Different POVs

[caliburncy at yahoo.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 27256

I've been keeping up with reading messages, but been lacking time to 
post responses of late.  Big apologies to the NUMEROUS people who have 
made excellent points that I would like to reply to.  I will do what I 
can to respond to those in the future, though by then you may all 
wonder what on earth I am responding to.


--- In HPforGrownups at y..., cynthiaanncoe at h... wrote:
> Boy, I wish I understood the limits of an author's ability to move 
> credibly back and forth among various points of view and how JKR is 
> able to get away with this in GoF (and PS/SS also).  Surely someone 
> must understand this.
> 
> Luke?  Amy?  Anyone?

It occurs to me that Cindy is developing quite a knack for how to make 
me write big essays on my personal interpretations of writing 
technique as specific to HP.  I really need to be composing a unified 
response to all the Deus ex Machina replies (such good responses--what 
wonderful students Professor Luke has!)  And above all, I need to get 
that Authorial Theory of Misinformation explained already.  I feel 
particularly guilty for not having been able yet to respond to David's 
very nice kickstart on the subject (Sorry, David!).  But those will 
have to wait, it seems, until after I take a quick crack at this.

BTW, I apologize in advance when this veers off occasionally from HP 
examples (with some made-up examples instead), for the purpose of 
illustration.  I also apologize for the rambling, non-brilliant nature 
of this post--I am lacking time to edit it for conciseness and 
clarity.  Not that any of my posts ever truly are either of those, but 
they're moreso than this one is.

In other words, this is not me at my best.  It is me at the tired, 
"just get it done" phase.

***

<takes a deep breath>

Okay, point of view (with a brief intro on a few narrator types that 
proved necessary):

As with all things in creative writing, there are no set rules.  There 
are some teachers who will create artificial rules for the sake of 
their less experienced students, but at the end of the day it is 
really just what works best.

A good guideline, IMO, is to switch POV as little as possible and 
still be able to tell as powerful a story.  Unnecessary switching is 
not "cool" or "avant-garde", it's confusing and purposeless.  Of 
course, that doesn't mean you avoid switching altogether; it means 
that you let the story dictate the POV it needs.

The Harry Potter books are written by a third-person, 
limited-omniscient narrator.  It is worth pointing out, especially for 
any people that missed out on this discussion the first time, that 
"limited-omniscient" is a misleading term.  I don't like it at all, 
but I didn't invent it.  It is supposed to be a differentiation from 
an "omniscient" narrator.  So first, I'll quickly explain that.

An "omniscient" narrator does not really know everything, the meaning 
of the term is that the narrator is privy to the thoughts of any 
character he *chooses* to be (I say "he", by the way, despite the fact 
that in this case the narrator is usually a non-character).  Of 
course, he may not choose to reveal everyone's thoughts all the time. 
 The point is that there is freedom to do so.  This type of narrator 
was quite popular, I believe, in 18th and/or 19th century literature. 
 The downsides of it are two-fold:

1) It is somewhat confusing, because you can be given the thoughts of 
one person in one sentence and, immediately following, be given the 
view of another person.  You are, effectively, bounced around from 
head to head and don't get much rest.

2) Because you don't get to stay in the head of a single character for 
an extended period of time, it is harder to feel particularly close to 
any of the characters.

An example of this:

	Paul walked into his dorm room, letting his book bag slump off 
his shoulder at the doorway, and flopped heavily onto his bed.  His 
roommate, Sam, turned to face him from his standard spot in front of 
the television, with a broad grin of greeting that was altogether too 
cheerful.
	"What's the matter?" said Sam, looking Paul up and down.  Paul 
was frowning irritably and Sam thought he seemed rather ill-tempered.
	Paul muttered, "Nothing," and quickly grabbed a book to bury 
himself in.  He hated those kinds of questions.

