Is omniscient really unpopular

Raphee said:

I have generally heard authors say that Publishing houses do not like novels written in omniscient.
At the same time I have read quite a few and wonderful omni novels from contemporary literature.

Are we too fixated on the one POV law.
Do publishing houses really prefer 3rd person limited over omni.

Click to expand...

My take on it...depends on the story. (That's a really good answer, huh? )

I think, though, that it's often hard for newbies to pull off omniscient, that it's easier to write in 3rd limited. The way I look at it, if your story demands omni, then go for it. I'm writing my current WIP in 1st person, and that's also supposed to be hard for newbies to pull off. I think my story is better told this way.

When I was first deciding on the POV, I started in 1st, wrote it all the way through. Then I had doubts. So I tried writing the first chapter in 3rd limited; I thought it sucked. You might want to give that a try, just to see if omni is the best choice for you. Just try the first chapter like I did in 3rd limited, and if it makes you hold your nose or seems awkward to you in any way, then you'll know omni is the way to go for your story.

Just my 2 cents, of course. Good luck!

~Nancy

3rd person limited allows for more intimacy with the POV character. It has its limitations, but it also brings the reader closer to the character. Maybe that's why?

Personally, I like this trend - I dislike the omniscient narration. I don't hate it, I just don't prefer it, as both a reader and a writer.

JerseyGirl1962 said:

I think, though, that it's often hard for newbies to pull off omniscient, that it's easier to write in 3rd limited.

Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. From my own experience, and also having edited a rather large number of stories when asked, I believe it's the other way around. It's easier to jump heads and show/tell whatever the writer thinks needs to be on the page, without having to come up with ways to have that one POV character notice/know/realize things.

This blog has some great posts on POV choices

I think the main thing is that omniscient is a hard POV to do well; there is a difference between standard head-hopping and well-written omniscient POV. It is somewhat "out-of-fashion" in modern fiction, perhaps because most contemporary writing lends itself better to third limited/first person? I'm not sure. I would say it depends purely on the story.

From a publishing perspective, I think third person limited is a safer choice than omniscient, but that doesn't mean a well written omniscient won't get picked up - it depends on the story and the skill of the writer. At least you can take comfort in the fact that a novel written in the third person omniscient would be nowhere near as risky as a novel written in the second person.

I can't speak for publishing houses but I do think omniscient isn't used as often as limited 3rd person or 1st. But omniscient can be wonderful when done well. I say go with what moves you. If you have a novel idea that you really feel motivated to write in omniscient POV, go for it and see what happens. You can always edit/rewrite later. Tell the story in whatever POV you feel will be the best one to tell the story, not the one you think publishers are looking for. Reread some of the omniscient POV books you admire. "Eisenheim the Illusionist," the short story that the movie The Illusionist was based on, is in omniscient and it works very well. It's in Best American Short Stories from a recent year (some time around 2003 or so).

The problem with omniscient is that it breaks the reader's trance unless it's done very well. Shifting from head to head reminds the reader that they're reading a book more than maintaining a single POV in a given scene. Anyone can write it badly, it's very easy to write badly.

It's also a more distant perspective. Essentially, the wider you spread your POV, the shallower it becomes. The shallower the POV, the less likely the reader is to make an emotional investment in the characters. This means that your book is less likely to grab someone than if it's got a tighter POV. Please note I'm speaking of probabilities not absolutes. Any rule in writing can be broken, and you can always find a counter-example, but it's not the norm.

Different genres work better with different POVs too. Hard boiled PI and Urban Fantasy tend to work best in first person. Massive sprawling fantasy epics work better in third limited. Omniscient seems to work best in literary fiction.

Also, remember that third Omni is a POV and so it has to be written to the same as any other. It's not just hopping from head to head; it's taking a perspective that can see into all the heads and staying in that.

It's a hard perspective to do well. Choose it if it works for you, but remember that it will make your novel a harder sell if you don't have an established audience.

