Is Head Hopping in Books the Same as Watching a Movie?

The other day, I posted about head hopping. One of my readers commented that head hopping wasn't all that bad and compared it to watching a TV show or movie, alluding that head hopping goes on all the time in movies and TV shows, so why not in books? I've been thinking about that comment every day since, trying to reconcile head hopping to watching a movie. I've even googled it (I didn't find anything substantial).

Being that I'm interested in all sides and want to look at all angles, I took this reader's comment seriously and have dug into this concept in an effort to either put merit behind it or debunk it, in a manner of speaking.

Before I continue, I will say that after reading other blog posts about this subject, I think a lot of people, authors and readers alike, misunderstand what head hopping really is. Head hopping is not when an author uses a break (either a scene break or a chapter break) to change from one character's point of view to another. That is simply referred to as a POV shift. Head hopping is where an author does NOT use a scene or chapter break and instead jumps from one character's POV into another's without warning the reader, oftentimes mid-sentence or mid-paragraph. Call it whiplash.

[NOTE: For those who try to say they're not head hopping but writing in omniscient, think again by reading this post by Jami Gold.]

I've always been told I think too much, but 1) I can't help it, and 2) how can someone think too much when we only use 10% of our brain power to begin with? and 3) I love thinking and debating sides in my own mind, which is why I'm thankful for the reader's comment on this subject.

I've heard this head-hopping-is-okay-because-they-do-it-in-the-movies argument before, and it has never sat well with me, stewing on my mind as I've tried to figure out what doesn't make sense about it. So, anyhoo, now that I've thought about this and read a bit more on the subject, and tried to give it an objective mind-scouring, here are my thoughts on how head hopping in novels is not the same as watching a movie:

To begin with, when we watch a movie, we are receiving input to one of our senses that doesn't get to partake as deeply when reading a novel, our sense of sight. While reading, we see the words, but that's as far as our sense of sight goes. With movies, our sense of sight is allowed to feast in a way it doesn't get to at many other times.

Following is an example of how powerful visual images in movies are:

A couple of years ago, I caught a scene of the movie, No Country for Old Men, as I was flipping through the channels. I ended up watching for about fifteen minutes, and I think only two lines of dialogue were said. Fifteen minutes of nothing but images on a screen, no dialogue, and no music. However, I knew exactly what was happening. I had never seen the movie before, and have yet to see the whole movie today, but through visual cues alone, I was totally transfixed and was able to figure out what was happening.
Why? Because the medium a film uses to convey the story is mostly visual images. Powerful visual images that show the reader exactly what to think. There is no guesswork. There is no need to ask, "Who's talking?" We see who's talking. We see who's taking off their shirt or loading the gun. We can deduce by the acting and film direction what the story is. But, if you take away the visual images and rely solely on just the dialogue and the sounds of that scene I just mentioned from No Country for Old Men, you'll have no clue what's going on.

With novels, the medium of communication is words, not visual images. Try doing in a novel what No Country for Old Men did in that scene, and take away the primary medium of communication (words). Try using no words whatsoever, only blank pages, to convey to your reader what is happening, and see how successful the book is. As with a movie where the visual images are taken away, readers won't have a clue what's going on if you give them blank pages, or even mostly blank pages with just a couple of lines of dialogue on them.

My point? Simple. My point is that readers read your words and create the pictures in their minds from what you tell them. If you can't paint clear enough word pictures, they will lose interest. We, as authors, must convey through the written word what is happening, because we don't have the luxury of visual images and movies in our books. We must paint that picture in our readers' minds through words alone. Otherwise, readers will not be able to see our stories, and they will not engage. Additionally, if you lose them through poor storytelling or poorly structured scenes, they will not engage, and a disengaged reader is bad, bad, bad, because they're the ones who don't finish your book and may never buy another one. And, like it or not, hopping from POV to POV is disruptive in the written medium, especially if it done poorly (see the link I've included below for more information).

As I was researching this topic for this post, I came upon a blog post written by Jami Gold, and she hit the nail on the head in more ways than one and said it better than I ever could:

Jami Gold - Why Is Head Hopping Bad?

After reading Jami's post, I found myself saying, I agree. Before I learned what head hopping was, I didn't consciously notice it, but I did subconsciously, and I remember being uber-aggravated by it more than once. I remember reading books where I got so lost in who was doing and saying what that I gave up trying to figure it out.

One of Christine Feehan's books did that to me, and I remember going back and re-reading several pages at a time more than once to try to figure out who was talking and doing the action. I never read another Feehan novel after that, because that one frustrated me so badly that I didn't think it was worth the trouble. I'm not even sure I finished that novel, but I do remember being extremely irritated. At the time, I had no idea what head hopping was, but I clearly reacted to it in a negative fashion. So, I agree, a reader doesn't have to know what head hopping is to be frustrated by it.

