# Thoughts on Omniscient Narrators



## Black Dragon (May 2, 2019)

What are your thoughts on omniscient narrators in stories?  Their use seems to have fallen out of fashion, but is that a good thing? 

Have you ever considered using an omniscient narrator in one of your stories?


----------



## A. E. Lowan (May 2, 2019)

*waggles hand* I don't see anything wrong with an omniscient narrator and enjoy stories that are written with one, but for me, personally, and since we tend to write with ensemble casts instead of just one or two MC's, I prefer to use deep 3rd person POV's. I just like the challenge of changing up voices to let the characters shine, rather than my own voice as a writer being the dominant one.

I do think it's interesting that omniscient narrators have fallen out of fashion and think it's perhaps time to see them rebound. That would create some interesting variety in storytelling.


----------



## Devor (May 2, 2019)

To kind of bounce off of what AE Lowan said, I think there's something impressive to see an author switch from one deep 3rd Person voice to another, and for those characters to be very different.  I've been writing a fanfiction for the Ladybug IP (it helps with my overall writing anxiety), and I've noticed that people really respond well to the seeing how differently the characters see the world.

That isn't to criticize anything. But I think there's a reason for the deep 3rd Person craze right now. There's a lot of fresh headspace for a writer to explore, and I think readers are looking for that right now.


----------



## Chessie2 (May 2, 2019)

Omg, I absolutely LOVE an omniscient narrator. Many people out there like to say that you shouldn't write in omni if you aren't good at it but how are you going to learn if you don't try? So I've written two (now three) of my books in omniscient because it's my favorite style. It's very difficult to pull off though. I think it's a lovely way to tell a story.



A. E. Lowan said:


> *waggles hand* I don't see anything wrong with an omniscient narrator and enjoy stories that are written with one, but for me, personally, and since we tend to write with ensemble casts instead of just one or two MC's, I prefer to use deep 3rd person POV's. I just like the challenge of changing up voices to let the characters shine, rather than my own voice as a writer being the dominant one.


Your author voice shouldn't be narrating in omniscient though. The omniscient narrator is technically not the writer but someone else. The narrator is a different character all together--it should give you that vibe anyhow. They are judgmental, opinionated, and make the reading experience a bit more entertaining. If you're doing it right, the reader is going to receive an all around view of your characters vs just what's in 3rd person. I feel that 3rd person is very restrictive. With omniscient, you can move around and give the reader more of a picture of what is happening, in some regards. 

And it is very challenging. Head hopping is not omniscient. You have to be able to smoothly transition between characters like a camera lens: in and out of their head, to the setting, to the other character(s), maybe what is happening across the street that applies, etc. It should read like someone telling you a story--and that someone is not involved IN the story, if that makes sense.


----------



## Black Dragon (May 2, 2019)

Chessie2 said:


> The omniscient narrator is technically not the writer but someone else. The narrator is a different character all together--it should give you that vibe anyhow. They are judgmental, opinionated, and make the reading experience a bit more entertaining.



I like that approach!  Making the omniscient narrator a unique character with a perspective can work out great.  I'm thinking of Lemony Snicket, for example.


----------



## Chessie2 (May 2, 2019)

I think technically that is what the omniscient narrator is...waiting for Malik to join in here.


----------



## Rkcapps (May 3, 2019)

I enjoy reading omniscient when it's not head hoping although I personally prefer to write Deep 3rd.


----------



## Insolent Lad (May 3, 2019)

I dislike the omniscient narrator on the principle that_ no one _(except maybe God) knows what is going on in everyone's head. So I find it unrealistic and, frequently, overly simplistic in trying to explain everyone's psychology and motivations.


----------



## psychotick (May 3, 2019)

Hi,

I like them too, under some circumstances. But usually I want them to not only not be a part of the story (until maybe the twist at the end!) but still somehow be connected. I usually favour the chronicler of events at some time in the future - which sort of explains the omniscience part nicely. There's a really good narrator who introduces The Core Diplomatique in all of Retief's Adventures (Keith Lamour) and how they solved each crisis - and he's always wrong! (So much for omniscience!) Because Retief is the one who saves the day, never gets the credit and never does it the way the official histories record.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Yora (May 5, 2019)

Omniscient is best. But just because the narrator could potentionally know and tell everything, that doesn't mean he should.

