Omniscient viewpoint in writing? - Writers Forum

Loulou · 12-18-2007, 12:24 PM

I'm experimenting with this in that I'm working on a story where I 'see all.' I notice many people say they don't like this viewpoint and I'm just curious why. Not so that I'll change my story, I won't, but I'd be interested in the pitfalls. This viewpoint only works for what I'm doing. And providing I don't change viewpoint in alternate lines, or anything insane like that, I think it could work out.

Non Serviam · 12-18-2007, 01:02 PM

I've tried this, and, I found it quite challenging. None of the results were satisfactory really.

You can do the "camera" thing, where there's no narrator and no viewpoint character--just a sort of TV screen that flits from place to place showing each scene from outside anyone's point of view. Needs a very unobtrusive, matter-of-fact authorial voice imo.

Alternatively you can do the Jane Austen thing with the omniscient narrator who comments as well as describing. Needs quite a light touch, I think, and it helps to have a Jane Austen-style dry sense of humour.

jlstratton · 12-18-2007, 01:31 PM

Loulou,

Omniscient POV works for certain types of stories. It all depends on what you want the reader to see and know.

For instance, I am currently working on a mystery project that is being done completely (so far) in first person, single viewpoint. It's a piece introducing a new character so 1st person seems the way to go. But, my story turns into more suspense about half-way through and I am kicking around the idea of bringing in other viewpoints. Omniscient can work for suspense.

The one thing I have found in writing is that the rules are very strict, and the most important rule is: Rules are made to be broken. Sure, their are guidelines but I've read some best-sellers that don't even follow those.

Yes, Omniscient POV is difficult but if you try it, the process will only make your writing better. What more can you ask for?

JL Stratton

mwd · 12-18-2007, 02:32 PM

I think the main reason people dislike omniscient is that it's usually distant, and they find it hard to relate to the characters as a result. They don't know which characters they should feel close to, since the POV isn't really close to any of them. Though I have seen some omniscient POV that really got into the character's heads, and if the story has good characterization you can definitely overcome its shortcomings. It's just more difficult than with a limited POV.

Also, some people probably dislike it because it's just not what they're used to reading, the same way you sometimes turn off readers by using first person, or present tense. People have their own quirks. Which isn't a reason not to try something. If the story calls for it, then the story calls for it.

Joe Moore · 12-18-2007, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mwd

I think the main reason people dislike omniscient is that it's usually distant, and they find it hard to relate to the characters as a result. They don't know which characters they should feel close to, since the POV isn't really close to any of them.

This is probably the biggest drawback with unlimited omniscient. It can easily become impersonal like a documentary. The reader doesn't know quite who to root for. The question of whose story is it is not clear. It can work in epic "cast of thousands" novels but it takes a great deal of skill. Then again, any good writing demands great skill. If that's the POV that works for your story, Loulou, then go for it. Good luck.

Chris Miller · 12-18-2007, 09:01 PM

I’m reading Mister Squishy by Wallace now. For about 15 pages it seems the POV’s omniscient. The narrator is detached, observant and appears to know a great deal. The voice is concise, precise and neutral. Then out of nowhere the narrator starts referring to himself: e.g. “I am wearing a regurgitaor… I have eaten three felonies… &c—and you realize it’s in the 1st person, been in the 1st person all along. So in a way there is (or can be) very little difference (if any) between good omniscient and good first person. To me it’s kind of considered intrusive to give an omniscient narrator too strong a personality or voice (the way Robbins does), safer to be aloof and stick to the “facts.” Another omniscient technique is to move from character to character in the limited 3rd so as not to wax too clinical and remote. I think it’d be cool to have a confused omniscient narrator, one who got his facts mixed up, got off track, misunderstood characters. I think it’d be cool to have one who gushed, or whined, or got pissed off… So, no rules, just tools. Experiment. Try new things.

Loulou · 12-19-2007, 04:24 AM

Thanks for the most helpful responses. Interesting. What you've all said makes me want to stick with it. A lot of you said that the 'being distant' can leave readers maybe cold, make the thing impersonal, like a documentary. But I am thinking that the 'light touch' Non Serviam suggested is right for me. I can 'see all' and can't help but comment on it. It's like there are too many characters and I certainly don't want to 'be' any of them, and nor is one more important then the other. I will indeed experiment. What point in writing if not? Thanks again.

JohnN · 12-19-2007, 07:19 AM

I gotta agree with mwd on this one. Omniscience can feel like a distance, like there is a casm between the reader and the storyline. First person description, makes stories feel real. Despite that, Orwell has used Omniscience brilliantly in some of his novels. It's a trick technique.

Mike C · 12-19-2007, 10:58 AM

I seem to remember that Vonnegut used an omniscient narrator in Galapagos. Great novel, great writer.

It's not the POV that will put readers off, but the writing. I'm sure you'll make it work well for you, Loulou.

ieuan · 12-19-2007, 02:41 PM

I've had some thoughts on it before now Loulou. My own thought process led me to think of a natural or unatural disaster that had struck Planet Earth and caused a brilliant light. So brilliant it had blinded the whole western world from the USA to the UK. It had happened several times and only the Southern hemiphere was intact.

The intense light had blinded all people who were above ground, even sleeping people were affected. The only people not affected were miners and people who worked in building with no windows or in deep cellars.

In the breakdown of society that ensues, disease is rampant and criminal gangs (blind criminals) exploit the living but blind populance.

Some men men retain their sight (and some women too) and stay in high places to see what is happening and this gives them this seemingly omniscient power. I was thinking of one hereo who rescues blind people from the gangs, choosing strong beautiful women and useful men to form his own power base and to inspire them to form some sort of control against wickedness of the gangs.

He can't rescue everyone and selects the strongest and the cleverest. He indiltrate the gangs by pretending to be blind and then selects those he wishes to rescue. The gangs also have 'seeing' captives and use them to find infiltraters like himself. If they find any they chain up and blind them in one eye as a warning not to ecape.

Obviously it's a armegedon scenario and terrible things happen, but that's the nature of global disaster isn't it I haven't started writing yet so I don't mind if you use it.

It's been done before on BBC TV. The Night of the Griffids is one that comes to mind and a more recent one where flesh eaters abide.

The secret would be in making it absolutly logical and believable. I haven't worked out a reason why the rest of the world don't help, it may be they are too busy claiming territories and are at war.

But if it helps use it.

regards

Ieuan