Could anyone please tell me what the difference is between third person omnipotent and third person past tense, and if possible give me an example of each please?
Many thanks,
Barbara
Many thanks,
Barbara
Third Person Omnipotent
- Thread starter Bo Sullivan
- Start date
- Status
Omniscient, right?
Third person omniscient and third person limited can both be past, present, or future, whatever you want. Usually they're past.
Limited means you only know the thoughts and feelings of one character at a time. Maybe only one for the whole novel. This is maybe the easiest POV to sell just because most readers don't have objections to it. Practically any third person novel you pick up is told in third person limited POV.
Omniscient means the narrator knows everything all the time. It's a lot harder to pull off, generally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_of_view_(literature)#Third_person
Does that help?
Third person omniscient and third person limited can both be past, present, or future, whatever you want. Usually they're past.
Limited means you only know the thoughts and feelings of one character at a time. Maybe only one for the whole novel. This is maybe the easiest POV to sell just because most readers don't have objections to it. Practically any third person novel you pick up is told in third person limited POV.
Omniscient means the narrator knows everything all the time. It's a lot harder to pull off, generally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_of_view_(literature)#Third_person
Does that help?
I think you mean "third person omniscient". Omniscent means all knowing, omnipotent means all powerful.
Take a look at the Writing FAQs thread stickied to the top of the writing forums. There are some links to threads about POV in there.
Quick answer to your question: an omniscient narrator has the ability to show the thoughts of any character in the story. A limited narration is through the eyes of a single character in each scene, though the story might have several POV characters.
Third person = "he or she" rather than "I" (first person)
Present tense ("He runs through the door") vs. past tense ("He ran through the door")
ETA: I think we all posted at the same time...
Take a look at the Writing FAQs thread stickied to the top of the writing forums. There are some links to threads about POV in there.
Quick answer to your question: an omniscient narrator has the ability to show the thoughts of any character in the story. A limited narration is through the eyes of a single character in each scene, though the story might have several POV characters.
Third person = "he or she" rather than "I" (first person)
Present tense ("He runs through the door") vs. past tense ("He ran through the door")
ETA: I think we all posted at the same time...
Thanks to you all - I was trying to determine the style which chose me rather than I chose it.
My novel is in third person omniscient (true crime 1692.)
Does writing in third person omniscient mean that the reader will be distanced from the characters in such a way that it makes the novel uninteresting?
My novel is in third person omniscient (true crime 1692.)
Does writing in third person omniscient mean that the reader will be distanced from the characters in such a way that it makes the novel uninteresting?
That's no rule, there. It's all in three things: characters, plot, writing.
It does mean you're not providing the reader with easy opportunities to 'bond' with one character (the POV, through whose eyes the reader follows the story in third person limited), but that doesn't mean you can't write it in a compelling way that will make the readers love and care for your characters, and your story.
Choose the right POV/tense for that particular story. Is it a character-driven story centered around one main figure? Perhaps third person limited would be better. Is it a plot-driven story with many important characters? Maybe third omniscient is better. Etc, etc. (I, quite obviously, have simplified it for the sake of this explanation).
Hope that helps.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 8,654
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.amazon.com
Not necessarily, but 3rd person omniscient does establish some kind of distance by way of an all-knowing narrator, sitting on the cloud if you will telling you what's going on. So somehow you have a distance and you don't get the kind of intimacy like you would with 3rd limited or 1st person. However, it all depends on how you write it.
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure the Series of Unfortunate Events books by Lemony Snicket are third omniscient?
And that sure has worked well.
And that sure has worked well.
Hi,
To give you an example of how I write, I will put an extract below. Can you tell me if it is 'working', so far as you as a reader are interested or not,
Running very fast along Charing Cross Road was a young man, dressed in no more than a shirt and trousers, whose name was James Leonard. He was no more than a youth of eighteen. Three men and one woman, who were quite some distance behind him, because he had stolen a man’s wallet, were pursuing him. James could outrun them, he was sure of it. He had not long ago returned from Ireland, where he had been a waiting-boy in the Army. Turning down a side road, James continued to run, and did not find himself out of breath. He turned down another road called Buckingham Court and began to run past a row of houses. Seeing a window open on the ground floor of one particular house, he decided to sneak up and take a look inside. Drawing nearer, he observed that it was a kitchen. There was a maid inside busying herself with cooking pies. It did not take James long to notice that two golden brown pies had already been cooked and had been set down on the window sill. One was covered with sugar and looked as if it were made of Apple. James’s mouth began to water and he decided that he should sample the pie without further delay. He reached into the window and stole the pie behind the maid’s back, then sat down on the grass outside and ate the pie, which he found to be delicious. No sooner had he finished the first pie, than he decided that he should be the owner of the second. He stood upright and peeked into the window again to observe the scene. The maid was singing a pretty little song, which made him smile to himself. The second pie was still there and he reached in to claim it, noticing by a quick touch of his hand, that it was nicely cooled, but suddenly the maid turned to face the window and cried out:
“Why you thief, would you make yourself the master of my pie? Where is the other pie I set down on the sill? You have not taken it? It was for my mistress’s supper! You rogue! You Villain!”
