Omniscient Third Person?

Stephen King writes a lot of omni.

gothicangel said:

I know a lot of people dislike first person, so what about omniscient? It seems to be more associated with 19th century authors like Austen, Eliot and Hardy; but I see Hitch-hiker was written this way too.
:

Click to expand...

I think it can be useful. Terry Pratchett uses it a lot. Someone here on AW said when it came up that you just need to remember it's the POV of an invisible narrator, and that you need to keep that narrator's integrity.

I see the sense in that advice.

Ellen Kushner used omni for Swordspoint. So did Steven Brust for his Phoenix Guard novels. There are others, with greater and lesser success, but yeah, if you like it, go for it.

If you think it'll be good for your story, then go for it. I switched to omniscient after trying both third and first (third wasn't working, and first was absolutely horrible), and the story settled nicely into the viewpoint.

I know a lot of people dislike first person, so what about omniscient? It seems to be more associated with 19th century authors like Austen, Eliot and Hardy; but I see Hitch-hiker was written this way too.

Click to expand...

A surprising number of books are written in omniscient viewpoint, particularly in thriller and young adult, though I've also found a few science fiction novels. If done well, most people will mistake it for a more traditional third person. If it's done badly ... well, that's where people say they don't like omniscient.

You will likely find it difficult to get critiques, though. A lot of writers don't like omni and will focus on the use it instead of meaningful crits. I've been told I would never get published if I used omni and even had someone say, "I'm sure you know your story, but here's how you would do it in third." So, if you know it's right for your story, stick to your guns if people tell you to change. I stopped getting crits because the negative critiques weren't a good use of a time.

I'm all up for attempting a rewrite, but is there a chance that it's seen as "out-of-fashion" by agents/editors.

Click to expand...

I have seen plenty of writers and how-to books say this. But I've been reading agent blogs for years and have yet to see an agent say they reject because the story's in omniscient. Editor Alan Rintzler sums it up in his blog:

My only rule: Does the manuscript work?

Click to expand...

Not to be taken as a criticism, but I think a pertinent question to answer would be: Why do you feel you need to use third-omni narrative POV? What are you trying to do with your narrative that nudges you in this direction?

The question comes from my sense that the story should determine the best-fit POV, rather than having an arbitrary POV choice dictate the way the story is told. And regards omni-third, I've seen more manuscripts than I can mention in which omni-third, or some sloppy simulacrum thereof, has been an obvious lowest-common denominator POV when the writer doesn't really understand what he or she is doing. I think that's where a fair amount of the objection to omni-third POV arises from.

caw

My latest MS in Third Person Omni and am getting a lot of flack about it. People either think I don't know how to right and try and correct it or ignore it all together and not comment critique it.

It is my understanding that there are pro's and con's on the subject and will say that it is no a "dead art" so to speak. I have come across a lot of recently published books in Third Person Omni so I think if the story is good it won't matter the way it is presented. Or at last that's what I hope.

I agree with the above, stick to your guns. If that's how the novel needs to be written then that's how you should do it.

Another suggested read for this POV: The Godfather.

Be aware that although it may seem easy, this POV is actually quite difficult to do well, mainly because people aren't used to seeing it quite as much in modern fiction. People in my writing group have had some major issues... they think it reads just fine and the rest of us are like "Uh... whu?!" Not because we don't like the POV, but because when it's not done effectively it can get really tangled.

I don't write in third omni myself. I think that it's not exactly "out of style" but gets a lot of flak because of people who don't keep the narrator well-integrated (using location and judgment tools) and let the whole thing get out of control. There's a lot of third omni used historically, I think because it was the default narrative style for a very long time.

I think you're on to something if you feel your WIP feels better in third omni. My own advice would be, just don't choose third omni by default - have a good reason to maintain an independent narrator who can dip into everyone's heads. Third omni doesn't work for my stories because much of the story drive depends on discrepancies in understanding between the different points of view. A story that depends on misunderstanding doesn't work if I don't maintain the myopia of the character!

Either way, I hope you find the best way for your story to work!

I really don't like omni-third, but I agree that you should use whatever suits our story best. There really isn't a wrong answer as long as it fits the story, imo.

gothicangel said:

I guess that's the key, the technique only become noticable when it's done badly.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree here. One of the benefits of third person omni is that you can introduce a very strong voice. That's very noticeable, but when you do it well, it's great fun.

The third-person omniscient narrator is also a character, and has to have a consistent voice. This is the biggest challenge of writing third-person omniscient, and one that people often forget.

Think about Jane Austen's narrator ("It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.") We tend to conflate that voice with Jane Austen herself, but it's a character--a wise onlooker who's a bit cynical but ultimately generous about human nature.

Compare that with Hardy's narrator, who's both steeped in the lore of the English countryside and incredibly cynical about human motivations.

3rd omni is what I used with my first 2 books, and will continue to use for the rest of that saga. I can't really describe why I like it so much, but it just seemed like the logical step for me. Like, can you imagine Hitch-hiker's in 1st person? Very few guide entries, no knowledge of the building maelstrom of events around Arthur... I don't think it'd be as good a book.

I give 3rd omni a big thumbs up.

That said, I'm currently writing in 1st for some other project, and I can see the merit in that too. I switch between the 2 for my different books because before I write a single word I try and figure out what will work best... The saga needed 3rd omni because of what I wanted it to read like. This current book needed 1st. Neither is any better than the other in principle, they just have different uses, and you'll know when you've made the right decision, and it should come through clear to the trained eye of an editor.

I doubt your book would be rejected because it's 3rd omni. Narrate away!

