Changing POV in Omniscent (vs. Close-Third)

BarbaraKE · Mar 25, 2009

I swear, this POV stuff is going to drive me nuts. I don't know why I have such a problem with it but I do.

Anyway, I (think I) understand the theoretical difference between close-third and omniscent (though feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

In close-third, I stick with one person's viewpoint - I can only show what s/he sees, thinks, feels, etc. for as long as I'm in that character's POV.

In omniscent, the omniscent 'narrator' knows everything and can show any character's thoughts, actions, etc. at any time (and can also 'talk' directly to the reader).

What's confusing me is switching the POV (especially the 'showing thoughts' part) and the definition of 'head-hopping'.

Since I'm currently re-writing my WIP to be in close-third, let me start with that.

I am writing from the POVs of the two main characters ('A' and 'B'). This is acceptable provided I make a clear distinction when changing POVs (i.e. new chapter or at least a scene break). And when I'm in 'A's POV, I can't show the thoughts of 'B', nor can I describe the actions of 'B' unless witnessed by 'A' (or someone else tells 'A' about it).

And if 'A' is telling 'B' about something that happened in the past (a flashback), the whole flashback has to stay in 'A's POV.

If I switch POV's within a scene, is that 'head-hopping'? (I'm still talking about close-third.)

Now switch to omniscent. Omniscent can show the thoughts of any character. So how does that differ from the alternating close-third POVs I'm doing? In omniscent, can you show different POV's thoughts within a scene/chapter (without providing a clearly defined break)?

I realize that omniscent provides for a 'narrator' who can 'talk' to the reader but - other than that - what is the clear distinction between omniscent and shifting close-thirds?

Sorry for such a long post but I know I must be missing something very important about this whole topic.

Inarticulate Babbler · Mar 25, 2009

Okay, I'm going to give this a shot:

In Deep penetration 3pl (3rd person limited) any switch of PoVs without a break is head hopping. In 3po (3rd person omniscient) you have established the fact that you will be head-hopping, so it's fine (it doesn't break or violate your "contract" with the reader).

How you can get some description of B's reactions while in A's PoV (whether in flashback or not):

1) Voice. Verbal responses show how someone feels.

2) Actions and mannerisms: clenching fists, looking everywhere but at the speaker (or only at the speaker), shuffling feet, shifting hips, running fingers through hair, standing with hands behind their head or arms crossed.

3) Interruptions. These can consist of both of the former, but where they're placed and which type they are will add to B's expressions and characterization, and the reader will interpret them as expressing thoughts.

4) A's observations: thinking B looks angry or amused--or interpreting a smile as sardonic. In this way, you can mislead without withholding, too. A is perfectly capable of getting it wrong.

I hope this helps.

girlyswot · Mar 25, 2009

BarbaraKE said:
Now switch to omniscent. Omniscent can show the thoughts of any character. So how does that differ from the alternating close-third POVs I'm doing? In omniscent, can you show different POV's thoughts within a scene/chapter (without providing a clearly defined break)?

I realize that omniscent provides for a 'narrator' who can 'talk' to the reader but - other than that - what is the clear distinction between omniscent and shifting close-thirds?

Sorry for such a long post but I know I must be missing something very important about this whole topic.

It depends how omniscient you want your omniscient narrator to be. One difference can be that they have the perspective of hindsight. They can also know things that none of your characters know. Another interesting thing to play with is the omniscient narrator who doesn't reveal information. A close 3rd will usually give a reasonably full indication of the relevant thoughts and feelings of the character (not everything, obviously, because that would be tedious). An omniscient narrator might conceal those secrets from the reader.

Think of it like this. If your narrative has:

X thought she had worked out what to do.

then that's X's POV.

If it has:

X thought she had worked out what to do.

Y wondered what X had decided.

then that's a switch from X's POV to Y's POV*.

If it has:

X thought she had worked out what to do but she was wrong. Only Y knew what was coming next and he wasn't telling.

then that's omniscient. There's information there that neither X nor Y know.

