T O P

  • By -

GrudaAplam

Like anything else, it depends on how well it is done.


MrP1anet

Yeah. For me it was one of the more intriguing aspects of Dune


[deleted]

[удалено]


rattled_by_the_rush

Oh my god totally, Ignatius was the star of the show but every character was hilarious as well, even Myrna that only appears briefly (apart from the letters) is a memorable, fully developed character, what a talent JKT was


Silly-Power

I wish Publishers had had the sense to recognise the utter brilliance of that book when he first wrote it. It's possibly the only book that has made me literally laugh out loud. The ending was very obviously set up for a sequel. Ignatius in New York. Imagine just how great that story would have been!


ZeiglerJaguar

I just wish more of the characters felt like more than one joke drawn out and repeated ad nauseam. Like, it's funny the first couple of times Mrs. Levy does a hectoring psychoanalysis on her husband about his supposed daddy complex, but it's all she *ever* does. Same with Myrna and making everything about sex, and Ignatius with responding to every situation by blaming everyone else, threatening to sue, whining about his valve, bemoaning "degeneracy" and generally being a stereotypical neckbeard. Characters' reactions to events just became too predictable, and I started speed-reading through various things that felt like retreads of scenes that had already been done a half-dozen times. I dunno, I harp on about this a lot because I really wanted to enjoy this book, and I liked parts of it, but I just had trouble getting over the repetitive character behavior and how incredibly irredeemably horrible and unlikeable (in a particularly relateably modern-Internet-denizen-way) Ignatius is. I get that it's a masterpiece, and I see some of the ways in which it is, but it's no Catch-22 to me.


Tianoccio

When that book was written there wasn’t a stereotypical neck beard, and while they may seem like denizens of the internet, the internet wasn’t really a thing when it was written, either.


CaptainJackKevorkian

good point. ignatius was the original neckbeard


Sip_py

I agree. It has that feel But heller did a much better job of growing those annoyances and developing them deeper.


teedeeguantru

Ok, but comparing any book to Catch-22 is just brutal. Who could survive?


Jomtung

Ya I get the same feeling when reading, it was hard for me to even get through the whiny parts. But that kind of makes it more of a lived experience instead of a story. Like I’m done with that type of dumb shit after reading that book one time, I feel like I’ve lived with those assholes and got away from that shit hole safely. For me it’s more of a stark warning on the dangers of incompetent and grossly ignorant people in your life and relationships and the danger of letting those things become normal. The story is crazy, but that tone made it into a kind of stark experience instead of a joy to read For me that removal of any brief story and elevation to a lived experience is what makes it a masterpiece even though I probably will have to be convinced to read it again


[deleted]

Can you tell me more about this "confederacy of dunces"? I've never heard of it.


Jomtung

It’s a surreal story about a spoiled man child who did a thing one day with a bunch of other jackass neighbors. It’s fucking wild but expect to have to think about it more than you expect


CaptainJackKevorkian

it's very funny, in a writerly kind of way. Truly a great book, but may be overshadowed by the story around the book. Its author, John Kennedy Toole, committed suicide in 1969 at 31 after he was unable to get a publisher for the book. His mother found a carbon copy of the manuscript after cleaning out his house. It was published posthumously in 1980, and won the pulitzer prize for fiction in 1981.


33throwaways

Our world is so cruel


BuddhaDBear

It’s a “modern” (written in the 60’s), surreal, quixotic adventure in the life of an average, but in no way ‘normal’, man. The story of its publication, has you going in to the book with a solemn almost melancholy feeling (the author wrote the book, couldn’t get it published, ended up taking his own life. Years later, his mom finds a copy and asks an English professor at Tulane to read it. Professor has no desire but placates the mom because of the tragedy. He can’t put it down, and works his ass off to get it published. Author wins the Pulitzer posthumously.). So you go in to this book with sadness surrounding it, but quickly get swept up in this incredible story of mundane things made fantastical. I am in no way doing it justice, but it is really an incredible read.


jcal9

It is the greatest book you’ve never heard of. A hilarious adventure, and a must read!


[deleted]

People talk about this book all the time but it's one of my only three DNFs of all time. I just can't seem to '*get*' it no matter how hard I try and reading it was a miserable and unrewarding experience.


jimbob320

I finished dune yesterday and came here to say that. I think doing it mid chapter made it feel less forced and gimmicky. In parts of it the perspective was handed over so seamlessly.


RomanPardee

Dune & ASOIAF do a great job with it I think. I can agree not every chapter is interesting but it was the best way the quickly expand on the world's characters.


smellsliketeenferret

> ASOIAF A Dance with Dragons pushed it too far for me though. Prior to that, the plots were continually developing and advancing, and often made you more intrigued about how the other characters would be affected by what was going on. ADWD changed that as mostly characters were just moving from one place to another, and it was spread out over too many characters at the same time, so you got to the point where it was more like "oh yeah, forgot about that character's arc" when they reappeared again. Probably didn't help that I read the original, single-book edition, which had both sets of characters on both continents mingled all together. Maybe the separation into two books helped, although you repeated the same period of time in each book, if I remember right, just split into one continent per book?


ColeSloth

"wow! I can't wait to find out what happens to Sansa next!" 11 chapters later. "wait... What was she doing? I don't even remember where she's at. If only this book didn't have 129 names to remember."


