3rd omniscient--the less favorite child?

Omniscience head hops, but it's done differently. I know that doesn't help much In Third omni, the narrator is outside the story, relating all the events and thoughts of all involved. So they're going from head to head as needed. In good third omin (IMHO) that narrator brings their own judgment and views on the situation, telling the story in their own words. Even if the narrator is never seen, there's still a person telling the story. Not just a background author relaying events as they happened.

In third limited, the narrator is the POV the scene is told from, so if you suddenly switch heads, you're also switching POV. Since the third limited internalization and judgment on what's being seen is also part of that third limited POV narrator, you have someone else butting their nose in where it doesn't belong. Two opinions coming out of one mind, so to speak.

For example, if you're in third limited, and you'll rolling along with Bob's story, seeing things through Bob's eyes and you understand Bob's take on everything, to suddenly be told Jane's take out of the blue will jar readers right out of the story.

Third omni lets you know right from the start that someone knows all that happens and how everyone feels about it, so you know that you'll be told what's important when it's important. Hopping isn't as troublesome because the narrator is narrating the entire story, not just their small part of it.

Does that make sense?

okay, here is the low-down dirty on omniscient vs headhopping. there are about four threads floating around about this from the past two week so for more info, they're there.

Omnisicent POV has a narrator. usually the narrator is the author, a unknown voice telling the story. this allows the narrator to focus on characters as she chooses, but also able to comment on the story as a whole. Ann Pratchet's Bel Canto, as pointed out by ideagirl, is a brilliant 3rd person omniscient novel. (based on the bits that i've read. full disclosure, have not read the whole thing yet.) but the opening is clearly a narrator talking about the party, the guest of honour, the POV is clearly that of a commenting narrator. a long time ago, it was the norm of the narrator, who is not always the author, to comment directly to the reader. "but fear not dear reader, for all is not lost." That's not so much in vogue anymore and the narrator now remains unseen, and is usually a version of the author.

Headhopping on the other hand is 3rd limited gone wrong. there is no narrator tying everything together. there is just a dizzying carnival ride of the reader being pulled from one character to another, willy nilly, no focus, no structure, no filter, just bam you're in this guys head and hten half way through the sentence you're in someone else's head but by the time the sentence ends you're back in the original guy's head. then you're in the head of a waiter you'll never read about again simply because the author wants to show you that the MC is beautiful only she's too lazy/not skilled enough to do it in the proper way but she at least knows enough to not have her character look in the mirror.

So 3rd omniscient gives you a great view of everyone who the narrator chooses to focus on and explains their place in the structure of the novel and the plot. headhopping is a bad carnival ride without an explanation or reason.

Head-hopping in any point of view -including omniscient - is a bad carnival ride, because head-hopping means jumping (or hopping) from head to head with neither warning, rhyme nor reason.

Head-hopping is not synonymous with changing POV or moving smoothly from head to head as desired or required by the story. Head-hopping is a jerky and generally undesirable way of moving the reader's focus.

Not all omniscient has a narrator -- a lot of it does, and usually the best, but it can be done without it. For me, one of the best uses of third-person omniscient is GONE WITH THE WIND, which moves effortless from Scarlett's POV to Melanie's to a more godlike view of the situation and then back into Scarlett's head, over to Aunt Pittypat, and so on. Even extremely minor characters (in a book that has something like 125 characters with recognizable personalities and story arcs) get a few moments where their view of the scenario rules. (The ONLY significant character into whose head we never travel: Rhett Butler.) At no point is there any suggestion of a narrator. However, it works beautifully, mostly because Margaret Mitchell's command of the voice is so perfect.

I suspect the AW preference for third-person limited is because of the current preference for it in publishing. Third omniscient is simply used less often these days, which I don't think is really a judgment call on its worth but just the flow of narrative fashion. I think third omniscient can and does still work, but you probably have to really nail it.

The Lonely One said:

I generally understand why changing POV in limited doesn't work quite the same as changing POV in omniscient, but so am I wrong in thinking a fair number of writers prefer limited?

