Forum: Author Hangout

I would say that the choice is perfectly fine, but you should consider whether you are truly writing a sequel or if you're writing a series. Both options are fine with a POV switch, but it's more common in the latter. Note that I'm using these words in the academic or critical sense, which doesn't always match mainstream or amateur usage.

For clarity, properly speaking:

A Sequel directly follows the preceding work, continuing the story and building on the same characters. While a POV switch is doable, it can be difficult to do while also maintaining the sense of continuance necessary to make it a true sequel.

A Series is a group of related works that share some but not all elements, such as setting, characters, or themes.

In casual speech, terms like sequel, trilogy, and series are used to distinguish between different lengths of a series, but in academia there are actual important differences. For example, a three-book series might be a trilogy, but it doesn't have to be. A trilogy doesn't just need to have three books, but they should be connected in such a way as to tell one overarching story while still telling complete stories individually. Consider the three original Mad Max or Alien films as a three work series vs the original Star Wars or Lord of the Rings films as trilogies. There is a connectivity and continuance in the latter that doesn't exist in the former.

For your purposes, consider not just what you're gaining by changing the POV, but also what you're losing. Will you be able to tell the same story and focus the character development on the same character(s)? Will you need to back up to explain things from a different angle or skip over events you would otherwise cover? Sure, you can show a different perspective, but does that perspective further the same story or create a new story?

Again, I'm not saying that you shouldn't do this, just that you need to think about why you are doing it and if this new book should be considered a sequel or a parallel story. That decision will affect not just how you tell the story, but what story you're actually going to tell.

Military SF author John Ringo does this a lot. His books tend to have multiple POV characters throughout any given novel with minor characters in one book becoming major or key characters in later books, but with the series telling one long contiguous story with the multiple points of view informing the reader of what is going on in different places.

It's not that it's 'jarring', as 1st-person is simply a more limiting perspective. Technically, since the protagonist IS the narrator, the narrator can only describe what he's personally experienced.

There are many workarounds for that (ex: having other characters recount what they others have told them), yet a better option is to try the 1st-person alternatives (ex: 1st-person Omni, 3rd-person Limited and a few other alternatives, as that way you can handily dance between the various limitations). Unfortunately, that those each take time to learn and then master, still they often the best of both.

But as I've often said, the main problem with multiple perspectives, is the reader has no one to focus on, and too often, if there are too many protagonists then the reader has no one to follow, as readers love living live vicariously as the protagonist. And if they don't, they're more likely to not care whether either one actually survives.

So it's simply a more precarious story to write, as you're actually making it harder for you to succeed. It can be done, yet is IS more difficult, a higher hurdle to clear with each lap, as it were.

Again, those other perspectives are better handled via other means, (ex: an Omni-view, in whatever perspective, as then you can easily switch between the characters, yet still maintain a clear protagonist and an independent narrator to describe what the protagonist can't know, as the narrators role is to describe what happens to and around the characters, thus they can better describe the overall story, making the whole story arc easier to maintain.