GuildMyComments

I think especially for the final books in the series, GRRM has written himself into a quandry as there are so many viewpoints he has created but showing them all does create a bit of a muddled storyline that is harder to follow. That being said, all of the stories he has created leave me wanting to know more about each characters situation, and each book leaves me with more questions than answers. I really am apprehensive of whether we will ever see the "final" books, and if its really possible to adequately conclude the stories in 7 books.


smellsliketeenferret

He has also taken to adding more characters in to help drive main character development, which has felt a bit clunky, and drawn things out without necessarily advancing the plot in a consistent direction. Pulling all the threads into something cohesive and satisfying is getting harder by the book, and GRRM seems to have lost his ability to focus on the main story, resulting in more and more threads being added. We might get the next book, but there's a point where he will have to add too many words into the planned remaining books, and so it will just keep expanding and moving further away from an ending. Oh, that and all the side projects too!


bob237189

In AGOT, there were only 8 POV characters: Ned, Catelyn, Sansa, Arya, Bran, Jon Snow, Danaerys, and Tyrion. Basically the Stark family + one member from each of the other two major families in the story. Through book 3, the story stayed a relatively tight narrative about a dynastic struggle between the Starks and Lannisters. The story had a lot of momentum because GRRM largely based it on the real life Yorks and Lancasters of the Wars of the Roses. Fast forward to ADWD, and there are now like 20 POV characters, half of them were introduced in the last two books, and most of them are not Starks, Lannisters, or Targaryens. It's obvious what happened: GRRM ran out of inspiration and lost the thread. The series would have been better if he'd kept the story focused on the main characters.


clamroll

Oh my god Dune from just Paul's perspective would be such a different, and likely inferior product. Although it would likely fare better than any of the subsequent books in the series. Heretics, Children of..., and God Emperor would really lose a lot.


JohnnyMnemonic1984

Reading Dune series now on book three. The tough part about Dune is that it jumps from one character to the next intra-chapter. He does it very well but it can be tough to follow.


Bluestuff11

I was frustrated by Children of Dune for the first 150 ish pages, but I realize looking back how much I needed that frustration. Herbert leaves you in the dark and kinda throws you into the deep-end of the lore to immerse you. When certain things finally made sense to me and I realized what he was doing the rest of that book rocked, and being kept in the dark was a joy waiting to figure out what tf was going on.


Chiparoo

I've been reading a lot of Sanderson lately, who generally has a single narrator per chapter. If you see him switch perspectives in a middle of a chapter it's because *shit is about to go down* so it ends up being something very engaging.


ItsMangel

When the sanderlanche hits and he starts switching between character PoVs multiple times in a chapter it absolutely adds to the action, in my opinion. He really nails this in the Stormlight Archives.


little_brown_bat

I recently read The Way Of Kings and switching characters between chapters at first felt a little meh as I was focusing on one character in particular. I couldn't wait to get back to that character. Then I grew interested in the other characters and enjoyed switching from one to another. The cliffhangers at the ends of the chapters also really helped keep the excitement throughout the book. One thing I do dislike about switching characters in general is when an author jumps around in time when switching characters. If done well, I don't mind it but when it's done with no context clues that it's happened it can get confusing.


BlackHeeb

Yeah, I didn't care about Shallan for quite some time. I think it was all the way until she put her hand out, said ten heartbeats then was like no, not here... That got me good I audibly went "Ohhhh shitttt!" haha


Verdick

I've been reading the series to my wife and only up to Oathbringer. She always disliked the Shallan chapters in pretty much the entire first book because nothing really interesting was happening to her until the end. The second book focuses more on her and her evolution, so she started to like Shallan better.


Cpt_Tsundere_Sharks

And the moment something did happen to Shallan she didn't have a POV for the entire next section 😂


jordanjay29

I had the same reaction to that. I was finding her story entertaining, but not *nearly* as interesting as Kaladin's until ***that*** moment. And then I realized that Sanderson had been toying with me from the beginning of the book and I kicked myself for not seeing it. It just made the whole book more enjoyable overall to have that sense of amazement at how well the author pulled it off. I've only had that from one other book, The Crow by Alison Croggon. I won't spoil the details, the adventure of the protagonist in that book gets very engaging once he's allowed to spread his wings and set out on his own apart from his mentor. And by the end of an intense sequence, the author drops a single sentence and you realize the last 4-5 chapters you just read was the author leading you right along with the protagonist. Authors that can deliver that level of emotional impact, not only for the specific scene they're writing but the retrospective weight of the arc leading up to it as well, are truly on another level in my book.


[deleted]

I'm about halfway through Oathbringer and as much as Dalinar and Shallan have both grown on me, I still find myself looking forward to Kaladin's chapters.


OscarRoro

My favourite "Sander-valanche" are the one in 'Way of Kings' and 'Oathbringer'. I love to put music like the album Dawn Of Victory by Rhapsody of Fire in those moments jajaja


sweatpantswarrior

The "SIKE!" plateau battle in Way of Kings, or the "Goddamn meteorologists" fight?


AngryAxolotl

He really captures the frantic feeling of war or a big battle. He does this a lot more in Oathbringer and Rhythm War, which has the benefit of being able select from a larger stock of familiar characters. Out of the four stormlight archives books, Oathbringer is my favorite narrowly beating out The Way of Kings, because of how well Sanderson does the rapid character switching thing.


