semi omniscient POV

[L.L.Lotte]

Or maybe I should look at this another way: Terry Rossio once said that a lot of great art is great precisely because it does break the commonly accepted rules. So if we believe that great fiction will usually contain elements we're told don't work, do we need to rethink the nature of what we're told won't work and why?

Likely so. We are definitely conditioned to believe it is bad when the reality is likely not so bleak.

I think everybody generally agrees that Guy Gavriel Kay is an amazing writer and a golden standard we should ever hope to achieve... right? I'd say he is about as close to writing like a literary author as a SFF can get. People commend him on his prose and all that...

The Summer Tree, page 7, he switches PoV... He has an unnamed character look at Paul, at which point the PoV shifts to Paul, who then looks back at the man we started the PoV in. That is just one example, I'm sure I could find more if I hunted through his books hard enough.

So even GGK made that "mistake" and then went on to become a renowned, award winning author... And furthermore to the point, GGK isn't afraid to do 12 page long info-dumps... just check out the start of Tigana if you don't believe me.

 

[The Big Peat]

Read his latest one, A Brightness Long Ago. I had it on e-format so not sure how many pages the info dump took, but it was astonishing. And when he introduces the 2nd or 3rd PoV character, he takes a thousand words or so just to talk about her history before getting onto why she's relevant. It's mind-blowing.

Incidentally, the popularity and enduring appeal of GGK is part of why I must demur with Teresa saying SFF readers are accustomed to/fans of close 3rd, not because we aren't but because we're also accustomed to/fans of omniscient. And tbh it irks me that said itch isn't getting scratched as it is - which is probably part of why I'm loudly pro-omniscient in these arguments.

 

[zmunkz]

As for 'experienced writers can do it and novices should stay away', as an explanation, it doesn't sit right with me. Even if true, it's only a surface observation. To the heart of it: what is it about their work that makes it work better than an unknown author? There must be some defining characteristic of when the shifts are working and when they fail. The name on the cover can't be the only thing.

It’s not that experienced writers can do it because they have an established name, or something. It’s because they understand the potential pitfalls and can avoid them. So if the question is, “what are the potential pitfalls with omniscient?” I’d offer this list, to start:

- can be difficult to ground the scene
- adds distance between the reader and the character
- can lead to confusing character interactions
- can lead to oversharing/dumping of information
- can increase narrative distance
- can encourage the author not to dig deep into their characters

These are all avoidable and not exclusive to omniscient, but they are particularly easy to bowl into with omniscient if you aren’t experienced.

 

[ckatt]

- can be difficult to ground the scene
- adds distance between the reader and the character
- can lead to confusing character interactions
- can lead to oversharing/dumping of information
- can increase narrative distance
- can encourage the author not to dig deep into their characters

These are all avoidable and not exclusive to omniscient, but they are particularly easy to bowl into with omniscient if you aren’t experienced.

So would it be fair to say that these are the real problems and if you can avoid them it's not about omniscient POV, except that it makes it easier to do these things?

 

[zmunkz]

Yeah, you sum it up perfectly. That’s my take on many of these “rules,” anyway. They’re like warning signs on an off-road trail. First time through, best to follow them and take it slowly. Once you know the trail, and all the hidden turns and big roots and snags, you don’t really need the sign post to keep from landing in the river anymore.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I think I'm ok with the head hoping problem, no one has ever accused me of it anyway. But what about pulling back to an omniscient perspective after having been in someone's head? Like the POV character has lost consciousness and the reader still sees what is happening in the room, or we are shown what is on the other side of a door the character is locked behind?

If I was the writing facing that problem, I would probably insert a scene break before describing what is there after the character blacks out, or if I wanted to show what is on the other side of the door.

Or wait until one of the other characters discovers what happened, and then write about it from their POV. If none of the character's know, then the writer has a very good excuse to keep some surprises back, supposing he or she chooses to do so.

And, Peat, I said that SFF readers tend to like the close third person POV, not that it is all they will read. For instance, a lot of us also read a lot of books by older writers, and love their books as much or more than our newer favorites. Many of those older writers use omniscient. But the long term evolution of the SFF novel appears to be moving toward greater and greater intimacy, toward a style that brings readers closer and closer to the characters. That doesn't mean that writers don't come along from time to time and become hugely popular despite bucking the trends. We could all of us point to examples of writers who have done just that.