Well... no. The omniscient narrator is omniscient. And s/he's not an actor at all, just a narrator. Can you give examples of some of the books written in this very common form of omniscient writing?
What you are defining here is one particular approach to thinking about omniscience. You are god, therefore no limits. But wait a minute, here. Who is god? Oh, that's right. You are. The writer has made a determination to be all knowing and all seeing. At this extreme view of what you have designed omniscience to be, you can effectively say that viewpoint is no concern to your work. That writer is simply not using the tool. Thus, any benefit that you might derive from the tool is non-existent. Two ways to go with this. Either you can say you are god, and you will not explore any heads because their heads don't matter (I am the only view), of that you can head hop at will. Either extreme is saying that the tool of viewpoint does not matter.
So, you're saying POV doesn't matter to all the writers who choose to use a true omniscient narrator? You seem to be a bit confused about your terms and how the different choices made by those writing in third person use and view them. Using omniscient third has nothing to do with head hopping (or it shouldn't) And using an omniscient narrator has nothing to do with miss opportunities or a writer not knowing how this sort of narrator works.
I agree that there are patches of Harry Potter that are written in omniscient, but I'd say it's just a book that zooms in from omniscient to limited, not a book that's written in "omniscient limited". And I'm having trouble thinking of the omniscient parts of Game of Thrones, but it's been a while since I read it. Overall, though, I think we're quibbling about terminology, so I'll stop. But in return, maybe you could stop presenting your ideas as though anyone who doesn't think in the exact same terms you do is flat-out wrong?
Gonna have to cite some passages there, because I've read the whole series, and nothing comes to mind as omniscient. Turning to the question posed in the title, I prefer a close 3rd by a wide margin, but every now and then I have a story idea that is better served in 1st person.
I think you have to differentiate between a story in which the narrator is the protagonist and one in which (s)he is writing mostly about someone else. Both the works above fall into the latter category. They give the reader the sense that the narrator was very close to the action of the story they are telling. Atticus Finch could have told his own story, but it would have been a different story, without the stark good/bad ethic with which the more innocent Scout views the world. He would have had to comment directly on his own thoughts and emotions. And, given the kind of man he was, he would have strived to treat his enemies with understanding.
No, no, no, I absolutely did not say that. I am emphatically opposed to using italics for direct thought. Or internal monologue. No. Also, no. No.
Harry Potter has some very brief sections that are written in an omniscient POV, and the rest of it is third person limited. I don't remember any omniscient sections of Game of Thrones. They might be in there, but I feel that I'd need some quotes. Neither of these strike me as an example of the concept of omniscient limited. So far, I'm not confident that that POV exists.
So you are fully aware that people use "third person" as shorthand to mean a specific thing, a thing that might more specifically be referred to as, say, "third person limited with a changing viewpoint character". I feel that in that case, it's not absolutely mandatory to be insulting about the people who use that shorthand. Sometimes--in fact, I find that it's not all that rare--discussions go better without insults.
Well, certainly. The idea that we often toss out a general term when we mean something specific is fine. We all do that. Now, here we have seen lots of folks do that then say why, and that's also good. However, some have used the term generally and then made specific statements, like for example that it can't be as intimate as 1st, which would then require being very specific. Others have said that 3rd person gives you the ability to know what everyone is thinking, which once again would require us to be very specific. That's what I am driving at. Exactly. That is the very definition of limited omniscience.