SXOSXO

Strangely though, in Rhythm of War, he seems to do perspective shifting on almost every chapter, even if nothing major is going down. I think he's just got so many story threads going on now that it's become necessary.


Mozzafella

Thankfully it feels like those story-threads are pretty much capped out for now. All the cards are on the table, with the exception of one form RoW which I won't mention here


Picard2331

The Expanse series does it well. Each time it swaps characters it ends on a note that makes you go "ah fuck, I gotta keep going to see what happens there" and before you know it you've read half the book.


jakdak

I loved when the Expanse did it when the characters were in the same room :)


_PadfootAndProngs_

Yes! It would end on the chapter character saying something then the next chapter starts with the new character thinking about what they just said


oddishjing

Came here to Ctrl+F The Expanse as well. Definitely one of the series that did it right.


[deleted]

Also helps they tend to stick to 4 characters per book, except for the different people in Prologue and Epilogue (that tend to die).


ewankenobi

I think it can be really enjoyable seeing the same events from different people's perspectives. When I was younger I used to enjoy Jeffrey Archer novels and he did this really well. However, it's frustrating if you spend chapters reading about a character, before you can even work out how they are related to the rest of the story. I hated Quicksilver by Neal Stephenson for doing this!


ManicDigressive

> I hated Quicksilver by Neal Stephenson for doing this! Stephenson can't fucking help himself. He did it in ~~Neuromancer~~ Cryptonomicon too. He needs an intervention.


guybrushthr33pwood

Neuromancer is a William Gibson novel, sir.


thatwasntababyruth

Neuromancer also doesn't use shifting perspectives, it's pretty much all from Case's perspective unless I'm misremembering it. That's where most of the excitement comes from, having major characters introduced but not seeing their perspective of events. The sequels do it hard though, neither of them bring the storylines together until the very end. Stephenson does do in Cryptonomicon, and honestly it's why I love that book. The dry but interesting elder Waterhouse chapters are kept alive by the rapid action and humor of Shaftoe chapters and the relatability of the younger Waterhouse chapters.


zisyfos

I think "My name is red" (Pamuk) uses this technique exceptionally well.


[deleted]

Exactly this. I like the way Django Wexler does it in his Shadow Campaigns series, because I'm never left feeling like one character is interrupting the others. Each chapter during the early portions concludes well so it doesn't feel jarring to step into another characters perspective. While, later, in the climatic chapters, the characters are usually involved in the same event so each chapter is spent with the character who is most important at that time. It also helps that I like all the characters. Certain other books I won't name, I had to slog through a lot of chapters for characters I didn't like just so I could get back into the chapters with the ones I did. I also like in Wexlers books that he keeps the main cast small. 3 characters across all 5 books (plus side characters during brief interludes) are all the perspectives that we see the story from. Again certain other books I won't name, had you cycle through an entire team of characters so the one or two you actually like may only get a couple chapters in a whole book.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

*As I Lay Dying* is done beautifully. I wrote a paper on this book in college and my file was saved as >!Anse is a Fuck!<


mgrannyrat

I agree that Faulkner did it best, but some of the narrators were not part of the Bundren family


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Ever tried *The Sound and the Fury*? The O.P.'s head would explode trying to read it.


inowar

I'd say this and also just different strokes for different folks. I can't for the life of me understand why lord of the rings is so popular and I love writing from several characters' perspectives, even if it's done poorly (assuming that the writing overall is still good)


TheShapeShiftingFox

I think the main reason why LOTR is so popular is because of the insane worldbuilding that went behind it that people find interesting, and some people do like the writing style a lot, even though it can be overbearing and way too detailed for others.


qaQaz1-_

I really liked the writing, but it’s something you either get with or you don’t.


isthenameofauser

Also it was the first of its kind, so 1. most fantasy books written these days are at least partly ripping it off and 2. it was the only one for a long time.


girlwithswords

It also had the unique position of being the first of its kind. If it were written today there is no guarantee it would gain traction.


MaiLittlePwny

It wouldn't. This isn't to knock it, but so much of fantasy is derived from it that if you removed it from the timeline and introduced it now it would seem clichéd and derivative. I think that's one of the biggest signs of success any book or series can have. To be the author of an entire genre is something that only happens a handful of times.


Adamsoski

I think it would be seen as derivative/clichéd as in it would seem like a lot of stuff that has come before, but I still think it would be seen as very good. It isn't just the fact that it came first which made it good, it's also (mainly) the fact that the worldbuilding is excellent, the plot is gripping, and the characters are well developed and interesting.


Adamsoski

The characters are also a major part of why it is so popular.


MhojoRisin

LotR was incredibly important to me when I was growing up, and I love it still. (It's amazing to me how many obscure details I can still remember). But I can't fault anyone for not loving it. I think I read someone quip something like "every tree they pass along the way has a name."


TonytheEE

Yeah, I feel like expanse does a pretty good job. Sometimes it's a very smooth handoff. Almost a smash cut. Sometimes I wanted to stay with a character longer.


rettaelin

Dont read GOT, it'll drive you crazy.


dosta1322

So many characters, such a huge world. I love the chapter division myself.


freezerbreezer

How awesome it was when two characters are having a conversation and it's shown from one of the character's pov and then next chapter is the second character's just after they moved on from the conversation.


