Omnipresent in a 3rd Person PoV

[Venusian Broon]

A question for those who are writing in quite a close 3rd person PoV.

Do you allow yourself quite a few parts of your narrative to be omnipresent (or getting most of the way to omnipresent)?

i.e. a birds eye view of a city describing it to some detail, the PoV of a particular space where an event takes place that has relevance to the plot but no characters witness, the history of a civilisation through the PoV of an ancient building etc...

I really quite like multiple close third person, as I find the constraints good for keeping the purple prose under control, among other reasons, but I'm really starting to warm to having small chapters that sort of pull back a bit and go elsewhere where there can be no characters (or perhaps another way to look at it - give a non-person PoV).

It feels good to break up the flow and mean that, if I plan them properly, I can really cut down on characters being required to talk infodumps to explain what is happening/where they are/who they are.

I've been pretty strict on myself so far (almost 100k through the WiP, so quite far) in keeping it 3rd person close, but I'm interested if having such 'helicopter views' are the norm in others writing.

 

[HareBrain]

You mean omniscient, VB -- I'm not sure how an omnipresent POV would read, though I'd be interested to see!

I've used a "wide-angle" line at the very beginning of my WIP, and see no problem conceptually with having others. I think they work best either in their own mini-sections, or at the beginnings of sections -- to me, it feels much better to "zoom-in" and stay there rather than "zoom-out", and I think this is how it tends to be used in published work.

To sum up, try it and see. It certainly can be useful to get across background information without having to get round the problem of infodumps from characters.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I've seen different arguments - for example, one writer stating that the first paragraph is free to use how you like, before settling into limited.

However, I think the basic rule of third person limited is that you stick to the POV experience of that character and that only - so I would suggest care and thought in anything that moves away from that.

On saying that, though, I keep finding myself in books that mostly read as limited, only for the author to drift into omniscient to cover different people's thoughts and experiences. Personally, I think this is actually just bad writing, but regardless, appears acceptable.

So I guess if you do break from limited to omniscient, so long as this is a consistent feature of the writing then hopefully it won't jar the reader too much. Even still, you're now writing in different degrees of omniscient rather than limited IMO.

Just my personal opinion.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Whoops! Well at least you knew what I meant HB .

But then again thinking about it, (Jings this thread is mutating already)

I'd say Omnipresent is: a narrator being (allowed) anywhere and everywhere, but still has limits on what the PoV can describe*. Such a description details my PoV rules for the segment I wrote better than what is I think is generally used in omiscient third person. Hence I think I subconsciously picked the better word**

I think you're right about where it's most effective.

To turn around the question then, is there anyone that writes completly in close third person all the time?


* I don't know if this is actually a real term used in literary theory, it's probably all folded into universal omiscience, I guess.

** Any excuse to explain my complete incompetence

 

[Venusian Broon]

On saying that, though, I keep finding myself in books that mostly read as limited, only for the author to drift into omniscient to cover different people's thoughts and experiences. Personally, I think this is actually just bad writing, but regardless, appears acceptable.

I'd certainly go along with your view on this, although I'm sure there are some good books that break the limited/omniscient barrier and drift about. But for it to work, it probably requires a good and very able writer to control the writing. As I'm still struggling up Mount Learner I'm trying my darnest to Keep It Simple Stupid.

So I guess if you do break from limited to omniscient, so long as this is a consistent feature of the writing then hopefully it won't jar the reader too much. Even still, you're now writing in different degrees of omniscient rather than limited IMO.

I've highlighted what was my immediate concern when I decided to go along this path. So I've put it in a distinctive small chapter that just only relates to this event/PoV so that if I don't need it or it jars, it's easy to cut out.

 

[Colbey Frost]

As a reader I prefer a consistent style.

 

[alchemist]

I think they work best either in their own mini-sections, or at the beginnings of sections -- to me, it feels much better to "zoom-in" and stay there rather than "zoom-out", and I think this is how it tends to be used in published work.

