by Lois Winston
This blog is not meant to be controversial. It’s more about my confusion and trying to understand why a style of writing is verboten in one genre but seems perfectly acceptable in others. Let me explain.
There was one author exempted from the head-hopping rule because she “did it so well.” Or so we were constantly told. We were also told no one else should ever attempt to head-hop. As you can imagine, I was thoroughly confused. I bought one of this author’s books to try to understand what it was she did that no other romance author was allowed to do.
Confusion clouded my brain early into the book. Was I reading the thoughts of the hero? The heroine? Both at the same time? I reread the paragraph several time. I flipped back a page and reread. I read beyond the paragraph in question.
If I couldn’t figure out who was thinking what, how was this the one author entitled to head-hop? And why was it considered successful? I continued reading to the end of the book, hoping for better insight and understanding. I found none. I felt like the equivalent of the little boy who blurted out that the emperor was butt-naked, but I kept those thoughts to myself. After all, I was a rank amateur. Who was I to question a rule presumably set in stone?
As I continued to learn and hone my skills, transitioning from wannabe to published author, I adopted the philosophy that any given scene should be in the point of view of the character with the most to lose at that moment. Doing so raised the stakes and built tension.
Still, the warning about head-hopping had become so ingrained in me that I began seeing it in many other books. I found it prevalent, not only in rereading classic literature but in every literary novel and many non-romance novels I’ve read since.
For instance, I’m currently reading a book that landed on multiple Best Books of 2025 lists. (I’ll refrain from mentioning the title.) Many chapters include two, three, or more POVs, often without transitioning with a scene break.
And then there’s the insertion of omniscient POV where a disembodied narrator adds his two cents. This also occurred in the above-mentioned book with an unnamed narrator periodically inserting himself into the narrative. There are times when this anonymous POV tells the reader the thoughts of two characters at the same time in the same sentence. To me, that’s both author intrusion and lazy writing, but this book is not an anomaly. I’ve seen it in other contemporary literary novels. Why is this archaic style of writing perfectly acceptable in literary fiction but not in genre fiction?
In my own writing, I no longer worry about head-hopping. Since transitioning to writing cozy mysteries years ago, I now write exclusively in first person. Head-hopping is a non-issue because I’m always in my sleuth’s head. I just wish my brain didn’t zero in on head-hopping every time I come across it in a book I’m reading for pleasure. It’s funny how certain lessons, even when filled with misinformation, continue to flit around like gnats in our brain.
Meanwhile, yesterday marked the release of Embroidered Lies and Alibis, Book 15 in my Anastasia Pollack Crafting Mystery series. As in many of the books in the series, the plot was inspired by current events. And although so much of our current events are wrapped around politics these days, I can assure you there’s absolutely nothing political about the plot of Embroidered Lies and Alibis. There’s also no head-hopping.
Post your thoughts on head-hopping for a chance to win a promo code for a free audiobook download of any of the Anastasia Pollack Crafting Mysteries.
Embroidered Lies and Alibis
An Anastasia Pollack Crafting Mystery, Book 15
A Stitch in Time Could Save a Life…
When Anastasia’s mother Flora is offered a free spa vacation from Jeremy Dugan, a man connected to her distant past, Anastasia and husband Zack suspect ulterior motives. After all, too-good-to-be-true often spells trouble. Their suspicions are confirmed when the FBI swoops in to apprehend Dugan. However, Dugan isn’t who he claimed to be, and his arrest raises more questions than answers.
The Feds link Dugan to a string of cons targeting elderly single women across the country, but his seemingly airtight alibi leaves investigators stumped. Then, shortly after his release on bail, he’s kidnapped. A certain segment of New Jersey’s population is known for delivering deadly messages, and the FBI believes Dugan received one of them.
Meanwhile, bodies begin showing up in the newly created public garden across the street from Anastasia and Zack’s home. With two baffling crimes, no clear suspects, scant evidence, and every possible motive unraveling, both the FBI and local law enforcement are once again picking Anastasia’s brain. This time, though, her involvement is far from reluctant. Will she stitch together enough clues before she or someone she loves becomes the killer’s next victim?
Craft project included.
Buy Links
~*~
USA Today and Amazon bestselling and award-winning author Lois Winston writes mystery, romance, romantic suspense, chick lit, women’s fiction, children’s chapter books, and nonfiction. Kirkus Reviews dubbed her critically acclaimed Anastasia Pollack Crafting Mystery series, “North Jersey’s more mature answer to Stephanie Plum.” In addition, Lois is a former literary agent and an award-winning craft and needlework designer who often draws much of her source material for both her characters and plots from her experiences in the crafts industry. Learn more about Lois and her books at her website www.loiswinston.com. Sign up for her newsletter to receive an Anastasia Pollack Crafting Mini-Mystery.
