Character-based Chapter Structure & Plot development

[George]

I thought it might be interesting to have members share their thoughts on the concept of dividing novels into chapters based specifically on individual characters…a classic case in point of this story development mechanic would be George RR Martin’s Fire and Ice series. How does this structure affect the mechanics of story flow and plot development? Are there any inherent advantages/disadvantages to taking this story development approach as opposed to allowing a story to unfold based on method of plot progression? From a personal perspective, I noticed that I labored through sections of Dances with Dragons because I found that, near the end of the novel, there were chapters strung together, developed around characters who held little or no interest for me as a reader…I’ve yet to finish the novel.
At any rate, what are members’ thoughts on this approach to story and plot structure?

[Traci]

It all depends if you like the characters I guess...I think I do like it more than I do straight first person. I'm the type of reader that rarely likes the main character best. My favorites tend to be the best friends, the underdogs, and definitely the villains. So to me first person is too narrow. But that wasn't your question...I do like they way ASoIaF is set up. It's a good way of getting inside the head of each character. Would Jaime have gone from being one of the most hated characters to one of the most liked without his individual chapters. And GRRM is very good at it. Each character has their own voice and he writes differently for each. I just finished Brandon Sanderson's Elantris. It too almost has this style. The story bounces back and forth between the main three characters. I enjoyed it. I can't think of any others that do this though.

[Brandt]

It depends on the quality of the characters, and if the progression of the plot makes it logical..
I thought it worked well in the Mistborn novels, at first at least, where we followed Vin and Kelsier mostly.. Later on it seemed to me that with the increasing number of characters that got followed, that Sanderson sometimes just "checked in" on them. without having no real reason to do so plot-wise.. That made for some boring chapters, where the character just had a lot of inner dialogue..
In aSoIaF i think that it at times was obvious that we only followed certain characters because the reader needed "eyes" in a particular part of the world, the onion knight (or what ever he was called) for example. (I have only read the first three, so i dont know if there are some sort of silver-lining regarding him).
All in all, i'll say that the following of multiple characters is best suited for political and epic fantasy, where we need eyes a lot of different places in order to understand whats going on.

[Sandra]

I moved this to General Fantasy Discussions, as the TOPIC IN FOCUS folder is for moderators to start discussions. Interesting topic though.

[Paul]

I think a lot of it has to do with how much of the story you want to see. The use of multiple characters allows you to see the big picture. If done well, then the author can show you things that his other characters do not know and build tension. The down side is that if you know everything. There is little suspense.

If there is meant to be any air of mystery then the use of multiple characters while hiding things from you, the reader, could be a cheat. If there is mystery then the point or view should, I think, be limited (a small group of linked protagonists maybe) or first person.

Epic fantasy certainly lends itself to multiple characters but it can be overdone. Too many and not only can you get lost but the narrative loses its potency as the time between visits to each character gets far too long. Before you know it, you're skim reading the 'boring' ones to get to those you like.

[K.A.]

I'm almost done with Song of Ice & Fire right now, and I have to say I found the immediate jumping around to multiple characters' points of view confusing. I think it's okay if you have established who those characters are previously, but just jumping into it caused me to forget who each of them were by the time I got back to them. It also seemed to make the plot move along interminably slowly.

I have to second the "skimming the boring ones" issue. Unfortunately I haven't formed any connection with any of the characters at this point so I'm now doing a lot of skimming. That being said, the third book in my series is written from mutiple points of view in a chapter format; but I feel like everyone should know them by that time.

It does lend itself to battle scenes where the action is happening on multiple fronts at the same time and you will miss out on part of what's happening if you don't view it through several characters' eyes. It also is helpful where different characters are starting from different locations but will eventually end up together, or vice-versa...

[Stacia]

I'm going to agree with just about everyone else, I love character POV chapters (I like the behind-the-scenes feeling I get from books written in that manner), but that structure is a chore when you're dealing with POV's that just don't interest you. I love ASOIAF, but with A Dance With Dragons, I slogged through because there was so little from characters I love (which made me have an attitude with the way the story was unfolding), and so much from characters I could care less about (which bored me). I'm currently reading the Liveship series, and with Ship of Magic, it took me forever to get into the book because I didn't care for the characters in the beginning who got POV chapters. I kept saying, "Argh, Kennit. I don't feel like reading him today" and putting the book down. In The Way of Kings, I loved every POV (which is a first for me), so I thought the structure worked well. However, I question whether that level of interest can be sustained for me in subsequent books, especially as the scope broadens even more and new, possibly boring, characters are introduced.