Let me get right back to the original question about 1st or 3rd. Let's assume, just for the moment that we are speaking about LIMITED 3rd, which is the dominant form of 3rd person used by genre writers today. That would, of course, include multiple limited 3rd (where you shift the view, say at chapter breaks), but that doesn't change what you're doing in the main. So, here goes: You have a choice between 1st and 3rd limited, and my original postulation is that it is entirely possible to write limited 3rd exactly how you write 1st person, and thus it is possible to be just as intimate. So, as illustration, I'll yank something out at random: Limited 3rd: Nina turned at the bottom and looked through the steps to the far wall. Mother of Mary, the wolf had gotten in. But where was Walker? Where are you, stupid boy? She studied the dark corners for a sign of him while her hand reached into the corner nearest the bottom of the steps for the one broom she’d not yet stolen the stick off of. or in 1st: I turned at the bottom and looked through the steps to the far wall. Mother of Mary, the wolf had gotten in. But where was Walker? Where are you, stupid boy? I studied the dark corners for a sign of him while my hand reached into the corner nearest the bottom of the steps for the one broom I’d not yet stolen the stick off of. No real difference, no difference in closeness, and that would survive the entire book. Incidentally: Indirect thought: Nina turned at the bottom and looked through the steps to the far wall. ***** She studied the dark corners for a sign of him while her hand reached into the corner nearest the bottom of the steps for the one broom she’d not yet stolen the stick off of.. Direct thought: *****Mother of Mary, the wolf had gotten in. But where was Walker? ***** The specific form of direct thought known as Internal monologue: (requiring present tense, 1st person, because it is internal speech): *****Where are you, stupid boy? *****
I think most writers understand the key word: narrator. 1st, 3rd, omni... they all come under... narrator. In any of them, it's not the author, but the point of view the narrator, whether close or non-involved. If you're using omni, voice, word choice, phrases stays consistent no matter whose thoughts and feelings they are expressing in the story (it's an omni narrator afterall). Which is where head hopping usage can be seen if you don't know the narrator has his own distinct voice. The omni narrator repeats dialogue that expresses other 'voices,' but when he goes into exploring them in narration, his voice comes through, not theirs. Head hopping will just express dialogue and narration that come solely from the characte, and they'll chop and change like that in a scene. That's where 'narrator' becomes confused.
I think that you're one level of thought "off". What you call indirect thought is what I'd call narrative. What you call direct thought, I'd call indirect thought. What you call internal monologue I call either direct thought or, yes, internal monologue. A hurried wander through Google seems to agree with me. This argues that the distinction between indirect and direct thought is changing from present to past tense (in, of course, a past tense narrative), and third to first person. By that, your "direct thought" is indirect. https://www.darcypattison.com/writing/characters/character-thoughts/ This pretty much agrees. (It also argues for italics, which I will continue to avoid.) http://pointsonstyle.blogspot.com/2009/06/indirect-vs-direct-speech-and-thoughts.html This discussion of "free indirect style" is also useful. https://emmadarwin.typepad.com/thisitchofwriting/2013/09/free-indirect-style-what-it-is-and-how-to-use-it.html Here's another discussion: https://litreactor.com/columns/the-benefits-of-free-indirect-discourse
Indirect thought is when the writer credits a though to the view, but informs us of the view, and thus it is indirect. Joe though, blah, blah, blah. The store seemed cold to Joe. Etc. Direct thought is when you directly deliver the thought and the reader assumes who is having it. (The view just states it, directly). We get away with that a lot in limited writing because we stay in view, and thus don't need to tell the reader who is making the observation, judgement, thought. Internal monologue is direct thought, but it a rare form wherein one side of the brain speaks to the other side of the brain, as if in conversation, and since it is conversation it is treated exactly like conversation, only instead of quote marks, we use italics, so we know it is conversation. That doesn't have to be complicated. And it's all the narrative. Generally that includes all elements, but for convenience sake, we tend to think of the narrative as most of the elements not direct action or dialogue. That is purely a matter of convenience.
I don't know what you mean by "Joe though". Did you mean "Joe thought"? That's ambiguous. But "The store seemed cold to Joe" is not indirect or direct thought, and neither is "She studied the dark corners..." I realize that it may be YOUR definition of indirect thought. I'm referring to the definition that much of the world uses.
I use to not like first person much at all, until I read some of Chuck Palahniuk's first persons stories.