I find head-hopping annoying because it removes me from the illusion that I am in the story with the character. And that's my preferred way to read a book.
ReplyDeleteI know lots of best-selling authors whose readers are clearly not bothered by that because the plot is so compelling or they are love with the character. But for me it's disappointing.
Jim, I'm in total agreement with you!
DeleteThank you, Lois, for joining us at WWK. I find it distracting when I have to reread text to figure out who said what.
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for inviting me, Grace. It's always a pleasure to stop by WWK.
DeleteCongrats on the new release! May it sell many, many copies.
ReplyDeleteI think the ban on headhopping is about clarity. To a certain extent, those worries spill over to back-and-forth dialog. The reader should not end up confused. the speaker, or the actor, or the thinker, should be obvious to even the most obtuse of our readers. How that is accomplished is secondary. Some authors do manage head hopping well. (I was just reading Winnie-the-Pooh to a child, and marveled at the level of headhopping that I'd never even noticed before.)
Kim, I've since come to realize that both head-hopping and omniscient POV were standard in classic literature of the nineteenth and much of the twentieth century. Somehow, we didn't notice it back when those books were assigned reading in English class, but upon rereading them, it really stands out for me. The English language and how we use it is always evolving. I often wonder if some of those classics would ever make it past the slush pile these days. ;-)
DeleteLois, I'm totally with you on head hopping, and I'm not sure if it's because NO HEAD HOPPING was pounded into my brain from day one. Whatever the reason, it jumps out at me and gives me mental whiplash.
ReplyDeleteAs it does for me, Annette!
DeleteI too am not a fan of head-hopping! I also write in first person, so it's not an issue for me, but I find it distracting when I read it. What I really loved that Lois said was to write a scene from the POV of the character who has the most to lose. What a fabulous insight!
ReplyDeleteThanks! I'm not sure where I learned that, but it's some of the best advice I've ever received.
DeleteLove this! Welcome to the blog, and I’m with you, Lois, head-hopping is evil. In my very first book, a romance that lives under the bed, I made sure everyone in the scene had a point of view. After all, how could you enjoy the story if you didn’t know all the players' thoughts. I sent the book off for editing before submitting to agents who I was sure would jump at the chance to represent me and my brilliant work. Well, the edits came back in a matter of days—and this was in the time of snail mail. In two-inch letters printed in red ink on the cover page were the words: THOU SHALT NOT HEADHOP. Got the point, learned the lesson, and buried the book.
ReplyDeleteKait, you were so lucky. Most agents wouldn't take the time to tell you why your book was rejected. That was a great lesson to learn early in your career.
DeleteI agree! Headhopping, in my opinion, pulls me out of the story. It does seem lazy to me because there are always ways to portray another character’s thoughts through the POV character. I’ve never used it, even when writing a dual POV.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, Terry. If it's important to add a second POV to a scene, it's best to add it as dialogue.
DeleteYou mention omniscient PoV, Lois. My reading suggests to me that omniscient PoV can introduce various characters' thoughts, but it doesn't try to put the reader in the character's head the way current styles of intimate PoV do. Omniscient PoV needs to make the switches clear, of course. Does omniscient PoV therefore leave the reader more emotionally distant from the characters?
ReplyDeleteEric, my reading experience has shown me that in most cases omniscient POV is superfluous and pads the narrative with unimportant details. Often, it's an observation by a character who never again appears in the story. It's merely thrown in to add unimportant description or detail. If it's important information, there are better ways to get it across to the reader.
DeleteI was not clear, Lois. I was referring to my reading of the craft literature, which, in places anyway, distinguishes headhopping from omniscient PoV. I've always been uncertain whether Penny's Three Pines novels commit headhopping or are omniscient PoV. In any case, it getting into the heads of various characters didn't put me off the novels.
DeleteEric, in a nutshell the difference between omniscient POV and multiple POVs in a scene (or even a paragraph or sentence) is that omniscient POV is the perspective of a disembodied narrator commenting on everything. That's why it's also referred to as God's POV. In multiple POV, the reader is presented with the thoughts of distinct, individual characters in a scene. That said, though, I've come across some books that contain both, as the one I mentioned in my original post.
DeleteWelcome to Writers Who Kill, Lois. Loved this post as I love all your posts. And I agree—head-hopping is annoying.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Marilyn!
