3rd person prose expo? or Dialogue?

Chekurtab · May 25, 2013

rainsmom said:
I'll defer to your definition. I don't especially like it though. I think it muddies the water for people who are trying to differentiate between omniscient and third limited to think about the writer as narrator.

I'm with Buffy on that one. Author is definitely a narrator. More or less visible depending on the writer's style. Although I think in the close 3rd limited the author is invisible.
I think I gave examples of two authors that narrate in omni for themselves, but not for the characters. Their character's POV seems quite limited to me. So, the point is:
The definition that the omni has only omni POV and nothing else seems narrow to me.
Tell me if I'm wrong.

Bufty · May 25, 2013

I'm sorry, but I'm having great difficulty understanding what your issue is, C.

In Third person limited it doesn't matter how close or distant you get or tight or deep or whatever you wish to call it the writer/narrator should not push himself to the front or he risks weakening the POV and destroying the reader's sense of involvement.

Chekurtab said:
I'm with Buffy on that one. Author is definitely a narrator. More or less visible depending on the writer's style. Although I think in the close 3rd limited the author is invisible.
I think I gave examples of two authors that narrate in omni for themselves, but not for the characters. Their character's POV seems quite limited to me. So, the point is:
The definition that the omni has only omni POV and nothing else seems narrow to me.
Tell me if I'm wrong.

rainsmom · May 25, 2013

Chekurtab said:
I'm with Buffy on that one. Author is definitely a narrator. More or less visible depending on the writer's style. Although I think in the close 3rd limited the author is invisible.

You know what? I concur. I was thinking solely about CLOSE third limited, but all of third limited isn't close. You and Bufty are right!

Chekurtab · May 25, 2013

Bufty said:
I'm sorry, but I'm having great difficulty understanding what your issue is, C.

In Third person limited it doesn't matter how close or distant you get or tight or deep or whatever you wish to call it the writer/narrator should not push himself to the front or he risks weakening the POV and destroying the reader's sense of involvement.

I agree with you and that's why I personally don't write in omni. But there are authors that do. And famous ones. Like Orson Scott Card and Tolstoy. That's how they wrote and now is too late to tell them to stop. Most of their narrative in 3rd limited to MC POV, but the omni author is present in every book. If I'm not mistaken even "Anna Karenina" has omnipresent Leo Tolstoy in it.

Bufty · May 25, 2013

Sorry?

I must be getting tired but I still don't follow what you are trying to say. :Shrug:

Omniscient is not easy to do but when done well it can be extremely effective.

Chekurtab said:
I agree with you and that's why I personally don't write in omni. But there are authors that do. And famous ones. Like Orson Scott Card and Tolstoy. That's how they wrote and now is too late to tell them to stop. Most of their narrative in 3rd limited to MC POV, but the omni author is present in every book. If I'm not mistaken even "Anna Karenina" has omnipresent Leo Tolstoy in it.

Chekurtab · May 25, 2013

Bufty said:
To start with, either you write using Omniscience, where you are the narrator and your's is the only POV or you write in Third person limited where you are still the narator but the POV position is not with you but with a chosen POV character.

Do browse more.

I'm just trying to broaden your definition of omnipresence. That's all.

BethS · May 25, 2013

Chekurtab said:
I agree with you and that's why I personally don't write in omni. But there are authors that do. And famous ones. Like Orson Scott Card and Tolstoy. That's how they wrote and now is too late to tell them to stop. Most of their narrative in 3rd limited to MC POV, but the omni author is present in every book. If I'm not mistaken even "Anna Karenina" has omnipresent Leo Tolstoy in it.

I think you are confusing the omniscient narrator who shares the thoughts and perceptions of characters with the reader, with actual third-person limited POV.

In Ender's Game, OSC used omniscient POV. Even though most of the story followed Ender, and we often got to see what Ender was thinking and feeling, the POV did not change from omniscient to limited-third. The two styles of POV do not co-exist in the same book.