This is confusing because in the first paragraph we get Paul's 
thoughts ("[Sam's grin] was altogether too cheerful"), in the second 
we shift to Sam's ("[Paul] seemed rather ill-tempered"), then we go 
back to Paul's ("He hated those kinds of questions").  We shift POV 
often, and therefore never have time to stay in someone's head long 
enough to identify with their predicament.  So this type of narration 
is not as common as it once was, though it can still be used to good 
effect in certain types of stories (BTW, the above example I made up 
would *not* be an example of using it to good effect--one of the POVs 
is largely unnecessary and could be divined from the other: hence a 
certain "Duh!" factor to the thoughts they have).

A "limited-omniscient" narrator means that the narrator is privy to 
the thoughts of one or a group of characters.  Often just one, but 
that's not required.  The line between "limited-omniscient" in the 
event of a group and full-out "omniscient" becomes a bit hazy as you 
can imagine.  Which is another reason why I'm not fond of the 
terminology choices.  I really think "limited-omniscient" with only 
one viewpoint character should get its own term.

There is also such a thing as a (and I forget the real term) 
'non-omniscient' third-person narrator; one that is totally cut off 
from anyone's thoughts.  There are usually two ways this is used:

1) There is no strong "viewpoint character", more like a "viewpoint 
focus" where we follow certain events and the characters involved in 
them, but not any particular character.

2) There is a particular "viewpoint character", but from whatever 
motivation, the author doesn't want us to know their thoughts.  
Sometimes with this kind of narration, the narrator instead makes 
guesses like:

	Mary sat there for several minutes with a dopey grin on her 
face.  Perhaps she was thinking of her mother who had just left, or 
perhaps she was thinking of the mysterious stranger that their 
conversation had turned toward.

Note the "perhaps", the guessing.  We don't actually get Mary's 
thoughts, but it's still quite possible that she is the viewpoint 
character tied to the narration, assuming that we stick with Mary for 
an extended period of time.

Note also that this second use, where the narrator makes guesses is 
also less popular than it once was, because many critics consider it a 
kind of author intrusion: the narrator, despite being a non-character, 
is nevertheless not perfectly transparent.

(There's also first-person narration type, of course, but everyone 
should be familiar with that and it's not relevant here.  My point 
isn't to give an overview of narrator types, but only that part which 
is (however losely) relevant to point of view shifting in the HP 
novels.)

***

Now here's the neat thing.  Since all of the above are third-person, 
as long as it's not disorientating, the author can technically switch 
between those subcategories, even without a clear break like one would 
have at a chapter.  Usually they won't, but they can.

This ability should not be abused.  Remember the guideline: switch POV 
as little as possible and still be able to tell as powerful a story.

Take the Quidditch match in which Quirrel tries to curse Harry to fall 
off his broom.  Was it necessary to switch away from Harry, our normal 
viewpoint character?  Yes.  There is no realistic way that JKR could 
have gotten away with Harry being thrown about by an out-of-control 
broomstick and avoiding being unsaddled and plunging to his death, but 
nevertheless simultaneously taking the time to watch below him as 
Hermione and Ron sneak in the stands over to where Snape is standing, 
knocking Quirrel over in the process, and setting fire to Snape's 
robes.  Nope.  Can't do it.  So the Quidditch match is done like this 
instead:

********************

(all quotes from PS/SS Chap. 11, "Quidditch")

By eleven o'clock the whole school seemed to be out in the stands 
around the Quidditch pitch.  Many students had binoculars.  The seats 
might be raised high in the air, but it was still difficut to see what 
was going on sometimes.

--------------------

Notice we have left Harry's POV at the very start of the Quidditch 
match (Harry isn't there; we find out later that he is in the locker 
room getting ready) and begun with a POV that has no viewpoint 
character.  Instead it has a "viewpoint focus": the audience waiting 
for the match.  Think of this as a wide, establishing shot in 
cinematic terms.  If you think about it, this is a subtle hint that we 
might deal with multiple POVs, because up until this point JKR has 
never done this sort of 'establishing shot', unless it was as Harry 
saw it, which in this case it isn't.

