Omniscient POV

gmbaker said:

But writing, like all the arts, is a form of alchemy, and no ironclad rule captures that alchemy in all its subtlety. So for some us it becomes useful to look at the craft through a different lense. ​

Click to expand...

All right, I see what you're saying. And writing is a form of alchemy, a certain amount of smoke-and-mirrors and application of psychology on the part of the writer, and a willing suspension of disbelief on the part of the reader, not to mention whatever expectations and personal baggage they bring to the reading.

I find technical violations of the ostensible POV everywhere in published work. ​

Click to expand...

True. Some may be deliberate style choices (that may or may not be successful, depending on how the reader views it) and some may be a result of writer carelessness or ignorance. Not every writer is a master of style, but a lot can be forgiven for a ripping good yarn. What matters, in the end, is whether the story connects with the reader.

I think this is hard to discuss without examples.

I consider Harry Potter to be omniscient, for example, yet I often hear those books cited as an example of "a famous author using head hopping" in limited third.

For some quality introspective omni, I recommend Station Eleven.

Harlequin said:

I consider Harry Potter to be omniscient, for example, yet I often hear those books cited as an example of "a famous author using head hopping" in limited third.

Click to expand...

Well, the first Harry Potter book starts with how many pages about Privet lane and cupboards under the stairs and drills? The storyteller's voice is there very clearly from the beginning.

I think part of why I find the terminology of omniscience unhelpful is that the storyteller can obviously decide to focus on one character for a while, to describe their experience, their thoughts. In so doing, the storyteller has, temporarily adopted a point of view very close to that one character. But it is the privilege of the storyteller, as it is the privilege of the movie director, to change points of view as the story unfolds so as to give the reader or viewer different perspectives on the action. The term omniscient suggests a movie wide shot, but no movie is shot entirely in one wide shot. The storyteller may choose, for effect, to tell an entire story from the perspective of a single character, but this actually creates all kinds of technical problems (which then generate all kinds of questions on writing forums). So, no doubt, you can find passages of Harry Potter which cleve closely to the perspective on one character, but to interpret that as the entire novel being written in close third seems to me to be a grave misreading.

I may just be thick but I still do not understand why you keep referring to the 'terminology of omniscience' as being 'unhelpful'.

In what way is Omniscience in relation to a writing POV restrictive? The word by itself suggests nothing beyond the narrator having knowledge of everything about every character.

All decisions on how to convey the story are made by the writer -as they are in any POV choice. Comparison to making movies is not comparing like with like. Movies and writing are totally different mediums.

gmbaker said:

Well, the first Harry Potter book starts with how many pages about Privet lane and cupboards under the stairs and drills? The storyteller's voice is there very clearly from the beginning.

I think part of why I find the terminology of omniscience unhelpful is that the storyteller can obviously decide to focus on one character for a while, to describe their experience, their thoughts. In so doing, the storyteller has, temporarily adopted a point of view very close to that one character. But it is the privilege of the storyteller, as it is the privilege of the movie director, to change points of view as the story unfolds so as to give the reader or viewer different perspectives on the action. The term omniscient suggests a movie wide shot, but no movie is shot entirely in one wide shot. The storyteller may choose, for effect, to tell an entire story from the perspective of a single character, but this actually creates all kinds of technical problems (which then generate all kinds of questions on writing forums). So, no doubt, you can find passages of Harry Potter which cleve closely to the perspective on one character, but to interpret that as the entire novel being written in close third seems to me to be a grave misreading.

Click to expand...

Bufty said:

I may just be thick but I still do not understand why you keep referring to the 'terminology of omniscience' as being 'unhelpful'.

Click to expand...

Well, what I said was that I find it unhelpful. Clearly others find it helpful. I'm not telling them they shouldn't. But I suspect I am not the only one that finds it unhelpful, based on the many people that I have encountered who are left uncertain as to how they should handle it.

Bufty said:

In what way is Omniscience in relation to a writing POV restrictive? The word by itself suggests nothing beyond the narrator having knowledge of everything about every character.

Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting that is it restrictive. But in third person, at least, how could the reader tell that the narrator does not have knowledge of everything about every character. The certainly never tell everything about every character. They tell some things about some characters.

The real dividing line here seems to be character's thoughts. Either the narrator does not tell you the thoughts of any character, or they only ever tell you the thoughts of one character, or they tell you the thoughts of more than one character. Curiously, both the first and the last tend to get labeled omniscient POV, while the second gets labeled close POV. My suspicion is that the device of following only one character and giving their thoughts (in third person, as opposed to first, where it is entirely natural) was developed and needed a name, and that there then needed to be a name for everything else, and that got named omniscient.

And if anyone finds that distinction helpful, more power to them.

For anyone who, like me, does not find it helpful, I merely suggest that another way to look at the problem is to think in terms of whose voice the reader is listening to, because it seems to me that it is when the reader loses track of who they are listening too that they get disconcerted.

But these are merely mental props to help you through the complexities of composition, and you should use whichever ones work for you.

