Some questions on point of view

3rd limited -- the POV is actually that of the character. The narrator observes through the character (including thoughts).


3rd omniscient -- it's more than just POV shifting. As you already know, you can shift POVs in 3rd limited as well, just not from sentence to sentence, or even within the same sentence. But omniscient is more than that: the narrator actually has a presence -- thus the term "omniscient." The narrator knows everything and can report on anything. It's told from the narrator's point of view, not the characters'.

Yes. And you're not "shifting any pov" since the only pov is the narrator's. The narrator knows everything, so he can report on anything. So you're not technically in any character's pov, so you're not shifting any povs. And since the narrator is all-knowing, he can report on any thoughts without violating any point of view.


3rd limited:

David stopped at the light. Rebecca approached him and he didn't know what to think. She was wearing the necklace Jack had given her. God, she was so beautiful.

Click to expand...

In this case, it's in David's POV, and the narrator observes everything through him. We don't know what Rebecca is thinking, but we can get inside David's mind. We know "he didn't know what to think" when he saw her, and then he thought "God, she was so beautiful."

Now let's look at the same passage in 3rd omniscient with an omniscient narrator:

David stopped at the light. Rebecca turned the corner and saw David. David didn't know what to think when she approached him. She was wearing the necklace Jack had given her, but she hid her hand -- she was also wearing an engagement ring. God, she's so beautiful, David thought.

Click to expand...

It's not just about headhopping. There needs to be a clear narrative voice, and the narrator knows everything and can present any facts. In this case, he chooses to report on both David and Rebecca. There are things David doesn't know (she was turning the corner; she was hiding her engagement ring). The narrator also, in this case, has to attribute the thoughts. It's David who thought "she's so beautiful" as opposed to the narrator thinking that. The audience may understand it's David who is thinking that. But if there are more than one "he"s in the scene, then who is thinking what, since there's no specific point of view, except the narrator's.

(please pardon the poorly written passages -- they're for illustration only)

I was apparently trying to remain in 3rd Omniscient but slipped into 3rd limited accidentally. I'll watch for that. Maybe I'm just ignorant still, but it seems tricky.

Click to expand...

Not ignorant at all, sir. Omni can be extremely difficult to pull off well. By well, I mean without leaving the reader dizzy. This line from Ray is very key:

maestrowork said:

It's not just about headhopping. There needs to be a clear narrative voice, and the narrator knows everything and can present any facts.

Click to expand...

That's the trick to omni. You have to possess an extremely strong and clear narrative voice. Usually in a 3rd limited POV, the narrative takes on some characteristics of the current POV character, while in omni the narrative has to remain its own voice. This requires a very strong and independent narrative.

In my opinion, omni is kind of like Mexican food: When done well, it can be really great. When done not so well, it can make you sick.

Some novels written in omniscient pov are: Gone with the Wind, Thorn Birds, and Anna Karenina.

You may want to take a look at them for reference.

Also, a couple other notables about omniscient --

When you dip into the thoughts of the character to show what they're thinking, you have to make a subtle transition before doing it; otherwise it'll end up head hopping. The transition is usually a single sentence that either shifts it back up into camera view for an instant or a line of dialogue that ties to the next paragraph. Also, from my observations of reading stories with it, it doesn't switch back and forth rapidly, like:

Paragraph 1: Mary's thoughts.
Paragraph 2: George's thoughts.
Paragraph 3: Mary's thoughts.
Paragraph 4: George's thoughts

It's more like:

Paragraph 1: Narrator
Paragraph 2: Mary's thoughts
Paragraph 3: Narrator
Paragraph 4: Narrator
And then, eventually, when the story dictates, it slips into George's thoughts. It might even be a couple of pages before it dips back in again or not until a later chapter.

It's tough to write slipping into the thoughts because you really have to pay attention to pacing and transitions so the change makes senses, adds to the story, and doesn't jar the reader.

Another notable is that omniscient is distancing. In order to do omniscient, some of the phrasing lends itself to distancing. I critted a piece where the writer did a thriller in omniscient and it was so distancing that it actually pushed the reader away. I wish I'd saved it now so I could study why that happened. The phrasing is difficult to write, and it's easy to slip into third if you're writing in a hurry. But, oddly enough, it can work really well for some types of humor.

It's also easy to use "was" a lot, so you have to be alert for it and try to find other ways to write the sentence.

Omniscient works particularly well for fight scenes, where multiple characters are involved. You'll see it a lot in thrillers, particularly ones with a lot of action and other things going on.

Some additional examples of books and writers in omniscient are Vince Flynn, Terry Pratchett, Clive Cussler, W.E.B. Griffin, and a new release called Legend. Even the Harry Potter books are written in a form of omnscient--the openings suggest someone is sitting down around a fireplace telling you the story. Bernard Cornwell also has done some of his books in omniscient, thogh you'd have to look at the book before you got it--some of them are also in first person.

I'm facing a similar challenge with a WIP. It's from one character's POV for the entire first section, in which she is rather isolated within herself. But now, something major's happened, and she's more involved with others. Now, it has become necessary to see what some of the other major players in the story are thinking, too, so, after a section break, the story continues in a more omniscient POV.

Now I find myself, while undertaking the usual challenges of handling omni well, feeling much less "close" to that first MC. That concerns me. But at the same time, it's a relief to *finally* know what certain other characters are really thinking, and it's necessary to the story. It is all working out in an interesting way, but I'm very aware of how carefully I need to tread to make it effective.

--Q

Quossum said:

Now I find myself, while undertaking the usual challenges of handling omni well, feeling much less "close" to that first MC. That concerns me. But at the same time, it's a relief to *finally* know what certain other characters are really thinking, and it's necessary to the story. It is all working out in an interesting way, but I'm very aware of how carefully I need to tread to make it effective.

--Q

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a tradeoff. Omniscient will create that distance, but at the same time, your readers get to know everything and every thought the narrator cares to share. It certainly works better for certain stories (epic adventure with a lot of fight scenes, perhaps) and not so much for others (personal journey story for one character...).

Dialogue is also key to show what the characters are thinking. Let them speak for themselves and concentrate on describing what is going on around them using the third person to set the stage. Only concentrate on inner thoughts when necessary, such as when the a given character is alone or in a dream sequence, etc.

I mean that is one way to do it.

Third person limited is third person limited to certain characters' heads. It could have one POV character, three, or ten--it just has to be done well, and hopefully consciously.

Omniscient narrators are their own entity. They often have personality. Sometimes they might interject something into the text. They color the landscape of the story just as much as a traditional first person narrator would--but they are out of story.

Emma Thompson's character in Stranger than Fiction is an omniscient narrator--you're clued in when she says, "Little did he know". "Little did he know" often occurs in omniscient, but not as often (or at all?) in third limited, because the omniscient narrator...knows all.

On the other end of the spectrum, third person objective is another device defined by a third person narrator who never delves into the characters' internal thoughts.

You are right. How could I forget my first day of English Lit 101! I don't feel very comfortable with the omniscient 3rd person, I like to shade what the reader sees a bit.

Thorton Wilder's Our Town also has a significant amount of third person Omni.

And it's ok to mix a few elements of Omni and Limited together, just keep it within reason and use the one that helps get the feeling across the best.

Ralph Pines said:

You are right. How could I forget my first day of English Lit 101! I don't feel very comfortable with the omniscient 3rd person, I like to shade what the reader sees a bit.

Click to expand...

Third omni is a filter like any other. It's just that the personality telling the story knows every little thing about it. A good omniscient is a filter on the story just like a good third limited.

The narrator of Our Town is a good example, in dramatic form.