omniscient voice and "Invisible Armies"

[tko]

Anyone read the book "Invisible Armies" by Jon Evans? Excellent reviews. I kind of like it. Writing quality is very good, obviously an experienced writer.

But, to me it seems to head hop. One paragraph we are inside someone's head, hearing all their inner thought. One paragraph later, we are inside someone's else head, getting their inner thoughts.

To me, this weakens the sense of self. I feel a little distant from all the characters. Almost as though written by an omniscient narrator who doesn't care. I'm inside heads, but not caring or feeling. This is confusing me. The author is constantly using inner thoughts to tell us how someone is feeling. But the result is I don't feel what they are experiencing. Maybe because I'm not being shown it. Kind of strange. The effect bothers me.

Am I not used to this writing style? Am I missing something? Is there such a thing as to much inner thought?

The reviews, by industry and readers, are excellent, and I'm appear the only one that seems bothered by this, so I'm trying to understand.

[rwm4768]

I haven't read that particular book, but I've read others that do some head hopping, mainly older books. I was so used to third-person limited that the omniscient head hopping was a little jarring.

[Chasing the Horizon]

I haven't read that book, but omni will usually feel a little distant if you're not used to reading it, especially if the narrator is sharing the thoughts of many, many people. It takes a lot more words to show how a character feels than to tell it, so for brevity's sake there may be more telling of feelings in omni to keep the scene from dragging on forever.

I don't think you're missing anything. It's just that omni, especially the kind that switches every few paragraphs, is a different reading experience and perhaps a bit of an acquired taste. It can be more tell-y than 3rd limited.

I will now go check out that book because I love me some good omni.

[Bufty]

Are you sure it's head-hopping?

Are you sure you are inside various character's heads, and not just being made aware of what they are thinking?

The latter is omniscience - because the omniscient narrator knows everything about everybody and doesn't need to head-hop or go inside anybody's head.

Originally Posted by tko

Anyone read the book "Invisible Armies" by Jon Evans? Excellent reviews. I kind of like it. Writing quality is very good, obviously an experienced writer.

But, to me it seems to head hop. One paragraph we are inside someone's head, hearing all their inner thought. One paragraph later, we are inside someone's else head, getting their inner thoughts.

To me, this weakens the sense of self. I feel a little distant from all the characters. Almost as though written by an omniscient narrator who doesn't care. I'm inside heads, but not caring or feeling. This is confusing me. The author is constantly using inner thoughts to tell us how someone is feeling. But the result is I don't feel what they are experiencing. Maybe because I'm not being shown it. Kind of strange. The effect bothers me.

Am I not used to this writing style? Am I missing something? Is there such a thing as to much inner thought?

The reviews, by industry and readers, are excellent, and I'm appear the only one that seems bothered by this, so I'm trying to understand.

[bearilou]

Originally Posted by Bufty

Are you sure it's head-hopping?

Are you sure you are inside various character's heads, and not just being made aware of what they are thinking?

The latter is omniscience - because the omniscient narrator knows everything about everybody and doesn't need to head-hop or go inside anybody's head.

Yeah, this is where omniscience discussions lose me because honestly, Bufty, I don't see the difference in the distinction you're making.

I'm sure it's there, it's just lost on me.

[Bufty]

As I see it, the omniscient narrator can reveal from his POV what any particular character thinks or feels because by virtue of his omniscience the narrator already knows what every character is thinking or feeling and doesn't need to go into any character's head to find that out.

That is not the same as experiencing the thoughts and feelings of a POV character from the POV of that character.

And just to mix the soup up a tad there's no reason why a writer shouldn't decide to change the POV from Omniscient to Third Limited - but the change will usually be obvious and the two POV's are not the same.

That's as I see it. Any help?

Originally Posted by bearilou

Yeah, this is where omniscience discussions lose me because honestly, Bufty, I don't see the difference in the distinction you're making.

I'm sure it's there, it's just lost on me.

[bearilou]

Originally Posted by Bufty

As I see it, the omniscient narrator can reveal from his POV what any particular character thinks or feels because by virtue of his omniscience the narrator already knows what every character is thinking or feeling and doesn't need to go into any character's head to find that out.

That is not the same as experiencing the thoughts and feelings of a POV character from the POV of that character.

Oh! Put that way, I can see the distinction.

I suppose I haven't read enough of either (certainly not omniscient) to get a good intuitive feel for it but I think I have a glimmer of understanding.

Thanks!

[ladybritches]

Originally Posted by Bufty

As I see it, the omniscient narrator can reveal from his POV what any particular character thinks or feels because by virtue of his omniscience the narrator already knows what every character is thinking or feeling and doesn't need to go into any character's head to find that out.

That is not the same as experiencing the thoughts and feelings of a POV character from the POV of that character.

Bufty, that is the best explanation of omniscient POV I have ever read. Thanks for simplifying.

[Theo81]

These are not perfect, but hopefully they'll back up Bufty's explanation a bit for you.