*Yes, this could be omniscient as well. You'd want more evidence to show that it really was.

BarbaraKE · Mar 25, 2009

Inarticulate Babbler said:
Okay, I'm going to give this a shot:

In Deep penetration 3pl (3rd person limited) any switch of PoVs without a break is head hopping. In 3po (3rd person omniscient) you have established the fact that you will be head-hopping, so it's fine (it doesn't break or violate your "contract" with the reader).

Ok, maybe that's what I'm missing.

Make sure I have this straight. There are two different versions of 'third-person' - 'third person limited' and 'third person omniscent'. And the difference is that in 3P-limited, you have to have a break between changes in POV while in 3P-omniscent, you don't.

Is there a plain old 'omniscent'?

Why would anyone use 3P-limited? 3P-omniscent seems to have all the same advantages without the disadvantage of having to have a scene break when changing POVs?

girlyswot · Mar 25, 2009

Also, the omniscient narrator is a 'person'. They will have their own voice and their own reason for telling the story, which may well be distinct from the motivations of any of the characters involved. They need not have a name or an active role in the story (though sometimes they will - for example in a story that appears to be told by one of the characters looking back on the events from a distance) but for you as the writer, they will certainly need to have a clear personality and a recognisable narrative voice.

Switching between POV's gives you the chance to write different voices for each character but not to introduce a distinct narrative voice.

girlyswot · Mar 25, 2009

BarbaraKE said:
Ok, maybe that's what I'm missing.

Make sure I have this straight. There are two different versions of 'third-person' - 'third person limited' and 'third person omniscent'. And the difference is that in 3P-limited, you have to have a break between changes in POV while in 3P-omniscent, you don't.

There are more differences than that.

Is there a plain old 'omniscent'?

I don't know what this means. You have to write in 1st, 2nd or 3rd person (in English). If you are writing in 1st or 2nd person then it's very hard to imagine how that could be omniscient since it's so clearly tied to one of the characters.

Why would anyone use 3P-limited? 3P-omniscent seems to have all the same advantages without the disadvantage of having to have a scene break when changing POVs?

Some people like it because of the depth of insight it gives to one character. It can work very well to pull the reader into the story. Omniscient is much harder to pull off well - it's easy for it to descend into mere head-hopping. Though, I will point out that many of the novels I most admire are written with an omniscient narrator and I wish that it were a more popular style.

girlyswot · Mar 25, 2009

Inarticulate Babbler said:
Okay, I'm going to give this a shot:

In Deep penetration 3pl (3rd person limited) any switch of PoVs without a break is head hopping. In 3po (3rd person omniscient) you have established the fact that you will be head-hopping, so it's fine (it doesn't break or violate your "contract" with the reader).

Hmm. I'm not sure I'd quite want to put it like that.

How you can get some description of B's reactions while in A's PoV (whether in flashback or not):

1) Voice. Verbal responses show how someone feels.

2) Actions and mannerisms: clenching fists, looking everywhere but at the speaker (or only at the speaker), shuffling feet, shifting hips, running fingers through hair, standing with hands behind their head or arms crossed.

3) Interruptions. These can consist of both of the former, but where they're placed and which type they are will add to B's expressions and characterization, and the reader will interpret them as expressing thoughts.

4) A's observations: thinking B looks angry or amused--or interpreting a smile as sardonic. In this way, you can mislead without withholding, too. A is perfectly capable of getting it wrong.

I hope this helps.

I think this is really important. Often I see people critting claiming a POV violation when, in fact, the author is quite legitimately describing character A's perception of character B's thoughts and feelings. I don't think you always have to explicitly state that this is what you are doing (A noticed B's eyes narrow and wondered if he was angry), so long as your POV is well-established in the narrative. I am perfectly capable of thinking 'B is angry' without mentally going through lots of steps of assessing evidence and recognising probabilities. And it's okay for your characters to do this too.