My other observation about head hopping in movies is that I really can't see how it's possible. We are the fly on the wall watching those characters on the screen as the action unfolds. We aren't inserting ourselves into one character's head and then into another's and another's and back-and-forth we go. We are made aware of only what the director or writer of the film (because, yes, movies start off as written scripts) wants us to know when they want us to know them. We are led by visual storytelling, not word storytelling.

Additionally, movies do have scene breaks. Equate them to chapter or scene breaks in a novel. Both movies and novels flow from one scene to the next and so on. And when those scenes break, oftentimes, a different character's POV becomes more dominant than another's, both in books and in movies. John McClane in Die Hard is likely the dominant POV character in the scenes he appears in, but he still interacts with other characters in those scenes and can deduce by their actions and words what's going on. But that is not the same as head hopping. Dialogue with those characters is not head hopping, nor is watching another character unbutton her blouse or answer a telephone call, which is more a result of POV, not head hopping.

In fact, we lose more POV and inside information in movies than in books, which, if head hopping were taking place, would not be the case. This is one of the biggest complaints of books-turned-into-movies. How many times have you heard someone say, "The book was better."? They say it was better because they were able to see more of what was going on inside the character's or characters' thoughts in the book than in the movie.

So, you can look at this a couple of ways: If you believe head hopping is going on in movies, and yet books are more often than not better-received than the movies they're made into, then obviously head hopping doesn't work very well. Or, head hopping really isn't taking place in movies, and the clearly defined POV shifts in books work better to tell the story.

Let's look at Twilight as another example, because it is both a book and a movie, too, much like No Country for Old Men. The book was written in first person POV, from Bella's perspective. In the movie, we get to see her POV come to life, and we get to see the action, whereas with the book, we could only imagine it.

So, is the movie still in Bella's POV or not? Are we, in fact, head hopping in the movie, whereas in the book we were firmly fixed inside Bella's head?

No, I don't think we are head hopping. What is happening is that we are seeing in the movie what Bella saw in the book. We aren't hopping into Edward's head and changing POV in the movie. We are merely seeing the action how Bella saw it, hearing the conversations with Edward and Jacob and everybody else the way Bella heard them. That is not the same as head hopping, otherwise Edward would give away to the viewers immediately that he is a vampire and we would never get to the big scene in the woods where she finally announces that she knows what he is and he says, "Say it. Out loud." Pause. "Say it!" then goes on to call her his own personal brand of heroin after the cat's out of the bag about his vampirism. If head hopping was going on in the movie, we'd know all about Edward early on, and the climax of the big announcement would be more or less a tiny squeak of insignificance.

There is a scene in the movie where we get to see the trio of bad vampires kill Charlie's friend, but again, that is not the same as head hopping. Bella couldn't see this scene in the book, but she was made aware of what had happened by talking to her father and Edward, so we were able to find out in the book from her POV that this had happened because Edward and her father told her. In the movie, we actually get to see that scene rather than just read about it through conversations with characters who know what's going on.

Christine, by Stephen King, is another book-turned-movie. Written from the first person POV of Dennis, Arnie's best friend, there are certain scenes in the movie that weren't "really" in the book, because Dennis wasn't present during those scenes. But the author's vision can come to life and take a few liberties in film, showing viewers what had actually happened in "real time" through visual images rather than through conversations between characters "after-the-fact," which is how it's usually done in books. However, once again, this is not the same as head hopping.

So, does head hopping really happen in movies or not? I don't think it does, and I don't think using that as support for head hopping in books is a good argument. Furthermore, comparing film techniques to book techniques is like comparing apples to oranges. Both films and books are ways to entertain people, but each goes about creating that entertainment in two very different ways. What works in movies won't work in books and vice versa, because each uses extremely different media to entertain.

In five or ten years, the rules might change and head hopping could be all the rage in fiction, but I'm not betting on it at this point, simply because I firmly believe it takes real talent to pull off the head hop without disrupting the reading experience for the readers. But that's just me. If head hopping becomes the vogue thing to do, I doubt I'll be able to do it. Like readers who love to seep themselves into a good book, I love seeping myself into the POV character I'm writing from. It's fun, and I use POV as my "twelfth man," as I wrote about in my last post, working POV like an extra character to elicit specific reactions from my readers and to reveal things in a logical sequence for the best effect.

