Okay, so my thinking on omniscient has changed. 
Last year I read Conn Iggulden's Conqueror series about Genghis Khan, and that was written in omniscient. But what I really noticed about that POV choice is how it allowed Iggulden to juggle a large cast of characters while minimising their impact on the story.
For example, I always knew having a relatively large number of POV characters in my Gathering would be a turn-off for some readers. I accepted that, but justified it on the grounds that POV switches are remarkably common in much of fiction. Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, for example, has around 11 POV characters. But - the difference is that he uses omniscient, too, so it doesn't feel too invasive.
Whereas what I did was give POV characters dedicated chapters in third person close. Which pretty much stamped them clearly on the story. The benefit was always that I could write deeper characters, the hazard was that I'd have to work much harder with those characters to make them work - and also risk alienating some readers.
What I realised after reading the Iggulden is that if I'd have written in omniscient, the effect of multiple characters would have become lessened. Readers may have been less easily overwhelmed. However, that would come with the cost of having more superficial characters. But the story could have still worked, just in a different if less intense and punchy way than I aimed for.
But it has made me respect omniscient now as a useful choice for handling a large cast of characters.
IMO omniscient should never be a first choice. I would definitely recommend people try writing in close third or even first person to get used to the depth of character required for these. Then if they write in omniscient they can really learn to understand where those weaknesses may be, and shore them up properly.
The irony is that I originally wrote Gathering as omniscient. However, I had no idea about POV use - I posted up a section for Critique here and someone pointed out that my lack of understanding of POV was a serious flaw in the story. That's what prompted me to start reading up on technicalities of writing, because I didn't even know what POV use was then.
Either way, though, I'm come to respect omniscient as a choice, where it is actually a choice. IMO a writer still needs to understand what choice they are making, why, and what the real hazards of distance are. Because when it's done well, it's done really well. However, I would also suggest that it may be one of the harder POV's to write well, precisely because of the cost of keeping a reader at a distance from the characters for any length of time.
Just thoughts.
Last year I read Conn Iggulden's Conqueror series about Genghis Khan, and that was written in omniscient. But what I really noticed about that POV choice is how it allowed Iggulden to juggle a large cast of characters while minimising their impact on the story.
For example, I always knew having a relatively large number of POV characters in my Gathering would be a turn-off for some readers. I accepted that, but justified it on the grounds that POV switches are remarkably common in much of fiction. Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, for example, has around 11 POV characters. But - the difference is that he uses omniscient, too, so it doesn't feel too invasive.
Whereas what I did was give POV characters dedicated chapters in third person close. Which pretty much stamped them clearly on the story. The benefit was always that I could write deeper characters, the hazard was that I'd have to work much harder with those characters to make them work - and also risk alienating some readers.
What I realised after reading the Iggulden is that if I'd have written in omniscient, the effect of multiple characters would have become lessened. Readers may have been less easily overwhelmed. However, that would come with the cost of having more superficial characters. But the story could have still worked, just in a different if less intense and punchy way than I aimed for.
But it has made me respect omniscient now as a useful choice for handling a large cast of characters.
IMO omniscient should never be a first choice. I would definitely recommend people try writing in close third or even first person to get used to the depth of character required for these. Then if they write in omniscient they can really learn to understand where those weaknesses may be, and shore them up properly.
The irony is that I originally wrote Gathering as omniscient. However, I had no idea about POV use - I posted up a section for Critique here and someone pointed out that my lack of understanding of POV was a serious flaw in the story. That's what prompted me to start reading up on technicalities of writing, because I didn't even know what POV use was then.
Either way, though, I'm come to respect omniscient as a choice, where it is actually a choice. IMO a writer still needs to understand what choice they are making, why, and what the real hazards of distance are. Because when it's done well, it's done really well. However, I would also suggest that it may be one of the harder POV's to write well, precisely because of the cost of keeping a reader at a distance from the characters for any length of time.
Just thoughts.