James turned as if to depart, and then he laughed at her and said, “You are a good cook and a pretty maiden!” Then he darted away round the corner, taking care not to retrace his steps, and his only regret was that he had not sampled the meat pie first.
Thanks Rhea,
There are many characters in the story, so I think I have chosen the right style. (Hopefully.)
It really doesn't work for me, I'm afraid. I tried. But I couldn't engage with any of the characters.
Part of it is that the sentences seem muddled. e g: "Three men and one woman, who were quite some distance behind him, because he had stolen a man’s wallet, were pursuing him"
Read it again. Is it really as clear as it could be? It is basically of the form: "Fred, who was wearing a hat, because he wanted exercise, was running." Almost every sentence was like that!
Story wise, too, I tried to get engaged but couldn't. He is running from someone! Pursued! Excitement! OK - I had the exciting tale of his pursuit paused to explain his name and other details I wasn't worried about .. but I can live with that.
But how does the pursuit end? It doesn't. He just runs along. Sees 'a particular house' and something else happens!
And the interaction between the thief and the maid? I couldn't identify with either of them! Her speech was bizarrely a list of rhetorical questions with no interaction - how could I empathise with her?
I liked the very last line, though - very Mark Twainish!
Good luck,
Mac
Last edited:
The PoV does work for me. It sounds a lot pre-20th-Century, but it also sounds like this is a deliberate effect (whimsical dialogue).
There are problems in the piece, but they have little to do with PoV, and more with information control:
Take the intro:
The problem isn't the omniscient narrator, but the "confused" narrator. You'll have to keep track of what you're telling and not jump all over the place.
For example: In the first sentence you have "young man", and then later devote an entire sentence to his age. All the while, he's running. Between the age descriptions, there's reference to what he's wearing, as well as his name. (Aside: 18 was a bit "older" in 1692 than it is now; "yong man" sounds more appropriate than "youth".) If you re-order the ideas, you might end up with something like this:
Running very fast along Charing Cross Road, wearing shirt and trousers but no shoes, was young James Leonard. [Notice how the "no shoes comment" ties the clothing description to the "running action"; this is just to show that description has more force if it's scene relevant. Similarly, I have no idea what "waiting boy in the Army" has to do with being sure to outrunning his pursuers. Perhaps he wasn't waiting so much, when he messed up?]
Because in omniscient, the word-flow isn't dictated by character, you'll have to make more of an effort to order your information/description/action reports in a well-flowing manner. (That's, I think, why many people call omniscient harder. It's certainly harder for the muddle-brained [like me, hehe].)
If I were you, I'd go on like that, and then re-arrange it into a better flow once the first draft is done.
There are problems in the piece, but they have little to do with PoV, and more with information control:
Take the intro:
The problem isn't the omniscient narrator, but the "confused" narrator. You'll have to keep track of what you're telling and not jump all over the place.
For example: In the first sentence you have "young man", and then later devote an entire sentence to his age. All the while, he's running. Between the age descriptions, there's reference to what he's wearing, as well as his name. (Aside: 18 was a bit "older" in 1692 than it is now; "yong man" sounds more appropriate than "youth".) If you re-order the ideas, you might end up with something like this:
Running very fast along Charing Cross Road, wearing shirt and trousers but no shoes, was young James Leonard. [Notice how the "no shoes comment" ties the clothing description to the "running action"; this is just to show that description has more force if it's scene relevant. Similarly, I have no idea what "waiting boy in the Army" has to do with being sure to outrunning his pursuers. Perhaps he wasn't waiting so much, when he messed up?]
Because in omniscient, the word-flow isn't dictated by character, you'll have to make more of an effort to order your information/description/action reports in a well-flowing manner. (That's, I think, why many people call omniscient harder. It's certainly harder for the muddle-brained [like me, hehe].)
If I were you, I'd go on like that, and then re-arrange it into a better flow once the first draft is done.
Thanks, it sounds much better. I only wrote that scene yesterday, as an opening scene, but the rest of the book is in fourth draft and much more well ordered!
Barbara
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2007
- Messages
- 7,011
- Reaction score
- 6,237
- Location
- the notion state
- Website
- telepathicparanoia.com
For what it's worth, I think 3rd person omniscient is perfectly acceptable for a true crime story. It may even be the standard...
I think omniscient would work, but limited might be more fun to play with.
Just as a note, the repetition of the phrase "no more" in the first two sentences jarred me a bit. Also, you might want to tweak the dialogue, because it sounded somewhat stiff. A lot of the other stuff I noticed has already been mentioned. Just my two cents, life without them won't break you.
Just as a note, the repetition of the phrase "no more" in the first two sentences jarred me a bit. Also, you might want to tweak the dialogue, because it sounded somewhat stiff. A lot of the other stuff I noticed has already been mentioned. Just my two cents, life without them won't break you.
I think omniscient would work, but limited might be more fun to play with.
Just as a note, the repetition of the phrase "no more" in the first two sentences jarred me a bit. Also, you might want to tweak the dialogue, because it sounded somewhat stiff. A lot of the other stuff I noticed has already been mentioned. Just my two cents, life without them won't break you.
Thanks, I didn't see that until you pointed it out! I'm usually careful not to use the same word twice in a paragraph. I must be getting careless.
Could you give me an example of third person limited please? I don't know what it is.
Thanks,
Barbara
Sorry, I just saw this and it explains "limited" to me, but could you write a couple of lines to display here what you mean.
i.e. is this third person limited:
“Mistress Vanwicke, if my house were full of money I would not lend you any more, as long as you keep company with Henry Harrison, for he will spend it for you. I would advise you to become a gentleman’s housekeeper; I could help you to a place. You now owe me one hundred and twenty pounds, although I would happily take one hundred.”
Duped - what you have written is dialogue.
Look at any novel on your shelf and if it's not written in Omniscient, chances are it is 3rd Limited. In any given scene or chapter, or maybe throughout the whole book, everything is seen or experienced through the senses and emotions of one particular character. The narrator stays way in the background, keeps his own thoughts to himself, and doesn't interject his own thoughts and personal opinions as the writer. Any help?
Look at any novel on your shelf and if it's not written in Omniscient, chances are it is 3rd Limited. In any given scene or chapter, or maybe throughout the whole book, everything is seen or experienced through the senses and emotions of one particular character. The narrator stays way in the background, keeps his own thoughts to himself, and doesn't interject his own thoughts and personal opinions as the writer. Any help?
Last edited:
Ha Ha - I meant to post:
The problem with Doctor Clenche being rather prosperous brought about his eventual downfall. He was a generous man to many people who asked to borrow money from him. It was not that he was a moneylender in the eyes of society; but rather a benevolent and philanthropic soul who cared for the misfortunes of others.
Duped - about a dozen threads down from this is a thread called POV Primer. In it you will find several links I feel you may find helpful.
It's here http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73396
It's here http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73396
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 8,654
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.amazon.com
I'm not going to do a crit here, but from what I read there are a few things that jumped at me. For one thing, you use an awful lot of sentences starting with a participial verbs. I counted like three or four in one paragraph. That reads really clunky.
I do think you're writing in 3rd omniscient -- there's a clear narrator separate from everything else. I agree that it lacks focus. While you're describing the action, you're throwing in descriptions and info about the characters, or naming a street, telling us about his past in the army, etc. that break the flow of the action. There is also some passiveness in the narration, which I think keeps the readers at an even greater distance from the story, instead of plunging them directly into it:
Running very fast along Charing Cross Road, wearing shirt and trousers but no shoes, was young James Leonard.
Why not just:
James Leonard, barely eighteen, dashed along Charing Cross Road, wearing a shirt and trousers but no shoes.
That's more immediate and engaging but still keeps the omniscient narrative. Also, watch your word choices. Why use "ran very fast" when you can use "dashed" or "sprinted"?
I think an omniscient narrator would be good for a true crime story, but you have to decide who your narrator is (even if the narrator is not part of the story) and keep it consistent and engaging. Just because it's omniscient doesn't mean it has to be distant and stiff. Also keep focus. Just because it's omniscient doesn't mean you can jump all over the place at will. For example, you can describe his age right in the action, as an attribute, without breaking the flow. Sometimes these are minor points so don't sweat it, but if the narrator keeps losing focus and jumping all over the place to give us information during action, it doesn't read well. That's when omniscient loses its effect, IMHO.
As far as 3rd limited is concerned.... no, your example is just dialogue, in first person. there's nothing 3rd limited about it.
Just imagine writing that scene again (abut James Leonard) but completely from his point of view. Meaning, he can't really stop and describe what he's wearing, or who are chasing after him. What he could tell you is what he felt, sensed or observed during his run. Also, your narrator would be very close to the character -- maybe even assuming the character's ID at that point, instead of an "omniscient" narrator. I could rewrite your scene and come up with a 3rd limited version:
With nothing on his feet, James Leonard sprinted along Charing Cross Road. He just stole a man's wallet, and people were chasing after him. James knew he could outrun them, just like he had outrun everyone else in the Army in Ireland. Continuing down a side road, he ran without even losing a breath. He turned down Buckingham Court Road, past a row of houses. Seeing a window open on the ground floor of one particular house, he decided to sneak up and take a look inside. Through the window, a maid was busying herself with cooking pies in the kitchen....
Here, everything is limited to what James knows or feels or senses/sees/observes/hears. You can't describe the people chasing him because he can't observe that. The POV is closer than omniscient (you can't say "he turned down a road called Buckingham Court" which assumes a rather distant narration). You keep focus by only talking what is happening at the moment -- you may sneak in info like he was in the army without breaking the flow, but you're also limited to the info he knows. You can't describe the maid until he actually sees her.
That's what 3rd LIMITED means. It's a limited POV, confine by your POV character.
Last edited:
Thank you very much for explaining it to me Maestrowork. It is very kind of you. I'm trying to use late seventeenth century language in my book as it is set in 1692. That's why I used running and not jogging or sprinting.
- Status