Scared writing in 3rd person omniscient

Linda Adams said:

Nope. Afraid not. There's very little on it, and no one really explains how to do it beyond examples. The only book that I've seen that is useful is Bob Mayer's The Writer's Toolkit. He has written in omni and discusses how to do it a bit, but even he doesn't quite sure of the workings.

Click to expand...

I think this is probably because it's almost impossible to explain how to write omni. Other POVs are what they are because of rules. For example, third limited means you describe *only* what the POV character is aware of and share *only* their thoughts. Omni is, in a very real way, the lack of rules. The narrator can share whatever she wants, however she wants. This is what makes the POV so difficult because it's easy to share too much, or the wrong thing.

Every writer also has to find their own way of doing omni, and probably rediscover this for each project. There's no right or wrong, really, and as I'm rewriting my Nano book into omni I'm realizing that I'm using very different techniques even from scene to scene within the same project. The book was originally in 3rd limited, and some scenes have to be rewritten from scratch because the omni narrator is seeing them so differently, often using almost an objective POV. But others undergo only minor changes, because the narrator is remaining focused on one character and the only changes are to match with the narrator's voice. I know that the omni books I've really enjoyed have often had this kind of variance, sometimes a true 'eye of a god' POV and sometimes very close to a certain character. Of course, this can change within the scope of a single scene as well, with the narrator going from objective view to being close to a character, and then even switching to follow other characters or returning to objective if the scene is a long one.

It's so difficult. But if you want to read somebody who does it well, read John Le Carre.

Have you read Stieg Larsson's Millenium Trilogy? great example of what both good and bad about omniscient POV. Good because we can see lots of characters and focus on the complex plotting, but bad because we never really get to care about any of the characters

crazywritingmom said:

Can you explain the thoughts of multiple characters in 3rd person omniscient? I thought you could.

Gr.. I'm sort of regretting this, but I feel like my story needs this POV.

Click to expand...

Some stories do.

I'm certainly no expert in writing this, and most of the novels I've read in recent years are first or some form of limited third. But my understanding is that with third omni, the story is being told by a narrator who is outside the story. This narrator has a sort of "God's eye" view of what's going on in the story, both with the characters and behind the scenes. The omniscient narrator can tell you about what different characters perceive/experience, and he or she can also tell the reader things that none of the characters know (something you obviously can't do in limited third or first).

He or she must choose to tell the reader what is necessary for them to understand what is going on with the story. The challenge, I think, is resisting the temptation to tell too much. Just because you "can" tell the reader what all the characters are thinking during a scene, doesn't mean you should.

Omniscient also allows you to refer to characters in ways they wouldn't refer to themselves. For instance, you can say, "The two girls walked down the street, unaware that they were being followed" in omniscient. In limited third, you'd be inside one of the two "girls'" heads, she probably wouldn't be thinking of herself and her friend as "the two girls," and you couldn't tell us about their follower at this time.

It can feel like head hopping if the author tries to show the story from within the characters (hopping in and out of different deeper character pov) rather than from the perspective of the omniscient narrator (who is telling you about what one or more characters may be thinking). With omniscient you lose the ability to provide that deep, direct pipeline to characters' thoughts. But you gain a perspective that none of the characters would have.

There are different styles of omniscient. With some, the narrator feels like an actual presence in the story, and may even refer to him or herself as "I" occasionally or digress to share some special insight. This is sometimes done with children's literature (think of the Hobbit or the Chronicles of Narnia), though it's kind of an old-fashioned approach. There are other styles where the narrator is more distant and does not interrupt the story in interject observations or comments overtly, but he or she is still telling the story, rather than the characters themselves.

I think this article provides an interesting overview of this pov.

Barbara R. said:

It's only hard to do when it doesn't come naturally. Writers used to favor the omniscient POV---think of just about any classic novelist--but we've moved away from that. I think it has to do with writers feeling less authoritative than in the past; many feel more comfortable inhabiting one or more individual characters than writing from that omniscient, godlike overview.