Alright, I'll try this one last time. IF THE WRITER TELLS THE READER WHO IS THINKING, IT IS INDIRECT THOUGHT. Now, some sources call it indirect discourse and others call it indirect speech, but in our world we generally call it indirect thought, just to distinguish it from action and dialogue. JOE THOUGHT, is, for example, the writer telling us who is thinking. The words, TO JOE, is the writer telling us who is thinking. That is why it is indirect, because if it is direct, the author is telling us zilch. And, I am not the only person who thinks that. In fact, every single one of your own sources says that. Now, if I am a writer and I have a viewpoint character and I then think or report on anything, that person is either directly or indirectly thinking. If I don't bother to tell you who is thinking, but allow that person to directly think, WITHOUT CREDITING THEM, that is direct thought. This would include internal monologue, which is always given without credit, since it purely exists within the viewpoint's head, side to side. But, since it is like speech inside the head, that form of direct thought is called internal monologue, and instead of dialogue tags, we use italics.
I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't think you understand the style choice itself, from the example you gave us. Free indirect discourse, it's a style choice to use alongside thrid limited, non-personal, and it's been used for a long time. All FID does is miss using speech tags, therefore mixing thought process with narration. (no speech tags), blending the two into one. E.g., Free direct thought. Glaring at the table, he danced about holding his foot. (narration) Shit, Shelly. Why put it there? You out to kill me? (Free Direct thought, no 'he' said tag, giving it that close, almost 1st pov blending) Indirect thought. Glaring at the table, he danced about holding his foot (narration) and asked himself if Shelley was out to kill him with putting it there. (reported thought) Free Direct Speech: Glaring at the table, he danced about holding his foot. "Shit, Shelly. Why put it there? You out to kill me? (dialogue, no speech tags) Direct Speech: Glaring at the table, he danced about holding his foot and said, "Shit, Shelly..." (Dialogue: with speech tags).
None of my sources say that. You’re welcome to prove me wrong by providing quotes. You are incorrect. You are apparently unprepared to support your incorrect statements. If you change that policy and provide links and/or quotes, this might be worth discussing.
@Gary Wed -- You seem really certain about things that aren't sitting so well with others. Just maybe it's not everyone else but you who seems confused. You've stated having studied writing has given you such knowledge, but your arguments don't really resemble what I learned. Maybe you didn't have the best teachers or whatever. Anyway, I would dial back some of that certainty because it's not what many of us learned and were taught. Honestly, your repeated certainty that everyone else except you must be wrong has you looking like the one who is wrong more than anyone else.
Yes, I completely agree with that, and it is exactly what I was saying: Direct thought: Shit, Shelly. Why put it there? You out to kill me? Indirect thought: (He) asked himself if Shelley was out to kill him with putting it there. In the first example, it is direct because the thought was delivered without the author telling us who is having it (since we are in view, it isn't necessary). In the second example, the thought was delivered with the author saying: He asked himself. So, the author is telling us who is thinking, and thus it is indirect thought. In addition, the first example is also internal monologue (a specific form of direct thought) because he is talking to himself, which is an additional consideration for some direct thought (rarer than most instances of direct thought). Insofar as it is also internal monologue, it is in italics, and delivered 1st person, present tense. As you will note with: Shit, Shelly. Why put it there? You out to kill me? Clearly he shifted to 1st person, present tense, and that is DIALOGUE, mono-mono. Now, in the middle of these two extremes is simple direct thought, which is also uncredited, (thus direct thought, by definition), but isn't also internal monologue. For example, the writer might have (and more often will) say this: Glaring at the table, he danced about holding his foot. Shit, Shelly was going to kill somebody with her clutter, someday. Now that is an UNCREDITED thought (thus not indirect thought), but it is also not one side of the brain speaking to the other (not internal monologue), and thus it is simple direct thought. It remains in past tense, 3rd person, and is not in italics. Most direct thought is not internal monologue. Thus, once again, in order of likelihood, even in limited 3rd: Most often used: indirect thought. Middle likelihood of encountering: direct thought. Least likely to encounter: internal monologue with italics.
These two examples, unlike your earlier ones, seem correct. Your definition, with its focus on tagging rather than tense and first/third person, is problematic, but these examples are not wrong. Edited to add: But this is indirect thought. “Was” makes it past tense. Direct thought would be present: Shit, Shelly is going to kill somebody with her clutter, someday.
