Ok, I'm confused. I have gotten several different definitions onf omniscient point of view and I don't know which one is right. Please, someone accurately tell me what omniscient point of view is.
Omniscient point of view
- Thread starter Jewel101
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 8,654
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.amazon.com
Omniscient also means "narrator is God." The narrator knows everything, everywhere, and all the time. He knows what all the characters are thinking, sometimes at the same time, and he'll tell you:
Mary thought Jack was a jerk, so she pulled away. Jack, on the other hand, realized Mary might not like him that much, and he wanted to impress her. Meanwhile, 10 miles away in Anytown, Steve is plotting to ruin Mary's and Jack's lives.
Other types of POV:
(Please note these examples are all pretty "telling" instead of "showing." After all, this is not the "how to show vs. tell" thread.
)
1. First person:
I thought Jack was a jerk, so I pulled away. He came over and started to sweet talk me, apparently trying to impress me. Meanwhile, I wondered what steve was doing in Anytown 10 miles away.
2. Second person:
You realized Jack was a jerk, so you pulled away. He came over and started to sweet talk you. You would have nothing to do with that. Meanwhile, you worried about Steve.
3. Third person limited:
Mary thought Jack was a jerk, so she pulled away. He came over and started to sweet talk her. She didn't buy it. Meanwhile, she wondered what Steve was doing in Anytown 10 miles away.
4. Third person limited (rotating):
Mary thought Jack was a jerk, so she pulled away. He came over and started to sweet talk her. She didn't buy it.
Meanwhile, in Anytown, Steve sipped his coffee and thought about ways to break up Mary and Jack.
5. Third person objective:
Mary glared at Jack and pulled away. He came over and started to sweet talk her. She brushed his hand away.
In Anytown, Steve sipped his coffee. On a piece of napkin, he squibbled: how can I break up Mary and Jack?
Mary thought Jack was a jerk, so she pulled away. Jack, on the other hand, realized Mary might not like him that much, and he wanted to impress her. Meanwhile, 10 miles away in Anytown, Steve is plotting to ruin Mary's and Jack's lives.
Other types of POV:
(Please note these examples are all pretty "telling" instead of "showing." After all, this is not the "how to show vs. tell" thread.
)1. First person:
I thought Jack was a jerk, so I pulled away. He came over and started to sweet talk me, apparently trying to impress me. Meanwhile, I wondered what steve was doing in Anytown 10 miles away.
2. Second person:
You realized Jack was a jerk, so you pulled away. He came over and started to sweet talk you. You would have nothing to do with that. Meanwhile, you worried about Steve.
3. Third person limited:
Mary thought Jack was a jerk, so she pulled away. He came over and started to sweet talk her. She didn't buy it. Meanwhile, she wondered what Steve was doing in Anytown 10 miles away.
4. Third person limited (rotating):
Mary thought Jack was a jerk, so she pulled away. He came over and started to sweet talk her. She didn't buy it.
Meanwhile, in Anytown, Steve sipped his coffee and thought about ways to break up Mary and Jack.
5. Third person objective:
Mary glared at Jack and pulled away. He came over and started to sweet talk her. She brushed his hand away.
In Anytown, Steve sipped his coffee. On a piece of napkin, he squibbled: how can I break up Mary and Jack?
Jewel101 said:
Have you ever read 'The Chronicles of Narnia'? They're a good example of omniscient POV. 'Pride and Prejudice' is another.
In omiscient, the narrator knows everything about everybody, and can dip in and out of everybody's head at will. The narrator can even make comments on the situation, such as:
'Dear Reader, please don't think less of little Sally because of this unfortunate incident. Let us leave her to her sorrowful reflections, and look in on another friend, Jack Burrows... '
OR
'Now, John knew very well that what he was about to do was wrong. But he had that horrible knawing feeling in his stomach, which I am sure we have all had from time to time, and he knew that only his mother's freshly baked cookies could ease that feeling...'
