Mixing
Is head-hopping always bad?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
The general consensus nowadays seems to be that being in the head of more than one character is bad. We should be "on the shoulders" or "in the head" of one character, and one character only, if not throughout the novel, then at least throughout a "part" (chapter etc.). Often the POV change (note we have a POV concept,) occurs together with a geographic change - the characters we're following are in different places, experiencing different things.
However, I look at older literature, and find that this is not a universal truth. For example, in Les Misérables, we start the first part with Bishop Myriel. knowing both his thoughts and those of his sister, then we switch to Jean Valjean, then we have all three in the same scene, dipping into the heads of all three.
(I would have added quotes, but I only have the book in French. If anyone can edit in anything relevant, it would be appreciated.)
I say 'dipping into' as most of the time we are not in the head of anyone at all, we're not following any POV, but listening to an omniscient narrator, a sort of reporter who is a person unto himself, who tells us what we should know, and often comments on the occurrences, on the characters, or on relevant history and philosophy.
A more modern example, The Lord of the Rings, still has in the same passage (LotR II, chapter 3 - The Ring Goes South):
Frodo took only Sting; and his mail-coat, as Bilbo wished, remained hidden.
Frodo's POV, since he's the only one at this point who knows about the mail? Or omniscient, Frodo-centred?
Aragorn sat with his head bowed to his knees; only Elrond knew fully what this hour meant for him.
Omniscient narrator, in Elrond's head.
Sam eased the pack on his shoulders, and went over anxiously in his mind all the things that he had stowed in it, wondering if he had forgotten anything
That's clearly Sam's head.
Right in the next scene (same chapter):
At first it seemed to the hobbits that although they walked and stumbled until they were weary, they were creeping forward like snails, and getting nowhere.
Collective POV?
Away in the south Frodo could see the dim shapes of lofty mountains that seemed now to stand across the path that the company was taking.
Finally, we're in Frodo's head! He's the MC, right? (Arguments about whether he or Sam are the MC should be held elsewhere, please. Not in the comments either.)
The above examples show that, (unless someone wishes to argue that Hugo and Tolkien didn't know what they were doing,) hearing the thoughts, feelings and knowledge of more than one character in the same scene is sometimes OK. (Is it head-hopping?)
When is it OK? What about the above examples (and other similar ones) makes it OK, whereas it is not OK under different circumstances?
My first thought was that maybe the older novels don't go quite as dip into characters' heads as we do nowadays. But then I saw this is not true: right in Myriel's house, Hugo goes deep into Valjean's internal conflict, to steal or not to steal the silver. Throughout the novel, Valjean's soul is not "dipped into", but laid bare before the reader. Similarly, Tolkien gives us Frodo's (and Sam's) thoughts and feelings, his internal journey.
What is the answer, then?
This question is related, but the answer it has is "head hopping is bad", whereas I am trying to understand the examples where head hopping is apparently not bad.
fiction style viewpoint grammatical-person
asked 3 hours ago
Galastel
17k34497
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
The general consensus nowadays seems to be that being in the head of more than one character is bad. We should be "on the shoulders" or "in the head" of one character, and one character only, if not throughout the novel, then at least throughout a "part" (chapter etc.). Often the POV change (note we have a POV concept,) occurs together with a geographic change - the characters we're following are in different places, experiencing different things.
However, I look at older literature, and find that this is not a universal truth. For example, in Les Misérables, we start the first part with Bishop Myriel. knowing both his thoughts and those of his sister, then we switch to Jean Valjean, then we have all three in the same scene, dipping into the heads of all three.
(I would have added quotes, but I only have the book in French. If anyone can edit in anything relevant, it would be appreciated.)
I say 'dipping into' as most of the time we are not in the head of anyone at all, we're not following any POV, but listening to an omniscient narrator, a sort of reporter who is a person unto himself, who tells us what we should know, and often comments on the occurrences, on the characters, or on relevant history and philosophy.
A more modern example, The Lord of the Rings, still has in the same passage (LotR II, chapter 3 - The Ring Goes South):
Frodo took only Sting; and his mail-coat, as Bilbo wished, remained hidden.
Frodo's POV, since he's the only one at this point who knows about the mail? Or omniscient, Frodo-centred?