BarbaraKE · Mar 25, 2009

BarbaraKE said:
Why would anyone use 3P-limited? 3P-omniscent seems to have all the same advantages without the disadvantage of having to have a scene break when changing POVs?

girlyswot said:
Some people like it because of the depth of insight it gives to one character. It can work very well to pull the reader into the story. Omniscient is much harder to pull off well - it's easy for it to descend into mere head-hopping.

This is where I'm confused.

1) Let's say I've written a 100,000 word manuscript from 'A's POV (3P-limited). I can 'get into his head' in quite a bit of depth.

2) Now let's say the same manuscript is told from 'A' and 'B's POVs equally. That's 50,000 words each. There are scene/chapter breaks between each change of POV. This is still 3P-limited, right?

3) Now let's take (2) but there's ten characters instead of two. Still 3P-limited?

4) Now take (2) again but there are POV changes *within* scenes. 3P-omniscent?

I apologize if I sound like I'm quibbling but I remember when I initially posted my first chapter (way back when). It included 'thoughts' from three different characters and I was told I was 'head-hopping'. Yet how is that different from 3P-omniscent?

Suse · Mar 25, 2009

girlyswot said:
Often I see people critting claiming a POV violation when, in fact, the author is quite legitimately describing character A's perception of character B's thoughts and feelings. I don't think you always have to explicitly state that this is what you are doing (A noticed B's eyes narrow and wondered if he was angry), so long as your POV is well-established in the narrative. I am perfectly capable of thinking 'B is angry' without mentally going through lots of steps of assessing evidence and recognising probabilities. And it's okay for your characters to do this too.

Do you mean as in, you've set the scene up to be in A's POV, perhaps including close POV, then you can say something like: 'B's eyes narrowed. He was angry.' The reader can safely assume this is A's take on things. I've noticed people picking this up in crit's. I try putting statements like this into first person, and if it seems OK for A to make such an observation in first, it's also OK in third. I may have got the wrong end of the stick on what you were saying.

What confuses me about the third limited/omniscient thing is that in limited, surely you can present the thoughts of as many characters as you wish. The whole lot if you wanted to. Does it only become omniscient when you start making comments like, 'He did not hear her speak. He was thinking about breakfast.'?

And that leads me to ask: if you don't make blatant omniscient statements like the one above, in the voice of a writer-narrator, but you do explore every characters' head, is this still third limited?

Is Barbara's idea that in limited you cannot go from one POV to another without a break not just a (good) convention, as opposed to a hard and fast rule - and one that would apply equally in omni?

I get confused

.

Suse · Mar 25, 2009

Suse said:
What confuses me about the third limited/omniscient thing is that in limited, surely you can present the thoughts of as many characters as you wish. The whole lot if you wanted to. Does it only become omniscient when you start making comments like, 'He did not hear her speak. He was thinking about breakfast.'?

And that leads me to ask: if you don't make blatant omniscient statements like the one above, in the voice of a writer-narrator, but you do explore every characters' head, is this still third limited?

Duh! I've just said the same thing twice. Shows how confused I am.

girlyswot · Mar 25, 2009

BarbaraKE said:
This is where I'm confused.

1) Let's say I've written a 100,000 word manuscript from 'A's POV (3P-limited). I can 'get into his head' in quite a bit of depth.

2) Now let's say the same manuscript is told from 'A' and 'B's POVs equally. That's 50,000 words each. There are scene/chapter breaks between each change of POV. This is still 3P-limited, right?

Yes.

3) Now let's take (2) but there's ten characters instead of two. Still 3P-limited?

Yes.

4) Now take (2) again but there are POV changes *within* scenes. 3P-omniscent?

No. That's head-hopping.

I apologize if I sound like I'm quibbling but I remember when I initially posted my first chapter (way back when). It included 'thoughts' from three different characters and I was told I was 'head-hopping'. Yet how is that different from 3P-omniscent?

A 3rd person omniscient narrator is not a combination of multiple characters' points of view. They have their own, omniscient, point of view. So, yes, they can tell you what other characters are thinking and feeling BUT, crucially, not from that character's point of view. So the narrator reports those thoughts and feelings in his own voice, feeling free to pass comment on them when appropriate. 'Jenny thought Richard loved her, but she was a foolish girl who fell for any man who bought her a drink.' That's Jenny's thought but not from Jenny's point of view. You're not in her head. It is quite different from: 'Jenny thought Richard loved her. Richard was hoping for a quick lay.' That's Jenny's thought from inside her head, then Richard's thought from inside his head.

