I need clarification on Third Person Limited Omniscience

[Lafayette]

I have been doing research on POVs (thanks to Tinkerdan and others) and have ran across Third Person Limited Omniscience which appears to be the POV I'm looking for, however one item is not clear to me.

Can I have a conversation going on with two or more of the other characters without the main character being present? And can I reveal the thoughts of another character in a different scene without the main person being around?

Example 1: "You know I can be a real stinker at times," smiled George. "Do you think my father will be proud of me?"

"I am sure he will," answered Sam.

Example 2: George was spilling drawers and papers all over the place. I wish I could find that pen.

If I'm neither one of the above examples are Third Person Limited Omniscience then what POVs are they?

 

[RX-79G]

Third Person Limited Omniscience

I can't find a reference to this. It is usually Limited or Omniscient - not both. Do you have a link?

 

[zmunkz]

Those both appear to be 3rd limited. Omniscient comes to play when you reveal thoughts or private perspectives of multiple characters in the same scene.

Neither example contains something that couldn't be seen/heard by a single viewpoint.

This would be omniscient:

"You know I can be a real stinker at times," smiled George, pride swelling in his chest. "Do you think my father will be proud of me?"

"I am sure he will," answered Sam. No doubt about it.

Here only George should experience pride swelling up, but only Sam can hear his inner thoughts. Since we, the reader, get both, we are omniscient.

Omniscience allows for a narrator to take on their own voice/character, though that is not necessary. Perhaps that is the distinction you were reading about? I don't know the particular term you mentioned.

 

[RX-79G]

Those both appear to be 3rd limited. Omniscient comes to play when you reveal thoughts or private perspectives of multiple characters in the same scene.

They can't be Limited if the main character isn't in the room with those characters - as the OP mentions. A Limited narrator would be unable to know what happened away from the main character.

 

[Lafayette]

Is it possible or correct to do more show than tell in omniscience? From my research on writing I understand it's better to show than tell.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Is it possible or correct to do more show than tell in omniscience? From my research on writing I understand it's better to show than tell.

It's about finding a balance. Omni gives more room for telling than some povs but doesn't have to be used like this.

I just wanted to clarify one thing:

@zmunkz 's post above could also be third close. Third close is often seen as whole chapters or sections in one POV because that is how it is commonly used. However it is actually just being close to a third person's point of view - and it can shift (which can become head hopping if obtrusive.) A good example of a book using shifting close third is Captain Corelli's Mandolin.

Omni is not having more than one character POV in a scene - that is shifting third close. Omni is having an external narrator to the scene. That's why it often becomes more telling - because the narrator is watching rather than partaking in the action. The omni narrator often has their own distinct voice as well.

 

[RX-79G]

Is it possible or correct to do more show than tell in omniscience? From my research on writing I understand it's better to show than tell.

You can do whatever you want - omni doesn't limit you, it is just easier to fall into the habit of using thought bubbles like "George was nervous" rather than showing: "George sat stiffly, a gloss of sweat on his upper lip".

You could make the choice to not use the omniscience to "tell" states of mind, but still have the power to show a characters verbal thoughts: "Damn my sweaty lips! I'm going to give the big secret away", thought George. Or vice versa. And maybe that's what you meant by omni limited?

The show vs. tell thing is mainly about engaging the reader in decoding the characters and action, rather than spelling it out. When the reader has to actively think about what George's sweaty lips mean, or why it is dark at noon, or why there's glass on the floor by the window you're drawing them into participation, rather than passive reading. And writing like that means that you have to do the same, first designing the scene in your mind, then writing it as if you are in the room witnessing it. Omni vs limited and everything between are just the limits of your vision and hearing as the invisible witness.

Sorry if that is all obvious, but I think the easiest way to write this kind of stuff is to actively think about your POV until it is second nature as you write to witness events properly.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I have been doing research on POV

You really need to understand the technicalities - it'll save you so much pain to learn about them now, rather than do so later and have to rewrite everything.

My standard recommendation is Wonderbook by Jeff Vandermeer, as it covers everything from basics to advanced writing tools. If you don't like reading books on writing, Brandon Sanderson covers a lot of it in his writing lectures, available on Youtube: Learn | Write About Dragons

 

[Lafayette]

Thank you all. I did order Wonderbook, however it is hard to read because the print is so small. I need a magnifying glass. Will it be coming out as an e-book?

 

[tinkerdan]

As I have before::

Scribophile

::I would suggest to anyone interested to read this.(Or re-read it.)

There seem to be a lot of limited misconceptions about what Omniscient POV should be.

When using close third or a close omniscient derivative, there is no rule that says that you have to follow your character around and only see what they see; except when they are in the scene and you use them as the POV (that's when you follow them like a puppy).

If you separate a scene that has other people and not them just chose a POV and write from there or if you really must just go all Omniscient Objective and float out there like some eaves dropper. There is no rule sticking you to one head, but it is advisable in each scene to remain in one head and try not to head-hop.

Honestly: In my books I needed, in my first person accounts, to give extra information that the character wouldn't know so I wedged in some third person chapters. Is that right ,does that work? I don't know, read my book and see what it does to you.

The point is that you can bend the guidelines somewhat to accomplish the task as long as you know that that's what your are doing and that someone is going to give you flack over it.

