There are a number of film adaptations that didn't do well that I blame on this. When you're reading a book that's either first or close third, you get to feel what the MC does and "become" the character to a certain extent, but unless you break the fourth wall or use a voiceover, in a film the audience is just watching what's happening, and it can be harder for the director and actors to put the message across.
I know there have been exceptions, but I think, in general, this technique borrows the weakness of movies and none of the strengths. Movies have great images, beautiful stars, stirring music, explosive action... all hard to mimic in books. But what books DO have is extra insight into character motivation. Unless they're written in objective POV. The Maltese Falcon is really more famous as a movie than as a book, but it's also probably especially suited to objective because part of the characterization of Sam Spade is that he doesn't have much emotion. He's essentially a crime-fighting robot. I feel like Hemingway sometimes used objective effectively? I'm thinking of Hills Like White Elephants, but maybe elsewhere as well? In that short story, I think objective was valuable because it turned the story into a sort of puzzle and let us do the work of decoding the characters' behaviour. It's short, so if you haven't read it yet it's worth tracking down. I think "The Lottery" might be in objective? I'd have to find a copy to check and be sure. But I'm having trouble thinking of other examples, or any modern examples. I think writing in objective might be a useful exercise, but I think it would be really challenging to do it well.
Writing a book like a movie is hard and it can make your narrative sound like a script. I think you can improve it by making the narrative colorful or poetic.
McCarthy, Cormac. No Country for Old Men, in particular. You are in nobody's head. Ever. It's very weird. But he makes it look easy. There are a few moments when the characters "speak up," but it's usually a direct "quote" that is suddenly declared inside a wall of McCarthy text. ETA: I think Country is his best example because he uses the italicized interludes with Sheriff Bell before each chapter to give us a window inside his thoughts. Otherwise, we are walled off and can only imply what the characters are thinking/feeling from what they say and do. Again... very weird, but super cool when he does it! ETA2: I read that book entirely at the DMV a few months ago. With my schedule, it's the best reading I got done all year.
I'm sure the first novel I wrote was in objective POV, because I was so confused and scared about show vs. tell. I don't think I had a lick of internal feelings or exposition in the whole novel.
Isn't any story told by a narrator Objective POV? If so, there's plenty. Like someone said, the internal thoughts of the characters are expressed in dialogue. The narrator doesn't know Henry is angry but Henry can say "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" so we all know he is angry. Especially after he chops everybody's head off except the narrator's. Plenty of stories about people sitting on a bus and observing the people around them. I assume the narrator never says anything about himself or what he is doing or thinking. "Jack and Jill went up the hill to get a pail of water...etc". Would that be Objective POV? The Bible is objective POV in many places, especially Genesis. No one was around when "God said let there be light". Neither Adam nor Eve tell the story.
I find McCarthy very reminiscent of Hemingway, so... that makes sense. (Another thing they have in common - I respect both of them and admire their talent, but I really don't enjoy reading them!)
I read the first chapter. It sounds like the narrator is giving us a report by mentioning I in the prose. The author probably wrote that way to make the characters seem unreliable.
Dashiel Hammett's books are in the Public Domain in countries where copyright is Life+50, like Canada, Cuba, Australia, and Zimbabwe, but other places, including The U.S., U.K., Japan, and Sudan, they're still under copyright. So you could technically find free, legal copies online, but they may still be illegal to download. I really haven't read much Indian food, if I'm being honest.
If the narrator is in the story, that would be first person, not objective. And we’d probably get the narrator’s thoughts and feelings.
Technically, I think that the fact that we know why Jack and Jill went up the hill would break objective POV. And someone was around for “let there be light”—God was. (That doesn’t mean Genesis isn’t objective POV. I’d have to go re-read it to decide.) Returning to add: “And God saw the light, that it was good: ” Not objective.
Agree with @ChickenFreak. The objective POV eliminates the reader's ability to enter a character's mind almost.
And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. -Gen 3:6 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. -Gen 4:5 Yeah, definitely not objective. Weirdly, God isn't a narrator in the Bible. I'm assuming it's the writer(s) that are narration, but it's all written as, "The LORD did this," and "The LORD said this unto whomever." So, technically these narrators are more omniscient than The Omniscient.
From one of the articles linked above: In Third Person Omniscient Point of View the reader has access to everybody's thoughts at the same time. The advantage of Objective Point of View is that it’s a good discipline for you as the writer. It absolutely forces you to show-not-tell. If you’re attracted to this style of writing, then make sure to observe people. (Well, all writers should be doing this, as a matter of course, but it's essential in this case.) Watch how people act and react, analyse their facial expressions and their body language. Make a note of how they move when they walk, of how they sit, of how they gesture. Observe how people’s style of dress, their cars and their houses reflect who they are. As already said, you still need to get it across to the reader what the characters are thinking and feeling. But you have to show it rather than telling it. (...and in my opinion, use dialogue. "A Fly On The Wall" hears what people are saying. A Fly On The Wall can interpet that someone is thinking that something is good by observation.)
No it doesn't. "You can't just have characters announce how they feel" he said, "that makes me angry."
I think it'd be a good exercise for beginners to get into the habit of "show, don't tell" But honestly, it'd be damn hard to write an objective POV well for an entire book. Short stories perhaps but I can't imagine it for a novel. I hadn't thought of this but I must say I wholeheartedly agree with @BayView when she mentioned that the objective POV borrows the weaknesses of movies and none of the strengths. Movies have a whole lot of other things at their disposal to convey and evoke emotion - what do books have? It feels like deliberately tying both hands behind your back and then standing in front of a wall saying, "Hell yeah I'm gonna climb this!" Like... maybe it'd be a fun challenge, or maybe you'd just erm, end up standing there staring up the rock face still going, "Hell yeah I'm gonna climb this!" There're really no prizes to be had for deliberately not using good tools at your disposal to finish a job.
