Why three different points of view?

Why do you think the author chose to tell the story from three different points of view? 

I thought the author was clever to devote chapters to her characters viewpoints The language she chose for each character was distinct enough to set the stage and create a mood and atmosphere for the background and social standing of each. At first I did not realize the chapters were dealing with past incidents already occurred, but quickly discovered the incidents were being told from another perspective. This technique could have been really confusing and contrived, but Freeman was able to pull it off with interest.

I think it added a great deal of depth to the story (at least Ruth's and Charlotte's perspectives). The women - came from two such different worlds that we really needed both sides for better understanding. I'm still thinking about George's perspective... I think it could have been just as strong without his story at all! What do others think?

I thoroughly enjoyed and looked forward to how each character would perceive events and circumstances.
The way it was structured make the book so rich in detail.

I think we needed to hear from George or we would not have been able to "see" many parts of the story first hand, but also I think we needed it for balance. On the one hand he was a despicable character but on the other he was also a product of his circumstances. Undoubtedly he had more options than the female characters and, when faced by two paths, seemed to have an unerring ability to take the wrong one, but still, don't you feel just a bit sorry for him?

The thing that I found most interesting about the author's use of the three points of view was that certain events happened in two (or more) sides of the story and the additional point of view either added depth or additional details we might not have gained had we only heard the first point of view. One specific example of this that really stuck out to me was the situation with the horse that George bought for Charlotte, Locket. From George's point of view we learn very few details about Charlotte's interactions with the horse and then we learn it has colic and then it has to be put down. But from Charlotte's point of view we hear about how much she loved that horse (I think because it represented a piece of freedom for her and also it would not be shocked by her scars as most humans were) and that she believed Perry had a hand in the horse getting sick and dying. Now whether that was true or not, it was apparent by the difference in stories about Perry between George's point of view and Charlotte's that Perry was not the same person with these two people. I actually think I would have loved to hear at least one small piece from Perry's point of view.

I am agreement with bobbie7 and RebeccaL. and I don't need to repeat their well stated comments. Amberb's comment really got me to think...Is George's story really needed to make this novel interesting, effective and believable?

I think that since the main characters and the most dynamic ones are Ruth and Charlotte, the novel could still be excellent without George's story. However, his story adds a dimension to this novel that is fascinating and unique as well. Just the fact that he was a bisexual living in the late 18th century was interesting. The author discussed his sexual conflict in an interesting and sensitive way. Also his story gave the reader a different perspective on the limitations of a lower social class in the late 1800's.

So although George's story was more peripheral to the main story arc, his story enriched and improved the novel significantly.

I laughed at how different Charlotte and George's views on their "courtship" was.

I agree with Antoinette that ultimately I felt sorry for George. He was never shrewd enough to make his dreams happen but he couldn't quite see why.

I 'm on the fence on whether George's story was necessary. On one hand, I was always glad to finish his parts and get to Ruth and Charlotte. However, the contrast of a gentleman with education failing versus their successes/growth was stark. Perhaps that is why the book ends with the Epilogue being his story, not theirs.

I personally enjoyed the author's use of differing points of view. I agree that this literary device added depth to the story. The author's skill added to the overall enjoyment of the book. I became attached to the characters and cared about them as a result.

I loved the three points of view. I believe the author needed to do that so that we have a complete picture of the different classes in that time period. I liked gdlenehan's answer that she became attached to the characters. I did the same thing.

The three different points of view add to the readers understanding of the situation without having to go back and lay out all of the details. It also allows the reader to see the different mindsets that are part of the story. It also clearly shows how misunderstandings can happen and what an impact they have on the lives of the characters.

I liked the three points of view because it gave a more detailed look into the minds of the characters and different outlooks of the story. My only thought was why George? I found myself really wondering what Perry was really thinking in his alcohol faded mind.

I love the three different points of views and the mystery of the characters in each view point. The world is not black and white. That is shown through each view point and tells the whole story of what happened. Today's news should look at everyone's view points.

So many books today are written with different voices. I found it a useful tool in this novel. At times I was confused about the time frame.

I liked the different points of view but am not sure that George's really added a lot to this book.