get so many emails from writers asking how they should deal with point of view that I thought it might be interesting to discuss the subject here.

The truth is, there's no right or wrong way to do things - but there are guidelines that, if you adhere to them, will mark you out as a good and competent writer. Similarly, if you ignore them (without understanding what you're doing) then you'll most likely come across as an amateur.

Before we go on, let's make sure we know the terms of reference.

For most fiction, you have 4 basic alternatives.

1. First person, where everything is told from the limited POV of the protagonist - the classic 'I' story. Good because you can get right inside the feelings and motivations of the main character. Bad because only the narrator can propel the plot - that is, nothing can happen that the hero is unaware of.

2. Third person, where the writer (and reader) follows the action through the actions of one protagonist. Good because you can get inside and outside of the character, describing a rounded personality with some objectivity.

3. Omniscient, where the writer can describe the actions and inner feelings of all of the characters from any point of view that seems appropriate. Good because of its flexibility. Bad because it is open to abuse and mishandling.

4. A combination of all of the above.

Now, most aspiring writers have little trouble with options 1 and 2 - the limitations are relatively obvious when you use them. It's in the 3rd option where writers start to flounder.

Consider this piece:

Jenny thought about what he'd said. He was right, she was lonely and would do anything to stop him from leaving. Finally, she said, "Do you care at all?"

"Of course." Don looked away, trying to contain his angst. Should he tell her a

The truth is, there's no right or wrong way to do things - but there are guidelines that, if you adhere to them, will mark you out as a good and competent writer. Similarly, if you ignore them (without understanding what you're doing) then you'll most likely come across as an amateur.

Before we go on, let's make sure we know the terms of reference.

For most fiction, you have 4 basic alternatives.

1. First person, where everything is told from the limited POV of the protagonist - the classic 'I' story. Good because you can get right inside the feelings and motivations of the main character. Bad because only the narrator can propel the plot - that is, nothing can happen that the hero is unaware of.

2. Third person, where the writer (and reader) follows the action through the actions of one protagonist. Good because you can get inside and outside of the character, describing a rounded personality with some objectivity.

3. Omniscient, where the writer can describe the actions and inner feelings of all of the characters from any point of view that seems appropriate. Good because of its flexibility. Bad because it is open to abuse and mishandling.

4. A combination of all of the above.

Now, most aspiring writers have little trouble with options 1 and 2 - the limitations are relatively obvious when you use them. It's in the 3rd option where writers start to flounder.

Consider this piece:

Jenny thought about what he'd said. He was right, she was lonely and would do anything to stop him from leaving. Finally, she said, "Do you care at all?"

"Of course." Don looked away, trying to contain his angst. Should he tell her

1. First person, where everything is told from the limited POV of the protagonist - the classic 'I' story. Good because you can get right inside the feelings and motivations of the main character. Bad because only the narrator can propel the plot - that is, nothing can happen that the hero is unaware of.

2. Third person, where the writer (and reader) follows the action through the actions of one protagonist. Good because you can get inside and outside of the character, describing a rounded personality with some objectivity.

3. Omniscient, where the writer can describe the actions and inner feelings of all of the characters from any point of view that seems appropriate. Good because of its flexibility. Bad because it is open to abuse and mishandling.

4. A combination of all of the above.

Now, most aspiring writers have little trouble with options 1 and 2 - the limitations are relatively obvious when you use them. It's in the 3rd option where writers start to flounder.

Consider this piece:

Jenny thought about what he'd said. He was right, she was lonely and would do anything to stop him from leaving. Finally, she said, "Do you care at all?"

"Of course." Don looked away, trying to contain his angst. Should he tell her

3. Omniscient, where the writer can describe the actions and inner feelings of all of the characters from any point of view that seems appropriate. Good because of its flexibility. Bad because it is open to abuse and mishandling.

4. A combination of all of the above.

Now, most aspiring writers have little trouble with options 1 and 2 - the limitations are relatively obvious when you use them. It's in the 3rd option where writers start to flounder.

Consider this piece:

Jenny thought about what he'd said. He was right, she was lonely and would do anything to stop him from leaving. Finally, she said, "Do you care at all?"

"Of course." Don looked away, trying to contain his angst. Should he tell her

Consider this piece:

Jenny thought about what he'd said. He was right, she was lonely and would do anything to stop him from leaving. Finally, she said, "Do you care at all?"

"Of course." Don looked away, trying to contain his angst. Should he tell her about Debra? He wanted to but knew it would only make things worse. He chose to lie. "We've grown apart, Jen..."

Gwen entered the room. Instantly, she could tell something was wrong. She scanned the lovers' faces and decided to leave them to it. Head bowed, she left.

This is fairly typical of the kind of inexperienced writing I'm sometimes asked to comment on. The writer desperately wants the reader to know all sides of the story, thinking that this creates drama and intrigue - but simply put, it doesn't. It creates confusion for the reader. What's called 'head-hopping' makes a reader uneasy for one main reason:

Identification. Readers want to relate to one character at a time - it's human nature. Therefore, it would be unnatural for a character to know what another was thinking. Indeed, it's NOT knowing what the other character is thinking that goes a long way to creating drama!

The practice of 'head hopping' has all but been eradicated in most modern literature but is still prevalent in some romance, especially during love scenes. Sometimes the romance writer is so keen to let the reader know that love (or whatever) is being reciprocated that they abandon the line between two points of view and merrily leap from one brain to another, sometimes, I find, to the point of nausea!

Note this: just because something is or was common practice, doesn't make it right. Writing is a craft and we, as craftspeople, should surely learn from the mistakes of the past and seek to improve our writing techniques.

Agatha Christie was famous for her head hopping - you might be in a room with Miss Marple and half a dozen others and never knows whose head you would end up i