3rd limited (inside somebody's head)

Clive stroked his swarthy moustache. Somebody had let damn fools near the internet again - their questions were the kind of basic knowledge anybody who'd ever read a half decent novel would know the answer to. Anybody who wanted to *write* a half decent novel, who was asking those kinds of questions, needed their queries auto forwarding straight to the trash, leave the way clear for the *real* writers out there.

Vs

(Omniscient, but sticking with the one character.)

Clive stroked his swarthy moustache. Somebody had let damn fools near the internet again, he thought. He knew that if they stopped reading trashy novels - the kind he remembered his mother always seemed to have to hand - they'd have a better grasp of the concept. If it wasn't for people like these, clogging up the slushpile, he'd knew he'd have a 6 figure advance in his pocket by now. The day agents and publishers had opened to queries from the great illiterates of the state had been the day publishing started to die, in his opinion. He aimed to change it. He was confident he was their last great hope.

Vs

(Very omniscient with a visible narrator)

Clive stroked his swarthy moustache. He regarded all who asked these kind of questions with contempt. He thought, for the thirteenth time that day, about how different the world would be if these kinds of people could be automatically rejected so his own novel - a groundbreaking fin de siecle examination of modern human relationships set in contemporary Sweden, so pornographic it would be considered illegal in 12 of the lower 48 states - could finally get the "yes" from the publisher. He was unaware of how legendary it had become in the houses of NYC. It was read aloud at the most exclusive lunches, and several choice phrases from the text had already entered industry vernacular. He was an arrogant fool who would never live the kind of life which would give him the understanding that there was no such thing as a stupid question.

[Bufty]

That's very kind of you, and appreciated, but it was geared to cover the specific 'thoughts' aspect raised in the OP's question.

The Omniscient narrator does of course know everything and is really like positioning the POV camera up in the air - God's eye view.

The camera can zoom in and out and - unlike in Third person Limited POV - the (omniscient) narrator can also mention things that would be outwith the perception of a third person Limited POV character. The Omniscient narrator for example knows there is someone waiting round the next corner or sneaking up behind any particular character or doing something in the house across the road behind the closed curtains.

Omniscient is not the easiest POV to master. Many beginners 'fall' into it by accident and not by choice - and mess it up by leaping all over the place and in and out of heads without knowing what they are doing.

Originally Posted by ladybritches

Bufty, that is the best explanation of omniscient POV I have ever read. Thanks for simplifying.

[tko]

Maybe I don't understand omniscience POV completely, even though I've done quiet a bit of searching and reading.

I suspect you've identified my problem. But since I don't read much omniscience writing, I'm having a hard time telling the difference between being inside a character's head, and simple omniscience.

I'm probably being made aware of what they are thinking, and jumping to the conclusion I'm supposed to be inside their head, and naturally coming away disappointed. I haven't read any true omniscience in a long time, if ever. It's giving me a strange feeling. The short examples you find on the web don't do it justice.

Think I'll post separately asking for some famous novel that using omniscience POV.

Originally Posted by Bufty

Are you sure it's head-hopping?

Are you sure you are inside various character's heads, and not just being made aware of what they are thinking?

The latter is omniscience - because the omniscient narrator knows everything about everybody and doesn't need to head-hop or go inside anybody's head.

[Flicka]

I'm thinking about trying omni for my next project - not to get inside everybody's heads but rather to not really get inside anyone's head save the 'invisible narrator'. You know, like a play or a movie where you may zoom in on one character and see him or her up close, but you're not really inside their head, you just see what the narrator shows you.

I know that creates distance, but I will zoom in on people occasionally - I just won't really do real close third - the narrator will always be a sort of filter. I want there to be layers and layers so that you will get how it all connects if you read carefully, but the story if more or less contingent on the reader not being sure about anybody's motives or true thoughts.

What do you think? Good? Bad? Crazy? I know some people will hate it, but the question is, will some people like it if I pull it off well?

[backslashbaby]

Originally Posted by Flicka

I'm thinking about trying omni for my next project - not to get inside everybody's heads but rather to not really get inside anyone's head save the 'invisible narrator'. You know, like a play or a movie where you may zoom in on one character and see him or her up close, but you're not really inside their head, you just see what the narrator shows you.

I know that creates distance, but I will zoom in on people occasionally - I just won't really do real close third - the narrator will always be a sort of filter. I want there to be layers and layers so that you will get how it all connects if you read carefully, but the story if more or less contingent on the reader not being sure about anybody's motives or true thoughts.

What do you think? Good? Bad? Crazy? I know some people will hate it, but the question is, will some people like it if I pull it off well?

I like when omni is used this way Make sure there's some theme stuff going on, though. Is it a look at society, for instance? I don't know if readers go for it if it's just a technique you are using in a straight mystery or similar.

In my novel WIP, one of the reasons I use omni is because I don't want the reader too close to the MC. I don't want them to sympathize or identify too much with her as hero, and I want to obscure her inner thoughts sometimes. I want other characters -- even minor characters -- to get kind of a more equal slate from the readers. Nobody's deepest intentions are revealed. The reader gets to fill those in themselves from the dialogue and plot.

[heyjude]

Some people will like anything if you pull it off well. All you can do is write it and see.