It's worth pointing out that you can't always distinguish limited from omniscient on the basis of one sentence or two. You do generally need the wider context.

girlyswot · Mar 25, 2009

Suse said:
Do you mean as in, you've set the scene up to be in A's POV, perhaps including close POV, then you can say something like: 'B's eyes narrowed. He was angry.' The reader can safely assume this is A's take on things. I've noticed people picking this up in crit's. I try putting statements like this into first person, and if it seems OK for A to make such an observation in first, it's also OK in third. I may have got the wrong end of the stick on what you were saying.

I think that's a great way to check. If you'd say it in 1st person, then it's fine for close 3rd. Ignore those critters!

What confuses me about the third limited/omniscient thing is that in limited, surely you can present the thoughts of as many characters as you wish. The whole lot if you wanted to.

You can, if you are changing POV's. Generally writers stick to not more than two or three in the course of a novel, unless the changing POV is part of the structure. But yes, the number of POV's doesn't make it omniscient.

Does it only become omniscient when you start making comments like, 'He did not hear her speak. He was thinking about breakfast.'?

Yes, if what you mean by that is that he doesn't know she was speaking and she doesn't know he was hearing. So then you're presenting information that none of your characters know - so it's omniscient. There are other ways to make it clear that you have an omniscient narrator, too, but knowledge outside the sphere of the characters is a key one.

And that leads me to ask: if you don't make blatant omniscient statements like the one above, in the voice of a writer-narrator, but you do explore every characters' head, is this still third limited?

If you're exploring characters heads, you're doing 3rd limited.

Is Barbara's idea that in limited you cannot go from one POV to another without a break not just a (good) convention, as opposed to a hard and fast rule - and one that would apply equally in omni?

In omniscient you only have one point of view - the narrator's. It's just that the narrator has access to other characters' thoughts and feelings. The narrator can tell you about these in swift succession BUT only from the narrator's point of view.

I get confused .

So does everyone.

Suse · Mar 25, 2009

girlyswot said:
In omniscient you only have one point of view - the narrator's. It's just that the narrator has access to other characters' thoughts and feelings. The narrator can tell you about these in swift succession BUT only from the narrator's point of view.

I'm approaching an 'aha!' moment. Do you mean the 3rd omni narrator cannot go deeply into characters' thoughts? He can 'tell' thoughts as the writer-narrator, but not as the character? I didn't know that. If the writer goes deeply into a character's thoughts, it will no longer be from the writer-narrator's point of view but the character's. This would make sense of why people say omni is distant, in addition to being distant by not staying on one character long enough for you to focus too heavily on them.

girlyswot · Mar 25, 2009

Suse said:
I'm approaching an 'aha!' moment. Do you mean the 3rd omni narrator cannot go deeply into characters' thoughts? He can 'tell' thoughts as the writer-narrator, but not as the character? Yes, this. The omniscient narrator is NOT the character. That's why it's not the same as multiple POV's. I didn't know that. If the writer goes deeply into a character's thoughts, it will no longer be from the writer-narrator's point of view but the character's. This would make sense of why people say omni is distant, in addition to being distant by not staying on one character long enough for you to focus too heavily on them.

Sort of. The omniscient narrator knows everything.

So not only does he know what a character is thinking and feeling, he knows how accurate those thoughts and feelings are, and what their consequences will be, and so on. So he can go as deeply into their mind and heart as you like, uncovering all their deepest darkest secrets and even the things they barely admit to themselves BUT the telling of it will be from an outsider's perspective. That's why it reads more distantly. It has other advantages though. You can do a lot of very fun things as an omniscient narrator.

RichardB · Mar 25, 2009

I think we've had a good explanation of what the "rules" are. My question is, why are those the rules? What makes the story less good if these rules aren't followed? I'm not challenging the rules or saying they aren't there for a reason - I simply want to know what the reason is.