Opinions? Thoughts? Can anyone show me an example of head hopping in a movie (I'm an avid movie-goer and can't think of any where actual head hopping occurs)? If anyone has other knowledge that I'm not aware of, I am greatly interested in seeing it. Thank you.

Happy reading and writing.
-D

The End is Just the Beginning

For a lot of authors, "The End" is the most beautiful phrase they've ever typed. They get excited, celebrate, give themselves a high-five. It's truly a wonderful moment.

But... (yep, there's a big but here)

"The End" means you're only about a third of the way toward being finished. "The End" signals that the hardest part of writing a book is about to start.

Damn you, Donya! Yep, I can hear some of you cursing me for taking the joy out of "The End."

Okay, calm down. It's still okay to celebrate "The End." Because reaching that point is crucial to the rest of the process. Without a story, nothing else can happen and you can't fully reach "I'm Finished." So, take a day or two, go to a movie, make a celebration cake, or shoot off fireworks. Do whatever you need to do to celebrate that the end of the draft has been reached.

And then tuck your manuscript away.

Yes, tuck it away and let it rest. Stephen King suggests six weeks, and I have found through experimentation that 6-8 weeks is just about perfect. While your manuscript rests, and after you've celebrated "The End," work on something else. I work on the next novel in my AKM series or an independent story, but Stephen King works on short stories and novellas. This accomplishes a few things: 1) It allows you to work on future manuscripts and keeps the ball rolling as well as the income train on the track, 2) It shifts your mind from the resting story, which is important because, 3) It allows you to put fresh eyes to the story once you pull it back out.

Fresh eyes are crucial to a story. Fresh eyes allow you to see all the mistakes. They allow you to see plot holes and to identify where the story fails to deliver. If you go right into editing before you've got fresh eyes, you will miss all of those problem areas, because your mind will still be seeing what it saw as you wrote the draft. The problem is, oftentimes what we see in our minds isn't conveyed on the page. Only with fresh eyes and a clear mind can you see the mistakes when you start the edit.

Here's one thing I do while my manuscript is resting, and WOW! has this ever helped me in the editing phase:

I send the first draft to my beta readers (Stephen King actually sends his second draft). I write "The End," and I immediately email it off, mistakes and all. And then I let it sit. Even as the beta feedback comes in, I don't touch the manuscript. I might read the feedback immediately or I might not, but I don't touch the manuscript for 6-8 weeks.

The trick with beta feedback is that you have to tell your betas to be brutally honest. I tell mine that I know there are problems in the story, and I want to know exactly what they think. Can they see the same problems I've already earmarked? Can they see other problems? The beta feedback for my latest book, Rebel Obsession, was so brutally honest, yet constructive, that it enabled me to identify two characters who needed revamping, as well as how to revamp them. My betas and I engaged in intense dialogue for about a week, bouncing ideas off each other, and suddenly, magic happened. Two of my characters were suddenly deeper, richer, more dynamic characters who **popped** in my mind, whereas before they had been flat. But if I hadn't been open to the brute honesty and negative feedback of my betas, I would have missed this entire opportunity.

Relating this to my previous 3-part series on authors and editors, this is where many authors need to get out of their own way. They won't even entertain discussions that criticize their work, but in so doing, they are missing a valuable opportunity to create magic. Whether these discussions happen with beta readers (who serve as content editors for me) or editors, authors need to be engaging in these extensive, constructive conversations that, yes, pick apart their work. They're the most valuable tools in my writer's toolbox, bar none.

At any rate, the resting phase is crucial.

So is the beta feedback phase.

Next comes editing. With your beta feedback in-hand, you can begin your first edit, which I like to call a rewrite, because I will literally rewrite large passages or even whole chapters. I will also add massive amounts of material, including whole chapters, as I identify where I've fallen short. And, yes, I will cut out huge chunks of material, as well. In my first edit of Heart of the Warrior, I added about 30,000 words and rewrote one entire chapter. In the first edit of  Rebel Obsession, which I just finished, I cut the entire epilogue and rewrote 75% of the last chapter, shortening it considerably, and have cut several scenes that I realized belonged in the next book of the series, and ultimately added only about 2,000 words to the overall manuscript. I cut way more than I added. So, some books get a lot added, while others have a lot cut out.