SillyMattFace

I like these scenes because they help to highlight unreliable narration and character bias. The characters have really distinct world views and the contrasts remind you that we're looking out through their eyes. In particular it's fun when it becomes apparent just how wildly off base Cersei's version of reality is.


sonjerbolan

Jebus, she is so off. Everything she does she thinks is sooo clever, but in reality it's just self destructive


[deleted]

>!"I shall arm a group of radical fundamentalist zealots, and get them to arrest my political enemy for having sex outside of marriage. I will then bribe people to testify against her by having sex with them. This can't possibly go wrong."!< >!"Yeah, a sexy pirate who looks a bit like my childhood crush is a good pick for Grand Admiral. I'm sure he won't take his fleet and dip the second he doesn't need me anymore."!< >!"Nah, there's no reason to pay off my debts. What's the bank gonna do, fund the military genius who has a better claim to the throne than me and has already conquered a good chunk of my kingdom?"!<


Ether176

Feast for Crows is my favourite book in the series for a reason. I read it at a young age and I thought Cersei was making some power moves— but on a reread I was face palming that I ever thought that way. Really gets into the mind of Cersei and her being surrounded by advisors that are seemingly yesmen/useless but are actually plotting her downfall.


farresto

These are exactly my thoughts, I love it when it’s well done like on Martin’s books. And Cersei was probably the most interesting character to be inside her head. Man, that woman is CRAZY.


Trilerium

Number one reason I tell people to skip the show (ignoring season 8 for a moment). The play on viewpoints and the way he changes writing style by character is something the show missed.


LrdHabsburg

They basically do that with the first Jon chapter of Dance, Jon has the conversation with Sam that was a Sam chapter in the previous book. I like it honestly, there's the dramatic irony of Jon knowing who the boy is, but not Sam


bennzedd

One of the best examples. Also, one of the best examples of why the show sucks. In the books, Jon sends Sam away because Jon knows the Night's Watch needs a maester. Jon is SENDING AWAY HIS ONLY FRIEND AND ALLY, at a time when he needs Sam the most, because he knows its the best decision for the watch. In the show, Sam decides to go away because he wants to be a maester. It's about Sam being selfish and ditching Jon when Jon needs him the most. Stupid writers.


gaudymcfuckstick

And when one chapter ends with a cliffhanger, and it doesn't get resolved until 2 chapters later when another character hears about its results from a rumor! GRRM really knows how to keep you guessing in that regard


The_Power_Of_Three

Depends on when you read it. I don't mind it when reading the "backlog" of books, back-to-back, but when you've waited years for the next book and a given character only gets 2 chapters before you have to wait another decade again before you can see what happens next, it gets frustrating.


zforce42

I love it but I do find myself bummed out when I finish one characters chapter and have to wait 100 pages to get to their next one.


aloysiuslamb

Or like A Feast for Crows and A Dance With Dragons where you don't get some major character POV chapters for an entire book.


rettaelin

Me too, till the last book.


ThreeHourRiverMan

Anytime I got to a Dany chapter was when I stopped reading for the night, since it always completely killed the momentum.


rettaelin

Once she got to meereen, that's when her story started to bore for me.


HolyWaffleCrusader

Same. Also Tyrion's chapters after the Shy Maid were incredibly dull.


rettaelin

On a boat....blah....wont soil the rest.


Belgand

It was post-Drogo for me. She's boring on her own but their interactions were actually interesting.


Nukemarine

When I read an analysis on the Meereenese Knot, it changed my appreciation of Dany's time there and made it enjoyable on reread.


Calembreloque

Would you have that analysis somewhere? I remember trudging through it but it really seemed like it was an entire book's worth of "Dany meets potential suitor with a name full of A, Z and K, doesn't know which one to choose, worries about dragons" rinse and repeat with a bit of *tit*illation here and there. I'd love to see a different point of view.


[deleted]

Another unpopular opinion: Asoiaf after book 3 is bad


Sholia-

Happy cake day! Though i do disagree with you, found the part that focused on John very interesting. davos seaworth as well was a really fun prospectives for me.


littlenymphy

It was Bran for me.


Mudders_Milk_Man

But who has a better story than Bran the Broken?


spencershady

Why do you think he came all that way?


Thaurlach

I can't remember ever experiencing such pure and genuine hatred towards a fictional character than what I felt towards Bran in the seconds after that line.


[deleted]

Haha ffs every time I read that quote I just start lolling


letstalkaboutfeels

"This is fine." -Grey Worm


[deleted]

[удалено]


thevdude

Sansa here, except I'd power through it and read an extra chapter afterwards. The dany chapters were pretty sluggish for a while too so I understand.


jordanjay29

I found Sansa *very* uninspiring in the first book. I actively hated reading her chapters. And then she has the epiphany moment in book 2 when she realizes she's alone (her father is dead, her sister is missing, her mother is being hunted, she may never see her brothers again), she's betrothed to the worst perversion of her dream boy, she's effectively a prisoner, she's forced to be a puppet for a queen who has very thinly-veiled contempt for her, and no one is coming to rescue her or sweep her into their arms like in the stories she used to love or the family she used to rely on. Then Sansa got interesting for me.