I agree with this. In its own little section, I could live with a dash of omniscient. It could even add some colour to the writing (probably purple).

I haven't written any omniscient scenes myself, but have let a couple of non-strict POV sentences sneak in very occasionally. But I'm aware of them and only leave them there because I like them.

 

[HareBrain]

I'd say Omnipresent is: a narrator being (allowed) anywhere and everywhere, but still has limits on what the PoV can describe*. Such a description details my PoV rules for the segment I wrote better than what is I think is generally used in omiscient third person. Hence I think I subconsciously picked the better word**

Ahem, where does this "(allowed)" come from? Someone who's "allowed" to know everything isn't omniscient, he's just someone with no parental lock on his internet account. Omnipresent means is everywhere, all at one time.

Now that's been sorted out to my satisfaction, and with no disrespect to anyone else, as a reader I like variety and experimenting with form. I also like strong narrative voices, and I think it would be a real shame if we became strait-jacketed into only writing our stories to a single template. This over-adherence to rules and conventions is quite probably why literary types look down their noses at genre fiction -- don't give them any more of a reason to do so!

Yes, experimentation might mean publishing death. But your sacrifice will be remembered tearfully by future generations.

 

[Abernovo]

Personally, I wouldn't zoom in and out, to borrow HB's words, but it could be worth you experimenting. The metaphorical waste paper bin is full of my own attempts that didn't work, made up for by the occasional section that does, which feels all the better if I wasn't sure about it to begin with.

I'm sure you've thought of this, but there is the tried and trusted method of the 'Source' - you have a well-respected scientist/archaeologist discuss his/her work, causing the character to wonder what the building has experienced. The TV, radio and print media can also kick-start the process. It's a way to keep the focus close, but achieve a broader viewpoint.

 

[HareBrain]

The metaphorical waste paper bin is full of my own attempts that didn't work, made up for by the occasional section that does, which feels all the better if I wasn't sure about it to begin with.

Well said! Of course, some things won't work, and sometimes the writer can tell that, and sometimes he can't until people read it, and sometimes readers themselves are divided as to what works or doesn't. But if you feel an urge to do something unconventional, try it. My second novel was in first-person present at a time when that form was deeply unfashionable, but it wanted to be done like that, and I think it (mostly) worked. In my current WIP I have one long-ish section in second person! I still have no real idea why that suggested itself to me, but it did, I wrote it, and no one has said they've found it at all off-putting.

 

[Abernovo]

Revealing the level of my thickness here, HB, but is 2nd Person 'You', as in 'You go through the door'?

I'm not very good on some of the technical names.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I'd say Omnipresent is: a narrator being (allowed) anywhere and everywhere, but still has limits on what the PoV can describe

Omniscient has no limits - if you stick to only the POV character's experience, you're in limited.

I think a key problem with omniscient is that it's easier to write - you don't have to use so many literary tools to cover essential story information - you can simply insert it ad hoc.

Which I think weakens the impact of omniscient as a voice. It's worth noting how Frank Herbert uses omniscient in Dune to drive conflict, especially in the early chapters - you see the thoughts of Paul, Jessica, and Doctor Yueh, which are all at odds with each other.

If you're unsure about use of POV, take a look at Orson Scott Card's "Character and Viewpoint" as an introduction. It's a subject covered in a number of "how to write" books, but it's also worth keeping an eye on how it's used in the books you're reading.

 

[Tecdavid]

I think there's a few select situations where an omniscient narrator can really be for the better. For example, particularly hectic fight scenes. I find it much easier to follow them when I'm reading an account of what's taking place, instead of the personal observations and thoughts of a single character. I find their internal monologues and thinkings would get in the way of the action, too.

 

[HareBrain]

Revealing the level of my thickness here, HB, but is 2nd Person 'You', as in 'You go through the door'?

Yes, as in: "You go through the door. A Great Goblin stands there. To deck him one, turn to 264. If you took the Amway catalogue from the paladin's corpse and wish to use it here, turn to 8."

