You read Tom Robbins yet? I think could help you immensely. Here's the description: Still Life with Woodpecker is sort of a love story that takes place inside a pack of Camel cigarettes. It reveals the purpose of the moon, explains the difference between criminals and outlaws, examines the conflict between social activism and romantic individualism, and paints a portrait of contemporary society that includes powerful Arabs, exiled royalty, and pregnant cheerleaders. It also deals with the problem of redheads. Basically it has a bunch of insular, self-indulgent (in a good way) scenes slapped together to form a sort-of plot.
I'm going to stick with my 'movie edit' analogy with my current WIP. What I mean by that is that in a movie we inevitably 'connect' with the protagonist (in the way a reader might with a close 3rd POV) but during the scenes dealing with the baddie/antagonist, we're kind of distant... like we're not entirely sure what makes him tick (as in omniscient 3rd).
You've got it completely backwards: om·nis·cient ämˈnisēənt,ämˈniSHənt/ adjective adjective: omniscient knowing everything. "the story is told by an omniscient narrator" synonyms: all-knowing, all-wise, all-seeing "he thought I was some kind of omniscient guru" An omniscient narrator is literally God. God knows everything. God is in everyone's head. God exists in all places at once (omnipresent). God can do anything he wants (omnipotent). God is never confused. God is never wrong. God can not be fooled. When you're in limited 3rd the POV character "is not entirely sure what makes him tick." Think of it like you @OurJud and me @Homer Potvin. I'm the limited 3rd POV character. I can talk to you. I can "hear" what you are saying. I can make inferences about who you are, what you're feeling, and what your personality is like as we converse, but I do not know what makes you tick. Or what you're feeling specifically because I'm not God. I'm not in your head from my POV and more than you are in mine from your POV. If we were in omniscient, there'd be a God-like narrator in both of our heads at the same time, relaying information from either of us however, wherever, and whenever he sees fit.
I always thought I knew what omniscient was, but after reading so many threads and opinions on the subject I'm getting seriously confused myself. I'm thinking of posting my own example, not joking! This said, I read your text and I think this is omniscient. No doubt about it, no problems with it. It's omniscient and it's fine. I would never think of this as anything other than omniscient, as it is. The narrator tells the story. Nothing indicates this is a character narrating the story. Therefore, in my mind, omniscient.
Very true. It's another POV thrown into the mix. I've only recently became aware of it, and that this POV has to be invisible. Maybe I'm beginning to look at the mechanics of writing so closely that it's getting hard to tell if the reader is seeing it as clearly as I do (when they shouldn't). The more I worry about it, the more visible it becomes for me. I'm wondering how much of this worrying is actually justified. Maybe I'm just worrying too much.
Whilst I agree regarding Pratchett, Vonnegut, and Adams, I can't resist canvassing the experts' opinions concerning another possible candidate. In his book ‘How to write a mystery’, Larry Beinhart is discussing POV when he says: "Team Third Person: I know only one author who does this, John Le Carré. There are probably more. In the Smiley trilogy, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, The Honourable Schoolboy, and Smiley’s People, the narrator’s voice is that of an in-house historian, or of a very personal debriefer, someone who has had in-depth interviews with a number of the participants. Each scene has the debriefer’s overview but also features one person, and the scene is primarily from that one person’s view, and during that scene we are privy to only that one person’s thoughts. If that person shows up in another scene that happens to “belong” to someone else, we won’t hear his thoughts. The people whose thoughts we can share are limited to people on Smiley’s team — never one of the opposition." Would you agree?