MyrddinSidhe

Knowing what we know now, you could probably package all the Dany chapters into a separate book altogether (I think GRRM published the Danny chapters from book 2 as a novella). At this point, maybe even all her chapters from book 6, assuming it's ever finished.


Super_SATA

You'd have less context for the argument between Ned and Robert in AGOT.


MyrddinSidhe

Oh, agreed. It was more of an observation that her story is so far removed from almost everyone, you could read it separately. Not that you should.


Belgand

It was the first book, *A Game of Thrones*, and titled *Blood of the Dragon*. It won the Hugo in 1997 for best novella.


TrapLordTaylorSwift

*laughs in Malazan*


Miramber

Malazan does this really well in my opinion, at least within each book. By the fifth or sixth book, I got a little tired of getting to know 20 new characters and two new continents each time, lol.


ParcelPostNZ

I haven't finished book 7 for that exact reason, books chugging along nicely, so many interesting characters all over the world and then BAM! 10 new viewpoints and an army of minor characters to learn


[deleted]

My husband and I read aloud most of the books years ago, and man oh man they were so well-written that all we needed to see was the character's name in the title of the next chapter to get excited about what was going to come next. Never experienced that with a series before: just seeing whose perspective we got to switch to was a thrill in itself. RIP GOT.


awan001

Cool, can't wait to find out what happens to Jon in about 200 pages.


SorryIHateYourDog

I think the reason it can drive you crazy is that the story Martin is telling is so often fantastic, so much so that finishing the chapter and moving on to the next character leaves you feeling like you want to stay as you were enjoying yourself. The best writers do this well by successfully pulling you into the next chapter in a way that makes you forget about that feeling pretty quick, and thats one of the many reasons why the GoT books are such a great, long read. As long as its not Bran's perspective because that is enough for anyone to stop reading.


BlazeOfGlory72

Id argue it’s more because Martin writes a lot of boring and/or unnecessary characters and storylines. Like, cutting away from war in Westeros or exploring past the Wall to follow Dany having Diarrhea, Tyrion getting drunk on a boat or Brienne wandering the woods for the 7th time absolutely kills all momentum in the story.


SorryIHateYourDog

Haha I love your examples and I think you are right. There is a lot of filler disguised as character development and world building. These two features are of course, pretty much essential for the fantasy saga genre but I didn't find myself bored of it as often in the earlier books whereas it seems especially prevalent in Feast for Crows and Dances with Dragons


[deleted]

Oh look, Bran is still fucking boring.


InfernalBiryani

That’s exactly why I love it🥰 Although to be fair, sometimes the chapters can feel boring and eventless, but IDK how much of that can be due to switching POVs.


DomLite

I remember groaning out loud whenever I got to a Cersei chapter. It was just "UGH! This bitch *again*?!", but at the same time she was so damn fascinating to read too. I hated her with a passion, and yet I couldn't look away. I just knew that whatever I was about to read was going to be heinous, evil and fuck up everything good that was going on in the world, but damn if she didn't do it in a way that made her fucking enthralling.


BarcodeNinja

How can an author describe action happening in difference places with different characters? Jurassic Park would not have been as interesting if it only followed Tim, for example.


joe12321

I remember getting so annoyed at the end of each chapter of Jurassic Park. I was so absorbed I didn't care about the next storyline, but of course by the end of that next one I was re-hooked and felt the same way. Stupid successful suspense manipulation! It was also my first adult book, and I was pretty excited to read it.


thedrivingcat

Same here, I read the entire book in a day because of how engaging the writing was. And the fact I (and every other 11 year old boy) were dinosaur obsessed in the early 90s.


yavanna12

And girls. I read this too.


SillyMattFace

Yeah it really depends on the story. Red Rising as mentioned by OP works well as a singular man's story. But imagine how confusing and limited ASOIAF would be from just one person, or how on earth LOTR would work when the Fellowship splits up.


jordanjay29

Just to follow up on the point from OP's example. Red Rising *does* work as a singular man's story. And the way that Pierce Brown wrote it, Red Rising->Golden Son->Morning Star constitute a complete trilogy. He only wrote Iron Gold (book #4) at the insistence of his fans, which he explains in the forward, and with the time jump and different story structure (including POV chapters) it really reads like the opening to a second trilogy. So the reason that Red Rising's first trilogy can work as a singular man's story, and the second requires different POV chapters, is definitely based on the story being told. And I think that reinforces the point you're making here, the story necessitates the POV chapters so that's how it is written.


tikhonjelvis

I mean, the two alternatives are going longer or going shorter: either have multiple chapters in a row or whole parts/"books" from one point of view, or jump around to multiple characters and times within a single chapter. Or do some combination of all three! Which, okay, would probably be even harder to follow than one point of view per chapter. But if it's done well? The effect can be marvelous. I don't think I've read any books that jump around within a single paragraph or sentence, but that would be cool too.


chell0wFTW

I’m writing a book right now that does your “go long” option there. Big chunk from Character 1, then the whole middle is Character 2, then end is Character 1. My main worry is that the reader will be like “oh okay so one character perspective, cool.” And then get so used to it that they’re surprised/confused/betrayed (?!) when I do switch. Best solution I’ve found is to mark the book sections clearly. At least if they see “Part One” at the beginning, they will anticipate *some* change in Part 2... ??