Click to expand...

I'd think that's pretty accurate. Third omniscient, IMO, is probably the hardest POV to get down right, and very difficult for a beginning writer not to screw up, since the nuances are kind of hard to get down. A beginner trying to write "omniscient" will probably just accidentally be writing third limited with a bunch of head-hopping and bad POV switches. So I think, of the third-person writers, most probably do prefer writing third limited. Omniscient doesn't really lend itself to as many stories either.

Actually, I think in some ways, third person omniscient is more comparable to first person than third person limited in approach to voice and stuff, since to really work, there usually has to be a strong narrative presence.

which moves effortless from Scarlett's POV to Melanie's to a more godlike view of the situation and then back into Scarlett's head, over to Aunt Pittypat, and so on.

Click to expand...

the godlike view is the narrator. narrator does not necessarily mean an actual character telling the story although that is possible too. it simply means a godlike view that gives focus to the story, the plot, and the characters.

Head-hopping is not synonymous with changing POV or moving smoothly from head to head as desired or required by the story. Head-hopping is a jerky and generally undesirable way of moving the reader's focus.

Click to expand...

let's clarify this. when bufty says changing POV or moving smoothly he does not mean moving during a sentence or in the middle of a scene. that would be headhopping. switch pov's at the end of a scene or chapter. Romance writers like to switch during a scene, something that is more acceptable in that genre but it is done at a natural break in the scene between beats in the scene itself. Even if you are writing omniscient, try not to switch pov's too often or from paragraph to paragraph. it is dizzying and you run the very large risk of losing your reader because she can't keep up with who is being focussed on. if you wish to show what a group of people are thinking at the same time, pull back to your godlike view/narrator voice and narrate the thoughts rather then going from head to head like a spinning arrow.

ClaudiaGray said:

Not all omniscient has a narrator -- a lot of it does, and usually the best, but it can be done without it. For me, one of the best uses of third-person omniscient is GONE WITH THE WIND.... However, it works beautifully, mostly because Margaret Mitchell's command of the voice is so perfect.

Click to expand...

But there is a narrator -- a narrator doesn't have to be announced. Someone (Margaret Mitchell, the storyteller) is narrating the story with a unified tone and voice. There's definitely a narrator.

It's a mistake to think that a) there is no narrator even when it's incredibly invisible, and b) that 3rd limited's narrator is the POV character -- not really.

There's always a narrator -- sometimes it's the character itself (1st person), and sometimes it's a proxy narrator speaking on behalf of the characters (3rd limited), and then there's the omniscient, all-knowing, behind the scene and away-from-the-story narrator. No matter how intimate or transparent/distant the narrator is, there is one.


Omniscient is hard to do right these days because many writers don't know how to maintain an all-knowing, transparent narrator throughout the entire thing. Instead, they sink into 3rd limited and then head-hop, thinking they're doing omniscient. Not really. A A unique omniscient narrator is extremely important in omniscient narrative. Without which, you have a confusing mess.

But it seems (from my ignorant perspective) the AW'ers prefer limited 3rd by leaps and bounds over omniscient narration. Please, put me in my place if I'm wrong, but it does confuse me a bit.

Click to expand...

Except for me, it seems. I did an audit of my favorite books that I read over and over--the majority are in some form of omniscient viewpoint. It is a lot more common than most people think; I believe many books are attributed as being in third when they may be a form of omniscient. My WIP is in omniscient.

Maybe I just don't properly understand the difference between "head hopping" and omniscience. But from what I gather--mostly from a quick "google" search--omniscience allows head-hopping on a regular basis.

Click to expand...

No, not exactly. Head hopping occurs when the writer jumps into the head of another character, and we see the world through the character's eyes--literally switching the viewpoint to someone else's perpective. With omni, it is always the narrator's perspective. The narrator will dip into the character's thoughts--but not see the world through the character's eyes. There's also usually some kind of transition--very subtle--that keeps the reader from being jarred when the narrator dips.