Aragorn sat with his head bowed to his knees; only Elrond knew fully what this hour meant for him.
Omniscient narrator, in Elrond's head.
Sam eased the pack on his shoulders, and went over anxiously in his mind all the things that he had stowed in it, wondering if he had forgotten anything
That's clearly Sam's head.
Right in the next scene (same chapter):
At first it seemed to the hobbits that although they walked and stumbled until they were weary, they were creeping forward like snails, and getting nowhere.
Collective POV?
Away in the south Frodo could see the dim shapes of lofty mountains that seemed now to stand across the path that the company was taking.
Finally, we're in Frodo's head! He's the MC, right? (Arguments about whether he or Sam are the MC should be held elsewhere, please. Not in the comments either.)
The above examples show that, (unless someone wishes to argue that Hugo and Tolkien didn't know what they were doing,) hearing the thoughts, feelings and knowledge of more than one character in the same scene is sometimes OK. (Is it head-hopping?)
When is it OK? What about the above examples (and other similar ones) makes it OK, whereas it is not OK under different circumstances?
My first thought was that maybe the older novels don't go quite as dip into characters' heads as we do nowadays. But then I saw this is not true: right in Myriel's house, Hugo goes deep into Valjean's internal conflict, to steal or not to steal the silver. Throughout the novel, Valjean's soul is not "dipped into", but laid bare before the reader. Similarly, Tolkien gives us Frodo's (and Sam's) thoughts and feelings, his internal journey.
What is the answer, then?
This question is related, but the answer it has is "head hopping is bad", whereas I am trying to understand the examples where head hopping is apparently not bad.
fiction style viewpoint grammatical-person
asked 3 hours ago
Galastel
17k34497
1
Be wary of assuming you can copy other authors, especially if they wrote it over 50 years ago. The usual writing tips are in many ways responses to recent changes in what readers seek.
– J.G.
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
The general consensus nowadays seems to be that being in the head of more than one character is bad. We should be "on the shoulders" or "in the head" of one character, and one character only, if not throughout the novel, then at least throughout a "part" (chapter etc.). Often the POV change (note we have a POV concept,) occurs together with a geographic change - the characters we're following are in different places, experiencing different things.
However, I look at older literature, and find that this is not a universal truth. For example, in Les Misérables, we start the first part with Bishop Myriel. knowing both his thoughts and those of his sister, then we switch to Jean Valjean, then we have all three in the same scene, dipping into the heads of all three.
(I would have added quotes, but I only have the book in French. If anyone can edit in anything relevant, it would be appreciated.)
I say 'dipping into' as most of the time we are not in the head of anyone at all, we're not following any POV, but listening to an omniscient narrator, a sort of reporter who is a person unto himself, who tells us what we should know, and often comments on the occurrences, on the characters, or on relevant history and philosophy.
A more modern example, The Lord of the Rings, still has in the same passage (LotR II, chapter 3 - The Ring Goes South):
Frodo took only Sting; and his mail-coat, as Bilbo wished, remained hidden.
Frodo's POV, since he's the only one at this point who knows about the mail? Or omniscient, Frodo-centred?
Aragorn sat with his head bowed to his knees; only Elrond knew fully what this hour meant for him.
Omniscient narrator, in Elrond's head.
Sam eased the pack on his shoulders, and went over anxiously in his mind all the things that he had stowed in it, wondering if he had forgotten anything
That's clearly Sam's head.
Right in the next scene (same chapter):
At first it seemed to the hobbits that although they walked and stumbled until they were weary, they were creeping forward like snails, and getting nowhere.
Collective POV?
Away in the south Frodo could see the dim shapes of lofty mountains that seemed now to stand across the path that the company was taking.
Finally, we're in Frodo's head! He's the MC, right? (Arguments about whether he or Sam are the MC should be held elsewhere, please. Not in the comments either.)
The above examples show that, (unless someone wishes to argue that Hugo and Tolkien didn't know what they were doing,) hearing the thoughts, feelings and knowledge of more than one character in the same scene is sometimes OK. (Is it head-hopping?)
When is it OK? What about the above examples (and other similar ones) makes it OK, whereas it is not OK under different circumstances?