Omniscient can sometimes seem like an old fashioned way to write, because it means that the narrator is quite obtrusive in the work. But I think it's coming back into fashion in some literary work now.
Omniscient
God, I hope you're wrong about this. I have read a few novels with omniscient viewpoint that were very good, but in the hands of most writers it's a travesty.
Omniscient works best when it's treated like third person limited for most of the ride.
I'm not sure I'd call authorial intrusion the same thing as omniscient. The writer does often intrude in omniscient, but the two are still different things.
Zolah said:
God, I hope you're wrong about this. I have read a few novels with omniscient viewpoint that were very good, but in the hands of most writers it's a travesty.
Omniscient works best when it's treated like third person limited for most of the ride.
I'm not sure I'd call authorial intrusion the same thing as omniscient. The writer does often intrude in omniscient, but the two are still different things.
Jamesaritchie said:
True - it's just examples like that (especially the 'Dear Reader' ones, whether they are couched that way or not) tend to stick in my mind. Personally I loathe omniscient - I think so many writers use it as a get out clause from developing a strong POV character. But I'm sure I've read somewhere that it's making a comeback in 'literary' circles...(shudder).
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 8,654
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.amazon.com
I recently read a book with a rotating 3rd person limited viewpoint, but occasionally blatant authorial intrusion. It drove me crazy, like "Who is talking here? The narrator? Why? Who is here? God? What?" The author never explained. It's as if the author was stoned when he wrote it and sentences like "I really don't like him, but I digress. Don't mind me. Meanwhile, Jack..." And the editor obviously didn't catch that or was unable to coerce the author to change it...
maestrowork said:
First, I'd like to say thanks for clarifying POV. I think Genre, and sub-Genre's lend themselves to particular POV, and one size doesn't fit all.
I'm going to make another song writing analogy. I took two song-writing courses in "Bach" style in High School. The people who were the most Anal about having to follow rules were always the worst writers. The greatest writers never thought within the "box" available to them at their time. They always stretched boundaries.
Sometimes, "Structure" is simply the tool a teacher needs to explain how you got from point A to B to C, but for some people, those points end up a snare they can never break out of. Structure is not supposed to be a prison, only a guidline.
Song writing always came naturally to me. I could increase my knowledge of chords, and throw in the newest scale. Over the years, I knew other song writers who would paint themselves into a musical box where nothing ever sounded soulful, and they'd ask me what I'd do. It honestly took "un-teaching" because everything was this set of formulas to them. "You can't do that?" Huh? Why not? You aren't supposed to begin on/end on/follow.
I think writers can get overly Anal about POV, to the point where they can't see that sometimes there are places you simply go with instinct rather than rules. Ultimately it's like making food. Dam the rules, if the spice tastes good, throw it in.
I'm only an unpublished wannabe, so I'm probably wrong, but it's my understanding that when you're using omniscient POV, you cannot go in and out of characters' heads. You still have to stay in one head: the narrator's. Yes, the narrator knows what the characters are thinking, so yes, you can say things like, "Oh, she's beautiful," Bob thought, but the narrator won't go into Bob's head to tell us that. The omni narrator stands outside of the story, looking at (and reading the minds of) the characters from distance.
I don't mind omni POV if it's done right. Right now I'm reading Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell. Susanna Clarke got it right.
I don't mind omni POV if it's done right. Right now I'm reading Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell. Susanna Clarke got it right.
The New Yorker story in the April 4 issue (Donald Antrim, "Solace") looked full of POV errors to me. Finally I decided the writer must have used omniscient deliberately. He's no novice. A sample:
"You're tall," she commented as they made their way west. She said this because she was forced to hurry to keep up with him on the sidewalk. Christopher did not understand, however, that her compliment was also a plea. He did not slow his pace.
