POV Revisited!

WOW! What a crap storm my post on POV stirred up--at least on Twitter. It seems there are some who took exception to the notion of writing your story in a fixed point of view. One fellow on Twitter even went so far as to claim a single POV is a lazy way of writing. So by his rationale, Harper Lee's To Kill A Mockingbird is lazy. That brilliant novel is written from one POV. Never once does Ms. Lee stray from the point of view of Scout Finch. So, too, is Alice Sebold's The Lovely Bones, Daniel Woodrell's masterpiece Winter's Bone, and White Oleander by the amazing Janet Fitch. This tweeter is either bold or ignorant.

This same individual claimed my post suggested writing in only one POV and never straying from this idea. Yet, near the end of that post, I wrote: Sure, it's not a problem if one character tells the story in one chapter, while another character takes over in the next. Have a read of the brilliant Barbara Kingsolver novel The Poisonwood Bible to see it done properly. But to shift the POV in the middle of a scene or chapter is confusing to the reader. Who the hell is telling the story? Entice your readers, enthrall them, but don't confuse them. Who wants to shell out hard-earned money just for the headache that comes with confusion?

What? Didn't he read the entire post? Hmm. Sure seems that way to me.

I actually love the idea that one of my little posts could get a few people talking. The point of view is seriously important. To switch the POV within a scene will expose the author as amateur. Yes, I said amateur.

And the all-knowing POV is plausible, sure, but it is considered outdated by many publishers and reviewers. It was argued that it doesn't take God to know what every character is thinking. Fine. But it would take a mind reader.

In Jazz Baby, Emily Ann is telling the story. She's not a mind reader, and God isn't telling the story, so we never know what Tanyon Thibbedeaux is thinking. We don't know what Jobie Pritchett is up to when he's away from Emily, because Emily isn't a remote viewer. She tells us what she sees and knows. That is a single POV story. If I'd decided to share what the other characters thought or what they did in their alone-time, I could have given them their own chapters to ponder these things. That's perfectly acceptable--as I clearly pointed out with the Poisonwood Bible reference. But to shift a POV in the middle of the same scene--that's just plain awful. Argue for it as loudly as you want. It's still crap.

So why argue this point? Why put words in my mouth at which I never even hinted? Because that's an individual who clearly doesn't comprehend the concept of POV. The bottom line: the author can write whatever and however he/she chooses. But there are readers, reviewers, and publishers that will reject blatant disregard for simple writing mechanics. But, hey, what do I know?