I know we’ve all read them, stories where the author is telling a story from the protagonist’s point of view. But in the next scene, the story moves into the mind a bystander to allow the reader to witness a disastrous event. Maybe this bystander gets wiped out.
Next chapter, same thing. Protagonist is struggling along, and in the following scene our point of view shifts to a minor somebody else who yet again allows the reader to witness a major event.
It’s a convenient method of story telling. The reader gets to see what’s happening, and the author can provide all the detail needed.
So is there something wrong with this?
What you want is a seamless bond between the reader and the protagonist. The more points of view you have, the weaker this bond becomes. The general rule is two, maybe three points of view for a normal-sized book, more for an epic. One POV might be for the antagonist, and since we don’t expect the reader to bond with the bad guy, that point of view will likely be limited to actions more than feelings.
Think of books you’ve read where it’s all one “deep” point of view. The protagonist relates the story as it is happening to her, and there is never any intrusion from a narrator’s voice telling us things the protagonist doesn’t know. These stories can be truly gripping. I remember the first time I read one written in deep point of view. I stayed up all night. Couldn’t put it down.
The Hunger Games is a great example of this. Katniss has no way of knowing how the game wizards make or control the game she is in. She can only see the results. And the reader, knowing only what Katniss knows, is gripped by her story.
That’s what you, the author, want. A book the reader can’t put down.