Omnipresent in a 3rd Person PoV

[nubins]

The way ive done it at the moment is focus on two characters and make it obvious which one is being discussed - break in the line then a long segment from that characters action, then a break with the new character.

There are really two battles taking place - there is a small battle between some interceptors taking place around a fleeing civillian transport and then a larger pitched battle between a five capital ships. I think it's very clear whose perspective is being told so i dont think there's a problem from head hopping, but sometimes the battle with the capital ships is me describing what the main characters ship is doing, rather than the main character.. is that still considered the same thing? He is the captain of that ship... so it is what he is doing, but i think just telling it from the orders he gives from the command deck would be .. well extremely difficult as im not in the Navy and doubt I could make it sound authetnic going into that level of detail and also .. i feel its more fun to desribe the ships tearing chunks out of each other and their maneouverings. Am i going to hell?

 

[Brian G Turner]

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?

Basically:

1. Third Person Limited - you only ever see what the character experiences and knows;

2. Third Person Omniscient - you can stay close to one character in a chapter, like in limited, but then add thoughts, intentions, foreshadowing, and extra information they may not be privvy to.

I think for most intents and purposes, third person is exclusively one or the other.

Also, a pointer on battles and action sequences - I know a lot of aspiring writers put a lot of stock into these, but they mean so much to the writer simply because it is their own world and they are totally invested in this.

It is entirely different for a reader, and a reader will not care about battles or action sequences unless you invest them in this - which is usually done using character experience via emotional development arcs, internal conflicts, etc. Simply put, you must give a reason for the reader to give a **** about what is happening, otherwise they won't.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

I find omn

 

[Hex]

It depends on the author, though. Guy Gavriel Kay (I may have mentioned I just read 'Under Heaven') writes primarily from one (limited) POV or another but has sections where he describes longer historical and political trends, or makes comments like: "If she had decided to stay on the main road and stop at the Inn, she might have walked in the garden that evening and found two men conversing under a tree. Then many people's lives would have been different." (I made that up because the book's back in the library -- but the real sentence is something along those lines and is something none of the characters could have known).

He leaps from limited into omniscient without much warning, in the middle of chapters, and he's combined limited past (generally) with other chapters in present -- with hints of omniscience.

I suspect this is another of those "know the rules before you break them" things, but he does and he breaks them spectacularly and to stunning effect. So maybe it's also a "be aware that the rules are not set in stone" thing too.

I think there is a fashion just now for limited third, so books written that way may sell more easily. However, I don't think there's an artistic (if you like) reason for avoiding such changes in POV closeness.

(NOTE: I always write in first person so you may like to take my comments with a hint of skepticism)

 

[AnyaKimlin]

oops everything packed in on me last night lol

I find getting omniscience right the most difficult of all the narrative POVs. The Casual Vacancy is in omniscience though so it maybe back in fashion.

I'm trying to use it for my Urban Fantasy but only certain chapters, because I have two characters that need to spend time together and neither is really strong enough to carry the POV for that chapter.

 

[Bowler1]

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.

I think whole elements of story-telling can take advantage of third limited and build a picture slowly. Different character opinion and POV’s leading to misunderstandings, or simply giving the reader the omniscient POV/bigger picture slowly, through different characters. Why zoom back and give the reader a big picture, add suspense, build slowly giving bits here and there. Let the reader get to know a character well by following them closely and then kill that character off in a big battle scene, emotion, (naughty and fun, heehee!) and as per I Brian.

I really don't see the point in giving the game away easily by presenting the big picture. The reader has as much imagination as you the writer, it's why they read, we should try and use that reader imagination to our advantage.

 

[Grinnel]

Let me first say that I almost always write in first person or 3rd person limited.

In defence of switching to 3rd omniscient, I have to say I strongly disagree with much of what has been said here.

It is certainly not easy or unimaginative to use sections in omnicient style. It is, in fact, quite difficult and if anything requres more imagination to do with any hope of success. Omnicient style doesn't spoil endings and give boring infodumps, authors do!

Omniscient style is simply not currently in vogue, much the way books just were not written in present tense as little as ten years ago. Worse, the reason it is not in style is because we are largely influenced by movies, video games and more so by TV. In the past few years the jiggling hand-held style of camerawork along with the first person video game have become popular, bringing the viewer more into the action; thus opening the door for stories in first person and/or present tense.

Without going into some version of story-in-story it is almost impossible for video media, the biggest influence on modern culture (yes, like it or not they are culture and art and our biggest competition as artists) to go into omniscient mode. That makes it much more difficult for those of us inundated by popular media (i.e. everyone) to appreciate the omniscient view.

In books, omniscient style can jar the reader out of the story because: A) the author isn't good at it and B) 90% of the readers' entertainment is in limited style, you need to be very good to move him smoothly into unfamiliar territory.

Some authors can switch back and forth from limited to omniscient in their work and still be successful; Kurt Vonnegut Jr., Douglas Adams, Spider Robinson and Stephen King, to name a few.

So strap on a pair, take a step back and write like a god...