By Theodore Boronkay
Many authors try to incorporate multiple perspectives into their writing in place of the singular point of view (POV) of the protagonist. There are advantages to doing so, including gaining a clearer and more heterogeneous view of the fictional setting and being able to peer into the minds of more than one character. However, one of the most taxing challenges of employing multiple perspectives in a novel is the POV switch: that point of transition between two different characters’ POVs. How does one switch perspectives in a way that isn’t jarring and disruptive to the story’s momentum? Authors have approached this concern in different ways, with some switching during a cliffhanger for one character and others switching when a more relevant event in the narrative is occurring for a different character. However, one method that I believe to be the most effective in seamlessly transitioning between character perspectives while maintaining narrative momentum is what I classify as “The Fulcrum Method.”
A fulcrum is a support beneath the center of a seesaw that ensures that the seesaw’s two ends can switch positions. Some stories with multiple perspectives use a “narrative seesaw,” wherein one viewpoint character on one end of the seesaw shifts from above another character to the bottom at which point the character on the other end reaches above the first character and becomes the next viewpoint character. Within the context of storytelling, the fulcrum is something—whether it be an action, an object, an idea, a person, an event, etc.—that bridges two different perspectives and makes the POV switch possible.
I first coined the phrase after the instructor for my first writing workshop, Professor Kevin Miller at Emerson College, had us read Ripley’s Game by Patricia Highsmith and asked us to notice how the author pulled off the narrative seesaw. In the novel, career criminal, murderer, and fraudster, Tom Ripley, convinces his friend to elicit the aid of a terminally ill art framer, Jonathan Trevanny, in assassinating Mafia members, leading to the Mafia hunting down both Tom and Jonathan. Throughout the narrative, the perspective keeps shifting from Tom’s POV to Jonathan’s POV and vice versa but for the first 100 pages of the work, I couldn’t tell what Highsmith’s “narrative seesaw” even was.
Then, in Chapter 11 when Tom and Jonathan first meet, I finally noticed how Patricia Highsmith achieved a “seesaw effect” with her two lead characters’ perspectives:
Tom said over his shoulder to Jonathan, “The string. We’ll give it a try, all right?” / Jonathan understood, or partly understood. Ripley was a friend of Reeves. He knew Reeves’s plan. Jonathan was wadding the garotte up in his left-hand trouser pocket. He pulled his hand out and gave the garotte into Tom’s willing hand. Jonathan looked away from Tom, and was aware of a sense of relief. / Tom pushed the garotte into the right-hand pocket of his jacket, “Stay there, because I might need you.” Tom went over to the WC, saw it was empty, and went in. / Tom locked the toilet door. The garrote wasn’t even through its loop. (Emphasis added.)
The narrative POV seamlessly transitions from Jonathan’s perspective to Tom’s within the same chapter. In this case, the fulcrum is the garotte wire; by handing the murder weapon to Tom, Jonathan cedes his position at the top of the narrative seesaw to Tom who then occupies Jonathan’s position as the viewpoint character. However, the fulcrum isn’t necessarily consistent and often changes throughout the story. For example, at the end of Chapter 13, Tom as the viewpoint character is looking for a harpsichord to buy as a gift for his wife; at the beginning of Chapter 14, when Jonathan becomes the viewpoint character, he recalls the gyroscope that he bought for his son. The end of Chapter 13, from Tom’s perspective, connects with the beginning of Chapter 14, from Jonathan’s perspective through the shared theme of purchasing gifts for their loved ones. Other fulcrums throughout the novel include a bodyguard, Jonathan’s “assassin salary,” Simone, Jonathan’s wife, music and funerals, marriage, and a rifle.
Perhaps the best example of the Fulcrum Method can be found in Chapter 21, while Tom and Jonathan are conversing via a hospital telephone:
“Hello?” / “Jonathan, hello. Tom. How is everything?… Can’t be too bad if you’re on your feet now…. That’s fine.” Tom sounded really pleased. / “Simone was here. Thank you,” Jonathan said. “But she’s—” Even though they were talking in English, Jonathan couldn’t get the words out. / “You had a tough time, I can understand.” Platitudes. Tom at his end heard the anxiety in Jonathan’s voice. “I did my best this morning, but do you want me to—to try to talk with her again? / Jonathan moistened his lips. “I don’t know. It’s not of course that she—” He’d been going to say “threatened anything,” such as taking Georges and leaving him. “I don’t know if you can do anything. She’s so—” / Tom understood. (Emphasis added.)
The perspective switches from Jonathan to Tom, back to Jonathan, and then back to Tom within less than half of a single page thanks to the hospital telephone that serves as the fulcrum between their perspectives. This accomplishes a perspective switch and facilitates the “narrative seesawing” between the novels’ two leads. In response to my claims over the Fulcrum Method’s efficacy in this example, one could counter that the telephone has nothing to do with the perspective switch and the so-called Seesawing could still be accomplished if they were in the same room and just spoke with each other.
However, if this exchange were to occur in person, the constant perspective shifts would likely read as random and dissonant without something “between” the two of them to accomplish the switches. Tom hearing the anxiety in Jonathan’s voice on his end reinforces their simultaneous separation and connection via the telephone, just as two people are on opposite ends of a seesaw and yet bridged by the seesaw’s fulcrum. This doesn’t necessarily mean that Tom and Jonathan need to be physically separate for the method to work, but the reader needs to understand them as separate beings that are connected by something.
The Fulcrum Method is not just about connecting two characters’ perspectives but specifically connecting them through a theme. Rather than switching POVs based on where in the story the reader is, the POV switches based on what theme best represents the relationship between the viewpoint characters. At its core, Ripley’s Game is not just about two men surviving the Mafia, but about an ethical person becoming an amoral murderer and an amoral murderer becoming an ethical person.
The point of the POV switching is to reinforce how interchangeable Tom and Jonathan are becoming with one another until they become practically indistinguishable by the end. The fulcrums throughout the narrative relate to this shared metamorphosis. Jonathan giving Tom the garotte wire demonstrates Jonathan’s discomfort with murder compared to Tom. Simone represents Jonathan’s morality, still keeping him from becoming completely like Tom. Music highlights the men’s respective tastes. The rifle that Tom gives Jonathan represents Tom’s growing respect for Jonathan as a fellow killer and Jonathan’s moral transformation. And the telephone call to the hospital demonstrates Tom’s unprecedented concern for another human being’s life, in this case Jonathan.
Therefore, the Fulcrum Method is not just a writing technique but a story element. In other words, while it is tempting to simply use anything as an intermediary between two POVs in your story, it is not the best use of the method, and writers should instead make sure that the fulcrum is thematically relevant. For example, if you want to use a bottle of red wine as a fulcrum, make sure that the bottle actually serves a narrative purpose or says something about the two viewpoint characters; maybe during the POV switch one character thinks the wine represents merriment and the other thinks it represents bloodshed. Overall, perspective is not just whose eyes the story is seen through, but also what they’re seeing and what that which they’re seeing means. Just as a fulcrum is equidistant from the two ends of a seesaw, so too should the POV fulcrum be something that your viewpoint characters share equally with each other.