The key to omniscient narration is to know what information to share.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (May 7, 2019)

Yora said:


> Omniscient is best. But just because the narrator could potentionally know and tell everything, that doesn't mean he should.
> 
> The key to omniscient narration is to know what information to share.



Well said.


----------



## Malik (May 7, 2019)

Chessie2 said:


> The omniscient narrator is technically not the writer but someone else. The narrator is a different character all together.



This. A thousand times, this.

The narrator is its own character. As the author, you need to determine who the narrative character is, how they know all of this, and what they know and don't know. You don't ever have to tell the reader who it is, but _you_ have to know.

The reason for choosing a POV isn't "because it sounds good," or "because readers like it." 

POV, and more specifically the narrative perspective that you choose within the POV, determines what information the reader receives, and therefore it determines how the story unfolds. I'm writing my current series in omniscient not because I love omniscient, but because I needed a narrator character to relay key points of the story.

Even in first person, writing in memoir perspective tells the same story differently than subjective narration, and they each tell the story differently than interior monologue, and so forth. You need to understand and recognize the narrative perspectives resident inside POV and how they affect your story. Then you need to choose one POV and narrative perspective and stick with it for the whole story, unless you're very, very good and really know your voices at ninja level. Garth Stein's _The Art of Racing in the Rain_ (not a fantasy, I know) does this spectacularly; told in first person, it reads in subjective narration when the MC is the central character in a scene, and switches to memoir voice in scenes where the MC is a peripheral character.


----------



## Vaporo (May 7, 2019)

Call me an uncultured swine, but I'm going to express an unpopular opinion here: I'm not a big fan of omniscient narrators. Personally, I find it harder to relate to characters when they are described by an omniscient narrator, since omniscient tends to hop in and out of the characters' head so much. It doesn't feel as "close" to the characters. I actually like the current trend towards third-limited. I like to linger on a character for a chapter or two, get to know them and learn what's going through their heads, and then move on to the next character for a little while. It's clean, easy to follow, and provides a better excuse for why the omniscient narrator (who is sometimes an actual character in the story recounting events) doesn't just tell us the most important details outright.

Of course, that's not to say that I _dis_like omniscient. When it's done well it can work great. But, if given a choice, I'd generally rather read and write with a limited narrator.


----------



## FifthView (May 8, 2019)

Malik said:


> The narrator is its own character. As the author, you need to determine who the narrative character is, how they know all of this, and what they know and don't know.



There are different types of omniscient narrator, and not all of them fit this description.

The storyteller narrator fits, and it's a common form  of omniscient POV.  This could be either in third person or first.  (Yes, some first person is written in an omniscient style.) If it's third person, the narrator is typically someone—a type of character—who is outside, above, beyond the set of characters actually living through the events in the story. If it's in first person, the narrator is typically someone telling of a past event who already knows all the details and is now relating them from a future position. (Hindsight is 20/20.)

There is another sort, the style used by Frank Herbert in _Dune_ for instance, in which the narrator doesn't come across as a separate character, at least not as clearly and obviously as the storyteller variety. This is typically the "head-hopping" omniscient. Basically, it's like a quick-cycling  third limited but with switches in perspective happening within a scene, maybe even from paragraph to paragraph, instead of using scene breaks or chapter breaks to switch POVs. Storyteller can do this also; but some narrators, like Herbert's, lack the sort of obvious personality common to storyteller varieties. It's a more objective, less subjective sort of narration.

As a side note, I've always considered first person and third omniscient to be the most _natural_ sorts of narration. By this I mean that we humans tend to tell stories to one another in these two ways.

First person is obvious—your friend begins his tale, _"I went to the club the other night and you'll never guess what happened!"_

Third person omniscient is fairly obvious to me but might not be to others._ "Dave couldn't help getting angry. He always gets angry. His father was an alcoholic; and ever since, Dave's likely to go into a rage if someone at the club says the wrong thing after too many shots. That's also why Dave only drinks sparkling water."_  I.e., in normal, real life, people have a tendency to believe they know more than they do and are very free in expressing their "expert" knowledge of how and why other people act the way they do. Of course, in a complete tale this is more likely to slip back into first person than remain in the third person: _"Honestly, I don't know why Dave even goes to the club!"_

The sort of third person limited now popular in genre fiction is utterly unnatural, heh. I think this might explain why some newer writers have trouble with third limited until they get the hang of it.