My first thought was that maybe the older novels don't go quite as dip into characters' heads as we do nowadays. But then I saw this is not true: right in Myriel's house, Hugo goes deep into Valjean's internal conflict, to steal or not to steal the silver. Throughout the novel, Valjean's soul is not "dipped into", but laid bare before the reader. Similarly, Tolkien gives us Frodo's (and Sam's) thoughts and feelings, his internal journey.
What is the answer, then?
This question is related, but the answer it has is "head hopping is bad", whereas I am trying to understand the examples where head hopping is apparently not bad.
fiction style viewpoint grammatical-person
asked 3 hours ago
Galastel
17k34497
The general consensus nowadays seems to be that being in the head of more than one character is bad. We should be "on the shoulders" or "in the head" of one character, and one character only, if not throughout the novel, then at least throughout a "part" (chapter etc.). Often the POV change (note we have a POV concept,) occurs together with a geographic change - the characters we're following are in different places, experiencing different things.
However, I look at older literature, and find that this is not a universal truth. For example, in Les Misérables, we start the first part with Bishop Myriel. knowing both his thoughts and those of his sister, then we switch to Jean Valjean, then we have all three in the same scene, dipping into the heads of all three.
(I would have added quotes, but I only have the book in French. If anyone can edit in anything relevant, it would be appreciated.)
I say 'dipping into' as most of the time we are not in the head of anyone at all, we're not following any POV, but listening to an omniscient narrator, a sort of reporter who is a person unto himself, who tells us what we should know, and often comments on the occurrences, on the characters, or on relevant history and philosophy.
A more modern example, The Lord of the Rings, still has in the same passage (LotR II, chapter 3 - The Ring Goes South):
Frodo took only Sting; and his mail-coat, as Bilbo wished, remained hidden.
Frodo's POV, since he's the only one at this point who knows about the mail? Or omniscient, Frodo-centred?
Aragorn sat with his head bowed to his knees; only Elrond knew fully what this hour meant for him.
Omniscient narrator, in Elrond's head.
Sam eased the pack on his shoulders, and went over anxiously in his mind all the things that he had stowed in it, wondering if he had forgotten anything
That's clearly Sam's head.
Right in the next scene (same chapter):
At first it seemed to the hobbits that although they walked and stumbled until they were weary, they were creeping forward like snails, and getting nowhere.
Collective POV?
Away in the south Frodo could see the dim shapes of lofty mountains that seemed now to stand across the path that the company was taking.
Finally, we're in Frodo's head! He's the MC, right? (Arguments about whether he or Sam are the MC should be held elsewhere, please. Not in the comments either.)
The above examples show that, (unless someone wishes to argue that Hugo and Tolkien didn't know what they were doing,) hearing the thoughts, feelings and knowledge of more than one character in the same scene is sometimes OK. (Is it head-hopping?)
When is it OK? What about the above examples (and other similar ones) makes it OK, whereas it is not OK under different circumstances?
My first thought was that maybe the older novels don't go quite as dip into characters' heads as we do nowadays. But then I saw this is not true: right in Myriel's house, Hugo goes deep into Valjean's internal conflict, to steal or not to steal the silver. Throughout the novel, Valjean's soul is not "dipped into", but laid bare before the reader. Similarly, Tolkien gives us Frodo's (and Sam's) thoughts and feelings, his internal journey.
What is the answer, then?
This question is related, but the answer it has is "head hopping is bad", whereas I am trying to understand the examples where head hopping is apparently not bad.
fiction style viewpoint grammatical-person
fiction style viewpoint grammatical-person
asked 3 hours ago
Galastel
17k34497
asked 3 hours ago
Galastel
17k34497
asked 3 hours ago
Galastel
17k34497
asked 3 hours ago
Galastel
17k34497
asked 3 hours ago
Galastel
17k34497
17k34497
1
Be wary of assuming you can copy other authors, especially if they wrote it over 50 years ago. The usual writing tips are in many ways responses to recent changes in what readers seek.
– J.G.
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
1
Be wary of assuming you can copy other authors, especially if they wrote it over 50 years ago. The usual writing tips are in many ways responses to recent changes in what readers seek.
– J.G.