"When you write a story, you're telling yourself the story. When you rewrite, your main job is taking out all the things that are not the story." - John Gould (some might say he was Stephen King's first editor)

After the first edit, or rewrite, is finished, you should let the manuscript rest again, but I've found the rest doesn't need to be as long this time around. You can even send out the manuscript to another set of beta readers or to a couple of betas in your first set. Then the process continues as follows:

2nd edit
3rd edit
4th edit
[each subsequent edit is like running a finer-toothed comb through the manuscript. In the first edit, the changes are on the multi-paragraph, scene, or chapter level. In the second edit, they are on the paragraph or partial-scene level. In the third, they are on the phrase or sentence level. By the fourth, changes are on word level. Sometime four edits is enough, but what I've found, especially for newer authors, is that 5-10 edits are necessary. EDITS! Not spot-reads or re-reads. EDITS, where the full manuscript is being read, word-by-word, each time.]

I do employ an editor who reads my manuscript three times, usually at the beta stage, the first edit stage, and final edit stage. All authors should have a good editor helping them out.

After the final edit, you proofread. If you make further changes to the content during the proof, you proofread again.

And once all proofing is done, you format the manuscript and can say, "I'm finished."

Writing the first draft is about 1/3 of the work that goes into writing a book. It's the easy part. It's the beta phase, rewriting, editing, and proofing where you'll find the work. The final 2/3 is the hard part, because it can be hard to listen to negative feedback and realize you have to make major changes to certain elements of your book. It's hard to cut out chunks of material you worked hard on, and which might even contain little gems you're uber-proud of. And it's hard to re-read your manuscript over and over, editing and searching for mistakes, tweaking and refining, and rearranging elements to improve flow.

But when you say, "I'm Finshed," it's worth it. Because then you can REALLY celebrate.

Happy writing!

Rules of Writing - Part III - My Own Contribution to the List

Look at those pictures. Do those look like a nice, friendly altercations or angry ones? Pretty angry, right? Now, is this the kind of reaction you want to provoke in your fans and readers? Probably not.

My contribution to the list of rules I've posted over the past week would be: Unless you are Stephen King or any number of other highly successful authors who have earned the right to do pretty much whatever they want without repercussions to book sales, don't use your author persona to post your political agenda or publicly display where you stand on certain heated, societal issues. And definitely do NOT start a campaign against any one person or group of people who piss you off, don't agree with your political/social agenda, or write a bad review of one of your books. Doing so is akin to starting a protest, and from countless pictures we've seen of protests, not very many end happily or peacefully. Of course, if you're not serious about your writing, or if you have such a massive and loyal following you don't have to worry about losing fans, protest away.

Here's a true story: A few months ago, I became so disillusioned with one author's political and social agendas, as well as her posts against those who she felt "had it coming," that I had to unfriend her. Sad, but true. She is an exceptionally knowledgeable writer, and someone I had truly liked for quite some time, but I just couldn't take it anymore and found myself becoming angrier with every post she made, which is not something I want to feel when I'm trying to be productive. Her posts had progressively become more belligerent and argumentative in groups I was in with her to the point I had to leave the groups, and when she went on a crusade to out another writer/person who had a history of making stupid and inexcusable comments, I said "enough" and clicked unfriend. I wish her luck, but I can't be part of her success story anymore. But her actions did make me realize the importance of this rule, because I saw how her behavior made me and a few other people react to her by distancing ourselves from her. As a result, I never want to instigate such a reaction from my fans (and I will honestly admit that I could see I had the potential to do that), and I'm sharing this story with you so you don't make the same mistake, either.

Here's the thing: I don't care where my fave authors sit on political issues, and I don't want to see them get into cock fights with another person who, quite frankly, doesn't deserve the attention, whether justified or not. That's not why I follow them or their fan pages. To engage in such politically and socially charged conversations and crusades is counterproductive and can damage your reputation, and you can turn friends into enemies with just one carelessly written post.

You don't see J.R. Ward, Nora Roberts, Sherrilyn Kenyon, and other best sellers posting about such heated subjects and making public outcries for the rights of certain segments of society (and even if they do, look at where they are. They've earned a place where they can afford to behave that way. We indie authors aren't quite there, yet). And you don't see those best selling authors arguing with their fans, making passive-aggressive posts against them and becoming the very thing they are speaking out against. That's not how you keep fans or win new ones. It's how you lose them and dissuade others from joining your ride.

If you want to be taken seriously as an author, you need to behave the way a serious author behaves. See that which you wish to become and emulate it. If you want to become a best seller, you need to behave like one. If you want to be the next J.R. Ward or Stephen King, do as they do and emulate the paths they took to get there.

The long and short of this rule is to be very careful what you say and post when in your author persona. I have learned this lesson from experience in the past few months, and it really is an important rule to abide by. One that I wish I had followed a few months back myself, because I've overstepped my boundaries once or twice, as well. Luckily, I'm learning from my mistakes. I hope you do, too, because you'll be much happier.

Happy Writing and Reading! (Operative word: HAPPY)

-D