----------



## FifthView (May 8, 2019)

Black Dragon said:


> Have you ever considered using an omniscient narrator in one of your stories?



I always seem to have the problem Malik sorta, kinda described. The omniscient narrator knows all, but the information given to the reader needs to be whittled down and timed just right. This causes me all sorts of problems. Third limited is much easier in this respect because I have an imposed limitation that can focus my writing.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (May 8, 2019)

Yeah, one of the main reasons I don’t use omniscient is because I don’t want all the information out there. My approach to the story would entirely different. Someday I’ll find a novel I want in Om, and it will be good fun developing the narrative voice.


----------



## Chessie2 (May 9, 2019)

Vaporo said:


> Call me an uncultured swine, but I'm going to express an unpopular opinion here: I'm not a big fan of omniscient narrators.


It's a matter of personal preference. The pov you choose for your story depends on how you want to tell it.



Vaporo said:


> Personally, I find it harder to relate to characters when they are described by an omniscient narrator, since omniscient tends to hop in and out of the characters' head so much. It doesn't feel as "close" to the characters.


Yet Frodo and the other characters in the LOTR have been loved for decades. 



Vaporo said:


> It's clean, easy to follow, and provides a better excuse for why the omniscient narrator (who is sometimes an actual character in the story recounting events) doesn't just tell us the most important details outright.


I think there is a lack of understanding regarding the power and potency of an omniscient narrator. How many books have you read in that pov? The execution IS smooth, IS easy to follow, and tells what it needs to tell. It has just as much power to entrance and immerse readers as any other pov.



Vaporo said:


> Of course, that's not to say that I _dis_like omniscient. When it's done well it can work great. But, if given a choice, I'd generally rather read and write with a limited narrator.


Not picking on you but I see this said all the time here. "If it's done well!"
Okay, pizza is great when done well but it can also be done wrong (like when the toppings fall off). First person and third povs can be done well and done wrong. Driving a car can be done wrong. Movies can be done wrong. See where I'm going here? 

Maybe it's the fact that it's different, outside the norms of our day, that omniscient causes a bit of a stir. I personally love it because of the freedom it allows. I think that you are able to get a deeper perspective into the characters because a narrator is showing you how they are on the outside, yet you can also get into the heads of the characters and their thoughts. It's a good deal of fun to write in this pov and I wish people had more respect for it.


----------



## Chessie2 (May 9, 2019)

FifthView said:


> I always seem to have the problem Malik sorta, kinda described. The omniscient narrator knows all, but the information given to the reader needs to be whittled down and timed just right. This causes me all sorts of problems. Third limited is much easier in this respect because I have an imposed limitation that can focus my writing.


But it can be argued that the author knows all in third limited as well and chooses to opt out of some things/not give all the information either.


----------



## FifthView (May 9, 2019)

Chessie2 said:


> But it can be argued that the author knows all in third limited as well and chooses to opt out of some things/not give all the information either.



I agree! But for me at least, I have a better direction when deciding what info is too much or extraneous when using third limited, a guide.


----------



## Rkcapps (May 9, 2019)

I prefer to write 3rd limited for the opposite reason to you Chessie2, you like the freedom of omniscient and I like the restriction of 3rd limited, lol! Although, I prefer to write this, I enjoy a well-told story in any POV.


----------



## Vaporo (May 9, 2019)

Chessie2 said:


> I think there is a lack of understanding regarding the power and potency of an omniscient narrator. How many books have you read in that pov? The execution IS smooth, IS easy to follow, and tells what it needs to tell. It has just as much power to entrance and immerse readers as any other pov.



I never said that it didn't have the power to entrance readers, I just find that it's easier to do with a limited narrator. I like Lord of the Rings as well. Yet, when I first read it I found that I struggled to connect with the characters, possibly in part due to the omniscient perspective.

I've never kept a running tally of books which I've read are told from an omniscient perspective, but given that I've read hundreds of books in my lifetime I'd be willing to put the count at least in the several dozens. Granted, though, I don't really pay too much attention to the narrator if the story is being told well. I didn't realize that the Hunger Games was written in present tense until years later when someone mentioned it on this site. Then again, omniscient is the only perspective where I'll be reading along and think "you know, this story would be better if written from a different POV." I've also noticed that stories written in omniscient have a huge tendency to tend to tell instead of show, but I'd consider that more a failing of the author than the POV.

