Could Someone Please Explain Omniscient Third to Me?

I've often heard people telling us to avoid omniscient third, but I'm not entirely sure what that is. Since I don't know this, I don't really understand what's wrong with it. I'm worried about this because I think one of my novels might be written in omniscient third, so could someone please explain the difference between omniscient third and close third that switches perspectives?

Thank you.

 

Omniscient third is the 3rd person POV where we are allowed to see over the wall, into the woods, in a far away place, even when there is no character there to be reporting this information to us. The narrator is a mind unto itself. It can be used to simply give us a bird's eye view of things, and into the minds of any character at any time, or, sometimes, the narrator can be more than just a disinterested 3rd party reporting the information to us; he/she can be imbued with a distinct personality, giving us opinions and thoughts that belong to no one at all in the story, so, it's got levels to it, just like 3rd person limited.

 

Since what it is has been thoroughly explained, I'll go into the "what's wrong with it", or what can be wrong with it. It isn't inherently bad, but it is, as far as I can tell, pretty thoroughly out of fashion. In my opinion (and anybody and everybody might disagree):

- It can distance the reader from the character.
- It requires a narrative voice separate from the characters. This is an extra task.
- It can result in the reader being disoriented as they hop from one character to another--or the narrative may just have a birdseye view of the action and never quite get into any character's head, and then we're back to distance.

I'm sure there's more. That's all I've got.

 

I have to say, some of my favorite writers have done this, so I kind of enjoy the style, in some instances. Like you point out that the narrator can become a character. It gives a distinct flavor. I'm thinking Douglas Adams, and Kurt Vonnegut. Maybe it's difficult to do it well.

 

In the books those authors wrote, I would say the Narrator IS the main character, and one of the reasons the books are so much fun to read. I'd certainly add Terry Pratchett to that list. It's the tone they establish that drives the piece, rather than what the characters themselves do or say. In the hands of a good writer, even a dull DULL character can be fun, because the narrator will poke sharp fun at the dullness.

Third Person Omniscient is probably considered old-fashioned because it was the standard approach for most novels in the Victorian era and the early 20th century. Think: Dickens, Austen, Twain, etc. These are the authors who frequently stepped back with a 'dear reader' approach to things, rather than letting the characters always speak for themselves. These authors were quite keen to let you know what they wanted you to think about their characters—all of them, main characters included. Nothing wrong with that approach at all, by the way.

 

Sorry to hijack, but this is exactly why I get so confused with the third-person voice.

In my own thread on the subject many argued that third-person is better than first because it makes reaching that elusive word count total much easier, in that we can flick from one character to another, from one location to another, and from one scene to another.

And now here we have a whole list of people saying that even in third you should stay within the main character's head. If that's the case it's hardly going to help bump up the word count, is it, because you're essentially writing as you would with a first-person POV? All it's doing is swapping out the pronoun of 'I' for 'He'.

 

I don't think it's as simple as this. My WIP is 3rd person, close, serial. Each chapter is told from the 3rd person close POV of a different character. Often there is engagement of the same situation from these different POVs, so this is easily at least once instance where it would seem logical that a given sequence of events could create more word count (still not a guaranty) than it would in 1st person POV. (If anything, my concern becomes overworking a given sequence of events). Also, third close "in the character's head" isn't the same as 1st person. 3rd person feels like it allows for more meandering, more exposition than in 1st person, as long as that meandering and exposition is from the point of view and sensibility of the given character. I say "feels like" because obviously 1st person stories require exposition as well, so the POV character has to find some way to go into these areas. But still... it feels this way, like there's more latitude. It's not just swapping I for He/She.

 

Okay, so here's a rough-draft opener from my current WIP.

Is this omniscient, close, neither or both?

---------

Alfie Lambert dealt in drugs, but not voluntarily. He dealt drugs because he owed a man named Vincent Kellerman a very large sum of money, seventy-five thousand to be more precise. And he owed Kellerman this money because three-years previously his fairly okay life had fallen apart when he lost his wife and three-year old daughter in a house fire. In desperation, after losing his job and pissing what savings he had up the wall, he turned to Kellerman who alongside being a drugs baron, also handed out loans to the city's hopeless souls.

---------

 

I think I missed that part of that discussion, probably because my issue is likely to be keeping word count down, not up. It's possible that my part of the discussion (the buffet of options bit) was taken that way, and it could certainly be used that way, but I wasn't specifically thinking of word count.

I don't know if first or third person is likely to result in a higher word count. Third with a shifting POV gives you more tools, so it seems to me that you could use those tools to further either goal--more words, or fewer words.

But I think that there are two kinds of POV switches being discussed here. In omniscient, the narrator can hop from Fred, to Joe to a little musing that comes only from the narrator, to Matilda, back to Fred, etc., all in the same scene. Doing that without the reader wanting to throw the book across the room requires a pretty high level of skill.