Another thing about Omni - there is a really fine line between it and 3rd limited, and some novelists successfully use omni, just making you feel like it is 3rd. My example: Harry Potter. The first chapters of the very first HP book are written in Omni, but then for the rest of the novel she stays with Harry exclusively. This is repeated in varying degrees with each of the following books in the series. She slipped seamlessly from one to the other and kept the same feel and tone of the book, so (most) readers don't even notice. So, is it omni or 3rd limited? Who cares...it's great writing!

There is a continuum of omniscience and if you can keep your readers engaged in your main character, then you will be fine using Om. instead of 3rd. You just must be sure to set the POV tone that your book will be written in and stick with it - once your reader gets going with Omni, it is really easy to knock him/her out of the book with slip-ups in the narrator's voice (or lack thereof, depending).

Rhea L said:

It's easier to jump heads and show/tell whatever the writer thinks needs to be on the page, without having to come up with ways to have that one POV character notice/know/realize things.

Click to expand...

Which is exactly the point about why it's harder to do omniscient POV well. It is easier to do it horribly.

caw

Dave.C.Robinson said:

. ... Also, remember that third Omni is a POV and so it has to be written to the same as any other. It's not just hopping from head to head; it's taking a perspective that can see into all the heads and staying in that.
It's a hard perspective to do well.

Click to expand...

Stopping only to reserve the rather obvious comment that all POVs are hard to do well --
(OTOH, some POVs are easier to do badly than others. For instance, I consider First Person the best POV to write badly in. It is forgiving of many ignorances.) --
I second your thoughtful and insightful post.

My own take would be that selling Omniscient Narrator is not, in and of itself, a problem. Done well, O.N. is deligtful.

And, as someone points out elsewhere, many writers in '3rd limited' slip in and out of an O.N. voice here and there to produce various effects -- introduction, description, backstory. (I'm watching Amanda Cross doing it right now.)

It's more rare for these '3rd limited' writers to take advantage of the great strength of Omni - 'commentary'.

'Emma Lathen' give a paragraph or two of this sort of Omni at the start of their storries.

I'm trying to think of other contemporary writers who are primarily 3rd limited but who dip into Omni for commentary from time to time but haven't had my second cup of coffee and am fuzzy on examples.

But here is Amanda Cross coming quite close -- Lookit here
"Kate's languors, as she realied, were the price of an accomplished life. Or, to put it in a more high-flown way appropriate to Kate's profession, one sank into the ancient sin of anomie when challenges failed."
(where Kate is the POV character.)

This kind of commentary masquerades as deep 3rd POV, but sn actually Omni in sheep's clothing.

This lovely freedom to comment is enticing, isnt it? I still prefer the logical plot organization and compelling emotional depth that come so naturally to with 3rd limited and 1st.

Omniscient is a perfectly fine narrative view point. The problem is that it's not suitable for every type of story. Most people want to follow specific characters so they prefer 3rd limited -- it's just to disorienting to follow many different characters at the same time. Most people want to know whose story it is.

There's also this "God-like" feeling with omniscient, which is not very "natural" for most readers. Also, omniscient, by nature, has more narrative distance. The readers are not allowed to get too close to a small set of main characters. If you want to maintain a better emotional closeness for the readers, you may consider a shifting/rotating 3rd limited instead.

Omniscient could work very well in epic fantasies, for example. But not very good in personal dramas.

Also, the problem is that many new authors can't master the point of view, so they make a lot of mistakes, such as head-hopping or author intrusion. Also, often the reason a writer chooses omniscient is that the writer wants to tell every side of the story, and explain everything from every character's point of view -- that can read very amateurish as far as storytelling is concerned... it's as if the writer doesn't trust herself or the readers. Inexperienced omniscient is very jarring and leaves the readers with a bad taste.

Dave.C.Robinson said:

Omniscient seems to work best in literary fiction.

Click to expand...

Why do you say that? Most literary fiction I've read were either in 1st or 3rd limited. I don't think I have read any modern lit fic (as opposed to classic literature) that is in omniscient.

I'm rereading Paula Volsky's Illlusion, and just noticed that it's in omniscient - I'd forgotten that. The narrator's ability to comment works well for this particular story.

maestrowork said:

Why do you say that? Most literary fiction I've read were either in 1st or 3rd limited. I don't think I have read any modern lit fic (as opposed to classic literature) that is in omniscient.