Maybe I should rephrase my opinion a bit. Any POV has the power to be immersive, but I've noticed that omniscient is easier to abuse and tends to fail more often than others, and when it fails it tends to fail hard and completely drag me out of the immersion.

Like you said though, it's a matter of personal preference. You might have the exact opposite experience from me.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (May 9, 2019)

A multi-POV 3rd Limited is a close cousin to 3rd Om, where the narrator stays tight to one POV at a time... in a sense, because even there, the narrator reserves the right to pull back into a more Om perspective, depending on whether the writer wants to stay in a tight 3rd or the looser 3rd Limited.

There’s so much crossover here... And if I recall, Wheel of Time opens chapters in a 3rd Om and switches into the 3rd Limited. What I would call panning the narrative camera.

Personal preference to read is 3rd, and I don’t care what type.


----------



## robinlxs (May 29, 2019)

My experience has been a lot of people mistake omniscient POV for head hopping. It’s hard to execute well.


----------



## Rkcapps (May 29, 2019)

I agree, robinlxs.


----------



## Heidi Hanley (Jun 1, 2019)

Vaporo said:


> Call me an uncultured swine, but I'm going to express an unpopular opinion here: I'm not a big fan of omniscient narrators. Personally, I find it harder to relate to characters when they are described by an omniscient narrator, since omniscient tends to hop in and out of the characters' head so much. It doesn't feel as "close" to the characters. I actually like the current trend towards third-limited. I like to linger on a character for a chapter or two, get to know them and learn what's going through their heads, and then move on to the next character for a little while. It's clean, easy to follow, and provides a better excuse for why the omniscient narrator (who is sometimes an actual character in the story recounting events) doesn't just tell us the most important details outright.
> 
> Of course, that's not to say that I _dis_like omniscient. When it's done well it can work great. But, if given a choice, I'd generally rather read and write with a limited narrator.


I agree. I think the key is writing omniscient well. If not, it can be hard to follow. I tried it once. And only once.


----------



## Chessie2 (Jun 1, 2019)

Heidi Hanley said:


> I agree. I think the key is writing omniscient well. If not, it can be hard to follow. I tried it once. And only once.


I'm honestly confused by a lot of comments on here like this. Not to pick on you specifically but it's the overall belief that it should be done well. ANYTHING in writing needs to be done "well" and that is hella subjective. As with all things in the craft, practice is what makes you a stronger writer. If you're going to think that writing in omniscient is "too hard and needs to be done well" then you're only preventing yourself (and others who believe this bologna) from advancing in a skill of the craft.


----------



## Rkcapps (Jun 8, 2019)

I don't usually read omniscient, but last week I read one of the best in modern literature from a debut author (someone who clearly took time to learn the craft before debuting). Elizabeth Arden's, Bear and the Nightgale. Part fantasy, based around Russian fairytales. I finished it in 2 days.


----------



## FifthView (Jun 13, 2019)

robinlxs said:


> My experience has been a lot of people mistake omniscient POV for head hopping. It’s hard to execute well.



As a reader, I've encountered poor execution.  Whether the approach was intended to be 3rd Om or was instead bad head-hopping in what was meant to be 3rd limited isn't always clear, heh.

I am by no means an expert 3rd Om writer—in fact, I've never completed anything worthwhile that I began in 3rd Om—but my experience as a reader leads me to think that introducing the omniscience from the very first paragraph or two is probably the best course of action. At least, I think this will be my strategy the next time I seriously consider writing a story in 3rd Om.

Many readers are accustomed to reading 3rd limited. A sudden switch in perspective after a full page could be quite jarring. It's often jarring for me in those examples I've already mentioned!

So borrowing from a well-known story for a quick example, I might start out Harry's story with an opening set on the first day at Hogwarts, using a paragraph something like this:

Harry gripped the long dining table as if it could save him should he be called and sorted into Slytherin, despite the problem with normal operations of cause and effect. He had no clue that Draco Malfoy, sitting two tables over, watched him while casually reclining from _his_ table; nor did he know that Draco had already targeted him for future humiliations regardless of the house Harry was sorted into. Draco hated Harry's notoriety, which already far surpassed his own, and also the fact that Harry's features were symmetrical, not longish and narrow like his.​After that opening, the question for me would be whether to go into a further consideration of Draco at that point or to draw the focus back onto Harry for the next paragraph, lol.*  Which is why 3rd Om can be a cumbersome thing for those of us who, like myself, are not yet experts. 