Bufty said:

All decisions on how to convey the story are made by the writer -as they are in any POV choice. Comparison to making movies is not comparing like with like. Movies and writing are totally different mediums.

Click to expand...

I'd be the first to agree that movies and books are not the same art. But they do both tell stories, and so there are similarities in storytelling that we can discern between the two. Much of what has been written on storytelling in the last hundred years has come from the movie side of things. (Show don't tell is a much more clear and obvious directive in the movies where your primary medium is pictures (which show) not words (which tell).) Movie directors soon learned that they could make a better movie by moving the camera around and mixing long shots with closeups. Novels have long enjoyed a similar freedom compared to plays (where changing the scene is expensive). So, yes, I think that the ability to frequently change point of view is a strength that novels share with movies, and the suggestion that in a novel you have to choose one POV and stick to it is highly limiting.

Maintain a consistent voice but change POV as required therefore seems to me a more helpful mantra than choose one POV and stick to it. But again, these ways of framing the craft are merely mental props. Use those that you personally find most helpful.

Yes, I thought it was clearly in omni too (HP) nonetheless it often gets cited as an example of "rulesbreaking" head hopping in 3rd pov.

My favorite pov so far has been, first person omni, but that's rare to need and I doubt I'll ever use it again.

Some novels do move between POVs. Novice writers are advised not to, but for the same reason novice gymnasts are advised not to try Olympic-level moves; it's potentially a lot of pain and will probably slow down your learning process over all.

Harlequin said:

Yes, I thought it was clearly in omni too (HP) nonetheless it often gets cited as an example of "rulesbreaking" head hopping in 3rd pov.

Click to expand...

Well, at a certain point, when we find that runaway bestsellers are routinely "breaking" the rules of how to write, we might begin to ask if maybe it is the rules themselves that are broken.

Harlequin said:

Some novels do move between POVs. Novice writers are advised not to, but for the same reason novice gymnasts are advised not to try Olympic-level moves; it's potentially a lot of pain and will probably slow down your learning process over all.

Click to expand...

I can see that in theory. But in practice I so often see the opposite problem: writer's struggling to do something that is actually quite simple to do, but is almost impossible within the confines of the particular set of rules that they are trying to follow. In so many forums I have seen countless questions in the form "How do I accomplish X in POV Y or person Z," where the clear answer is that in choosing POV Y or person Z they have placed a restriction on themselves that makes what they want to do near impossible. Both first person and close third person are restrictive POVs that throw out a bunch of the tools in the writer's tool box, thus making it harder to accomplish your goals. For some books, they may achieve literary effects that are worthwhile. But if we are going to suggest to beginners that they not start with the hard stuff, then the easiest way to write is omniscient/voice of the storyteller. Maybe that is what we should be recommending to them to start with.

gmbaker said:

Well, at a certain point, when we find that runaway bestsellers are routinely "breaking" the rules of how to write, we might begin to ask if maybe it is the rules themselves that are broken.



I can see that in theory. But in practice I so often see the opposite problem: writer's struggling to do something that is actually quite simple to do, but is almost impossible within the confines of the particular set of rules that they are trying to follow. In so many forums I have seen countless questions in the form "How do I accomplish X in POV Y or person Z," where the clear answer is that in choosing POV Y or person Z they have placed a restriction on themselves that makes what they want to do near impossible. Both first person and close third person are restrictive POVs that throw out a bunch of the tools in the writer's tool box, thus making it harder to accomplish your goals. For some books, they may achieve literary effects that are worthwhile. But if we are going to suggest to beginners that they not start with the hard stuff, then the easiest way to write is omniscient/voice of the storyteller. Maybe that is what we should be recommending to them to start with.

Click to expand...

Now you are on the topic of what should we be telling beginners?

You originally stated you found Omniscient terminology unhelpful yet now you seem to be suggesting the best way for beginners is to use omniscience.

To me at least, you are all over the place, raising confusion with every post.

Roxxsmom said:

The reason it's a good idea to study and understand the different approaches is to avoid a type of narrative unevenness or inconsistency that can result in readers feeling confused, jerked around, thrown out of a story, or failing to connect to a character.

Click to expand...

Bufty said:

Again, I think we basically agree despite the wording of your reply, and nobody but you has mentioned ironclad rules. They are proven techniques that can be used or ignored as the writer chooses.

To me, deliberate[sic] technical violations simply mean the writer has chosen for whatever reason to convey the information in a different manner and I agree there's nothing wrong with that. But that doesn't negate the advisability/wisdom of writers learning or at least understanding proven techniques for the reasons outlined in Roxxsmom's post.

Click to expand...

Sounds reasonable to me.

gmbaker said:

Well, at a certain point, when we find that runaway bestsellers are routinely "breaking" the rules of how to write, we might begin to ask if maybe it is the rules themselves that are broken.

Click to expand...

