I read somewhere that they are much more likely to get rejected by an agent/publisher than a 3rd person limited of first person manuscript.
Is this true?
Is this true?
Omniscient manuscripts
- Thread starter kal-el
- Start date
I don't know, but look at it this way, how many omniscient books do you pick up in the bookstore?
Then again, writers just seem to avoid it. It can be tricky to master.
Then again, writers just seem to avoid it. It can be tricky to master.
The reason so many omni MS get rejected (like the rest of the 98% of MS that get rejected) is that new writers mistakenly thing omni=easy. Just like most new writers think 1st person=instant relationship between writer and reader.
To most, what they think is 3rd Omni is actually head hopping. And head hopping is a no-no.
To most, what they think is 3rd Omni is actually head hopping. And head hopping is a no-no.
Cyia is exactly right. Omni is probably the most oft-fudged stylistic jujube of them all. It takes some serious skill and craft to pull it off well. Most writers don't have the chops.
True. And an enormous problem I've seen with "3rd-omni" manuscripts, which often fall into 3rd-omni POV by some form of default, is lack of focus. The narration spills out amoeba-like, lacking form and discipline.
caw
I was just discussing this with another writer this morning. It is VERY hard - at least for me it is. I'm trying this style on one of my current WIPs, and I realize I need to learn more about it. I'm trying really diligently to stay out of everyone's head, which is the hard part (for me), and I don't know if that's the way it's supposed to work.
Does anyone know if there is a thread around here that explains it in some detail? I'd be very interested in learning everything I can about it.
Sissy
BTW - about the head-hopping - I read books that do this, but I find it somewhat irritating. That's just personal taste, I realize.
Does anyone know if there is a thread around here that explains it in some detail? I'd be very interested in learning everything I can about it.
Sissy
BTW - about the head-hopping - I read books that do this, but I find it somewhat irritating. That's just personal taste, I realize.
If you change POV characters when you change scenes or chapters, you aren't head-hopping. This is perfectly acceptable in thrid person limited.
When done well, omniscient may be the best form for a novel. BUt darned few writers can do it well because they don'r actually know what omniscient is. Too many writers think omniscient simply means you can head-hop whenever you want. You can't. Head-hopping is head-hopping, no matter which POV you use.
Omniscient POV is about distance, just as most other POVs are about distance.
If you want to read third person omniscient done right, read all the Harry Potter books. They've outsold all otehr books in history. Agents and publishers would certianly have no problem with omniscient if it meant finding another J. K. Rowling.
Omniscient POV is about distance, just as most other POVs are about distance.
If you want to read third person omniscient done right, read all the Harry Potter books. They've outsold all otehr books in history. Agents and publishers would certianly have no problem with omniscient if it meant finding another J. K. Rowling.
What James said.
Books are rejected because they're not good enough (and I use "good enough" to imply quality of writing, market potential, and story as a complete package). If you're a good enough writer with a good enough story and a good enough way to write it, you'll do well. But analysing all the trends and trying to work out what agents and publishers don't want isn't the way to go: writing a lot, and writing it well, is the best thing that you can do.
Books are rejected because they're not good enough (and I use "good enough" to imply quality of writing, market potential, and story as a complete package). If you're a good enough writer with a good enough story and a good enough way to write it, you'll do well. But analysing all the trends and trying to work out what agents and publishers don't want isn't the way to go: writing a lot, and writing it well, is the best thing that you can do.
Most people have the mistaken idea, also, that JK Rowling just sat in a coffee shop one day and wrote a novel with no background in writing. This is mistaken. (I am not saying you said that, James, but I've seen others)
As someone said earlier, most writers simply don't have the chops for it and many aren't all that fond of it (I put myself in both categories). I prefer a closer PoV than omniscient, but it can and has been well done. However, a lot of writers kid themselves about their skill level.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2006
- Messages
- 3,553
- Reaction score
- 1,121
Also read Terry Pratchett. He does omniscient brilliantly.
And there's no need to stay out of a character's head. That's a common misconception about omniscient. Omniscient, done properly, can dip into any head the narrator chooses, AS LONG AS there's still a tie to the narrator.
For an example, look at the beginning (after the two prologues) of Going Postal. There's a whole chunk that's about as deep inside Moist VonLipwig's head as possible, without quite being third limited. If you look closely, there are clues that there's a narrator between the reader and the character.
JD
And there's no need to stay out of a character's head. That's a common misconception about omniscient. Omniscient, done properly, can dip into any head the narrator chooses, AS LONG AS there's still a tie to the narrator.
For an example, look at the beginning (after the two prologues) of Going Postal. There's a whole chunk that's about as deep inside Moist VonLipwig's head as possible, without quite being third limited. If you look closely, there are clues that there's a narrator between the reader and the character.
JD
And wasn't Rowling an English teacher? I seem to recall reading something about her college courses giving her good background in writing, especially the hard to wirte omniscient.
No, you don't stay out of character's heads, but you don't jump, eitherr. The narrator really isn't inside the had the same way as the narrator is in third person limited. The narrator is far away, and puts distance between the reader and any single character.
This is what make sthird person omnisceint so tough to do well. It looks like head-hopping, and new writers treat it this way, but it's a very different approach.
It's even difficult to explain properly. The closest I can come is saying that the narrator knows everything going on deep inside the head of every character, but the narratyor is not actually inside the head. He's way up yonder, standing on a distant hilltop.
It's maintaining this distance, while still knowing everything about every character, that makes good omniscient very, very difficult for most new writers to write.
I am going to read the HP series very soon. I was told they were 3rd person limited though?
I would argue that TP writes in 3rd person limited, mainly because he DOESN'T know everything about his characters - consider characters like Carrot, we NEVER see inside his head. Then consider a character like Vimes, who we know every thought.
He does bounce from head to head, but there are alot of characters that are closed to us.
yes. we see almost everything from Harry's POV.
I say almost because there are some scenes which are from other people's POV, although not many of them, and only at key moments.
Omni is about what the narrator can do, imho, not that he has to do it all. The problem with stating that is that it's harder for folks to grasp omni if you say that 
Read a ton of omni if you want to do omni. It has such nuances.
But if you see a narrator who isn't a character whose voice is prevalent and subjective, it's omni you are reading, even if it only follows one character.
Read a ton of omni if you want to do omni. It has such nuances.
But if you see a narrator who isn't a character whose voice is prevalent and subjective, it's omni you are reading, even if it only follows one character.