Third omni as a character?

Hi all,

OK, First off, I know many people do not like third omniscient. I've personally always written that way. Once in a while, I do first person, but third limited is something I've only recently heard of and something I'm not entirely comfortable with.

I'm taking a break from working on my novel this week and have been re-reading a few good books I've enjoyed in the past. I re-read The Bad Beginning and I also re-read Mission Earth: The invader's plan.

Both employ a kind of odd technique. David Handler, writing as Lemony Snicket does total third omni writing, but he injects his narrator as a character into the story (Lemony Snicket is investigating, etc. and even ends up mentioned a few times as a mysterious character in the series).

L.Ron Hubbard does something even quirkier. Mission Earth is written primarily in first, but with a "translator" who occasionally interjects his own thoughts and acts as a third omni narrator.

The reason I'm mentioning this is: I'm thinking for my own novel to create a character out my third omni narration. Instead of traditional third omni where the narrator tells you what people are thinking, etc. and narrates the story, I'm considering creating a character of an AI computer, programmed my MC (Kevin, for those who have read pieces of it) and who has been doing an interview with "the boy from the past who saved the future." BTW, I really like that description. I think it's very cutesy. What do you all think?

It's ten years on since Kevin first arrived in the future and he's had many adventures, but who really is Kevin Sanders? I was programmed by him and he gave me the honor of preparing his story for you fine people to read. Something to that effect. Obviously I want to make it a little less hammy, but that is the general concept.

By doing that, I see myself solving a number of problems. First and foremost, as L. Ron Hubbard did, I have a perfect excuse why everything has been translated into Earth terms as far as time measurement is concerned (as the AI computer, I've taken care of it for you, so you don't have to do the computations in your head). I can also inject more humor, because I can act as an AI computer who is wondering about some of the odd slang that Kevin uses (I did that a little bit in my original version, but I could see expanding it using a character from the future who is telling the story). In addition, I have (I think) a better excuse for bringing in a scene with Kevin's parents discussing his situation, because I could say (after Kevin leaves the scene wondering why his parents hate him so much) that I wondered myself about Kevin's parents and did some research. Now I wasn't there and can't tell you exactly what happened, but I believe the conversation might have gone something like this. . .

On the down side, I'm thinking it's very easy to get carried away with that and go on and on explaining things (info dump -- which I know can happen even with traditional third omni, but I'm thinking with the excuse of an extra character who is from the future and telling the story, I can have better excuses for explaining things, while at the same time, I may overdo it because I feel like I have a better excuse for doing so).

Anyway, I wanted to know what you all think. Is this a good idea or should I not attempt it and just stick a traditional third omni (which is primarily how I've written it now -- but I expect to clean it up more and make sure I always stay in third omni throughout the book.)?

Any thoughts on this and on how to do it well would be appreciated.

Eric

Some excellent points. Thanks everyone. I had thought about the problem of it's having more than one POV by having the computer say it had interviewed more than just Kevin, but I hadn't thought of the issue that it's kind of anti-climactic that you know for sure Kevin is still alive at the end of the story. Not to mention it would get kind of tedious when the villains have to be portrayed by "it might have gone something like this."

There are several scenes which are very important to the story which would make it impossible to tell the story in third limited or first. Not to mention that towards the end of the novel, my MC is wounded during his attempt to rescue everyone and is left unconscious. The mop up where they finally get home is done by the adults in the story (and no, I don't believe it takes away from cheering for the MC though -- he very clearly is depicted as a hero and everyone is in essence on eggshells then because they are all saying what a hero he is and how desperately they need to make sure he survives). I suppose in theory, I could do multi-limited, but frankly, if I'm doing that, I think it's easier and less confusing to do third omni. At least for me as a writer. . .

However, I do the see the weaknesses involved in telling the story using a cutesy kind of a third omni. Thanks again for the thoughts.

Eric

I appreciate the thought. However, my feeling (and it could be I'm a bit conceited or near sighted for saying this) is that if I try to write in a way that I don't feel comfortable writing, my writing is likely to suffer more than if I simply use a method that I feel comfortable with, albeit one that many people feel is harder to pull of successfully.


Thanks again for the thoughts though.

Eric

Jamesaritchie said:

I can't comment of how L. Ron Hubbard did it. I've tried reading a good bit of his work, and never could get more than a few pages in.

Click to expand...

Now that's a shame. His writing is some of the best I've ever seen. I remember when I first read Mission Earth: The Invader's Plan, I was running around from library to library hunting down the next book in the series. I absolutely had to know what happened next. I also remember when I read Battlefield Earth, a 500,000 word tome, I zipped through it in only a few days. Of course, I've never read Dianetics and the whole Church of Scientology thing sounds pretty out there. . .but his writing in scifi, wow. . .

In any event, to each his own.

As to my not knowing what third limited is, what I meant was, I never knew the term. I'm sure I've seen it in plenty of novels I've read. I just never attempted writing a novel professionally until now and while I've done a fair bit of writing, it was always for fun. Not professional purposes. . .

One of the reasons I brought up David Handler is because I'm thinking to make my work a bit like his in the sense of a kind of quirky third omni instead of a pure one.

I am also aware of the head hopping issue and the info dumping, something I intend to be watching for as I do the third draft on my novel. . .as a matter of fact, I've been thinking, I'd be best served trying to use primarily third limited, but with occasional omni types of intrusions, which I think can serve my novel well when they are needed.

I think the whole discussion that's been going on about third omni and the whole "you are not your readers" thread is quite telling. Ultimately, whatever you do, the question is, did you write a compelling story which is told well? If you did, then it doesn't matter if you follow rules to the letter or not. If you didn't, you could follow rules until the end of days and still be nothing but slush pile material (another term I've only recently learned).

I understand that people feel the rules exist to help newer writers to tell those compelling stories, and I appreciate them. That having been said, I feel I need to follow what I feel comfortable with and what I feel I can do well. That is probably the most important thing in telling a good story: Do it in the way you feel most comfortable with. As an English teacher, that is what I've always told my students. Do what you feel comfortable doing.

If I try as Julia suggested, to stretch myself, I may become a better writer in the long term, and I certainly hope I will and intend to try doing other things on a more limited basis. But in the short term, I have a feeling the novel I've worked on and that I still believe in will never be in publishable form because I'll have been driving myself crazy trying to follow rules instead of telling a good story.

In any event, I truly wish to thank everyone for this site. I really appreciate the thoughts and ideas everyone brings and I know you will all help me become a better writer.

Eric