Point of view - the Da Vinci Code, narrator style?

[cmhine]

I was re-Reading the davinci code - or bits of it - and noticed the point of view switched quite a lot.

Now I'm NOT referring to the pov between chapters - I'm fine with that. I'm talking about how: example, chapter 74, this is the paper back version - if that makes a difference - starts off with Langdon and his internal thoughts being narrated. Then, there's a double space - same chapter - and it's Sophie's turn to begin internalising?

Now I thought that pov had to be consistent throughout. At least inside a chapter boundary. Clearly the Da Vinci Code is a proper read, short chapters, fast paced. My question is: is it ok to swap pov as quickly as this? I'm sort of telling myself it is because it worked for Dan Brown. And if the pov is changing, what's the narrator style? Is it third person, omniscient? Or third person limited?

Can anyone advise on these minor topics. I was also studying use of tags and beats in this best selling novel. Dan uses a lot of adverbs for his tags. Made me laugh actually when I read: He gushed! Hmmm, I thought. But the package works.
vo

[Lin]

There is absolutely no reason for POV to remain the same in the same book, the same chapter, the same paragraph, or even the same sentence. *

"POV" has become a mania with writer-vultures rivalling "adverbs" and "hero journey" and people keep saying they know statutes of limitations on this, but they don't. *It's up to you and rather than something you set up like an erector set, it flows from the story you're telling and its narrative voice.

Don't pay any attention to anybody who uses the term "head-hopping" for POV shifts. And for a good reason: they are a *moron. * So there.
I've heard people say that you can't use a minor character's POV. *This is technical fallacy generally known as "bullroar".

You're in charge. *The only responsibility you have is to make sure the reader follows what you are saying or trying to do.

Take a look at a few things here:

--Minus Miller was lounging on his barstool trying to catch the eye or other anatomical point of either of the two bored whores on the back stools when the door opened and he lost interest in the bimbos because he knew from dangerous dudes and this guy with the yellow suit and white planters hat was definitely it. *He subsided, keeping an eyd on the dude and a foot towards the alley door.
Marques scanned the joint, taking in the impassive bartender, the suddenly frozen whores, and the spooked jitterbug over by the back door. *Well, he wasn't here now, but he bet he'd show up pretty soon. *He dusted off a stool. laid his cane on the bar, smiled at the tarts and beckoned the bartender.

Now. *Have you seen things like that before. *In novels or movies. *We have a minor character we never see again and actually see from his point of view or camera angle because he's a foil to showcare the main event. *
Did it jar you do move from his viewpoint to the POV of the guy in the yellow suit?

Now look at this:

--Candy gawked at Celeste's new tits thinking, the little slut had finally pushed her self-absorbtion too far, but Jimmy stared at the nose cone job and suddenly saw his ex in a new light of possibilities and promise and gee, wonder if she'd consider getting bck together with me for an hour or so, while Celeste eyed them both with a frigid demeanor and rigid jaw: great, Barbie and Ken checking me out like like we were never all squirming in a naked pile together, the yuppy phonies.

Not an elegant sentence, perhaps, contived--and quickly--but the thing is: does it confuse you? *You've seen a scen from three different POV's with internal thoughts from all three. *Are you lost and pancked and fretful? *

[Lin]

Is it third person, omniscient? Or third person limited?

I'll ask you another one: do those phrases really mean much to you? *Do they tell you what to do or how something should read?
Do you get the feeling you could (or should) plan a book by saying, "I think I'll use "third person limited"?

What does this do for you: * "I'm just standing there staring at what Celeste had somebody do to her boobs *and Jimmy is gazing at her like a moonstruck pointer (if you catch my drift) thinking like, *And I thought she was a handful before, and here she comes, waltzing up to me like Jessica Rabbit and says, "I hope you don't mind if your fellah has a temporary relapse."d

--Candy was standing there staring at what Celeste had somebody do to her boobs *and Jimmy was gazing at her thinking, AndI thought she was a handful before, when she waltzed over like Jessica Rabbit saying, "So you noticed my hair," but thinking, I hope you don't mind if your fellah has a temporary relapse,

And this isn't even getting into esoteric type stuff where the writer WANTS the reader to be confused and read over thigns twice.

[CTK]

The book is more or less third person limited perspective, it worries me that the first time anyone would notice this would be in "Da Vinci Code"...but the thing is that its pretty common. In fact I write pretty much like that when I do my own stuff. There's no rule saying you can't do it.

[cmhine]

Hi Lin, sorry for delay in responding.

Cheers for adding all that you added. I see what you're saying in that it's all good so long as the reader isn't left feeling confused, and I do agree with your point about writing theory taking the soul out of creativity - or at least I think that's what you were sort of implying.

You actually cheered me up cos there are a number of places in my novel where the head shot shifts quite dramatically and suddenly, to the point where - after I'd read it was taboo - I panicked. I ended up asterisking the end of my paragraph where the pov changed. Your examples are where the pov really shifts and you're right, it works. I was worried cos i've read so many novels where the pov remains fixed, unless there's a scene change or chapter change.

Thanks for replying though.