Click to expand...

I'll add here that what 'comes naturally' to a writer is often a product of what you've read. If you're struggling with omni POV, reading a bunch of novels with that viewpoint might make things easier.

Something I've noticed over the years is that as a general rule, slower readers prefer to be told such things, while faster readers prefer to be shown.

Click to expand...

Not me. I don't know whether I'd be a slow or a fast reader in your estimation, but I know that I enjoy both telling in showing depending on factors completly unrelated to my general reading comprehension.

ie. telling instead of showing is fairly noxious when it raises the problem of "informed abilities" (characters who are flat-out described as clever, just, brave, kind etc. but simply don't act in away that would make the reader come to this conclusion independently) - that's a case where I'll definitely chime in the chorus of "Show, don't tell".

but telling instead of showing can also be great fun, if the person who's doing the telling is fun to listen to. (in fact it's not really telling instead of showing then, it's telling and showing us something about the narrator by the way he tells the story - but the narrator has to be an interesting fellow in his own right then, his/her comments should add value).

Someone who makes 3rd omniscient a lot of fun is for instance Terry Pratchett, in his Discworld novels.

Some people here seem to confuse 3rd omniscient with camera-eye-technique (which is even more limited than 3rd close, showing no interior events at all and presenting events in an "objective" manner, not in the voice of a POV, thus eliminating to show thoughts and attitudes through the voice. Of course you can still show that people are angry or embarrased, by having them clench their fist and blush etc, but it can be fairly limiting when it comes to subtler emotions and finer nuances.)

But usually 3rd omniscient narrators enjoy making ample use of their omniscience, dropping in flashbacks and exposition, little digressions one of their pet issues and even forshadowing in the bluntest ways and hopping from head to head as it pleases them - what you have to do however is do a lot of filtering (he wondered, it seemed to her, etc.) instead of free indirect discourse (She looked at her watch. That bastard was late again.) Good 3rd omniscient narrators get away with murder, because they are able to establish a special rapport with their readers.

DavidGil said:

Pretty easy to do. A theoretical example:

Dan knew he'd have to fight. And if he was lucky enough to survive, he realised he'd have to keep fighting. Sadly, Erica knew this too and clasped her hands together in prayer.

(No confusion, correct? As long as you make it clear who the thoughts are attached to, there's absolutely no problem. And making it clear is simply a matter of adding in the character names when each switch occurs.)

Only people who dislike the omniscient point of view should take issue with it really. You simply win some and lose some in that case. Not much to be done about it.

One thing you could also try, if you don't want to keep switching in the same paragraph, is to keep each point of view swap relegated to its own paragraph. I'm not sure that's necessary though. And having more than two character's thoughts shown shouldn't be that big a deal either, as long as it's again clear.

Edit: And I'd say it depends on how much you've done. If you've only done a bit, no harm in trying to tidy things up now, I guess. Otherwise, might be best to finish it first before going back, while making sure the new writing is as clear as possible.

Click to expand...

I am glad to hear this. I was told that I shouldn't switch POV without a scene break. I feel strongly that if it's clear whose POV you are in, then it's just a personal preference, in that some people feel very strongly about not switching.

Oh, dear. Round and round we go again.

In omniscient there is no switching of POV because in omniscient there is only one POV - that of the omniscient narrator.

The omniscient narrator may choose to focus in and out on different characters but there is no changing of POV - the POV remains that of the omniscient narrator.

The advice you have received is pretty standard but relates to switching of POV when using Third person Limited POV. That 'Limited' simply means limited to the use of one POV character at a time in any given scene, chapter or whatever, despite however many POV characters you choose to have in the entire novel.

snc84 said:

I am glad to hear this. I was told that I shouldn't switch POV without a scene break. I feel strongly that if it's clear whose POV you are in, then it's just a personal preference, in that some people feel very strongly about not switching.

Click to expand...

I can feel your pain, OP, I felt the same way writing my first novel in third person. It isn't easy (at least for me), but at the same time, I've found a lot more leeway in giving the character's POV, thoughts and feelings, and descriptions of other people and places.