Readers aren't used to this anymore. I suspect that it was part of the plan and that the two characters have similar names – Christopher, Jennifer – for the same reason. The story traces the early stages of a romance that's Nowheresville for both partners. Maybe Downhillsville would describe it more aptly. The man and the woman are too much alike, and both are poorly differentiated (fuzzy boundaries) in the psychiatric sense. They don't grow; they just cling to each other and reinforce their shared problems. So, in the relationship, they often misunderstand each other and fail to notice that they've done so. I think omniscient was used because it mixes up the characters in a way that reflects the mixup in the way they see themselves and each other.
"You're tall," she commented as they made their way west. She said this because she was forced to hurry to keep up with him on the sidewalk. Christopher did not understand, however, that her compliment was also a plea. He did not slow his pace.
Readers aren't used to this anymore. I suspect that it was part of the plan and that the two characters have similar names – Christopher, Jennifer – for the same reason. The story traces the early stages of a romance that's Nowheresville for both partners. Maybe Downhillsville would describe it more aptly. The man and the woman are too much alike, and both are poorly differentiated (fuzzy boundaries) in the psychiatric sense. They don't grow; they just cling to each other and reinforce their shared problems. So, in the relationship, they often misunderstand each other and fail to notice that they've done so. I think omniscient was used because it mixes up the characters in a way that reflects the mixup in the way they see themselves and each other.
wurdwise said:
Omni narrator is the author, and since he created these characters, he knows what they are thinking. But instead of using the character's voice to tell the readers what that character is thinking, the author uses his own voice. Does that make sense?
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 8,654
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.amazon.com
Crunchy Frog said:
No, that would be objective. Omniscient means the narrator/author does go into the characters' head. Maybe not in "She thought, what a stupid jerk, then she felt the fear..." But subtle "mind-hopping" is still considered omniscient:
She did not understand his expression. A tingly feeling crept up her arms. He watched her closely from behind, slowly inching toward her, trying to scare her to death.
There's no "obvious" mind reading here. But if you read closely, the narrator does go inside the characters' heads and report from their POVs... thus omniscent.
When you said: "Oh, she's beautiful," John thought, you are indeed going inside John's head. I don't see how you can say the narrator is not inside John's head.
Of course, the narrator uses his own voice -- that's called the narrative voice. But it has nothing to do with POV. Every POV has a narrative voice. In 1st or close 3rd, the voice is the POV character's. In other 3rd POV, there is still a narrator and he may or may not be part of the story. Again, the narrative voice has nothing to do with POV. The narrator in a 3rd person story is almost always omniscient -- at least in a broad sense. The only TRUE restricted narrator is 1st person.
I think we're saying the same thing. Just explaining it differently. I like your explanation better. It's not about going in and out of characters' heads, but about keeping the narrative voice fixed.
That makes more sense. Thanks, Maetro!
That makes more sense. Thanks, Maetro!
Very good explanations, but with your permission, I'll add this:
The omniscent POV, third person, is fraught with the kinds of danger you all have described, but if handled carefully the result can be an awesome read. The idea is not to get into everybody's heads -though that's a characteristic, and it has been done effectively several times - but just the top 2-3 characters. Even so, the level of skill required to pull this off is extreme - each character visited must have a complete background, a distinctive voice and world view, and their own agenda. It's hard enough to create all that for ONE character! "Eemerging writers" are well advised to stay away from it until they have reached the level of Edgar Allen Poe, say, or at least Stephen King.
Another danger that hasn't been mentioned is the distance it creates between the story and the reader. Every time you insert another "frame" you remove the reader one more step from the story. The most intimate POV is
first person, the next is 3rdP Limited (in one character's head only, as in GONE WITH THE WIND), the next is Second Person and last, 3rdP Om. So if you choose that one, the reader is already three steps from intimate. In James Conrad's HEART OF DARKNESS the story is framed with a narrator telling others the story. Why Conrad chose this kind of separation I can't think, maybe he thought readers would be too "frightened" if held too close to the story. Another possibility is to write part in first person and part in 3rd. I've seen that done a few times but I never cared for it.