In my opinion, the presence of this 'establishing shot' is one of the 
biggest things that helps to make this a smooth transition out of our 
usual place in Harry's POV.

********************

   Ron and Hermione joined Neville, Seamus, and Dean the West Ham fan 
up in the top row. [...explanation of the group making the Potter for 
President banner...]

--------------------

The 'camera' now zooms in to Ron and Hermione in particular.  (The 
shift is subtle enough that, as with all the shifts in this scene, it 
doesn't warrant a line break or anything equally concrete.)  Ron and 
Hermione are both, to a certain extent, our viewpoint characters for 
the moment--though it would be equally or more accurate to say that we 
simply have a narrower "viewpoint focus" centered around them, without 
either of them really being viewpoint characters.  But we are not 
privy to their thoughts, so it's not as close a relationship as we 
normally have with Harry, and therefore, IMO, a less jarring or 
noticeable transition.

If JKR had done this scene with a now omniscient narrator it would 
have seemed strange and out of place, because all of a sudden we would 
be privy to the thoughts of characters that we were never privy to 
before.  That calls conscious attention to the shift.  Conscious 
attention is generally BAD.  The shift should be clear and 
understandable, but not blatantly noticeable.  Hence, we have the 
temporarily non-omniscient narrator who doesn't give us the thoughts 
of Ron and Hermione, etc., or much more accurately, the narrator who 
continues to be limited-omniscient and only gives Harry's thoughts in 
those moments when we temporarily return to him as our viewpoint 
character.  So in a way, we haven't transitioned at all, except that 
Harry is no longer our viewpoint character.  The narrator's abilities 
are identical.

********************

   Meanwhile, in the locker room, Harry and the rest of the team were 
changing into their scarlet Quidditch robes (Slytherin would be 
playing in green).
[...Wood's speech...]
   Harry followed Fred and George out of the locker room and, hoping 
his knees weren't going to give way, walked onto the field to loud 
cheers.
[...Madame Hooch talking...]
   Harry noticed that she seemed to be speaking particularly to the 
Slytherin Captain, Marcus Flint, a sixth year.
[...mounting of the brooms...]

--------------------

With a classic "meanwhile" transition, we return to Harry for a bit.  
It's interesting to note that the narrator is still allowed to give us 
Harry's thoughts during this time ("hoping his knees weren't going to 
give way", "Harry noticed that...").  This is, of course, highly 
logical, since there is no reason why we should not be allowed to get 
Harry's thoughts as usual.  Like I said earlier, the entire Quidditch 
match doesn't really have a non-omniscient narrator, just the same old 
limited-omniscient narrator that only gives Harry's thoughts.

So here's an interesting question--at what point do we transition away 
from Harry again?  It's a little hazy, isn't it?  In my opinion, it's 
with these two sentences:

********************

   Fifteen brooms rose up high, high into the air.  They were off.

--------------------

Why those?  Because it's kind of like another wide, establishing shot 
of sorts.  Then after that we go to the commentary of the match by Lee 
Jordan (with Prof. McGonagall's interjections) which is clearly not 
from Harry's POV.

You could argue that when this occurs, Jordan and McGonagall are our 
viewpoint characters.  I don't think so, because the emphasis is on 
their dialogue, not them.  Except for a quick 'close-up' shot when 
they are introduced ("The Weasley twins' friend, Lee Jordan, was doing 
the commentary for the match, closely watched by Professor 
McGonagall."), the reader is not supposed to be picturing them, but 
the match itself, as described by Jordan.  So we have a "viewpoint 
focus" again, now of the match, rather than the stands like in our 
earlier case with Ron and Hermione.

Speaking of Ron and Hermione, we see them again now, when Hagrid joins 
them in the stands.  But there's no point in me detailing every little 
POV shift in the chapter from here out, because I wouldn't really say 
anthing insightful about it.