2 hours ago
1
1
Be wary of assuming you can copy other authors, especially if they wrote it over 50 years ago. The usual writing tips are in many ways responses to recent changes in what readers seek.
– J.G.
2 hours ago
Be wary of assuming you can copy other authors, especially if they wrote it over 50 years ago. The usual writing tips are in many ways responses to recent changes in what readers seek.
– J.G.
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
It's fine if the switch is clearly intentional and well sectioned-off. It's fine to jump between POVs for say, chapters or whole scenes. What isn't all right is for a book that mostly is one POV, but occasionally will be privy to the thoughts and feelings of another character for a single line/paragraph of a scene, then hops right back to the main character's POV. If you want the freedom to show any character's thoughts at any time, don't bother with a POV style at all, just write with an omniscient narrator.
Having mostly a POV style and breaking consistency for a random moment, that is what's referred to as head-hopping. What you refer to is just multiple POVs or omniscient narration, which happens... pretty much everywhere. I myself wrote in dual POVs; a protagonist and deuteragonist, alternating with each chapter. That, I believe, is perfectly acceptable.
answered 2 hours ago
Matthew Dave
3,506429
I was going to answer... but you pretty much said what I was going to say. And much more to the point, too.
– Sara Costa
37 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Take a look at The Couple Next Door. There is a fair amount of the more traditionally-accepted head hopping and it works fine. It's a recent title.
The advice against head hopping is, I believe, because for a novice it is too easy to accidentally head hop. Learning how to effectively stay in viewpoint is (in my opinion) very necessary as a basic storytelling skill. PoV impacts so much of the experience. I'm about sixteen months into learning how to write novel-length fiction and I'm still learning lots of PoV details.
With the caveat that no rule is absolute, here are a few things I'm gathering from reading published fiction (3rd person limited, or 1st person):
Never state the motivation of a non-PoV character except with the qualifier 'seemed to'. He seemed to be bothered. The PoV character is described in terms of motivation. He was bothered.
Be careful when describing the PoV character's appearance, throughout. Fine to describe non-PoV character appearance.
Avoid describing details of body parts of PoV character's actions, but it's fine to do so for the non-PoV character. She opened the door is fine for either.
She opened the door with the flat of her palm is more appropriate to the non-PoV character.
These are in addition to the obvious PoV language that one uses. There are probably more small distinctions out there.
Head hopping is fine, but since it takes a little while to master PoV consistency, and perhaps since so many folks can publish so easily these days, the guideline to not head hop seems like a good 'training wheels' sort of rule to follow, until you feel ready to write in a more advanced way.
answered 17 mins ago
DPT
11.1k22274
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
It's fine if the switch is clearly intentional and well sectioned-off. It's fine to jump between POVs for say, chapters or whole scenes. What isn't all right is for a book that mostly is one POV, but occasionally will be privy to the thoughts and feelings of another character for a single line/paragraph of a scene, then hops right back to the main character's POV. If you want the freedom to show any character's thoughts at any time, don't bother with a POV style at all, just write with an omniscient narrator.
Having mostly a POV style and breaking consistency for a random moment, that is what's referred to as head-hopping. What you refer to is just multiple POVs or omniscient narration, which happens... pretty much everywhere. I myself wrote in dual POVs; a protagonist and deuteragonist, alternating with each chapter. That, I believe, is perfectly acceptable.
answered 2 hours ago
Matthew Dave
3,506429
I was going to answer... but you pretty much said what I was going to say. And much more to the point, too.
– Sara Costa
37 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
It's fine if the switch is clearly intentional and well sectioned-off. It's fine to jump between POVs for say, chapters or whole scenes. What isn't all right is for a book that mostly is one POV, but occasionally will be privy to the thoughts and feelings of another character for a single line/paragraph of a scene, then hops right back to the main character's POV. If you want the freedom to show any character's thoughts at any time, don't bother with a POV style at all, just write with an omniscient narrator.
Having mostly a POV style and breaking consistency for a random moment, that is what's referred to as head-hopping. What you refer to is just multiple POVs or omniscient narration, which happens... pretty much everywhere. I myself wrote in dual POVs; a protagonist and deuteragonist, alternating with each chapter. That, I believe, is perfectly acceptable.
answered 2 hours ago
Matthew Dave
3,506429
I was going to answer... but you pretty much said what I was going to say. And much more to the point, too.
