virginia

But wouldn't that be because, if you are 'first person omniscient', you are God? Just a thought lin.

I liked Mike's definition best, it was closest to what I remember learning.

I do see why you're confused though, Ox (I gave up with a text book on the subject at uni.). It'll make sense as you use it.

Virginia

__________________
www.travelswithlucy.blogspot.com
www.commentcolumn.blogspot.com
www.ms-myscene.blogspot.com

"The unexamined life is not worth living." Socrates (from Plato's Apology).

Ilasir Maroa

I'm just quibbling over semantics, NTO. It makes me feel more intelligent than I really am.

__________________
My hopeful book:
Crap! Haven't posted it anywhere yet, darn!
"Only tyranny cloaks itself in shadows. The light of justice can not be hidden."
www.theoddvillepress.com

The Backward OX

How does that work?

__________________

DarkHorse220

I seem to gravitate towards third-person omniscient in fiction writing. First person has always struck me as too much of a "flashback" or re-telling type of viewpoint. Useful, but third-person omni seems to be more of a "watching as it unfolds" type of thing, which has always struck me as more relevant for a fiction story, unless something calls for the first person.

But that's just me, I'm sure others have a different take on it.

Dawnstorm

Exactly.

If something confuses a reader, s/he ought to say so. But a reader should not tell you what s/he thinks s/he ought to be confused by according to "received writing wisdom".

So whatever you do, don't read on.

***

Just in case you're not confused enough, here's an alternative terminology for point of view:

1. Focaliser. The person through whom the events are filtered, before they get at the reader. Question: Who perceives?

a) External focaliser. Person outside of the story told.
b) Internal focaliser. Person inside the story told.

2. Narrator. The person who is speaking/writing to the reader. Question: Who speaks?

aa) homodeictic narrator. Narrator part of the story. (Deixis = the act of referring)
ab) heterodeictic narrator. Narrator not part of the story

ba) overt narrator. Narrator makes his presence felt.
bb) covert narrator. Narrator hides, either behind a focaliser or behind a shroud of "objectivity".

Add the concept of narrative distance (distance between narrator and focaliser) and let your story stir...

For an even bigger headache, go to this link. All the things people never wanted to think about. [It's just one theory, but it's fun.]

***

Or, you know, just write.

lin

It doesn't work

All work and no play makes jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes jack a dull boy.

__________________

The Backward OX

Ah...fuck it.

__________________

SevenWritez

You could always read the novel I suggested. It does what you're asking others to do.

__________________

The Backward OX

Right. I've asked my local librarian to get it in for me.

__________________

lin

Dawnstorm

Do you REALLY think it's helpful to keep gushing out esoteric new terminology when there's already to much around?

Or are you just trying to fuck with Ox's head?

__________________

lin

Fun, I take it, in the sense of "absolute, undiluted, malignant horseapples"?

__________________

Mike C

That's the best move of all. Forget definitions, theory, terminology and all things pointy-headed. Write whatever way feels right to you. If you get a chapter in and change your mind, rewrite it. We can all fart theory at you dawn to dusk, but you're the only guy who's going to write it.

__________________
My writing
My Photo Blog
Web design for Writers
The Oddville Press

Dawnstorm

I'm operating on the idea that it can't possibly get worse than it is already, and new terminology might add to the confusion.

Confusion is good because it either:

a) turns people away from silly writing rules

or

b) encourages them to do theory properly.

It might also c) give rise to some new silly rules, but at that point I think it hardly matters.

That, and I'm a theory geek. The scorpion and its sting - the theorist and his theory. Tah dah!

Edit:

And I did, do and will support the "just write" methodology.

lin

No such thing. Rare in science. Non-existant in writing.

(Not theories, but theories that can be done, much less properly, much much less to produce anythign worth a shit)

__________________

The Backward OX

__________________