The short of it is though that all this POV switching was necessary; 
and it works because it is subtle but not confusing, and it does not 
really break any of the limitations of the third person, 
limited-omniscient narrator we've had for the whole novel.

***

So what about the first chapter of GOF?  There we get Frank Bryce's 
thoughts, so aren't we breaking the limitations of the existing 
narrator then?  Why does that work?

Because it's a clean break (and there's no precedent to fulfill).

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

We actually don't start this from Frank Bryce's POV at all.  We start 
it with a "viewpoint focus" rather than a viewpoint character.  
Actually, it's hardly a viewpoint focus at all, because it is not a 
scene really, but pure exposition.  Exposition does not need a 
viewpoint.  But we do have a kind of, sort of "viewpoint focus" of the 
village of Little Hangleton.  And very shortly thereafter, we get a 
real, more specific viewpoint focus of the pub "The Hanged Man" and 
the conversation of it's occupants.

Only after that do we shift to Frank Bryce.  We use a line break to 
shift to him, because it's a rather major transition, especially as 
he's about to become our viewpoint character and we will be privy to 
his thoughts.

So why can JKR do this, when all the rest of the time we only get 
Harry's?  There's several reasons, the two most important of which I 
already mentioned when I was getting ahead of myself:

First, this being the first chapter, there is technically no precedent 
to live up to.  We haven't abandoned Harry's POV--we were never in it 
to begin with.  This is really not a first chapter so much as a 
prologue, and it is exceedingly common for prologues to not have the 
same viewpoint character as the rest of the novel.

Second, when we finally do join up with Harry it is done after a 
chapter break (except for the single sentence at the end, which is a 
transition and therefore is appropriate).  Whenever you want to make a 
transition that would be otherwise jarring, you usually want a nice 
obvious break like this.  This may sound like it is in contradiction 
to my comments on the Quidditch chapter of PS/SS.  It's really not, 
because they are apples and oranges.  The Quidditch chapter was a 
series of smooth, subtle POV shifts back and forth.  This is a single, 
more drastic shift that is meant to be noticed.  Like in other books 
you may have read which shifted POV from chapter to chapter, or at the 
very least with a very clear line break.

Third, because we are not used to multiple POVs in the Harry Potter 
novels, JKR is even kind enough to give us a handy explanation, which 
is that Harry was dreaming the events of the first chapter.  Notice 
that this is not a full explanation so much as an effective 
transition.  Harry did NOT dream the entire events of the first 
chapter (i.e. the bar sequence) and he did NOT dream anything from 
Frank Bryce's perspective.  He dreamt the latter events as a third 
party, disembodied observer.  We know this because he could see Frank 
Bryce.

Fourth, because she's not breaking any laws, it's a free country (or 
so I hear), and, well, IT WORKS.

***

So, the new question: Could JKR have more POV shifts in future Harry 
Potter novels?

You bet.  She certainly doesn't have to either, but she can.

Also, because she has set something of a precedent for herself by 
giving a credible explanation for how the first chapter of GOF can 
still be linked back to Harry's POV, it is a reasonable guess that she 
may continue in this vein: that any POV shifts we get will be 
explained through dream sequences or magical phenomenon.

But she doesn't HAVE to do that either, not technically.  Just because 
she wrote the novels so far pretty much entirely from Harry's POV, 
doesn't mean the whole series has to be that way.  She could change to 
another viewpoint character temporarily, without any explanation 
required.

I have seen some sagas that were in the initial novels all told with 
only one viewpoint character, and then in the last novel(s) suddenly 
switched viewpoint narrators for certain chapters.  Besides obvious 
reasons of plot necessity, I expect some of this had to do with 
emphasizing the expanding, epic scope of the final novel(s).

But Harry Potter may not go this route, I don't know.  At the end of 
the day, this does have "Harry Potter" in the title of every book and 
I therefore suspect our excursions into other people's perspectives 
will be very limited.

We shall see.

-Luke