[WriteMinded]

During my many years as a reader, I didn't know what omniscient point of view meant. I was never jarred by head hopping or switching POVs. I never thought about whose head I was in or how many heads I'd been dumped into. I just enjoyed a good read. Now that I'm writing, that's all been spoiled for me.

[Jay Jennings]

Originally Posted by WriteMinded

During my many years as a reader, I didn't know what omniscient point of view meant. I was never jarred by head hopping or switching POVs. I never thought about whose head I was in or how many heads I'd been dumped into. I just enjoyed a good read. Now that I'm writing, that's all been spoiled for me.

*THIS*

[Bufty]

Knowing different writing techniques hasn't spoiled reading for me at all.

I read for pleasure and I can't remember the last time I read a book and noticed any head-hopping or jarring POV switches.

Originally Posted by WriteMinded

During my many years as a reader, I didn't know what omniscient point of view meant. I was never jarred by head hopping or switching POVs. I never thought about whose head I was in or how many heads I'd been dumped into. I just enjoyed a good read. Now that I'm writing, that's all been spoiled for me.

[Charlie Horse]

IMO the best way to pull off writing from an OMNI POV is to give the narrator a distinct and compelling voice. No one wants to read pages and pages of someone droning on about events that are taking place no matter how interesting those events may be.

[tko]

Maybe the problem in the novel I read was there was no omni voice? Because I couldn't detect one. And without the voice, it felt more like head hopping? Because the characters took over the voice?

Do other people feel that omni should have a distinct voice?

There are a lot subtleties here.

Originally Posted by Charlie Horse

IMO the best way to pull off writing from an OMNI POV is to give the narrator a distinct and compelling voice. No one wants to read pages and pages of someone droning on about events that are taking place no matter how interesting those events may be.

[J. Marks]

Okay, I'm a bit confused now about the voice I've chosen, and I'm hoping someone here can help me pin a definitive label on it.

I write in third person with alternating POV, choosing one character per scene, and that's indicated by inner dialogue. Some scenes have no POV, just narration. Maybe that's why I'm having a hard time with this.

Does my WIP sound more like third person limited because I'm in only one character POV per scene (or is third person limited defined as one POV per book). Damn I'm confused.

[Theo81]

Originally Posted by J. Marks

Okay, I'm a bit confused now about the voice I've chosen, and I'm hoping someone here can help me pin a definitive label on it.

I write in third person with alternating POV, choosing one character per scene, and that's indicated by inner dialogue. Some scenes have no POV, just narration. Maybe that's why I'm having a hard time with this.

Does my WIP sound more like third person limited because I'm in only one character POV per scene (or is third person limited defined as one POV per book). Damn I'm confused.

Third limited can have as many POV in a book as it likes, although if you're reaching double figures it's probably wise to tone it back.

Is the narration objective or subjective? Good, close limited will only touch on the things the POV character notices eg A woman comes into the room and the description focuses on her legs because the POV character is a leg man.

You can have omni which only focuses on one character. The omni narrator knows everything, not just what all the characters are thinking - so they know what the character doesn't know. If you've got things like "he didn't notice [...]' and you think you're doing limited, you're not, that would be omni.

And it's not "what it sounds like". Pick a POV. Go and write it. Writing it first and working out what it's "supposed" to be suggests it's going to be poorly written.

[J. Marks]

Originally Posted by Theo81

You can have omni which only focuses on one character. The omni narrator knows everything, not just what all the characters are thinking - so they know what the character doesn't know.

Thank you for the clarification. I thought I had been writing in omni until recently, then began to second guess myself. It was the one POV at a time I had been striving for that threw me. So I had it right the first time.

[Bufty]

The 'limited' in Third person Limited simply means the writer can have as many POV characters as he wishes but concentrates upon one at a time - in other words the POV is 'limited' to one per scene or chapter or book, whatever he chooses.

If, when using third person limited, there is no POV for any given scene, what is the narrative achieving other than breaking the POV illusion by the hitherto invisible writer making his presence felt - perhaps in an intrusive manner? Just asking.

[Torgo]

Head-hopping, meh. I hate this kind of jargon, which misleads you by invoking a snappy but slightly misleading metaphor. (It's too much like switching first-person POVs.) What we're talking about is shoulder-hopping. Think of your narrative eye as a curious parrot. In third person, your viewpoint is probably either tight on the shoulder of one-character at a time, or hovering a little way above the scene, taking everything in.

Wrongness is perceived by the reader when the shoulder-bound parrot has to teleport abruptly across the scene to view the action from the POV of another character. It's the literary equivalent of the 180-degree rule in cinema. If you want to switch POVs when you are on a character's shoulder, you have to find a way to formally relinquish that perch. The classic way is with a break of some kind.

The other thing you can do is leave the shoulder-level and draw back to your circling-above level. But that rather requires that you have previously established that POV as the primary one. By which I mean: you can switch from omniscient to limited gracefully, but limited > omniscient probably only works if you write mainly in omniscient to begin with. (I could imagine doing it with no setup if you could pull off some kind of coup of style - might work for the end of a novel, and I'm sure there are examples.)