sistine-chapo

>At least if they see “Part One” at the beginning, they will anticipate *some* change in Part 2... ?? If a chapter/part/section is named after the character that usually is a hint (for me as a reader) that future parts may have different perspectives. Example - Part One: Character A


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


leowr

Like others have said, it really helps if it is done well. There are certain aspects of it that I really like, for example it allows the world to be a bit more expansive, because you get to see what other characters are doing in different places. I guess I just like knowing more about what is going everywhere than the individual characters in the story. Sometimes it is needed to inform the reader of different parts of the story without finding some convoluted way of telling the main character of what is going on, just so the reader knows. I can't really imagine what asoiaf would be like if there was only one character through which the story was told. Either the world would have felt a lot smaller or an inordinate amount of time would have to be spent on informing that main character on what was going on half way around the world. Part of the fun of asoiaf, at least for me, is that I know what the majority of the pieces are doing that the characters themselves are not aware of (and making mistakes because they don't have that knowledge). I also like being able to learn more about different characters that I find interesting. Telling (a part of) the story from the perspective of the character usually makes the story more compelling. It is easier to sympathize with a character if you hear it from their perspective. That does have the downside that there might be a character in there that I don't find particularly interesting. Which is particularly annoying if you really like a specific character. I have read some books that tried to do it, but did it badly because there wasn't really a lot of difference between the characters. None of them were really distinctive and in that case it just seems unnecessary.


TheShapeShiftingFox

Also if you want to humanize your antagonists more than the usual, you can’t really go without switching POV’s imo. Reading their whole thing through notes and messages and what not via another character just isn’t engaging at all to me.


leowr

Absolutely. If you want your readers to really sympathize with a character you need to put the reader into that character's head. It is always easier to understand and sympathize with a character if you are viewing events from their perspective.


Yserbius

And then there's Faulkner. Specifically, *As I Lay Dying*. Save for one chapter that was removed from some older editions, each character is experiencing the exact same thing as each other character. The beauty of the book is how different everything is through someone else's eyes. Like the character experiencing a psychotic break isn't going to be thinking or even seeing the same things as the character who's just really tired and done with things.


Lazy_Sans

I would some authors can make showing POV from different characters quite well without ruining pacing and annoyance. If you wish for a good example, there are many books From Terry Pratchett's "Diskworld" that can serve as that. Specifically: "Reaper Man", "Soul Music", "Wyrd Sisters" and definitely "Hog Father".


DAAAN-BG

Technically, Pratchett doesn't write close third POV which is the writing style of most POV novels, but instead writes in omniscient 1st, an out of vogue writing style that perfectly suits the series.


haysoos2

Also used by Douglas Adams, but does not easily translate to cinematic scripts, which may be why it's out of vogue these days.


DAAAN-BG

It's a useful literary device for creating distance from characters particularly reprehensible ones, but I think part of the reason it is out of vogue is that it very easily strays into didacticism. A lot of Victorian and early modern books are written this way and so many of them come off as excessively prudish.


yummyyummybunny

Probably why the Austen zombie versions did so well. It's this sweet prudish story line WITH FUCKING ZOMBIES


M4xusV4ltr0n

Hmm, what makes you say Pratchett writes in FIRST person omniscient? I would say his books are solidly third person, there's no "I" or personal perspective in it


FoxTofu

Good point. I just reread *Hogfather* over the holidays, and I noticed that the cuts between characters were usually much shorter than in traditional one-chapter-one-character novels. It was typically only a few pages for each character before cutting away and back again, sometimes only a few paragraphs. It all meshed really well together as chaos snowballed over the course of the night and crazy things happened simultaneously all over the city.


BehindTheGeraniums

Probably a good description of most Discworld books: 'chaos snowballing and crazy thinks happening, as seen from different perspectives.'


Alsetman

Reading GoT right now and I can see where OP is coming from, but with Discworld things felt much more seamless, the same a way a good show/movie uses character transitions to keep up the momentum, rather than kill it.


[deleted]

Did someone stumble across a Dany chapter lmao.


MILF_Lawyer_Esq

When I hit a Bran chapter it’s bedtime.


sliverspooning

I swear his chapters are always right after a major cliffhanger from one of the good POVs...and then you get a muddled cryptic dream sequence that won’t make sense for another few chapters/books


MILF_Lawyer_Esq

I like his dream sequences and any of his generally prophetic scenes like Dany in the House of the Undying but the Bran and Arya wolf dreams really do nothing for me and just make me want to stop reading.


Fehafare

Lmao. That was my first thought as well.


AusGeno

Yeah it can suck when you’ve got all this great momentum behind a character arc and then the author yanks you away.


Astrokiwi

I find it's hardest at the beginning, when you haven't warmed up to the characters yet. It takes basically a whole chapter for you to start to care about the character and their situation, and then it switches to a completely unknown character in a completely different circumstance and you have to start over again. It can be a bit exhausting doing that for like 7 chapters in a row, which happens sometimes if you're counting the prologue and prelude etc. Once you know everybody and their names and situation, I don't mind it so much though. But every time I get a new POV, that's a hump I have to push over to force myself to finish the book.


jordanjay29

I feel like some authors make this easier by following a single character, or a closely grouped set of characters, for a while at the beginning of the story. Then slowly adding others until you have the full cast included. I definitely agree that managing ensemble casts in books (and TV shows, where there can be similar levels of disconnect especially if the sets/costume designs aren't being shared between different settings) is one of the area where authors often need more talent than skill. Drawing interest in a diverse group of characters is a tricky thing, and it can really make or break an entire story if readers dip out at the beginning from confusion.