The emergent writer in my opinion should not try "fancy tricks" while still a beginner. Interior decorators usually do one house before taking on a whole subdivision. Don't make it difficult for yourself; try some articles and short stories or vignettes before you try a novel or a full-length non-fiction book.
Thanks for letting me ramble on.
Susan Rand
THE PYGMY PRESS
ePublishing at its Best
Editing/Writing Services
Jobs for Writers
The omniscent POV, third person, is fraught with the kinds of danger you all have described, but if handled carefully the result can be an awesome read. The idea is not to get into everybody's heads -though that's a characteristic, and it has been done effectively several times - but just the top 2-3 characters. Even so, the level of skill required to pull this off is extreme - each character visited must have a complete background, a distinctive voice and world view, and their own agenda. It's hard enough to create all that for ONE character! "Eemerging writers" are well advised to stay away from it until they have reached the level of Edgar Allen Poe, say, or at least Stephen King.
Another danger that hasn't been mentioned is the distance it creates between the story and the reader. Every time you insert another "frame" you remove the reader one more step from the story. The most intimate POV is
first person, the next is 3rdP Limited (in one character's head only, as in GONE WITH THE WIND), the next is Second Person and last, 3rdP Om. So if you choose that one, the reader is already three steps from intimate. In James Conrad's HEART OF DARKNESS the story is framed with a narrator telling others the story. Why Conrad chose this kind of separation I can't think, maybe he thought readers would be too "frightened" if held too close to the story. Another possibility is to write part in first person and part in 3rd. I've seen that done a few times but I never cared for it.
The emergent writer in my opinion should not try "fancy tricks" while still a beginner. Interior decorators usually do one house before taking on a whole subdivision. Don't make it difficult for yourself; try some articles and short stories or vignettes before you try a novel or a full-length non-fiction book.
Thanks for letting me ramble on.
Susan Rand
THE PYGMY PRESS
ePublishing at its Best
Editing/Writing Services
Jobs for Writers
wurdwise said:
Hi, Wurdwise --
Mary watched as Jack stomped into the room. She saw he had his arms folded tight in front of him and his mouth set just as tightly. There'd be no talking with him tonight.
Susie saw the stranger stop and take a second look at the display in Melanie's window. He shook his head slightly, took another step, and stopped. She'd be willing to bet he'd recognized the display just as she had, but when he walked away, without any apparent purpose, just ambled on down the street, she wasn't so sure.
This reading the minds is really well done in well-written first person. A "cozy" detective story may never get out of the tight first or third person viewpoint of the narrator, but the reader will know who the suspects are, and intuit who they aren't, just from the clues planted as the narrator notices things.
Mo
Last edited:
cattywampus said:
Good points.
One thing I've often suggested to new writers having problems with keeping a tight POV is to write the scene in first person. That way the writer is definitely restricted to what the narrator thinks, feels, smells, sees, hears, intuits. Converting that to third is not as easy as changing "I" to "he" because one can be a little less careful with pronouns and dialogue attributes in first, but it can be done fairly easily and will give the new writer a serious sense of what can be done with limited POV narrative.
Mo
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 8,654
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.amazon.com
Ummm...
Mary watched as Jack stomped into the room. She saw he had his arms folded tight in front of him and his mouth set just as tightly. There'd be no talking with him tonight.
Susie saw the stranger stop and take a second look at the display in Melanie's window. He shook his head slightly, took another step, and stopped. She'd be willing to bet he'd recognized the display just as she had, but when he walked away, without any apparent purpose, just ambled on down the street, she wasn't so sure.
Technically speaking, you're going inside Mary's head in the sentences marked red.
Mary watched as Jack stomped into the room. She saw he had his arms folded tight in front of him and his mouth set just as tightly. There'd be no talking with him tonight.
Susie saw the stranger stop and take a second look at the display in Melanie's window. He shook his head slightly, took another step, and stopped. She'd be willing to bet he'd recognized the display just as she had, but when he walked away, without any apparent purpose, just ambled on down the street, she wasn't so sure.