Still, I think I'd want to establish the POV clearly with the opening so that readers become accustomed to it—maybe even without realizing they have, heh.

-------

*Or, now after-thinking this, I might have a short, two-sentence 2nd paragraph about Draco's friends, Vincent Crabbe and Gregory Goyle, noting Draco's attention and following it to Harry, with thoughts/impressions of their own. And, seeing Harry glance at them at the end of that paragraph. That would be the transition I need for a 3rd paragraph that then focuses on Harry.

 So many directions to go!


----------



## Maker of Things Not Kings (Jun 13, 2019)

I've come to feel that writing in the omniscient perspective, like a genre preference, is something best left to those who find it feels like "home" as a writer or those who wish to learning it as another facet of their craft, of course. 

For me, I gave it a go on more than one occasion and, in truth, I never felt comfortable with the perspective and it made me feel _forced in _my writing_._  I love the idea of it. It seems far more apt to hit the "storyteller" psyche in us.  Yet, I found it required way too much moment to moment thought as the writer and I rarely found myself in a good storytelling flow with it. Maybe more of that work should have been saved for the editing but that's just not where I want to put my time. It feels much different than when I write in first person or third limited where I find I can connect with the heart of the story without fail and carry on for pages uninterrupted. But that's me. I'm sure that I'll try it again down the road.

I do love when it's done well and I think all the commentary above about the way it is approached is very helpful insight.  

I've had the same experience with second person as a writer. It's a very difficult head space for me to attain with any natural feel or flow. 



Rkcapps said:


> I don't usually read omniscient, but last week I read one of the best in modern literature from a debut author (someone who clearly took time to learn the craft before debuting). Elizabeth Arden's, Bear and the Nightgale. Part fantasy, based around Russian fairytales. I finished it in 2 days.



Bear and the Nightingale is one of my favorite books in the last few years. I read it last year and, if you'd asked me before today what perspective it was written in, I could not have recalled because it wasn't something I gave any thought to or noted (more than in passing) as I read it. I find if I am picking a story/novel apart as I read, it probably isn't all that good. My reader self is not my writer self when I'm immersed in a story. Bear and the Nightingale was a story that drew me into the world and took me out of my head.  Now I want to take it out of the library again and peek into it a bit deeper to see how it was done.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 14, 2019)

If I ever get around to doing Third Om, I would do it with a true narrator’s, or story-teller’s, voice like one was sitting around a campfire listening to a story.


----------



## Insolent Lad (Jun 14, 2019)

Demesnedenoir said:


> If I ever get around to doing Third Om, I would do it with a true narrator’s, or story-teller’s, voice like one was sitting around a campfire listening to a story.



I did that in my 'The Ways of Wizardry' novel, with the storyteller occasionally reminding his audience he was there with an aside (frequently snide). BUT I recognized that such a storyteller is not truly omniscient — he's very much the unreliable narrator who puts his own interpretation on things.


----------



## FifthView (Jun 14, 2019)

Insolent Lad said:


> I did that in my 'The Ways of Wizardry' novel, with the storyteller occasionally reminding his audience he was there with an aside (frequently snide). BUT I recognized that such a storyteller is not truly omniscient — he's very much the unreliable narrator who puts his own interpretation on things.



Wow, this is something I'd not quite considered. I think the reliability and unreliability would depend on various factors, and these would probably depend on whether the omniscience was felt to be, heh, omniscient. If the storyteller relates one thing and it turns out to be false later, or an imperfect picture of characters or events that is later upended, unreliability would set in.

There also seems to be a difference between putting a spin on things and reliability or unreliability. If the reader follows along largely in agreement with the narrator, or buying the spin, and the spin is never upended, that narrator would come across as reliable.

Then there are storyteller narrators who are upfront about not knowing everything? In which case, if surprises happen the narrator can say something along the lines of, "Well, who knew that could happen? It was as if the fabric of reality broke and nothing could ever be as it once was."

I don't know whether this is necessarily a bad thing for a storyteller narrator. The reader might identify with the narrator, also surprised by the turn of events, and the feeling of having a reliable narrator would continue.

I suspect some dangers exist when using an entirely unreliable "omniscient" storyteller narrator.