Like Linda I've been burned for writing Omni even though it's the chosen mode for sprawling, epic stories, which mine, sort of is. An agent quite recently told me no likey because "it's telling instead of showing." I'm changing it now - among other things such as slashing subplots and removing extra details - to make the book more marketable.

Linda Adams said:

But I've been reading agent blogs for years and have yet to see an agent say they reject because the story's in omniscient.

Click to expand...

The one who rejected mine was Marlene Stinger. This is what she said in her second email to me: "The idea of showing means to be showing the story from inside the head of a character, usually the protagonist. This is the filter through which the story is presented. The POV (point of view.) Some agents enjoy fable-type stories, so I encourage you to query widely."

Sound like she doesn't like omni to me.

Anahid21 said:

An agent quite recently told me no likey because "it's telling instead of showing."

Click to expand...

This may not be a criticism of omni-POV specifically. You need to look real close at the writing. Omni doesn't have to be "telly". Well done, it won't come across that way.

caw

blacbird said:

This may not be a criticism of omni-POV specifically. You need to look real close at the writing. Omni doesn't have to be "telly". Well done, it won't come across that way.

caw

Click to expand...

If I got a rejection like that, the first thing I would do is look at the writing. See if I could make improvements because it can be a difficult viewpoint to carry off. What I wouldn't do is instantly say, "All agents don't like omniscient viewpoint--I need to change the story." Especially since a lot of rejections of good stories are personal taste.

gothicangel said:

I know a lot of people dislike first person, so what about omniscient? It seems to be more associated with 19th century authors like Austen, Eliot and Hardy; but I see Hitch-hiker was written this way too.

Click to expand...

People dislike 1st person?

Did you mean Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? That's the most recent one (including the 6th book) that I can think of that uses 3rd person omniscient and uses it well.

I think the only thing you have to fear with 3rd person omniscient is the potential pitfall of blending your characters' personalities. But that can easily be avoided with well established characters, perhaps give each character their own scene so we get to know them on a one-to-one basis. And make sure each character has a distinct personality from the rest.

Gardner argued that third omni is the optimal way to tell a story. Any story. No qualification. Period.

I, however, dislike third omni because it generally requires the creation of a character "outside" the story events to handle the narration. Yuck yuck yuck. Gardner can take his dislike of so-called artificial tension and stuff it. And yeah, I'd say that to his face if he were alive.

Is it wrong to mix things up? Can a writer use third person POV for scenes where a major character is present and omni for battle scenes, action involving non-human creatures, or when bit characters are the only ones involved in the scene? Something tells me (aside from those who said it in this thread) that if the writing is good the viewpoint shift shouldn't be a big deal, especially if it is clearly defined and separated by scenes?

James Patterson's Alex Cross books are a mix of 1st person for Alex's chapters and 3rd for the villain's chapters.

HConn said:

I have to disagree here. One of the benefits of third person omni is that you can introduce a very strong voice. That's very noticeable, but when you do it well, it's great fun.

Click to expand...

Exactly. And it allows you to explore a wide scope of people and places all in the space of one book.

I'm alternating between 3rd omni and 3rd limited in my second WIP scrolls & dolls. Most of the book is 3rd limited, but some passages are in omni.

I read some of the comments, above, and they are good, then they got kind of tiresome. I'm a hands-on absolutely practical guy who believes in testing out these writing notions and seeing if they hold water.

I'm currently writing a longish short story with the second half in omniscient, so I've been thinking about it. And at one time in the past, I took an award-winning short story and rewrote it from first to third person. That exercise taught me how they are actually very close to each other; I was surprised, it wasn't that hard to do.

Here's what I think is important (and I'm in the middle of this, so I can't absolutely vouch for what I call my "working hypothesis"): Think about the impact on the reader. Reader is inside the head of Jordan, seeing things through his eyes. Period paragraph. Now he's inside Janet's head looking at Jordan, considering him . . .

In order for the reader to make this transition, a certain amount of the readere's psychic energy is required; Reader has to press a little bit, something unexpected has happened, and attention must be paid. "Huh? Wha't s going on?"

Because something is being asked of the reader, a quid pro quo is required.

The instant the reader realizes that the author has pulled this little trick, heading jumping, especially the first time it happens, the reader better find pretty damn interesting whatever is the result of that new POV. I think it pretty damn-well better not be exposition, flashback, anything not absolutely right there in the moment, and for the reader, it needs to carry with it at least the whiff of anticipation ("holy cow, that's what she thinks? If he only knew . . . and What's going to happen next?").

I think two or three POV jumps in, the reader becomes accustomed to the convention (which, after all, probably isn't absolutely brand new to him/her), and the writer can relax (maybe) a little (but, of course, you better not relax much at all), because if you're going to keep the reader interested, you've got to keep things interesting (keep the pot boiling).

So if you can't justify the head-jump with something juicy (something that will hold the reader's interest), don't do it; stay with the person you're in. Especially don't let the head jumps become formulaic, predictable, don't allow a pattern to develop (which would make it easier for you, less interesting for the reader).

That's my thinking on the omniscient so far. Maybe I'll learn some more by trying to make it work.

I think agents deal with a lot of less-experienced writers, and the single POV commercial novel is easier to categorize and present to publishers. And, too, many agents just don't know that much about how fiction works; they've come into the business through the Eng. Lit. end, which (in my experience) teaches a very misleading bunch of junk with respect to fiction and not much at all that actually is useful to a working writer.

Hope this helps.

FYI, my blog, "A Writer's Notes," is here: http://www.awritersnotes-billjustbill.blogspot.com/