BarbaraKE · Mar 25, 2009

My head hurts.

girlyswot · Mar 25, 2009

RichardB said:
I think we've had a good explanation of what the "rules" are. My question is, why are those the rules? What makes the story less good if these rules aren't followed? I'm not challenging the rules or saying they aren't there for a reason - I simply want to know what the reason is.

Which rules do you mean? You can write your story according to any POV system you like. In general, it'll work better if you know which POV you are using and why, so that you can be consistent. If you try reading a story in which the narrator randomly shifts from 1st person to 3rd, or from past to present tense you'll see how irritating and difficult that makes life for the reader. It's the same (though perhaps less obviously so) with POV. If you make it clear that you're using multiple POV's, that's fine, or if you stick with one or go with omni, those are fine too. It's if you switch between them all that you'll make life hard for your readers. They need to know (be able to work out) who's telling them the story.

Suse · Mar 25, 2009

girlyswot said:
So he can go as deeply into their mind and heart as you like, uncovering all their deepest darkest secrets and even the things they barely admit to themselves BUT the telling of it will be from an outsider's perspective.

Yes, that's what I was meaning. But just to clarify, these are a few lines from my story. In 3rd omni, I'm thinking the author could not write this because it is too close - the character's actual voice and not the omniscient narrator-interpreter: 'Helen stared at him. Was that why he had come? To ally Mykenai, the most powerful citadel in Achaia, with her father’s modest hill fort?'

girlyswot · Mar 25, 2009

Suse said:
Yes, that's what I was meaning. But just to clarify, these are a few lines from my story. In 3rd omni, I'm thinking the author could not write this because it is too close - the character's actual voice and not the omniscient narrator-interpreter: 'Helen stared at him. Was that why he had come? To ally Mykenai, the most powerful citadel in Achaia, with her father’s modest hill fort?'

Yes, I probably wouldn't phrase it like that if I was using an omniscient narrator. Something like this might work:

Helen stared at him. It was just dawning on her why he'd come. To ally Mykenai, the most powerful citadel in Achaia, with her father's modest hill fort.

Suse · Mar 25, 2009

Good stuff, Girly. You're a star!

c.e.lawson · Mar 25, 2009

RichardB said:
I think we've had a good explanation of what the "rules" are. My question is, why are those the rules? What makes the story less good if these rules aren't followed? I'm not challenging the rules or saying they aren't there for a reason - I simply want to know what the reason is.

Hi RichardB. Welcome to Historical. We're very glad to have you here - your story is interesting, and you seem pleasant and nice to interact with. I wish I had the time to be more involved in critiquing right now, but real life is too busy, and I'm prioritizing my own writing. That said, I did begin to read your first chapter (not the revised version) days ago, and I skimmed further on down but ran out of time. I'd like to comment on your statement above.

I am going out on a limb here (since I myself didn't do the crits on your work) to speculate that you are thinking of this in terms of your own first chapter and the crits you received. (stop reading now if I'm wrong

) And I would speculate further to say that the reason some critters suggested scaling back the number of characters introduced early on, and perhaps writing from a close third limited POV instead of omniscient, has to do with the following: This is your first book, and you're trying to land an agent. Competition is fierce, as you well know, for agents and readers. Agents read a ton of offerings daily. We, as writers, need to draw the agent, or any reader, into our story and keep them turning the page. One of the most effective ways to do that is to draw them into a character's plight - give the reader a foothold into a character's story so that they can settle in, feel comfortable, and be swept away. That is likely to be more easily done when we write in a limited, close POV from a single character, at least until some things in the story are established. If POVs are being switched early and often, then the reader doesn't have an anchor - a place to hang his sympathies or worries or attachments to a specific character, which all equal investment in the story.

Now, if I'm totally off base - sorry! And again, welcome.

c.e.

