Thread: Writing in third person omniscient narrative form

Hi all,

First I'd like to say hello, as this is my first post here. I'm preparing to embark on a journey of writing and am painfully green so please bear with me. I've done quite a bit of studying over the past several months and have pieced together some know-how, and a strategy to tackle the task at hand, but there are still plenty of gaps in my knowledge.

This question may concern style more than rules, so I'm hopeful that many of you may have some helpful suggestions.

When writing in a third person narrative form, how acceptable is it to lean more toward passionate phrasing rather than cold, hard, objective observation? Can this voice sound angered, using expletives, and describing matters in a way that perhaps two people might use to discuss on the street.

I'm hoping there's a balance between being objective, but having fire and a flair to the story telling that we might encounter when a friend tells us an engrossing story about something. It's not cold and dry, but rather engrossing, as the speech is loose.

I should have prepared an example, but didn't know of the boards policy on profanity. Hope this question isn't TOO vague.

Thanks all,

Mike

Some writers use different styles of narration for different characters in their novel. For instance, say one character was a major in the Navy -- the prose about him would be rife with military terminology to convey his character. If another character wasn't very bright, simple language is used to convey this trait. So I don't see why you couldn't have a narrator who sounded angry, used expletives, or sounded like a normal person.

Don't fall into the trap of having your narrator preach, though. Tom Clancy acquired this habit in his later works, and it can be annoying or insulting to a particular group, especially if stereotypes are used. Use expletives or anger by all means, but I would advise you to keep the narration neutral.

In my opinion there's a fine line--a REALLY, REALLY fine line--between what you call "passionate phrasing" in your third-person narrative and an overblown, windy style that may detract from your story, or even be a detriment to it.

Objective observation does not have to be "cold and hard" to avoid the trap of being judgmental. Consider for a second that your own judgment as expressed by your third-person narration might even be a "spoiler" of sorts--if you make it really obvious to your reader how "you" (the omniscient narrator) feel about what's going on. An intriguing narrative does not label its characters "the good guy", "the bad guy", "the pretty girl of loose morals", "the heartless straw boss"--unless the intent is comedic. Otherwise, if you don't sort of step back and let your readers at least feel that they are formulating their own judgments about what you're showing them, you'll lose their attention.

NOTE: If the omniscient narrative is in a patois or dialect, or is more like an internal monologue or first-person account of something, then it's not really "third person omniscient", so let's discard that part of your question and just concentrate on the main part.

Here is an example of what I mean:

(The scene is that of a little girl selling matches on a street corner in the snow.)

First example 3rd person omniscient with personalization of narrative:

Now there's a poor kid standing there, she's so skinny you can just barely see her even from a few feet away, people passing back and forth, carrying their tinsel-decked holiday packages--they don't even look at her! No one seems to care, how awful.

Second example 3rd person omniscient with objective, descriptive narrative:

Between the hurrying shoppers and fat flakes of snow that tumbled from a stone-gray sky could be seen the slender form of a child, a girl, with a tray of holiday-themed matches slung from her thin shoulder. With seeming aimlessness the girl wandered up and down the sidewalk, peering with tremulous timidity up at the large, overcoated figures who passed. (etc)

I'm not saying that either of these is an example of great writing, just using them to demonstrate the difference between you (the writer) telling the reader how YOU feel about something, i.e., "Poverty and people's insensitivity to same outrages me"--and you (the writer) making THEM (the readers) feel a certain way, however you want them to feel, about your subject, by opening the curtain and showing them a scene.

If the reader thinks you are trying to tell him how to feel about something, he will likely reject you.

I'm not 100% sure that answers your question but I gave it my best shot. Good luck.

I go on the premise that you can say a lot about a person by their actions without ever getting to see their thoughts or told much of anything about them, other than a few brief descriptions of their physical characteristics. I have three characters and the perspective switches from one to the other, but one of my favorite and most important characters is only shown by his speech and actions. He is passionate but messed up and it comes out in all the wrong ways. He yells! and I use more expletives with him than anyone else. However, going overboard would likely get tiring. Use them just enough.
I like to see people written as human as possible so do keep it 'real'.

Thanks for all the great replies. I guess to wrap up, would it be acceptable to give your omniscient narrator some personality? A nameless faceless observer telling the tale, but a voice that can be humorous and have somewhat of a personality without being involved as a character in the story.

Originally Posted by mikeatwritingforums

Thanks for all the great replies. I guess to wrap up, would it be acceptable to give your omniscient narrator some personality? A nameless faceless observer telling the tale, but a voice that can be humorous and have somewhat of a personality without being involved as a character in the story.

lol, I suddenly thought of the narrator for the Dukes of Hazzard when you posted this. The narrator is a character unto himself, but isn't actually in any of the action.

I guess to wrap up, would it be acceptable to give your omniscient narrator some personality?

"Acceptable"...? O.o

If only I had the same authority in my day-to-day life that I am granted by the internet. *sigh*

But seriously, folks: I am assuming that you have not had anything published to date, or at least it seems that you have not. (If you are a published writer, then your question could hardly be sincere.)

A skilled writer can write about a guy bending over to pick up a piece of litter off a city sidewalk and make it seem interesting; good writing is not a gimmick or trick, it is something that is learned.

If you employ the gimmick of giving your supposedly omniscient 3rd-party narrating voice a "personality", it is only the degree of skill with which the gimmick is used that will make it work or fail for you, not whether it is a good gimmick. Does that make sense? No one is going to read your story thinking, "Wow, this writer gave his third-person omniscient narrator a quirky personality! That's great!"

I've never done anything like this before so I've got a lot to learn

Originally Posted by Scarlett_156

"Acceptable"...? O.o

If only I had the same authority in my day-to-day life that I am granted by the internet. *sigh*

But seriously, folks: I am assuming that you have not had anything published to date, or at least it seems that you have not. (If you are a published writer, then your question could hardly be sincere.)

A skilled writer can write about a guy bending over to pick up a piece of litter off a city sidewalk and make it seem interesting; good writing is not a gimmick or trick, it is something that is learned.

If you employ the gimmick of giving your supposedly omniscient 3rd-party narrating voice a "personality", it is only the degree of skill with which the gimmick is used that will make it work or fail for you, not whether it is a good gimmick. Does that make sense? No one is going to read your story thinking, "Wow, this writer gave his third-person omniscient narrator a quirky personality! That's great!"