 

[prizzley]

I think there's a few select situations where an omniscient narrator can really be for the better. For example, particularly hectic fight scenes.

Spot on with fight scenes.

And often omniscient narator can express emotions neatly. In 3rd close POV, the reader might ask, 'Is she shivering with cold or fear?'

 

[Grinnel]

No matter what you do, you will find people that don't like it, usually without looking too hard. Bending or breaking accepted norms on PoV will jar some people right out of your work because, well, you're breaking the rules!

Many things that are perfectly acceptable today were competely taboo, unheard of or at least unfashionable in the past, and vice-versa.

I would say if you like it, do it and hang the rest of the world. In order for things to change, some brave soul has to be first.

BUT if it's not entertaining, prepare to spend long nights writing stories that only you will ever read.

 

[nubins]

I'm not good with the technical jargon on the different narration/POV styles but reading through this thread does generate a question...

If you are writing a book principally following one character, from a 3rd person point of view (so.. describing what the character is doing, thinking, experiencing but writing as the narrator not the character) are you allowed to switch away from that character to describe events around him? So for example, a battle.. I have a segment where I describe what the character is thinking and experiencing on the bridge of a ship, but because I want people to understand what is going on in the battle, which has two distinct parts, i do dscribe the battle as a whole and not from any perspective of that character. Is that acceptable? Will I be tutted at? Is this the same sort of issue That Venusian Broon is asking about?

 

[Venusian Broon]

Ahem, where does this "(allowed)" come from?

From someone digging a hole

I'll stop now.

No, what I've done is quite clear to me,

I'd describe the piece as the PoV of a bit of space-time quite a distance away from a star where an event happens that will be spotted by certain of the characters a few chapters later. It's brief and a bit lyrical. And it starts a new part.

We'll see if I still like it by the time I get round to draft 2. It's no biggy.

I tried to find examples of other writers that have done similar things, as I'm sure such a structure has been done before, but of course I can't find anything at the moment.

 

[Venusian Broon]

I have a segment where I describe what the character is thinking and experiencing on the bridge of a ship, but because I want people to understand what is going on in the battle, which has two distinct parts, i do dscribe the battle as a whole and not from any perspective of that character. Is that acceptable? Will I be tutted at?

Hi Nubins,

There can be ways of doing this and still being fine (and not being tutted at )

You could describe the battle from the perspective of your character - and put him/her in all the best spots so that you can describe the battle in it's entirety. Looking at War and Peace I think this is how Tolstoy handles the battle of Borodino.

If that's a bit of a stretch you could describe only what the character experiences and then afterwards a full account of the entire action can be related to him/her by another character or method (i.e. 'After he rested he read the disturbing account of the action...') and hence to the reader as an report (as a fully ominscient narration). I think that would be acceptable for third person.

Victor Hugo put in the whole of the battle of Waterloo in Les Miserables really as a massive flash back in full ominscient narration (it's only a bit at the end which has a direct impact on the main plot). But it's a bit old-fashioned and reads like a commentary.

I'm not sure how you would do it if you wanted to mix both views in real time.

Any one else have other ideas?

 

[Ursa major]

Although it's tempting to use some omniscient PoV at the beginning (or end) of some close 3rd person narrative, I think it should be avoided where possible, if only because it's really a sort of hidden infodumping**.




I've had a different problem with close PoV, which is that, in critiques, I've been asked to explain what is going on when:

1. the PoV character hasn't the faintest idea, but can only describe what they're aware of;
2. the whole point is that the PoV has a limited view, because that lets the reader imagine various scenarios.

And critiquers often think that there's too much of the character thinking, which, I thought, was one of the benefits of a close PoV, particularly where a character is having to react to something. (Yes, I know the protagonist/PoV ought to be proactive, but no-one is completely in control of their own fate all of the time.)


** - That should set the cat among the pigeons.