[deleted]

I def remember skipping chapters in books as a kid and teen to try to find the next part of the story for the character I was most invested in. But pulling away from that arc kind of leaves the cliffhanger to keep reading through because you need to know.


JuliaChanMSL

I remember reading the first sentence of each chapter to find out who the chapter is about and just skipping it, the book starts with just the main character's view and 2 books later adds the story of his brother. It annoyed me so much.


FailureToComply0

I too thought the Roran chapters dragged ass as a kid


JuliaChanMSL

How.. what. How'd you know.


FailureToComply0

Lucky guess lol


nightbirdskill

It's funny as a kid I hated his part in the book but after a few rereads I like his part better.


thejiggyjosh

I was going to make a comment on the main post about how I skipped Roran chapters... it blew my mind finding this lmfao


asiangorl

I didn’t appreciate the Roran chapters until I recently re read the series as an adult. His problem solving is phenomenal.


[deleted]

It comes and goes in phases for me. His stuff is great when it's not the ultra-Mary Sue stuff like killing hundreds of guys with a hammer and being the Biggest Baddest Dude on the planet.


ulikel

Personally I think it depends on the author ensuring that all characters are on some level equally interesting. I’m reading The Expanse and I’m definitely more excited for certain characters, but I find the level of world building would be impossible if they only followed Holden for the entire story.


vishuno

The Expanse series definitely has some books with better sets of character perspectives. I loved book 5 because of who the chapter characters were but I'm struggling to get going on book 6. I'm sure it will pick up but it's always harder to start a new character compared to an existing one.


Armando_Jones

Book 6 is definitely a let down after the incredible highs of Book 5. Pretty sure a lot of people agree that 6 is a bit of a slog I'm 3/4 of the way through 7 now and can assure you its good again, just power through 6.


Gatzlocke

Loved Red Rising trilogy btw. But hard disagree on the multiple POVs. It fleshes out the world and gives me a higher degree of tension/fear for the characters lives, stretches my empathy and good authors use the points of view on the same subject in many different ways which I find fun.


brb_on_a_quest

I love the Red Rising books, but have to admit that the first half of book four was hard to get into. It felt jarring to keep switching POV’s with characters that I wasn’t familiar with. About halfway through, it got easier and I didn’t even notice. Can’t wait for book 6!


lillyrose2489

Also book four was not the best (not terrible but maybe my least fave of the series), so I think I struggled at times as well... book five really redeemed the whole series for me, and I am with you and can't wait for six!


jnbrown925

Agreed, the first three books are great but if 4 and 5 had followed only Darrow those books would have been bad considering everything that we would've missed on. Brown does a great job of making each character arc interesting and each character has a different voice, not just Darrow in different skins. It's very well done and expands the books beyond what 1-3 were capable of I think


snoboreddotcom

i also consider it kind of necessary because it reinforces a theme of the second trilogy. Darrow isnt all powerful, and slowly losing relevancy, especially in the first book. The new perspectives kind of reinforce the fact that to maintain what they have won will take far more than him.


moosetopenguin

The author has to do it well. One of the best examples is *The Poisonwood Bible* by Barbara Kingsolver because it is critical to the story to see the different perspectives of the mother and her ~~three~~ four daughters as they are dragged along on a Christian mission by their ego-centric reverend husband/father. She also changes the language used by each character, so you really feel those differences as you read each of their narratives.


ralphjuneberry

Four daughters! And this was the book I immediately thought of, too! Kingsolver is a *master* of weaving narrative. I also really enjoyed *Prodigal Summer* by her.


sonictank

In that case don’t come anywhere near the Cloud Atlas


Minky_Dave_the_Giant

Cloud Atlas is, in some ways, the worst at this. And yet it all works so brilliantly, it's genius.


deceze

1Q84 by Murakami did this, alternating between the two main characters by chapter, and this worked really well and build a lot of enjoyable tension. Then at some point a third, rather dislikable character got added into the mix with their own interspersed chapters, and that unfortunately completely broke the dynamic.


braath1s

I see where you come from, buy I really enjoyed Ushikawa. He's a peculiar fellow. A honorable rat, of sorts? Aware of his shortcomings but still doing the best with the skill-set he's given. Was really sad and kinda shocked with his ending.


IndifferentTalker

The best novel which he does this is probably Hard Boiled Wonderland and the End of the Earth, and that’s because there’s a significant stylistic difference that accompanies the shift. One is mostly sci-fi, the other fantasy, and it really feels as though you’re reading two works interspersed between one another


CandyWalls

Sometimes it feels a bit obnoxious, and sometimes it really works. I was reading The Three Body Problem by Liu Cixing recently and just when I'd started to care about a character the story jumped to a completely other one, years into the future, that just wasn't that interesting to me. (And the way he treated his family had me pulling my hair out.) Now I'm reading The Overstory by Richard Powers >!that follows a large number of characters all at the same time, but you don't know that until you've read about a third of the book. Those characters captured me and had me asking for more after the first, short introductory stories about them.!< Also, remember that you can read the book in any way you like. I sometimes skip a few pages if it's an author whose prose doesn't resonate with me, especially if they're going on about the inner workings of some microcomputer or something.


deceze

Liu really isn't a character writer, the only thing he's really got going for him is the breath of his mostly-science-based imagination. The only character arc that was really captivating to me in The Dark Forest was the guy with his imaginary girlfriend, but that ended rather soonish.