Technically speaking, you're going inside Mary's head in the sentences marked red.
Absolutely, you're in Mary's head. But wasn't the example meant to illustrate how to suggest what's in B's head while staying in A's POV?maestrowork said:
wurdwise said:
Sorry -- I misunderstood your question the first time. The examples I gave were for staying in one character's head while reading the minds of others without going into _their_ heads.
To read the minds of any characters without going into their heads is tricky but can be done with omniscient objective POV. Think camera. Anything the camera sees and hears is reported. Think movies.
Mo
maestrowork said:
Let me see what I can do without going into her head:
Mary stayed seated and very, very still as Jack stomped into the room. He had his arms folded tight in front of him and his mouth set just as tightly. She shrank back in her chair. A small shudder rippled through her, and she bit down on her lip, closing off the last of a whispered word.
Mo
cattywampus said:
That's true no matter what point of view you're writing from. Even in an extremely tight, revealing first person, you have to know what the other characters are thinking, feeling, and wanting. In my experience, one of the best ways to stall out a scene is to imagine it only from the point of view of the protagonist.
As I see it, this is not an "extreme" level of skill. It's basic competence.
In my opinion, writers should try whatever excites them. Some will turn out to have a knack for certain things; others will have a knack for others. (I also think intimacy is more a function of the author's talent and skill than of whether she's writing in first or third.)
That's probably not bad advice, but my feeling is if you're a novelist at heart, don't spend too much time on them. They're a convenient and plausible distraction from what you're really supposed to be doing.
Last edited:
I've been reading up some of the posts here on POV and I even have this book I've been reading. I have a question really. I was reading the post from
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23237
Is this what one would consider (head hopping) and also, why is it considered limited POV and not unlimited?
I tried to write without going into the thoughts of any of the characters but one. But wouldn't that be hard to do--especially wihen sexual scenes are involved. Would it always be something like....
She thought his touch was soft...
She didn't think he like her...
She saw anger in his eyes...
I mean I would think it would get rather boring seeing some of the same words constantly in the book, such as: she thought... she believe... etc.
I've read a lot of books and they all seem the same to me; where the authors goes into the thoughts of more than one character. Help me understand what's really wrong with doing that and why do so many claim to not like reading books that way. If I am in the wrong direction on this, I would love to get back on track. I'm sort of confused now that I've been reading more about this unlimited POV. I would also like to know if I am assuming correctly, thinking that omniscient pov and unlimited pov are the same.
I do understand the confusion in the sample dialogue in the quoted text above and I wouldn't write a story like that, but before, I have written thoughts of more than one character... in seperate paragraphs. Is doing this wrong?
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23237
Is this what one would consider (head hopping) and also, why is it considered limited POV and not unlimited?
I tried to write without going into the thoughts of any of the characters but one. But wouldn't that be hard to do--especially wihen sexual scenes are involved. Would it always be something like....
She thought his touch was soft...
She didn't think he like her...
She saw anger in his eyes...
I mean I would think it would get rather boring seeing some of the same words constantly in the book, such as: she thought... she believe... etc.
I've read a lot of books and they all seem the same to me; where the authors goes into the thoughts of more than one character. Help me understand what's really wrong with doing that and why do so many claim to not like reading books that way. If I am in the wrong direction on this, I would love to get back on track. I'm sort of confused now that I've been reading more about this unlimited POV. I would also like to know if I am assuming correctly, thinking that omniscient pov and unlimited pov are the same.
I do understand the confusion in the sample dialogue in the quoted text above and I wouldn't write a story like that, but before, I have written thoughts of more than one character... in seperate paragraphs. Is doing this wrong?
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2006
- Messages
- 3,553
- Reaction score
- 1,121
Generally, the "limited" in third person limited is simply to distinguish it from third person omniscient, which is, by definition, unlimited.
As to your examples of the restrictions and repetitiousness of third-limited, a better way to show (instead of telling) what the non-POV character is thinking and feeling is through the character's actions. Sometimes you need to fall back on the POV character seeing anger in the other person's eyes, or some such quick-and-dull thing, but you also have the option of describing clenched fists and the like, which makes for a more compelling story than simply hopping into the second POV and writing "he felt angry." You don't need to be in his POV to write "he clenched his fists." (And, yeah, the clenched fist is a cliche, and I'm just offering it as an obvious example, but you'll want to come up with something stronger and more original.)
Switching POV from paragraph to paragraph (switching anywhere short of a scene break) is headhopping, and can be very jarring to readers, breaking the bond with the POV character, which is why it's not a good technique generally. Another consideration is that if you're telling the reader absolutely everything that every character is thinking and feeling, it can really kill the tension in the scene. Think about real life, and how not knowing for absolute sure what the other person in a conversation is thinking adds to the tension of the conversation.
I find it interesting that a LOT of writers feel the urge to headhop in sex scenes even when they don't in other types of scenes, and, really, sex scenes are no different from any other scene, in terms of writing. You've got two characters, each with slightly different goals, in some degree of conflict, and they interact until one of them achieves (or fails to achieve) his/her goal, and then the scene is over.
My personal theory -- and it's just a theory, nothing definitive, and probably doesn't apply to everyone, but I've noticed the tendency in myself and in some other writers I know well -- is that sex scenes are, for obvious reasons, highly emotional, and if you (the author) stay in one POV, you have to feel those emotions, and they can get a little scary, and when they get particularly scary, you (the author) can take a step back by switching to another POV instead of following the original emotion to its deepest and scariest conclusion.
The same thing is true in non-sexual scenes that are highly emotional; if the author gets scared by the emotions in the scenes, the author can be tempted to switch to another POV, instead of having to face the depth of the first POV's emotions. Which, of course, is bad for both the author and the reader, because it drains the story of the very emotion that a reader is seeking.
JD
As to your examples of the restrictions and repetitiousness of third-limited, a better way to show (instead of telling) what the non-POV character is thinking and feeling is through the character's actions. Sometimes you need to fall back on the POV character seeing anger in the other person's eyes, or some such quick-and-dull thing, but you also have the option of describing clenched fists and the like, which makes for a more compelling story than simply hopping into the second POV and writing "he felt angry." You don't need to be in his POV to write "he clenched his fists." (And, yeah, the clenched fist is a cliche, and I'm just offering it as an obvious example, but you'll want to come up with something stronger and more original.)
Switching POV from paragraph to paragraph (switching anywhere short of a scene break) is headhopping, and can be very jarring to readers, breaking the bond with the POV character, which is why it's not a good technique generally. Another consideration is that if you're telling the reader absolutely everything that every character is thinking and feeling, it can really kill the tension in the scene. Think about real life, and how not knowing for absolute sure what the other person in a conversation is thinking adds to the tension of the conversation.
I find it interesting that a LOT of writers feel the urge to headhop in sex scenes even when they don't in other types of scenes, and, really, sex scenes are no different from any other scene, in terms of writing. You've got two characters, each with slightly different goals, in some degree of conflict, and they interact until one of them achieves (or fails to achieve) his/her goal, and then the scene is over.
My personal theory -- and it's just a theory, nothing definitive, and probably doesn't apply to everyone, but I've noticed the tendency in myself and in some other writers I know well -- is that sex scenes are, for obvious reasons, highly emotional, and if you (the author) stay in one POV, you have to feel those emotions, and they can get a little scary, and when they get particularly scary, you (the author) can take a step back by switching to another POV instead of following the original emotion to its deepest and scariest conclusion.
The same thing is true in non-sexual scenes that are highly emotional; if the author gets scared by the emotions in the scenes, the author can be tempted to switch to another POV, instead of having to face the depth of the first POV's emotions. Which, of course, is bad for both the author and the reader, because it drains the story of the very emotion that a reader is seeking.
JD
- Status