My first few novels were written in first-person and turned out well, but I decided to take on the challenge of doing a third-person young lady's POV. Doubly difficult as I'm A) a guy, and B) straight, and my MC is a high school student who has just come out to her friends, meets the girl of her dreams who's not exactly from around here...did I mention it was a fantasy?

I ran it by a few people who critiqued the living hell out of it and they thought it was fine (although it needed changes, of course) and I was surprised it actually worked so well. You just have the find the 'voice' of the character and work through that. JMO on all this.

I'm still learning, and the more I do it, the better I think I can get.

I am trying to write my current story from my main character's point of view, and only telling other people's thoughts when they happen at random. Example:


My MC is completely absent in this scene I just wrote. I will paraphrase because I don't feel comfortable copying and pasting, because of my computer. It goes haywire and copies the wrong things.


"She's never needed birth control before you started dating?" the doctor asked. "How old are you, Ms. Ainsworth?"

Holly said, "I'm twenty-three."

The doctor gasped. What planet was this girl from?

and from then on I completely avoided expressing inner thoughts or random feelings of the other characters in the scene. I just had them talking.


It's not easy to get it right when one's been doing it wrong this whole time, but after like 50 manuscripts I've written within the last 6 years, I'm still learning. Baby steps.

.

=Krystal Heart;8020909]I am trying to write my current story from my main character's point of view, and only telling other people's thoughts when they happen at random. Example:

My MC is completely absent in this scene I just wrote. I will paraphrase because I don't feel comfortable copying and pasting, because of my computer. It goes haywire and copies the wrong things.

The opening paragraph seems contradictory to me. You appear to be confusing the expression 'point of view' and 'perspective'.

If you are using Third person limited POV and the chosen POV character is your MC, then if he is absent from a scene you cannot use his POV. You have to use another POV.

As far as the What planet... thought below goes, it's obviously the doctor's thought and if you are using Third person limited the doctor must be the POV character.

In Third person limited, you can't tell other people's thoughts because your chosen POV character cannot know what somebody else is thinking unless the POV character happens to be a mind-reader.

He could guess, as we all do, - from actions and reactions - what someone else seems to be thinking but that's it - he can't know and he can't quote.

If you're using omniscient POV you can focus in on any character to show things from their perspective but that's not the same as 'writing a story from his point of view'. In omniscient it doesn't matter whether your MC is present in every scene or not because as an omniscient narrator you know everything about everybody, whether your MC is there or not. And, in omniscient, if anyone's inner thoughts or feelings need to be revealed - reveal them - you can do so because the only POV is yours and you know everything.



"She's never needed birth control before you started dating?" the doctor asked. "How old are you, Ms. Ainsworth?"

Holly said, "I'm twenty-three."

The doctor gasped. What planet was this girl from?

and from then on I completely avoided expressing inner thoughts or random feelings of the other characters in the scene. I just had them talking.


It's not easy to get it right when one's been doing it wrong this whole time, but after like 50 manuscripts I've written within the last 6 years, I'm still learning. Baby steps.

Click to expand...

snc84 said:

I am glad to hear this. I was told that I shouldn't switch POV without a scene break.

Click to expand...

Was that me, in the First Three Sentences thread? I told somebody that.

Anyway, if it was you I was speaking to, I said it because your sample appeared to be written in third-person limited, and you had two POVs in three sentences.

If you're writing in omniscient, you need to establish that omniscient narrator from the first sentence. That means taking a few sentences to talk "above" the story or characters before you start putting the reader directly into the heads of the characters. And even in omniscient, the narration does not generally jump around from one character's thoughts to another's.

Krystal Heart said:

I am trying to write my current story from my main character's point of view, and only telling other people's thoughts when they happen at random. Example:


My MC is completely absent in this scene I just wrote.

Click to expand...

What Bufty said.

Kind of O/T but the book "The Middlesteins" in written in Omniscient POV (at least I think it is...)