Cathy C · Mar 25, 2009

RichardB said:
I think we've had a good explanation of what the "rules" are. My question is, why are those the rules? What makes the story less good if these rules aren't followed? I'm not challenging the rules or saying they aren't there for a reason - I simply want to know what the reason is.

The reason is actually very simple. It's for the READER'S convenience. It's not about us, as the writer, and what's easier for us to understand. What's important is whether the reader can get sufficiently invested in a character to CARE whether they live, die, thrive or fail. Third limited allows a reader to not so much step inside a character's head as to walk a few inches behind their heels. The omnisicient POV is more limiting because it adds an artificial barrier. It's the actual act of NOT knowing that draws the reader in. Readers' complaints with omnisicient have to do with "well, if the narrator knew, why didn't he TELL me?" The more you hop between characters to tell the story, the further away you push the reader.

Does that make sense?

RichardB · Mar 25, 2009

Cathy C said:
Does that make sense?

It does, and I thank you. I think that my personal choice for this novel is going to have to be omniscient, or whatever you might call it when it's all in 3rd person and the knowledge available for the narrative changes depending on which character is the focal point.

I can't see another choice for this book. The plot to take Mark's body is more than a simple adventure tale. To tell the story of why Mark's body matters-- why having it changes Venice-- I have to go to a lot of people and a lot of places, because no single character knows the whole story. I have scenes in Rome, Constantinople, Baghdad and Alexandria, and not everyone is in the same place at the same time. Weaving together all the political elements from 3 different empires plus Venice is an important part of the story. The other important part is the development arc for each of the main characters, and how the experience of taking Mark changes them into men and women for the new Venice.

So I guess I will be bold enough to call this a "sprawling, epic story" which Wikipedia says is just right for 3rd omni. I understand that not everyone wants to read those, but that's the horse I'm gonna ride!

girlyswot · Mar 25, 2009

RichardB said:
It does, and I thank you. I think that my personal choice for this novel is going to have to be omniscient, or whatever you might call it when it's all in 3rd person and the knowledge available for the narrative changes depending on which character is the focal point.

I can't see another choice for this book. The plot to take Mark's body is more than a simple adventure tale. To tell the story of why Mark's body matters-- why having it changes Venice-- I have to go to a lot of people and a lot of places, because no single character knows the whole story. I have scenes in Rome, Constantinople, Baghdad and Alexandria, and not everyone is in the same place at the same time. Weaving together all the political elements from 3 different empires plus Venice is an important part of the story. The other important part is the development arc for each of the main characters, and how the experience of taking Mark changes them into men and women for the new Venice.

So I guess I will be bold enough to call this a "sprawling, epic story" which Wikipedia says is just right for 3rd omni. I understand that not everyone wants to read those, but that's the horse I'm gonna ride!

The other choice is multiple 3rd POV's. If you have one narrator in Rome and another in Constantinople, you don't have an omniscient narrator, you have two distinct narrators who can each have their own voice and their own point of view.

Cathy C · Mar 25, 2009

Absolutely, girlyswot. There are plenty of authors out there who write in multiple 3rd limited POVs. Tom Clancy is known for having 6 or 7 primary protagonists who each have their own story to tell. Eventually they usually all arrive in the same place and time for whatever event, but not always.

Don't discount multiple POVs, rather than going with omniscient. 3rd Omniscient is a tough sell to an editor/agent, unless it's done amazingly well.

Changing POV in Omniscent (vs. Close-Third)

BarbaraKE

Inarticulate Babbler

Pissin' Everyone off, 1 at a time

girlyswot

BarbaraKE

girlyswot

girlyswot

girlyswot

BarbaraKE

Suse

wants mutant powers

Suse

wants mutant powers

girlyswot

girlyswot

Suse

wants mutant powers

girlyswot

RichardB

THIS! IS!! VENNNNNICE!!!!

BarbaraKE

girlyswot

Suse

wants mutant powers

girlyswot

Suse

wants mutant powers

c.e.lawson

Cathy C

Ooo! Shiny new cover!

RichardB

THIS! IS!! VENNNNNICE!!!!

girlyswot

Cathy C

Ooo! Shiny new cover!