Chekurtab · May 25, 2013

BethS said:
I think you are confusing the omniscient narrator who shares the thoughts and perceptions of characters with the reader, with actual third-person limited POV.

In Ender's Game, OSC used omniscient POV. Even though most of the story followed Ender, and we often got to see what Ender was thinking and feeling, the POV did not change from omniscient to limited-third. The two styles of POV do not co-exist in the same book.

This is all good, but may not be as simple as omni in all the narrative all the time.
It's been a long while since I've read OSC, but I think Ender has POV. Omnipresent narrator has to be there all the time. When OSC switches to
Ender we see and feel through Ender's POV. At least that's how I remember it.
I think Anna Karenina has POV. I'm sure there are other examples of authors switching the narrative.
I might be wrong, but a writer can use editorial omni for himself and limited POV for the characters.

Mr Flibble · May 25, 2013

It's really quite simple

If you write in omni, you are writing from the narrator's POV. That could be you, the author, or some other POV (who can see inside the heads of the characters - see pratchett for how to do this awesomely) but even when you are inside a character's head, you aren't in their pov. You are narrating what is going in in their head.

If you are writing limited, you are limited to that character's pov. (clue is in the name

)

Now, there are various depths of POV between the two. I recommend Card's book on viewpoint, even if I can't stomach his personal views. But those are the two usual (and probably easier if you're starting out, limited being the easiest tbh, if you catch the hang of it and don't wander off. Omni can be tricky)

So, you can write from the character's POV, or yours/the narrators or from a more distant POV that has no omni narrator...but you have to be consistent.

This isn't to say you can't zoom in and out a little - but if you switch from limited to omni you it can be disorienting so you had better be VERY clear about what is going on (again, see pratchett)

BethS · May 25, 2013

Chekurtab said:
It's been a long while since I've read OSC, but I think Ender has POV. Omnipresent narrator has to be there all the time. When OSC switches to
Ender we see and feel through Ender's POV.

Yes, but it's all still filtered through that omniscient narrator.

I might be wrong, but a writer can use editorial omni for himself and limited POV for the characters.

Omniscient viewpoint can take you into the thoughts of any character, any time. But that's not the same as limited third. "Limited" means the story is limited to the viewpoint of the POV character(s). Omniscient has no limitations.

I would strongly suggest you read OSC's Character and Viewpoint, particularly the section on "Omniscient vs. Limited Point of View."

Roxxsmom · May 25, 2013

rainsmom said:
What's a combination of the two called? Sloppy, probably.

Actually, a lot of published writers do this, either in different scenes, or sometimes within a scene. There is a continuum of depths in so-called limited third, with some forms having a narrative voice that is distinct from the pov character but that still never reports anything the pov character couldn't see/perceive/think/know, and other forms (deep limited third pov) making the narrative voice as indistinguishable from the authorial voice as possible. The depth of the pov can move some within a story too.

When does it become omniscient? Some people equate omni with head hopping, but it's not really (though an omniscient narrator may choose to tell a reader about more than one character's perceptions within a scene, it needs to be done in a way that's very clear). In my (admittedly still learning) opinion, it's when the narrator is telling you things that the character of focus could not know or perceive.

There are different styles of omniscient too. Some forms hover outside the characters like a camera, only occasionally (if ever) delving into their thoughts or perceptions, other forms will spend a lot of time telling the reader about the internal perceptions of one character in a scene (like in limited third) but may also sometimes step outside that character's perceptions in subtle or not so subtle ways.

We were discussing this in another thread re George RR Martin, who is usually said to write in limited third. But a careful perusal of his work reveals that he occasionally tells the reader things that his "pov character" (not really the source of the pov, as it turns out) in the chapter would not be aware of, like "Jon did not notice the [insert event] going on behind him," or "While Bran was contemplating this, Hodor carried..."

It's not wrong to do this if the author is aware of it and it is creating the desired effect (and not confusing the reader).