It is difficult to write--not only because of the potential for head hopping, but also because it can be too distant. It takes a lot of effort to keep the distance so it doesn't turn people off. But it also can really work well for some types of stories where distance helps or where the story is very complex and would be too tedious to develop in detail (thrillers can fit this).

You can often tell a book is in omniscient because it feels like you're outside the characters; almost like there isn't a narrator. Authors who write in omniscient: Terry Pratchett, Clive Cussler, Vince Flynn, Lemony Snicket. They're all very different styles; there's quite a few different ways to do omniscient.

why are we discussing this yet again? it seems we've discussed pov ad nauseum here

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=131219

and here

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132284

and here

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132022

and here

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=131683

and here

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=130597

and here

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=131679

and here

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=131341

And those are all from within the past two weeks.

Ad Frikken Nauseum. Why is this so hard? Everyone says the same thing over and over again. Good solid information that a two-second use of Google can verify. Either people aren't searching or they're not paying attention. I understand having questions. We, none of us, know everything. But POV is one of the most basic things a writer should know. Writers have to educate themselves. Be responsible for your own education. Search AW before you ask. Read a book. Not a how-to write book by your favourite author but a basic narrative structure book that will explain, in detail, the differences in POV. I can highly recommmend "A Passion for Narrative" by Jack Hodgins and "The Art and Craft of Novel Writing" and "How Fiction Works" by Oakley Hall.

Being a writer is more than just throwing words on a page and hoping the good ones will stick. It takes study about structure and plot and yes, POV. It takes serious thought about which POV will be more advantageous to support the plot, which character stands to lose the most, how it will affect the structure of the book. Educate yourself about the basic platform while you're throwing those words at the page. I often think this advice of just write the first draft, the first draft is always shit anyway, ignores the fact that even though it's a first draft, there should be thought behind it. More than about what happens. But about how the novel as an entity is constructed. In other words, don't just decorate the house, but build it. Instruct yourself about framing a house before you put in the pretty furniture/words.

ETA this is directed at everyone, not The Lonely One, but it seems that way because we cross posted. It's for all of us.

nevada said:

why are we discussing this yet again? it seems we've discussed pov ad nauseum here

Click to expand...

If so many people in so many threads are discussing it, then it must be important to them. I noted that all but one of the threads you quoted happened in other forums, and none of the OPs had the question that this OP had. Although the information in the threads is similar, the focus of the threads is different.

I don't understand why you went into a rant over this thread. If I don't want to discuss something, or read something, I just move on. Why raise your blood pressure over a simple question in a simple thread? It makes no sense to me.

I see nothing wrong with having another thread with pov mentioned. If I had to do a search on every single thread in all the forums at AW, I would never post a question. And never get the answers that I need to progress in my writing. The Lonely One did nothing wrong from my perspective. I have been glad, up till your rant that is, to read the thread.

I recommend a cup of Tension Tamer tea with honey. It works wonders.

almost everyone of those threads has a post about the difference between head hopping and omniscient. almost everyone of them has a post about the difference between third limited and omniscient. i know for a fact that one of them has a post about where omniscient is more commonly used, ie literary as opposed to genre. i know for a fact there is one where maestro posted a succint but very clear definition of the three 3rd person pov's and how headhopping is different from omniscient.

LIke i said, it was not directed at you Lonely One but at everyone. Forums like this should be used as a last thing, after a writer has tried to educate himself/herself about basic writing techniques. It just seems that lately, not just about POV, people are asking questions that two seconds on Google would have answered. or five minutes in the library. Maybe it's me. Maybe I'm weird but when I don't know something the first thing I do is research it. only after i have checked google and the library do i ask other people if things are still not clear to me.

as for them happening in other forums, check out more than one forum. you dont have to read every thread, i certainly don't and there are many forums i never go into. but i read basic questions, novel writing, short story writing, roundtable and cruise the genre forums to see if anything catches my eye. it doesn't take hours. techniques used in sci fi can be transferred to thrillers can be transferred to romance.

All instances of you are in general only and not directed at anyone in particular.

I don't understand why you went into a rant over this thread. If I don't want to discuss something, or read something, I just move on. Why raise your blood pressure over a simple question in a simple thread? It makes no sense to me.

Click to expand...

Not a rant. an observation. and i'm reading it because i could learn something.

The Lonely One said:

Don't get me wrong, I completely appreciate what Nevada is saying. It's a dead topic, I should be finding it on my own, etc.

But my point is only that I'm looking for answers from AWer's, more specifically about if omniscience and head-hopping are linked or equally disliked, or whatever. It seems limited is the favorite child, that's all. Also I was interested in omniscient technique because it seems to be more difficult to master in general.

My searches and readings on the topic have been more or less fruitless in that regard.

Click to expand...

then my apologies if i read your question wrong.

Headhopping is bad. it's lazy, it shows lack of skill. for the basic reasons we've discussed.

Omniscient is very difficult to pull off because you have to maintain narrator/godlike view voice and tone and still allow for character's individuality to come through. It is also extremely easy to fall into telling in omniscient. It's used mainly in literary novels because it allows the author to make statements that perhaps the characters themselves cannot make because of their shortsightedness (in spirit not eyes lol). Not statements directly where the author jumps in and says wooo folks pay attention here's the moral of the story. but the author can certainly point out the foolishness, for example, of a character by proper use of the narrator/godlike voice.

3rd limited is favoured in genres, except apparently fantasy but I don't read fantasy so i'll let other people talk about that. There is an immediacy in 3rd limited that is great for really getting to know the character from inside. It allows for characters not knowing things and therefore the reader also not knowing, so it's great for thrillers and mysteries, where the reader can really get into the head of the good guy and the bad guy and the writer can spring suprises on the reader, so when the good guy finds out a shocking truth, the reader also says OMG. (run on sentence, i know)

In romance, 3rd limited from both MC, male and female, can be great to illuminate the falling in love, and the emotional journey the characters take. Omniscient can as well but there's always that filter of the narrator, that consistent voice that distances us a bit from the characters.

The best thing to do is take a really good 3rd omniscient, like Bel Canto and get a couple of highlighters. get a second hand copy cause you're about to mark it up. assign colours to character voice and omniscient narrator voice and read and start highlighting. see how the writer weaves the narrator voice with the character voices. See who the writer chooses to focus on and why? Also see who the writer choses not to focus on and why. Take it apart word by word. A good omniscient voice should be like playing with teh focus on a camera. Pull out to show the whole scene, then focus in one one person for immediacy, pull focus back out, while never losing narrator voice. Omniscient is hard. The hardest part is to get that narrator voice right. remembering that narrator does not necessarily mean another character, but the author or a godlike view.

so, as an author, we have to make a decision when we write. Do we want to be able to comment as it were, do we want to be able to filter character reactions and thoughts through our own observations. Do we want readers to get to know our characters without our interference, to sit back and let the characters take us for a ride? Which is better suited for our story. Omniscient is a slower-paced read, in general, than 3rd limited. 3rd limited is like taking a bath in a character. the reader is almost completely immersed in the character's thoughts and emotions almost as if the reader is that character. completely immersed, head under water, would be 1st person. but that has its own advantages and disadvantages.

I can understand the confusion about POVs though so I kind of expect a lot of questions about them, but it does get a bit repetitive trying to explain the differences again and again. I think nevada (and maybe me, too) just want to help others to understand the differences between all the different types of POV and why they work and why they don't, and why head-hopping (as opposed to omniscient) really isn't the right way to write.

I think maybe we need to use examples. Bring in a couple of books written in omniscient vs. 3rd limited with head-hopping and let's do an analysis of why they're different.