But writing close third person with Fred as the single POV character in Scene One, and then with Joe in Scene Two, is IMO far less challenging. It's more challenging than sticking to Fred forever, but not nearly as much as the omniscient example. I think. I say that because I'm attempting it in the Highly Flavored Novel, and I'm in that delusional phase where I think I know what I'm doing.

 

So far, it could be either one. I'd say that there are hints that it's not ultra close--would Alfie himself nod and say, "Yup" to "pissing what savings he had up the wall" and "hopeless"? If not, then there's an opinion coloring it that isn't directly Alfie's--either an omniscient voice or, since it's subtle, just a little distance in your third person limited POV. But if Alfie would totally agree, even if he might not phrase it precisely that way, then it could still be close third person limited.

 

This is what I was hoping to do, but took from these posts that such a style was out-dated and advised against. I would never hop from one mind to another in the same scene or when the characters are together, becuase it's not a style I would like to read.

I'd have a protagonist, an antagonist, and side-characters, but I would always be in the protag's head when these characters share scenes.

So this wouldn't be omniscient then?

 

Too small an example to know. But I can add (and subtract) things to this that would more clearly make it 3rd limited-close.

Alfie Lambert's drug deal wasn't going very well because he wasn't good at it. He was dealing because he owed Vincent Kellerman a very large sum of money, seventy-five thousand to be more precise, and Vince was the kind of guy who took care of things with a pair of pliers and a blowtorch, or if he thought it would be more profitable, by pimping his debtors out, and fuck both those choices. Three-years prior his fairly okay life had fallen apart when he lost his wife and three-year old daughter in a house fire. After losing his job and pissing what savings he had up the wall, he turned to Kellerman who alongside being a drugs baron, also handed out loans to the city's hopeless souls. Last chance. Sell and make money or be Kellerman's bitch. It all felt pretty equal at that point. ​

I'm not saying this is Pulitzer territory, but the way the narrative directly relates the feelings and thoughts of Alfie, without making use of internal thought tags, (he thought to himself) is what makes close 3rd close, at least in part. Also, dropping a lot of explicit references back to Alfie. Once we know we're in close 3rd, we know that anything not attributed to someone else belongs to the POV character. This is also why, if you're going to hop in close 3rd, you need to give the reader a heads-up. A scene break or a chapter break, otherwise it's too confusing.

 

@Wreybies - thanks. I like much of what you did there and, happily, can also see what you did. I particularly like the 'thoughts' of Alfie: '... and fuck both those choices' and '... or be Kellerman's bitch.'

It gives the reader an inkling as to the way he sees his situation, which mine doesn't do so well.

Thanks.

 

Nope. That would be third person limited with a changing POV. At least, that's what I would call it. Which is, for example, what that Game of Thrones thing does, and you can't really call that out of fashion.

Now, in the HFN, I haven't even picked one protagonist who is always the "eyes" for shared scenes--it's always one POV character per scene, but it's not always the same POV character.

(Well, except for one weird thing that's bouncing back and forth with a fairly deliberate verbal signal intended to communicate "now we're over here". But that may not survive editing.)

 

It's no wonder so many choose first-person for their first novel. So much less complicated

 

Well, it doesn't have to be. Third person can essentially be first person with the pronouns flipped. But if you want some more flexibility, it's there.

 

I understand that, but if I was going to do that (the former method) I would simply stick to first.

My only, and I mean only, incentive for doing this current WIP in third is because all my past attempts at novels have ground to a halt around the 20,00 word mark.

My logic is this: if I can manage 20,000 words when writing in the first, then I should be able to at least double that when writing in third with changing POV.

 

Hmmm. Did they come to a story conclusion at the 20,000 word mark?

This actually sounds like an interesting topic of its own, but of course only if you want it to be.

 

No, I simply ran out of ideas (along with motivation, inspiration, incentives, and the other 40 billion things you need to finish a first-draft).

This is why I'm hoping writing in third with changing POV will help, becuase I won't be stuck in the protag's head all the time and can bump the word count with character/location switches.

 

Thanks for all the replies, people. I get it now.

And yes, my book is in omniscient third.

 

I do. It's called toolazytoplanitis

I wish I did.

 

It's basically third person that dips in and out of numerous people's heads at will and also has an extra "voice" belonging to the narrator.

 

I'm a child with a new toy, recommending it to everyone: I'm enchanted with what I'm calling the Highly Flavored approach, where I have an idea for a scene that makes me say "Ooh!" and I write it, totally ignoring the fact that I have zero idea where it will fit in the plot.

Before this, I'd never, ever, EVER gotten a plot past roughly the 10K point, and I'm at (checking Scrivener...) 32K with enough fairly clear ideas for probably another 20K, and I have moderate confidence that implementing those ideas will then reach out and take me further. And I didn't plan.

Is that sheer luck and will it never ever work again? Possibly. But my theory is that by starting the process with a gut-punch scene, instead of forcing myself to "earn" that scene by setting it up, I'm producing dopamine or something in my brain and changing the creative process. I could instead go with Elizabeth Gilbert's idea of the muse and say that by putting something tempting on a plate, I'm luring the muse in. Whatever. Right now, it's working.