[Ann]

From a writer's perspective, the weaving of POV and plot is essential to a tightly-written novel. I find my own writing flows better if I stick with not more than three points of view in a 100K word novel. Sometimes I'll use a story board, or a variation of the Snowflake Method to make sure I don't have loose plot threads kicking around.
I've read all the GRRM books except ADWD. There were characters I really didn't care about, so I just skipped those parts. It really didn't seem to matter all that much. e.g. I didn't feel like I was left with any more missing data than GRRM chose to leave out. Actually, it was handy that the chapters had character names. That way I could decide if I wanted to read that chapter or skip to the next.
Somewhere earlier in this string, someone brought up the Liveship Series from Hobb. I absolutely agree that this series didn't come alive until well into the initial book. But a lot of her writing is like that. The only series that wasn't was the Assassin one.

[Jonathan]

I love POV and indeed am writing a novel from four different character's perspectives.

I actually dislike the later ASoIaF books but Mistborn did it well.

For me it works where characters are central to the storyline but really doesn't when it comes down to some drawn out sub plot.

[Marc]

As long as the plot is advanced by the character switch there's no problem. If it's done simply to give a character some face time, or to show off how clever the author is, then it shouldn't be done.
Heinlein did it too, in the Number of the Beast, but his characters are so similar to each other it's hard to tell without a header.

[K.A.]

Marc wrote: "As long as the plot is advanced by the character switch there's no problem. If it's done simply to give a character some face time, or to show off how clever the author is, then it shouldn't be don..."

Yeah - this is what I'm getting from some of "A Song...", I think. Like, "it's time to do a chapter about character so-and-so even though I don't have anything constructive to say other than to describe what people are wearing today." It really interrupts the flow of the action. It's like a car with a clog in the fuel line.

[Olga]

Many writers use this approach, and not only in fantasy. It's very useful in romance, where two protagonists always have their own way towards the happy ending. But more than three chapter POVs in one novel is definitely too much. I wrote 2 novels using this technique. It's very convenient for developing a richer plot: there are motivations of two characters on display. On the other hand, when there is one POV throughout the story (and I've written those too) the novel tends to be more focused. I guess it's a matter of balance.

[S.J.]

I agree with everyone above who said that writing from multiple points of of view lends itself to "skimming" through the points of view the reader finds less interesting. I tended to do this when reading Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series for example: skipping over the characters and plot-lines I found less interesting to get to the really good stuff! Having said that, writing from multiple points of view really opens up the story because you can have your characters moving off in different directions from each other, causing them to grow, change and add depth (and interest) to the story. You can also reveal information to the reader from multiple angles - bringing them to the conclusion you want them to perceive after they've managed to put all the different information they gleaned from each POV together... the big "AH HA!" Writing from one POV makes it much more difficult to do that but easier to hide stuff from the reader. I've found that a series seems to work better from multiple points of view since there is more time to develop plots and characters over multiple books. The trick is to make all the plot-lines and characters captivating. That's not easy to do when readers have such strong individual preferences in what they like to read. Skimming is here to stay I fear!

[Sandra]

I edited the thread title to lower case figuring you didn't want to shout at us.

[Benjamin]

I wrote my novel in this way. The chapters alternate between four main POV characters (two female, two male) throughout the book. They aren't all together all the time; there's some separation and recombination as the plot develops.

It was an interesting experience because I had to make sure that each character got their fair share of time, but I also had to ensure that the story moved along and that important plot developments could still occur without having to shoehorn characters into places. A lot of the story grew organically out of "What would happen next after these two characters end up travelling together?" rather than trying to figure out ways to throw the characters together to meet some particular goal.

It was fascinating taking two different characters who are approaching each other in a wary romantic relationship and writing what they each perceive of the other person: how their history, their fears, and their wants shape the way they interact.

[Cecile]

I much prefer a unique POV, though up to three is still fine for me. Too many POVs can be confusing, or boring for the characters that aren't so interesting.
Robin Hobb did a great job with a unique POV in her Assassin's series, the main character felt very real that way. After all, in real life we only have our own unique POV.