But I'd say that this makes it omniscient and not limited third, though it is a narrative style that has some of the benefits of both.

Bufty · May 26, 2013

In other words, Roxxsmom, if a writer knows what they're doing and why they're veering off the accepted norm in doing it, their writing will no doubt work and have the desired effect.

Is that what you're trying to prove or clarify, Chekurtab?

bonitakale · May 26, 2013

The terms are there to clarify. If they don't clarify something for you, you can think about it another way. It's not a class, with a grade. Say you have a favorite book; you may study how the author uses POV, but you don't necessarily have to pin a label to it. If it helps, go for it.

I find (in editing) that it helps to view the narrator and the author as separate. That's partly so I can say what I think about the narrator without dissing the author. But it's also because the "you" telling the story isn't exactly the same "you" who does the dishes, complains about your boss, plays volleyball, and cuddles a child. The narrator may use those experiences, but he picks and chooses; the narrator isn't a whole person as the writer is.

Chekurtab · May 26, 2013

Bufty said:
In other words, Roxxsmom, if a writer knows what they're doing and why they're veering off the accepted norm in doing it, their writing will no doubt work and have the desired effect.

Is that what you're trying to prove or clarify, Chekurtab?

I'm not knowledgable enough to prove anything about POV. The discussion is largely academic at this point, yet interesting nonetheless.
I don't want to come across as stubborn, but I thought of another book as an example to illustrate the point (in addition to Tolstoy and because Beth flakked my OSC choice.)

Charles Dickens wrote Christmas Carol in 3rd omni, there is a clear distinction between Scrooge narrative in the present or past. The POV switch is there and I would argue Scrooge of the past has his own POV.
This stile is different from your run of the mill omni like Herbert's Dune for example. I'm not sure what's the proper name for Dickens' and Tolstoy' narrative stile. I've read of "limited omni" and "editorial omni", but I don't know which, if any, is the right term for "Anna Karenina" or "Christmas Carol".

Bufty · May 26, 2013

You do realise A Christmas Carol was published in 1843.

Roxxsmom · May 26, 2013

Bufty said:
In other words, Roxxsmom, if a writer knows what they're doing and why they're veering off the accepted norm in doing it, their writing will no doubt work and have the desired effect.

Is that what you're trying to prove or clarify, Chekurtab?

Definitely true. Can't argue with George RR Martin's success, though it's not the effect I want for my own writing. At least not for the stuff I've written so far.

Though I would argue that this is not even veering off the accepted norm, as a lot of writers do something similar--fantasy writers at least.

Mr Flibble · May 26, 2013

Roxxsmom said:
Though I would argue that this is not even veering off the accepted norm, as a lot of writers do something similar--fantasy writers at least.

True -- thing is, as long as you aren't in omni -- you can zoom in and out in third, closer or not (though you may not want to zoom out -- I prefer not to). Distant third zooms into close/limited and perhaps draws back again. It can -- it may not. Third may be objective, not limited. It can segue from one to the other, because they are close. It can work very well, seamlessly in fact (though it's not on trend as it were, because limited is da bomb unless you are GRRM)

In omni, the only real viewpoint is the narrator's. Who chooses to dip into heads, or not. You don't zoom out because even when distant from the characters, you are still in the narrator's head (whether the narrator is visible or not)

3rd person prose expo? or Dialogue?

Chekurtab

Smart donkey. Please don't call me-

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?

rainsmom

Feeling like an old timer

Chekurtab

Smart donkey. Please don't call me-

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?

Chekurtab

Smart donkey. Please don't call me-

BethS

Chekurtab

Smart donkey. Please don't call me-

Mr Flibble

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble

BethS

Roxxsmom

Raised by Wolves

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?

bonitakale

Chekurtab

Smart donkey. Please don't call me-

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?

Roxxsmom

Raised by Wolves

Mr Flibble

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble