Point of View: One or Many

I've been wrangling with the idea of point of view and whether than more is better than one. I keep asking myself this question around the latest reading I have done: Runaway (Munro), The Woman Lit by Fireflies (Harrison), A frivolous woman (Gordimer) and The Winter Father (Dubus). And mostly I struggle with the unanswerable question: what if the author made a different choice would the story have been better? Unless I can afford to commission any of them (still living) to rewrite their story at my whim I'm out of luck. And maybe that isn't the question, maybe the question is: what did the decision the author made do to the story?

• Munro's choice made the surrender of Carla to her life with Clark more sinister. If he hadn't had another point of view than Carla's, he couldn't have told the reader that the goat had disappeared at Clark's hand. In effect, to tell this story, Munro had no choice other than to provide us with another point of view.
  
• Harrison only uses point of view shift briefly and it doesn't materially impact the story. If we hadn't drifted into Roth's seat for a moment the story wouldn't have changed. In this instance it seems almost accidental rather than intentional.
  
• Gordimer uses one point of view to influence the reader. Since it is told from the son's point of view and he is deeply attached to his mother in complicated ways, you absorb and then, subsequently, are distanced from his perspective of her. This choice allows the author the freedom to portray Grete's persona (which was essential to her) without having to examine her inner workings. You sit in the story like a guest at any one of her frivolous parties.
  
• Dubus uses one point of view to bring us closer to Peter, to feel his parental anxiety. He also makes this choice because Peter is somewhat of a narcissist and so being closeted on within his head, seeing the world his way enhances his character.
  

Of all the above stories, Munro's really has the most plot and action, action that changes the dimension of the story. The other three, while having action in them, are about the character and the character's state of mind. Where that character may be (in a cornfield or driving kids to and fro) serves only to deepen the readers understanding of the character. If Dubus had started the divorce in summer, you wouldn't have felt the relief of that season. In Maine we have the most incredible summers only because we suffer through difficult winters, in California you lose the dimension of weather because the days are (relatively) the same.

So then the question becomes what decision did I make in Sandia Peak and what did it do for me? I use only one point of view. I did so because the story is about Gina. It's her awakening, but also her taking action and asserting herself when her life has been a series of events she did not initiate. That she has been "victim" to them, passive, is part of the reason that I chose to write it from her viewpoint. It is intended to be an internal journey as opposed to a series of events. Telling Gina's story, or part of it, from another perspective feels like it would break the framework of the story I am trying to create. I guess I could commission myself to write another version (I work cheap).