The Perks Of Being A Book Addict discussion

I was talking to some friends about if books with multiple POVs (such as A Song of Ice & Fire, Wheel of Time, & First Law series) should have stayed as large books with multiple POVs or if they would have been better if there was multiple individual books for the main POV characters (just as Martin did in Blood of the Dragon, which is just Daenerys' POV from the first book) and the build up to a single book with all the characters.

What do you all think? Is it better to have one book per main POV then bring them together (like Marvel Cinematic Universe) or one book with multiple POV characters?

My book I'm writing now has many pov's. It's also a series. I like big books but it makes it hard to read a lot throughout the year.

I'm reading Deathcaster, the last book of four books in Cinda Williams Chima's "Shattered Realms" series. I've the previous three over the course of three years, as each one came out. The first three dealt with different characters but Deathcaster brings them all together.

It's been so long since I read the previous ones that I've not only forgotten their names but also how they figured in the plot. Chima is one of my favorite authors but I find it frustrating keeping all the characters straight while I'm reading Deathcaster. It would have helped a lot if Chima had included a cast of characters I could have referred to along the way. I'm sure I'm not the only one who will be having this problem.

Bottom line: It's fine to have multiple characters but please provide a way the reader can keep them straight.

As a rule, the fewer the PoV characters the better. I prefer having three PoVs max. in any given book- anything more than that and it gets confusing. There's also the problem of one plotline continuously getting interrupted by another.

I'm not sure if most stories (especially ones with larger scopes) can manage with just one PoV a book. Deathcaster is a good example- there's far too much going on on multiple parts of the continent, and having different povs means that we can be where the action is instead of hearing about it as exposition.

So... sinle pov as much as possible, but limit multiple PoVs if you absolutely have to have 'em.

I think it would depend on the plot.

If it's one story happening from multiple POVs, then I feel like multiple books would only be interesting if I was just DYING to know how each character lived through it. Maybe Free Four: Tobias Tells the Divergent Knife-Throwing Scene by Veronica Roth is an example of this.

If it's a world composed of the different characters, where each book centered around one of them, but each book was a different plot (whether or not in a series where you have to read them in order), then I think it works. Graceling by Kristin Cashore comes to mind.

Sometimes multiple POVs is a good way to tell a story in a puzzle kind of way, where the reader has to put it all together to understand what is happening. I think The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown is like this. For these, I think it's best to just have one book because (as mentioned by Dan) it's hard to remember and keep track of what's going on, especially if you have to wait a year for the next installment.

I do not think there is a right way or wrong way for a method. There may be a right way or wrong way for a particular story. The story must be supported by the telling method to bring out the best of it. How boring it would be if there was only one way to tell a story.

I just finished The Family Upstairs that has multiple POVs. it irritated me at first, then after a while seemed imperative to the story. I don't normally like POV, so I think it really depends on how the book is written.

I don't like jumping between povs within a scene as I find it distracting but I do think different perspectives within a novel are very valuable. I've found this in particular with my writing - my soon-to-be-published novel holds the povs of a number of characters and this proved very valuable for showing the different sides and impacts of the plot to different people. However the novel I'm currently attempting to write is by necessity from a single pov and I'm finding it much harder, oddly, to stay in side one head and only see things from a single point of view. A wider perspective can lend greater context.

I don't like jumping from POV unless it really contributes to the story and even then I prefer if its used sparingly. I feel it sometimes it takes away from the story but I have read books where when it was used appropriately that it made a character's motivation more understandable.

I agree that it can be confusing sometimes, and often isn’t necessary, but when done well, I think there is a lot of value in multiple POVs! I do love reading books where you get to experience more than one story/journey in it (although I did struggle with A Game of Thrones a little until I got used to it). As a writer I also find that some stories lend themselves more naturally to a multiple POV - it means that instead of using tedious “filler” scenes to break up the main events for the same character, you can just skip from the main event of one character to the next character. I feel like it can make the story flow better and help to keep your reader engaged. But again, it’s got to be done well - I’m still working out how to do that! 😂