Hey everyone! So I recently did some research on omniscient POV, and found almost nothing useful (yay!). It think I understand the basics of it, but what I don't understand is how to show what a character's thinking or feeling. Must we always use a filter word or thought tag? Some articles/blogs/whatever said when writing in omniscient you should stick with one person's viewpoint all the time, as if you're writing close third person, only the difference is you can give information the character doesn't know and you can zoom-out to describe a scene. In this scenario, the articles said that you'd simply write the thoughts as if you were writing close third. Example: Sally was just wonderful! With her red hair, green eyes, and excellent cooking, no other woman could match her. She's exactly what I want in a wife. (nothing from another character) (I used the first-person thought example to give a greater contrast from other examples) Others said the exact opposite: that you shouldn't stick with one viewpoint all the time, but rather should jump around often, just don't show internal thoughts and opinions directly or outside of the narrator's voice Example: John thought Sally was wonderful. He'd always wanted a wife who could cook, and found himself very attracted to her red hair and green eyes. Sally pulled out her biggest knife and stabbed an apple with it. She felt like John was acting like a pig not paying attention to anything she was saying, and was regretting listening to her mother and inviting him. Still others say that internal thoughts and opinions should be everywhere and don't need a tag or anything. Basically they say to head-hop, and that this is why you'd want to use Omni in the first place. In these, there is no narrator voice, but rather the voice changes with every character, or else there is a narrator voice, but only when the characters aren’t actively in the scene (such as with exposition or an animal or whatever’s POV) Example: Sally was just wonderful! With her red hair, green eyes, and excellent cooking, no other woman could match her. She's exactly what I want in a wife. Sally pulled out her biggest knife and stabbed an apple with it. What a pig! He wasn't paying attention to anything she was saying. Why did I listen to Mother and invite him? And still others say that—oh gosh, I’ve lost track of my thoughts. Needless to say there are a lot of opinions on this matter, and with every one of them giving pitiful and few examples, it’s really hard to get a grasp on this. So to summarize: How does one handle a character’s thoughts and feelings in omniscient POV? Is head-hopping “legal” or still a bad idea?
I'm going to offer a scrap from An Episode of Sparrows, by Rumer Godden, my favorite author: ..Then one afternoon Lovejoy came in from school and found a letter on the mat. Before she picked it up and turned it over she knew it was to say her mother was not coming. "She never writes, not a letter," said Lovejoy, looking at the writing on the envelope. Slowly she carried it to Mrs. Combie. "Well, it's nice to change your plans and let other people know," said Cassie when Mrs. Combie had read the letter out. "I suppose you'll go on looking after that child?" "She says they don't finish till the tenth and then go to Clifton for Easter," said Mrs. Combie, troubled. She appealed across the tea table to Vincent. "She says the time's too short for the fare. Well, Scarborough is a long way," said Mrs. Combie. "If I had a little girl," said Vincent, "I'd come from John o'Groat's to see her." Lovejoy had retreated to the shadow of the stairs. Vincent had seen her standing out there in the side passage and had meant to show he sympathized, but when Lovejoy heard what he said she leaned her head against he banister knob and shut her eyes; she shut them tightly, but two small fierce tears came spurting out. Vincent saw the tears and turned his head away. In the four years since the Masons had come to Cadford street, Vincent had come to like and respect Lovejoy... Now I'm going to color-code it with what I see as the POV in the moment: *Generally observable. *Lovejoy. *Vincent. *Mrs. Combie. Something to note is that all those names are from Lovejoy's point of view, and I believe that those are always the names used. For example, Mrs. Combie is Vincent's wife--Vincent wouldn't be calling her that. So at least for the scenes in the Combie household, I would argue that Lovejoy's POV is the primary one. ..Then one afternoon Lovejoy came in from school and found a letter on the mat. Before she picked it up and turned it over she knew it was to say her mother was not coming. "She never writes, not a letter," said Lovejoy, looking at the writing on the envelope. Slowly she carried it to Mrs. Combie. "Well, it's nice to change your plans and let other people know," said Cassie when Mrs. Combie had read the letter out. "I suppose you'll go on looking after that child?" "She says they don't finish till the tenth and then go to Clifton for Easter," said Mrs. Combie, troubled. She appealed across the tea table to Vincent. "She says the time's too short for the fare. Well, Scarborough is a long way," said Mrs. Combie. "If I had a little girl," said Vincent, "I'd come from John o'Groat's to see her." Lovejoy had retreated to the shadow of the stairs. Vincent had seen her standing out there in the side passage and had meant to show he sympathized, but when Lovejoy heard what he said she leaned her head against he banister knob and shut her eyes; she shut them tightly, but two small fierce tears came spurting out. Vincent saw the tears and turned his head away. In the four years since the Masons had come to Cadford street, Vincent had come to like and respect Lovejoy... Obviously we sometimes have a meshed POV--Lovejoy's retreat to the shadow is apparent from both Lovejoy and Vincent's POV, but I tried a split. There's very little of what you might call literal word-for-word thought--the only bit is Lovejoy's remark about the letter at the beginning, and that might literally be spoke, though I suspect it's thought. I should note that Rumer Godden tends to be nonstandard about a variety of things, but I don't think that that nonstandard style is present i this bit. If anyone disagrees, I'm curious to know.