Not sure I'm following this. I don’t see anyone advocating for rules in any sense other than helpful guidelines that provide clarity. Maybe that’s just me... I tend to view rules in general as frameworks to build upon rather than restrictive cages. If the rationale behind the rules is absorbed and understood, it becomes easier to break rules effectively. If that’s what’s needed for the work.

And... is it actually a thing that runaway bestsellers routinely break the rules of writing? I admit to vast ignorance on the subject of runaway bestsellers, but if you’re citing HP, isn’t that more an example of misapplied terminology than rule-breaking (as I think Harlequin is saying)?

I’m confused.

gmbaker said:

I can see that in theory. But in practice I so often see the opposite problem: writer's struggling to do something that is actually quite simple to do, but is almost impossible within the confines of the particular set of rules that they are trying to follow. In so many forums I have seen countless questions in the form "How do I accomplish X in POV Y or person Z," where the clear answer is that in choosing POV Y or person Z they have placed a restriction on themselves that makes what they want to do near impossible. Both first person and close third person are restrictive POVs that throw out a bunch of the tools in the writer's tool box, thus making it harder to accomplish your goals. For some books, they may achieve literary effects that are worthwhile. But if we are going to suggest to beginners that they not start with the hard stuff, then the easiest way to write is omniscient/voice of the storyteller. Maybe that is what we should be recommending to them to start with.

Click to expand...

Aren’t there limitations and advantages to each of the approaches?

I dunno. I’m a new writer. I write in 3rd limited because I have enough to juggle already with all the basic stuff I’m trying to get a handle on. (Scene conflict, anyone?) I don’t see anyone telling me I have to write 3rd because I’m new, though I do see lots of good advice for how to use it effectively. Based on established guidelines.

gmbaker said:

Well, at a certain point, when we find that runaway bestsellers are routinely "breaking" the rules of how to write, we might begin to ask if maybe it is the rules themselves that are broken.

Maybe I just didn't see it, but one of the bits you'll often see posted here on AW is that anything can be done if it's done well. As others have said, rules aren't rules, they're guidelines, and as a generalization, those guidelines help minimize confusion for both the reader and the writer. As for bestsellers, remember that many on the bestseller lists are those who have proven themselves able to write stories that millions are willing to purchase. So yeah, they get more wiggle room. For those who are on the list for the first time, something got them there. Their story, how they wrote it, or both, something resonated for enough people to propel them to the top. Are there any writers who do everything perfectly? I don't think there can be, because people want different things from their stories. But for many of us here on AW, we're trying to catch the eye of an agent/editor using only our words and stories, and that means we need to do the best possible work we can; understand those guidelines and conventions and use them in service of telling the best version of our story.


I can see that in theory. But in practice I so often see the opposite problem: writer's struggling to do something that is actually quite simple to do, but is almost impossible within the confines of the particular set of rules that they are trying to follow. In so many forums I have seen countless questions in the form "How do I accomplish X in POV Y or person Z," where the clear answer is that in choosing POV Y or person Z they have placed a restriction on themselves that makes what they want to do near impossible. Both first person and close third person are restrictive POVs that throw out a bunch of the tools in the writer's tool box, thus making it harder to accomplish your goals. For some books, they may achieve literary effects that are worthwhile. But if we are going to suggest to beginners that they not start with the hard stuff, then the easiest way to write is omniscient/voice of the storyteller. Maybe that is what we should be recommending to them to start with.

Click to expand...

I see it differently. The restrictions of close third can be helpful for newer writers to keep the focus, and resist the urge to overexplain. As a general rule, we don't need to know what every character is thinking, how each character perceives a conversation.

That said, different writers feel more comfortable with different POVs, and that's fine. My instinct is omniscient or third, present tense. My current WIP is in first, past tense, because that's the POV that made the most sense for *this* story.

I'd compare it to structures in poetry. The structure of a sonnet or haiku "can" be limiting, which is why we don't write every poem that way. But restrictions can generate and create their own kind of creativity.

I'd also argue that you cannot have a bite from every cake (sorry for the terrible metaphor) and ultimately, some things have to be prioritised or dropped depending on the angle you take. "The Etched City" by KJ Bishop is a third person limited pov novel which uses head-hopping liberally. It is some of the best head-hopping I've ever seen, definitely not omni, but I would not say the author has more freedom per se. She's got a tough job keeping the narrative under control and keeping it from spiraling into confusion, and there's not nearly as much room for close or intimate character examinations.

Anyways, I digress.

gmbaker said:

But if we are going to suggest to beginners that they not start with the hard stuff, then the easiest way to write is omniscient/voice of the storyteller. Maybe that is what we should be recommending to them to start with.

Click to expand...

Because omniscient is so powerful and so potentially broad in its application, with so many choices available for the writer, it's easy to get carried away with it and end up with a mess. IMO, using third-person limited is easier because it's restrictive--you don't have as many choices to make. It's a great tool for learning to tell a story from within the viewpoint of a character or characters.

Which, of course, does not mean every writer should or will take that route. But I do think omniscient is actually the most difficult POV to do well.