– Sara Costa
37 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
It's fine if the switch is clearly intentional and well sectioned-off. It's fine to jump between POVs for say, chapters or whole scenes. What isn't all right is for a book that mostly is one POV, but occasionally will be privy to the thoughts and feelings of another character for a single line/paragraph of a scene, then hops right back to the main character's POV. If you want the freedom to show any character's thoughts at any time, don't bother with a POV style at all, just write with an omniscient narrator.
Having mostly a POV style and breaking consistency for a random moment, that is what's referred to as head-hopping. What you refer to is just multiple POVs or omniscient narration, which happens... pretty much everywhere. I myself wrote in dual POVs; a protagonist and deuteragonist, alternating with each chapter. That, I believe, is perfectly acceptable.
answered 2 hours ago
Matthew Dave
3,506429
It's fine if the switch is clearly intentional and well sectioned-off. It's fine to jump between POVs for say, chapters or whole scenes. What isn't all right is for a book that mostly is one POV, but occasionally will be privy to the thoughts and feelings of another character for a single line/paragraph of a scene, then hops right back to the main character's POV. If you want the freedom to show any character's thoughts at any time, don't bother with a POV style at all, just write with an omniscient narrator.
Having mostly a POV style and breaking consistency for a random moment, that is what's referred to as head-hopping. What you refer to is just multiple POVs or omniscient narration, which happens... pretty much everywhere. I myself wrote in dual POVs; a protagonist and deuteragonist, alternating with each chapter. That, I believe, is perfectly acceptable.
answered 2 hours ago
Matthew Dave
3,506429
edited 1 hour ago
answered 2 hours ago
Matthew Dave
3,506429
answered 2 hours ago
Matthew Dave
3,506429
answered 2 hours ago
Matthew Dave
3,506429
3,506429
I was going to answer... but you pretty much said what I was going to say. And much more to the point, too.
– Sara Costa
37 mins ago
add a comment |Â
I was going to answer... but you pretty much said what I was going to say. And much more to the point, too.
– Sara Costa
37 mins ago
I was going to answer... but you pretty much said what I was going to say. And much more to the point, too.
– Sara Costa
37 mins ago
I was going to answer... but you pretty much said what I was going to say. And much more to the point, too.
– Sara Costa
37 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Take a look at The Couple Next Door. There is a fair amount of the more traditionally-accepted head hopping and it works fine. It's a recent title.
The advice against head hopping is, I believe, because for a novice it is too easy to accidentally head hop. Learning how to effectively stay in viewpoint is (in my opinion) very necessary as a basic storytelling skill. PoV impacts so much of the experience. I'm about sixteen months into learning how to write novel-length fiction and I'm still learning lots of PoV details.
With the caveat that no rule is absolute, here are a few things I'm gathering from reading published fiction (3rd person limited, or 1st person):
Never state the motivation of a non-PoV character except with the qualifier 'seemed to'. He seemed to be bothered. The PoV character is described in terms of motivation. He was bothered.
Be careful when describing the PoV character's appearance, throughout. Fine to describe non-PoV character appearance.
Avoid describing details of body parts of PoV character's actions, but it's fine to do so for the non-PoV character. She opened the door is fine for either.
She opened the door with the flat of her palm is more appropriate to the non-PoV character.
These are in addition to the obvious PoV language that one uses. There are probably more small distinctions out there.
Head hopping is fine, but since it takes a little while to master PoV consistency, and perhaps since so many folks can publish so easily these days, the guideline to not head hop seems like a good 'training wheels' sort of rule to follow, until you feel ready to write in a more advanced way.
answered 17 mins ago
DPT
11.1k22274
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Take a look at The Couple Next Door. There is a fair amount of the more traditionally-accepted head hopping and it works fine. It's a recent title.
The advice against head hopping is, I believe, because for a novice it is too easy to accidentally head hop. Learning how to effectively stay in viewpoint is (in my opinion) very necessary as a basic storytelling skill. PoV impacts so much of the experience. I'm about sixteen months into learning how to write novel-length fiction and I'm still learning lots of PoV details.