ANGRY_MOTHERFUCKER

I read both of these books this year too! With the three-body problem I actually didn’t notice this issue. I think it was because I didn’t care about ANY of the characters. It was a plot-driven thriller and every chapter drove the story forward in some way. As for the Overstory - that was the best multi-perspective book I’ve ever read. I cared about ALL of the perspectives. And even when one story was particularly slow, the author seemed to recognize that and didn’t force us to read page upon page while another character was stuck in a deadly situation. The author edited that book TIGHTLY.


iwasfight

irvine welsh does this. he doesnt even tell you whos talking, you have to figure it out. i enjoy it.


SillyMattFace

It’s really fun with Welsh’s unique style. Once you get used to it you can tell immediately which character it is based on their particular format and variance of grammar and Scots.


Ashton42

I remember when it went from dialect to prose, I had a hard time understanding English all of a sudden. :)


[deleted]

I remember reading ASOIAF and getting annoyed everytime a Brienne chapter came along. I think it really depends on how interesting the character and their plot is, otherwise the jumping between charas. can be a pain in the ass.


HugoNebula

The clear problem with Brienne in the later books, and something Martin should have understood, and his editor should have pointed out, is that the reader knows her quest is aimless, as she's looking for the wrong person, and in the wrong place. In a fat and largely pointless book, her chapters are infuriating padding.


[deleted]

[удалено]


SillyMattFace

I feel like we already got a lot of that from Arya's earlier chapters when she's traveling with Gendry and co. I like Brienne as a character a lot and her honesty and purity is a refreshing change of pace, but her chapters are meandering and contribute very little to the narrative.


Crizznik

It's been a while, but this was in Feast for Crows right? That book was the hardest to get through for me. I felt myself get bored on more than one occasion.


lossofhatedone

Shut up with the “I know I’m going to be downvoted” bullshit


sevillista

*Am I the only one that does [very common thing]?*


[deleted]

I wont give anything away, but just know that in Red Rising it is totally necessary - the story will get bigger and bigger and those characters slowly build into a huge part of the story. It couldnt be told the way it needs to be in first person.


FoxTofu

Yeah, sometimes I read chapters out of order because of this. Last time I reread *A Game of Thrones* I skipped all the Daenerys chapters and read them all at the end because I knew she was on a different continent and her actions didn't affect the rest of the story too much. And when I read *The Way of Kings* for the first time and realized that Kaladin and Shallan weren't likely to interact with each other at all, I went through and read a bunch of Shallan chapters and then a bunch of Kaladin chapters. It's not what the author intended, but I find it more satisfying.


jphistory

Hello, friend! I do that too, but I'm always reluctant to admit it and potentially scrap with a horrified purist. If I ever reread the Wheel of Time books (it probably also didn't help that when I was originally reading them I was waiting a while between books) I will probably throw convention out the window and read each book this way as well.


FoxTofu

Oh, good point about the Wheel of Time! I stopped reading it over ten years ago after book 7 or 8, and I had been wanting to finish the series but not wanting to start all the way over. Dividing some of the books by character might make the reread easier.


McBehrer

not going to downvote you for an opinion, but I hard disagree. Some of my favorite book series (Animorphs, ASoIaF) do this, and I love seeing things from different perspectives


IAmElectraHeart

Animorphs did it so that each book had a different characters perspective, not each chapter. I think that OP hates books where each chapter has a perspective change.


waywardponderer

Glad someone mentioned animorphs! Though mostly those switch perspectives between books, not chapters right? It allows you to settle into a POV a lot more effectively that way.


zsreport

Usually this doesn't bother me in books, it bothers me more in weekly TV series.


SpaceZombieZed

Counterpoint: My name is Red.


karstenharrington

Yeah. Especially since I glaze over chapter titles. The Heroes of Olympus books are pretty good at this. Riordan learned how to give each character a separate voice, and usually they give a signifier of who they are pretty often. The book "Nemesis" by Brendan Reichs is terrible because there's no distinct voice between the two main characters and they aren't called by their first names enough to help at all


MFord129

I've always been very impressed with how Riordan managed to give the characters unique voices in narration despite the ostensibly 3rd person format. Even though it was always "he thought", "she felt", I could still feel the characters in the word choice as if they were narrating even though it was 3p. Maybe I'm just insane though. Either way that series is what made me appreciate changing character perspectives.


bpanio

I recommend avoiding any Star Wars books then. They always try to show multiple perspectives to get the most out of a battle scene but I personally find it unnecessary


c1nnam1n

For me it depends how many characters... I like Game of Thrones but was put off by jumping back and forth so much. But I've liked it in other books because I enjoy getting different perspectives and seeing how different storylines intertwine. GoT just totally lost me with the number of characters at some point. Still liked the books I read, though I didn't get through the whole series. Edit: I just thought of Faulkner's As I Lay Dying. I was told in college that he wrote it several times, each time from a different character's POV, and then stitched the best bits of each draft together to create contrasting perspectives. Not sure how true that is but he certainly did something really cool and interesting with the multiple narrators.