Click to expand...

There's plenty, actually. Frederick Buechner's The Storm, Jane Smiley's Moo, to name a couple off the top of my head. I didn't much like either one of them.

caw

The Westing Game is fantastic. I've read it about five times, and I just realized yesterday that it's omniscient. I'd give it a try.

Here's what the fabulous Justine Larbalestier has to say about the use of omniscient POV. And she's right. Absolutely right.

Also, two words: Terry Pratchett.

Rhea L said:

I respectfully disagree. From my own experience, and also having edited a rather large number of stories when asked, I believe it's the other way around. It's easier to jump heads and show/tell whatever the writer thinks needs to be on the page, without having to come up with ways to have that one POV character notice/know/realize things.

Click to expand...

I disagree, too; probably should've qualified that . I just remember seeing stuff like that around the Internet, on blogs, etc.

~Nancy

Seems to me that beginners can potentially screw up any Point-of-View.

What passes for omniscience is to my mind often used by a newbie because at that time Point-of-View means little or nothing and many newbies - myself included at the time,I add - haven't a clue how to select one.

Omniscience, in my view, is the accidental POV choice because it's simply transferring the way we speak from words to paper. It seems easy. In many cases, I don't think it's picked or chosen ie., it's not selected in preference to an alternative. And without any knowledge of how to make any POV work, the chances are it will be screwed up.

Bufty said:

Omniscience, in my view, is the accidental POV choice because it's simply transferring the way we speak from words to paper. It seems easy. In many cases, I don't think it's picked or chosen ie., it's not selected in preference to an alternative. And without any knowledge of how to make any POV work, the chances are it will be screwed up.

Click to expand...

Astute and on target. Agree completely. More than once I've been in critique groups where bad POV problems rear their ugly heads, and when people begin pointing them out, a kind of glaze goes over the eyes of the writer being critted, a Dan Quayle in the headlights dilated-pupil stare, that indicates pretty clearly that POV is terra incognita.

caw

I have a quick question about POVs. When people talk about omniscient POV do they mean that the POV shifts from one character to another character and so on, but the POV is still always with some particular character? So it is an extended form of 3rd person limited.

If this is the case, what is it then called when the POV is sort of above the character in a God-like, all-knowing, all-seeing sense? Jose Saramago writes like this a lot. The POV shifts from one character to another too but most of the time it isn't so much with the character like in most fiction; it is above them, telling the reader things that the character does not know and cannot know, and things that will happen to the character in the future and such. Is there a name for this?

That type of POV I think is extremely difficult to write well, but when it is it almost ruins every other type of POV

rosebud1981 said:

I have a quick question about POVs. When people talk about omniscient POV do they mean that the POV shifts from one character to another character and so on, but the POV is still always with some particular character? So it is an extended form of 3rd person limited.

Click to expand...

In essence, no. First, there's 3rd limited where the POV stays with a character at a time and that POV only switches between scenes or chapter breaks -- it's like camera change. Then there's head-hopping which is basically 3rd limited done badly: switching POVs within the same scene or even paragraph or sentence.

True omniscience is a God-like narrative. There's a CLEAR narrator who knows everything, including things the characters don't know. Imagine Zeus sitting on a cloud telling a stories about these mortals in ancient Greece. It can be a very effective way of telling stories that require certain narrative distance but something magical... fairy tales are usually told in omniscient: "A long, long time ago, in a land far, far away..."

I am absolutely convinced that most inexperienced writers (me included, back when I first succumbed to the addiction to this writing drug) get in trouble with POV, any POV, when they succumb to the temptation to spend a lot of words relating characters' thoughts. A reader can't really see or experience thoughts. A reader can see or experience action and dialog. That isn't to say you should never relate thought, but it is to suggest that more of the action and dialog and less of the thoughts will result in better control of POV and greater energy in your narrative. The temptation to delve into thought seems greater with omniscient POV that it does with properly understood and controlled limited third.

caw

If it's done well, I love omni. I like seeing the big picture and how it all comes together at the end.