Right now, I'm reading Steven King's UNDER THE DOME, which is a real toe-breakingly heavy tome. He has many, many characters, most told in the third person limited. And he switches back and forth between them often, through the clever and judicious use of page breaks. He describes the first events of the novel through the eyes of a woman in an airplane, a vagrant on the road, a farmer on a tractor, a woman in her garden, a boy beating the shit out of a girl, even a fat old woodchuck. But he only writes about what that woodchuck or vagrant or farmer would know about, using the words and phrases those characters might say, switching his narrative voice slightly for each character. You feel like you're listening into their head, rather than hearing about them.
Think about the difference between DG's writing when she writes in the third person as Bree versus Roger. She uses a different vocabulary, almost writing as the character would in their diary. With Roger, the writing has a bit of a religious feel, a very base and elemental sort of religion, but with undertones and emotions tied in his box of personal beliefs. Bree, on the other hand, DG treats with logic. Bree's world is black and white, or at least she tries to make it be. Yes, Bree can be just as spiritual as Roger, just as Roger can be as logical as Bree, but they come at it from different places. The writing reflects it.
As for which character should be telling the story, well, that's personal choice. But I've always thought switching back and forth between characters was a cheap way to get emotional impact. (no disrespect to Mr. King, he's doing it for a reason) Do you ever doubt what's going through Jamie's mind when he and Claire run into Jack Randall in Paris? No, you don't know exactly the thoughts, but you know enough about him to have a really good idea. And it was because you didn't know exactly what was in his mind that made it all the more interesting.
The best writers don't have to spell out every single moment in a story. They lead the horse to water, but only after they've ridden it to kingdom come and back. If they've done their job right, and they've gotten the horse good and thirsty, the horse will drink every time. Don't use POV as a crutch. Use it as a tool.
And as for Tolkien....I could take him or leave him. Goldarnit, the man liked to make people sing.
So the clear and distinct voice of the characters is what helps multiple POV writing? Rather than a generalized voice of omnicient? Hmm. I just had a thought. If a story was read to me, I'd enjoy it if the reader just used their own voice, but it'd be a lot more engaging if the reader changed their tone and accent to suit the character's dialog. Like books on tape. I remember listening to one driving up the east coast from FL. The reader was a woman, but she managed to change her voice, 'thinning' her speech even for one of the characters, an FBI agent, so I heard and 'saw' the men talking. The reader disappeared and the story took over. After that I looked for the credentials of the reader on the BOT, selecting those with stage experience over others. Not that the other readers couldn't achieve the same thing, but the actor's versions were universally more vivid for me. So in writing, using Omnicient, if it's too neutral, or too distinctly O, it makes it harder to differentiate between the characters?
susiej, 15:43:20 03/23/10 Tue