 

[RX-79G]

When using close third or a close omniscient derivative, there is no rule that says that you have to follow your character around and only see what they see; except when they are in the scene and you use them as the POV (that's when you follow them like a puppy).

Isn't that situation called Limited Third?

 

[Lafayette]

As I have before::

Scribophile

::I would suggest to anyone interested to read this.(Or re-read it.)
When using close third or a close omniscient derivative, there is no rule that says that you have to follow your character around and only see what they see; except when they are in the scene and you use them as the POV (that's when you follow them like a puppy).

If you separate a scene that has other people and not them just chose a POV and write from there or if you really must just go all Omniscient Objective and float out there like some eaves dropper. There is no rule sticking you to one head, but it is advisable in each scene to remain in one head and try not to head-hop.
.

Thanks Tinkerdan, that was the answer I was looking for.

I did go to Scribophile and re-read it, but they didn't answer my question the way you did. I also googled for the answer and didn't do much better.

What you are describing is pretty much of what is happening in my story. When I went to Scribophile I was able to eliminate most of the POVs and what I was left with failed to answer my problem. I wanted a POV that allowed me to do more show than tell. I discovered in the last year or so that it is better to show than tell that's why I came back here.

This answer will give me the freedom to tell my story better. And yes, I will be on the look-out for head-hopping.

That to all of you that tried to help me.

 

[tinkerdan]

Yes in that close third is very much like first person and first person is very limited as a POV; you could call it limited third.

Isn't that situation called Limited Third?

 

[RX-79G]

Yes in that close third is very much like first person and first person is very limited as a POV; you could call it limited third.

Maybe I misunderstood your previous post. If you are using "close" or "limited" third, doesn't that mean that you only see what they see? As soon as you show something else, doesn't that mean close or limited third has stopped being the POV?

 

[tinkerdan]

Yes and no in the context of the discussion.

Maybe I misunderstood your previous post. If you are using "close" or "limited" third, doesn't that mean that you only see what they see? As soon as you show something else, doesn't that mean close or limited third has stopped being the POV?

Things get dicey with omniscient and you could control it with a limited or close third type writing yet remain omniscient which allows you to move from character to character with close third as long as you don't head hop in the specific scene they are in.

So if you were doing close third and then in the second chapter remained close third with a different character it might look like an omniscient point of view, but not all readers will go in that direction; they more likely will see some version of close third or some version of Omniscient. Mostly it's a good way to try to avoid head hopping when you want to have more than one character POV.

Limiting your POV in the first chapter to your main character doesn't automatically mean that you can't have a scene without that character. And when you do that scene it doesn't mean that you can't have another character be the POV. But it might be a good idea to try some consistency such as limiting the POV to whatever character you chose if you have started out limited.(Insert close for limited.)

To be clear: when you switch you want clean breaks either extra space to denote a new scene or a new chapter heading. Switching back and forth in the same scene is head hopping. Also I would term this Omniscient subjective more than limited. But it contains a limited element in that whatever head you are in you need to stay there until the scene is finished.

 

[HareBrain]

@tinkerdan, isn't what you're describing "serial close third"? I.e. where you go from one close-third POV to another, usually with a marker such as a scene break or chapter break between? That's different to any kind of omniscient.

 

[tinkerdan]

Honestly, I'm not sure that you didn't just make that on up.

@tinkerdan, isn't what you're describing "serial close third"? I.e. where you go from one close-third POV to another, usually with a marker such as a scene break or chapter break between? That's different to any kind of omniscient.

Yes it does feel serial but its an Omniscient Subjective where it gets really close to the characters and it can be abused by those who like to head hop. But yes once you separate them out it feels like some sort of serial third progression.

Note:: I am definitely checking that out; but I fear I will need some help with a citation as to where serial close third comes from.

 

[HareBrain]

I'm not sure that you didn't just make that on up.

Hmm, I thought I didn't, but google suggests I almost did. Only three results, and one of those on here.

It must have a more common name I'm forgetting.

Anyway, yes, "serial close third" is really just headhopping with clear breaks between POVs. Or headhopping is "serial close third" done badly by not signalling transitions and (usually) having them too often for the reader to settle into any one POV.

 

[tinkerdan]

Okay: so the words you are looking for are Multiple Point of View.
Scribophile
I'm not certain how much total agreement there is with many of the POV.

for instance
First Person Omniscient- yes there is such a thing- is described as a first person narrator who is a character in the story who knows and expresses the thoughts and feelings of others.

Third Person Omniscient - The narrator- may or may not be a character in the story- and knows and expresses the thoughts and feelings of everyone. They are not limited to a single perspective.

This comes in two flavors one is when the narrator is a character and things are limited to what that character sees though he knows more than he should about everyone when he sees them.

The next is when it is limited to as few characters as it takes to tell the story and this one might feel like a serial third. But it still has that element that it could drift off into other peoples feelings and thoughts.


Anyway I think that what we seek here is the Multiple Third Person Omniscient. However since I'm not keen with the notion of having these characters all able to express everyone's thoughts and feelings, I'd suggest limiting the Multiple Third Person Omniscient POV.

Oh and I suppose I should confess to having a couple of times done something that looked very much like what could be called serial third when I had people walking together through a building and as each person drops out of the scene the narrative is taken over by one of the others passing into the next scene.