With the caveat that no rule is absolute, here are a few things I'm gathering from reading published fiction (3rd person limited, or 1st person):
Never state the motivation of a non-PoV character except with the qualifier 'seemed to'. He seemed to be bothered. The PoV character is described in terms of motivation. He was bothered.
Be careful when describing the PoV character's appearance, throughout. Fine to describe non-PoV character appearance.
Avoid describing details of body parts of PoV character's actions, but it's fine to do so for the non-PoV character. She opened the door is fine for either.
She opened the door with the flat of her palm is more appropriate to the non-PoV character.
These are in addition to the obvious PoV language that one uses. There are probably more small distinctions out there.
Head hopping is fine, but since it takes a little while to master PoV consistency, and perhaps since so many folks can publish so easily these days, the guideline to not head hop seems like a good 'training wheels' sort of rule to follow, until you feel ready to write in a more advanced way.
answered 17 mins ago
DPT
11.1k22274
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Take a look at The Couple Next Door. There is a fair amount of the more traditionally-accepted head hopping and it works fine. It's a recent title.
The advice against head hopping is, I believe, because for a novice it is too easy to accidentally head hop. Learning how to effectively stay in viewpoint is (in my opinion) very necessary as a basic storytelling skill. PoV impacts so much of the experience. I'm about sixteen months into learning how to write novel-length fiction and I'm still learning lots of PoV details.
With the caveat that no rule is absolute, here are a few things I'm gathering from reading published fiction (3rd person limited, or 1st person):
Never state the motivation of a non-PoV character except with the qualifier 'seemed to'. He seemed to be bothered. The PoV character is described in terms of motivation. He was bothered.
Be careful when describing the PoV character's appearance, throughout. Fine to describe non-PoV character appearance.
Avoid describing details of body parts of PoV character's actions, but it's fine to do so for the non-PoV character. She opened the door is fine for either.
She opened the door with the flat of her palm is more appropriate to the non-PoV character.
These are in addition to the obvious PoV language that one uses. There are probably more small distinctions out there.
Head hopping is fine, but since it takes a little while to master PoV consistency, and perhaps since so many folks can publish so easily these days, the guideline to not head hop seems like a good 'training wheels' sort of rule to follow, until you feel ready to write in a more advanced way.
answered 17 mins ago
DPT
11.1k22274
Take a look at The Couple Next Door. There is a fair amount of the more traditionally-accepted head hopping and it works fine. It's a recent title.
The advice against head hopping is, I believe, because for a novice it is too easy to accidentally head hop. Learning how to effectively stay in viewpoint is (in my opinion) very necessary as a basic storytelling skill. PoV impacts so much of the experience. I'm about sixteen months into learning how to write novel-length fiction and I'm still learning lots of PoV details.
With the caveat that no rule is absolute, here are a few things I'm gathering from reading published fiction (3rd person limited, or 1st person):
Never state the motivation of a non-PoV character except with the qualifier 'seemed to'. He seemed to be bothered. The PoV character is described in terms of motivation. He was bothered.
Be careful when describing the PoV character's appearance, throughout. Fine to describe non-PoV character appearance.
Avoid describing details of body parts of PoV character's actions, but it's fine to do so for the non-PoV character. She opened the door is fine for either.
She opened the door with the flat of her palm is more appropriate to the non-PoV character.
These are in addition to the obvious PoV language that one uses. There are probably more small distinctions out there.
Head hopping is fine, but since it takes a little while to master PoV consistency, and perhaps since so many folks can publish so easily these days, the guideline to not head hop seems like a good 'training wheels' sort of rule to follow, until you feel ready to write in a more advanced way.
answered 17 mins ago
DPT
11.1k22274
edited 11 mins ago
answered 17 mins ago
DPT
11.1k22274
answered 17 mins ago
DPT
11.1k22274
answered 17 mins ago
DPT
11.1k22274
11.1k22274
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fwriting.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39246%2fis-head-hopping-always-bad%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
Be wary of assuming you can copy other authors, especially if they wrote it over 50 years ago. The usual writing tips are in many ways responses to recent changes in what readers seek.
– J.G.
2 hours ago