When there are multiple POVs, I like it better when each chapter sticks to one (I hate when it changes from one sentence to the next).

[S.J.]

Cecile wrote: "....I like it better when each chapter sticks to one (I hate when it changes from one sentence to the next).

Me too (with rare exceptions). I find it really hard to follow a story when POV changes abruptly and without warning... my brain is always running to catch up.

[K.A.]

I agree that each chapter should stick to one, ideally, or at least not jump back and forth (maybe one change if the chapter is based on a specific event, seen from two points of view). The other thing I don't like is when an author returns to a specific point of view just because it's "time" in the layout of the book, rather than because that character's viewpoint is essential at that point. I would rather read, say, two-thirds in one POV and one-third in various other POV if that's the best way to keep the flow going and tell the story without forcing a POV just because you had it in there before (for example, every third chapter is this character's POV whether it's necessary or not).

[L.E.]

In G W Dahlquist's Glass Book of the Dream Eaters and the sequel the Dark Volume the chapters are rotated, character 1, 2, 3 all sequentially. Usually events are running in conjunction with each other just at a different location, which means you end one chapter with "so he jumped in the urn to hide." Followed by the start of the opening chapter "He thought he saw him jumping in the urn for some reason."

It took a few chapters for me to get used to it, but by the end, as there were 3 main characters of equal importance I think it worked.

[K.A.]

Yes - I think that would work fine where the characters are of equal importance and each have something interesting to say at the given appointed time. I'm just opposed to it where the POV is returned to because it's "time" rather than because the point of view is necessary (or even interesting).

I'm reading Elantris right now and the rotating POV works fine; each character has important info to impart at that particular point in time, and there's a tie-in between the chapters.

[Pauline]

Cecile wrote: "When there are multiple POVs, I like it better when each chapter sticks to one (I hate when it changes from one sentence to the next)."

Totally agree, this drives me nuts. Sometimes it's unavoidable, and I read one book where I think the author chose to do it deliberately at a critical point to create a sense of jumpy dislocation (it worked!). But it's better to stick to one per chapter, I think.

What I do like is when an author is able to tell a single story by weaving the different POVs together, so although a chapter change hops to a different character, to the reader the story just flows on seamlessly. It's very hard to do, and usually the different POVs are following different independent sub-plots, which is probably easier to write but less interesting to read. But when they all work towards the same end, it's very effective. George R R Martin managed it best in Clash of Kings, and Daniel Abraham is brilliant at it, especially in his sci-fi books. At the moment I'm reading The Queen of Mages by Benjamin Clayborne (who posted upthread) and he does it very well too.

[carol.]

I'm a reader, not a writer. Currently, one of my pet peeves is the multiple POV narrative. I think it is very rarely done well, and more frequently stands in for poor writing. Can't figure out how to create tension with the current character? Plot line not going anywhere? No problem--switch characters so we don't have to explain something ominous is going to happen! Not sure how to end the chapter? No problem--switch characters! How can I write the impact my lead is having on the love interest? Switch characters!

As you can tell, I truly feel it is rarely done well. There's a few series that I've read with over 10 books to a particular character, so I don't feel like it needs to be done to keep the character "fresh," if it's written well. Granted, it happens more often in mysteries, but many UF stick with the same lead.

[Rich]

I don't write chapters in one POV or another. Chapters in my stories generally stick to one POV, especially when all of the main characters all working together. However, I have specific scenes which focus on a character and at that time, I must shift the POV. This is really the only time I do this. When the characters split into groups or are all together, one POV prevails.

[Adam]

In terms of POV, if a story is focused on one protagonist, then most of the time, the POV should stay on that character I think. But with multiple protagonists, switching POV is often necessary.

[Clifford]

As a device I think it can be done well but it is difficult to carry off for many writers. In Martin's series I find it can actually inhibit my emotional engagement with the main characters because we are always jumping about. My writing is generally single PoV through the eyes of the main protagonists in order to build that connection. Otherwise it's a bit like Facebook: nobody really has 100,200 or 300 actual "friends" Fewer PoVs makes for greater intimacy in my view.

[Todd]

I'm currently reading Desert Spear Brent Peter does POV quite well, as does GRRM, but I'm on the fence, as much as I enjoy it when it is well written, the omnipresence takes a little away from my ability to escape into the story. With multiple POV you're left occasionally wondering why characters are so stupid.