DeleteAs an mystery author who transitioned through the romance genre first, I am quite familiar with headhopping. I don't love it. I didn't love it way back then either. I am all about keeping the reader in the story all the time. Any stops to wonder who's thinking or talking are places where the reader falls out of the story world. However, I give kudos to all successful authors who can pull off quickly rotating POVs. I have written many books in First person and the rest in third. My new series is in third because the villain demanded to be onscreen. I use scene breaks to delineate POV changes, but my critique partners lean toward new chapters for POV changes. Hard to know what's right anymore. I tend to go along with the "whatever floats your boat" philosophy. Congratulations on your new release.
ReplyDeleteMaggie, I've used both scene breaks and new chapters when switching POV in 3rd person. Either way is perfectly acceptable and merely a choice of style.
DeleteThanks for this post, Lois. It prompted a really enlightening discussion. I, too, see well-known and lauded authors today who head hop all over the place. Oh well...
ReplyDeleteThanks for stopping by and commenting, Suzanne!
DeleteI was a reader before I was a writer and the topic of head hopping always confused me. Particularly since I didn't know what it was, and a critique partner told me I was doing it. It occurred to me that in the Sandra Brown novel I'd just read, she'd been writing about a funeral and went into (in one paragraph) eight different heads to talk about how they felt about the deceased. I obediently stopped head hopping once I understood what it was, but I remember that scene and that paragraph, and in that moment, I thought it was effective. I'm a member of the Just Depends club. Congrats on your newest release, Lois! It's a fabulous read.
ReplyDeleteThanks! Glad you enjoyed the new book.
ReplyDeleteI find this whole conversation fascinating (and congrats on the new book, Lois!). I grew up reading lots of omniscient third person, and I didn’t realize it had fallen out of style when I started writing fiction.
ReplyDeleteI’ve always viewed effective omniscient third technique to be like a camera operator with a really good zoom lens: we see the wide shot, and then zoom in closer to a character, and then inside their head, then back out again; the catch is that a writer needs to keep the movement smooth and very clearly signal where you’re going at every moment. (And never “hop” anywhere.)
I think I particularly like this kind of shifting third person perspective for mysteries because it adds a second layer to the puzzle; beyond the on-page contest between sleuth and villain, there’s the sort of implicit game between author and reader, particularly if they read a ton of mysteries and are onto our tricks. This outer-eye third person POV puts onto the page, albeit subtly, the added dimension of saying to the reader, “okay, this character doesn’t know this thing, but now you do; what will you do with this information; will you figure it out before she does?”
But that’s me. :-) And I’d always rather hear a conversation about “Meh, I don’t really care for this” than about “This is Wrong and you shouldn’t do it!” (After all, it is a truth universally acknowledged, that a group of writers in possession of all the tools and modes for telling their stories, should use them! :-)) Mostly, I’m happy that writers are starting to talk about it. :-)
(I am also of a rebellious nature; tell me “you can’t do this!” and my most likely response will be “Oh no? Watch me.” It gets me into trouble sometimes.)
DeleteJennifer, literally styles go in and out of style. Ever notice that no one is writing like Shakespeare lately? ;-) Personally, I think anything works when done right, but anything that pulls a reader from a scene, IMO, isn't work, and I've seen too much of that lately. In addition, writers also have to take into consideration editors and agents' opinions on what works and doesn't work if they're looking to sell traditionally.
DeleteI absolutely agree with you on all counts. :-) I was able to pull off fluid shifting third with my debut, but only with that agent/editor counsel you refer to, and I’m being careful in my current writing to keep the shifts even more distinct—when I started I had no idea this POV was controversial at all, but now that I know, I’m paying attention.
DeleteAnd “style” is really the right word, isn’t it? You know how there’s on the one hand that person who can wear “vintage” clothing ensembles who somehow makes it all work and look fabulous, and on the other the one who tries it and just looks dated and unfashionable and Wrong in all ways? (to be clear—fashion-wise, I’d be that latter person, but I never let go of my mom jeans or my vintage literary styles.)
But then mom jeans came back into “fashion”…maybe omniscient third will too? 😆 In any case, I will forever be its good-natured apologist.—JKB
Lois,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your sage commentary. I still struggle with head hopping. I'm much better at it than my earlier forays. I have to work at finding and fixing when I read my own work. However, like you I spot it in books I read for pleasure. Discussions such as this one, are a great help.
Thanks
You're very welcome. We're all learning as we go. My earliest effort continues to cavort with the dust bunnies under the bed and will never see the light of day. I'd be too embarrassed.
Delete