Omniscent is like anything else, do it well and:

The readers rejoice:

Do it poorly and:

The readers beg you to stop torturing literature in your spare time:


If you start a chapter from Bob's POV in 3rd person and continue to follow Bob around the room as though you're staging a reality show in his head, you're writing 3rd limited. Head hopping means that for a paragraph, you just pop over into Ann's head to see what's going on in there. No one knew you had this ability to change frequencies, and it's jarring.

If you start the chapter as though watching from the outskirts of a dream where you're privy to private information from anyone and everyone, you let the reader know up front. As you walk through the crowd, you give a snatch of Bob, and a dash of Ann. You catch a fragment of Ted, and spice things up with Gerry because he's the only one willing to say what everyone's thinking. When Ann gets indignant and storms out, we know she's a hypocrite because the all knowing narrator already told us she was thinking exactly what Gerry said.
People will either like this approach or they'll be confuzzled beyond all reason because they don't like the schitzophrenic feel .


*puts away the handy dandy felt boards and hopes that made sense*

The Lonely One said:

Is there a book or detailed link on how to write omniscient? I know there are fiction writing books in general, but the few I have breeze over the "POV" part, only mentioning in brief how each is written.

It'd be good to read an article or something written specifically about omniscient narration and how-to.

-Lonely

Click to expand...

You'll find it very hard to find much of anything that describes HOW to do the viewpoint. That was the first thing I went in search of, and instead, I found most often the books and websites just gave an example and then usually say, "Don't use it" or some variation of that.

The Power of Point of View would be a good place to start, though. It contains the most in depth discussion of omniscient I've seen. Interesting, though it didn't give me the details about how to; that came from studying books in omniscient. Editor to Rent does carry periodic discussions about the viewpoint, and I've been running some stuff on my blog as I learn more about the viewpoint.

3rd limited: She thought he would love her forever.

3rd limited (headhopping): She thought he would love her forever; he was wondering what was for dinner.

3rd omniscient: She thought he would love her forever but she was wrong.

I know, these are not brilliant (and yes, the second could be omniscient as well), but for me the third is by far the most intriguing line and that's why I like 3rd omniscient.

Omniscient allows you not only to know what everyone is thinking, it also allows you to know what's happening in other places and other times. You can write the story with hindsight. It's a great point of view, I think, for allowing you to play with the reader. You're not limited to giving them the story from inside one character's perspective, so you can tease and tantalise and set up all kinds of fun threads of the story where the reader knows much more than the characters or sometimes much less. It gives you much more control over the way you can tell your story. Though of course with that freedom, there is a need for much greater skill in knowing the best way to tell the story to have the desired effect on the reader.

I love 3rd omniscient narrators who have a clear personality so that, as a reader, I get to see through what they are saying to form my own judgements about what's happening. I especially love when they give the appearance of impartiality but in fact turn out to be massively prejudiced. But I also love the 'invisible' narrators who don't draw attention to themselves.

I have, so far, only written one short story in 3rd omniscient (and even that turns out not to be, in the last couple of paragraphs) and it is really hard. But I am determined to practice it because it's such a satisfying way to write and because it makes for such a satisfying experience for the reader.

I still don't think omniscient voice is the same as having a narrator. For me, a narrator is not the same thing as the authorial voice; a narrator for a book would be a character with a distinct personality that we come to know somewhat, whether or not he is or is not a player in the events at hand. (Very involved narrator: The Great Gatsby. Less involved narrator: Lemony Snicket.) So I would think it both possible to write in third omniscient without a narrator and to write with a narrator but not in third omniscient. (I suppose it would be interesting to parse out whether some of these narrated books count as first-person or third, the Snicket books in particular.)

No, Claudia. Really, a narrator doesn't have to be a character in the story, especially in 3rd person.

You may have one, like Lemony Snicket. But you don't have to (for example, Lord of the Flies, Gone with the Wind). But there's always a narrator (maybe it's a god, or maybe he's just some old guy in the street market telling you a story, or maybe she's your grandmother -- it doesn't matter and needn't be revealed or identified, but it's there).

The Great Gatsby is first person, not omniscient.