Thank you! That helps a lot, especially since it's such a long passage. I'll study it some more when I get home for the day; in the meantime I hope more people will chime in with examples--the more the merrier!
Hi, Firstly, I'll preface that if you want to get into writing omniscient, get reading! There is only so much conflicting advice on the internet you can read before you have to create your own take on the point of view. There is no third person limited that is exactly the same - different authors penetrate their character's POV more deeply, others prefer cinematic perspective where the character is a vehicle for the action. It's the same for omniscient. Find your style. Read others style. I recommend reading DUNE, by Frank Herbert. The writing excuses podcasts for POV are also useful resources. Now for my two cents. From what I understand, omniscient POV should allow you to 'head hop'. The advantage of omniscient over third person limited is that it allows you to show a scene from multiple different angles. Let us imagine a scene in third person limited where Hardworking Jane comes home from work to find her husband cooking pasta. Not very interesting, at least at first. Omniscient allows us to see same scene from the husbands perspective. Turns out, he has been cheating on her with her best friend twenty minutes before she comes through the door. In third person limited, Hardworking Jane might smell new perfume in the bedroom, and drama unfolds from there. In omniscient, we know her husband has been cheating from the start. There is dramatic irony since we are unofficially promised that at some point Jane will find out. We anticipate the confrontation, rather than surprised by the husband's betrayal. Head hopping is a matter of frequency. Technically, third person limited books will 'head hop', although more infrequently, and almost always separated by a chapter break. Think Game of Thrones are The Way of Kings style chapters. Each chapter tells the story from a different point of view. In that way, they are 'head hopping' between characters. The difference between this kind of third person limited and omniscient is how often the author switches between point of views. Omniscient frequently hops between other's heads. Giving information that the protagonist can't possibly know often involves looking at the scene from another character's POV. The exception is when you describe something that none of the characters could know, such as describing the near future or painting the history of a given scene in broad strokes. You might call this 'true' omniscience, where you act as a God narrating the story world as you please. All of these types of narration fall under omniscient. Pick and choose as your style sees fit, but make sure you know what rules you are breaking! Hope this helps
I would add to this recommendation, Herbert's Destination: Void. It has the benefit of being a much shorter read and the fact that the story takes place amongst a group of characters that are, by necessity, in close quarters to one another. When read for instruction on the OP's question, rather than for pleasure, it presents many writing situations where one would be pressed to ensure that the reader understands which thoughts belong to whom. It has quite a bit of head-hopping to boot.
Yes, Dune is highway pileup of POV. He'll hop head three times in the same sentence. And he'll include an italicized thought-quote from each character in each paragraph. I've never seen anything like it. It works. I have no idea how. Maybe because it's off the rails all the time. POV is a funny thing. You really only notice it when something goes wrong (like the plumbing in your house). There are no rules so long as the reader can follow and enjoy the story, though there are certain things that are more likely to face-plant than others. I'm not a fan of head-hopping unless there's a damn good reason to do so, and there hardly ever is. I much prefer the multiple 3rd limited POVs delineated by chapter or break with the occasional pullbacks, which can work well if the POV isn't too tight to begin with.
Thanks for the info, everyone! There's a story idea I have that will only work in omniscient, so understanding what I can do with thoughts and emotions is really important. I normally write in close third, and I know some of that will leak through when I'm trying to write omni, so I wanted to make sure what's acceptable and what's not. It sounds like anything goes, as long as it's easy to understand. I'll look into Dune and Destination: Void, though if they're horror or gruesome or something I probably won't read very far. I have to say, head-hopping three times a sentence is kind of insane! I don't think I can pull that one off . It'll be a good learning experience, though.
Hello! I'm also writing in omniscient and I've been told that in omniscient, the narrative is like an omnipresent entity who knows everything, everywhere, past, present and future. Also, I think it's third person limited where you have to worry about head hopping and sticking to certain POV's. With omniscient, the moon can know something, the trees can know, the worm on the soil; everything. The only thing is, to not confuse the reader, try not to head hop from various characters in one scene. During a scene, you just have to organize it in a way where readers will clearly know who is thinking what and who is doing what. Many writers these days have lost interest in omniscient. I personally love it because I don't have to focus too much on technical things like pov and forms. Worrying about the story itself is hard enough!