----------



## FifthView (Jun 14, 2019)

Demesnedenoir said:


> If I ever get around to doing Third Om, I would do it with a true narrator’s, or story-teller’s, voice like one was sitting around a campfire listening to a story.



This is something I've never felt free enough to do. I don't know why. Lately I'm thinking I should give it a go.

When I consider writing in 3rd Om, I think of being able to quickly transition from character POVs and having a largely objective narrator, a narrator without his own personality, albeit a narrator who can "ventriloquize" those character voices.

That ventriloquism is something somewhat done in 3rd limited also, for instance with free indirect speech, choosing descriptors a character might use for things, and idiosyncratic metaphors, similes, and vernacular a character might use, during narration. I'd use it in 3rd Om.

Ultimately, it would be a question on when and how to pull closer and farther away. A paragraph focused mostly on one character might read as if it could fit quite easily in that character's 3rd limited story, but the next paragraph that focuses on a different character would feel like it could belong in _his_ third limited story. This sort of thing. There would be sections that were multi-paragraph for one character before switching to the other. But then, there would be sections from a more overhead, distant POV also.

I feel I'm a bit obsessed with working out how to do this sort of thing effectively, heh.


----------



## Vaporo (Jun 15, 2019)

FifthView said:


> So borrowing from a well-known story for a quick example, I might start out Harry's story with an opening set on the first day at Hogwarts, using a paragraph something like this:
> 
> Harry gripped the long dining table as if it could save him should he be called and sorted into Slytherin, despite the problem with normal operations of cause and effect. He had no clue that Draco Malfoy, sitting two tables over, watched him while casually reclining from _his_ table; nor did he know that Draco had already targeted him for future humiliations regardless of the house Harry was sorted into. Draco hated Harry's notoriety, which already far surpassed his own, and also the fact that Harry's features were symmetrical, not longish and narrow like his.​


​Ah. Now, I know that this is just a quick example, but I see this sort of thing so often and it's exactly what I was talking about when I said that omniscient tends to tell instead of show. Instead of illustrating Draco's distaste for Harry (e.g. "Draco sneered as he reclined in his desk. What had Harry done? Survived a spell. That was all. Yet, _he_ was the one with a constant stream of admirers, not Draco. _He_ was the one who was put on the front page of newspapers. _He_ was the one who ruined his family's position at the right hand of the Dark Lord. Look at him over there, with his perfect face and his perfect friends, completely oblivious to his own fame. Why couldn't he have been sorted into Slytherin? It would have made humiliating him so much easier.") You just _tell_ me that Draco dislikes Harry. I mean, even in that quick rewrite it was tempting to just tell the reader what was going on because I'm working from a perspective that supposedly knows everything, so why beat around the bush when I could just get it over with?


----------



## Chessie2 (Jun 15, 2019)

Demesnedenoir said:


> If I ever get around to doing Third Om, I would do it with a true narrator’s, or story-teller’s, voice like one was sitting around a campfire listening to a story.


Yes, but it's not you the author doing the storytelling. 

For example, my 1940s novels are written in omniscient. In the second book I pretended to be someone who worked with the main characters and related to the reader how everything unfolded. The reader doesn't learn the identity of the individual telling the story--and she was the same individual who told the story in book one of the series as well. You--the author--basically take on the voice of someone other than yourself even though it's you writing the story.


----------



## FifthView (Jun 15, 2019)

Vaporo said:


> ​Ah. Now, I know that this is just a quick example, but I see this sort of thing so often and it's exactly what I was talking about when I said that omniscient tends to tell instead of show. Instead of illustrating Draco's distaste for Harry (e.g. "Draco sneered as he reclined in his desk. What had Harry done? Survived a spell. That was all. Yet, _he_ was the one with a constant stream of admirers, not Draco. _He_ was the one who was put on the front page of newspapers. _He_ was the one who ruined his family's position at the right hand of the Dark Lord. Look at him over there, with his perfect face and his perfect friends, completely oblivious to his own fame. Why couldn't he have been sorted into Slytherin? It would have made humiliating him so much easier.") You just _tell_ me that Draco dislikes Harry. I mean, even in that quick rewrite it was tempting to just tell the reader what was going on because I'm working from a perspective that supposedly knows everything, so why beat around the bush when I could just get it over with?



So is beating around the bush a more enjoyable method, not storyteller but story-beater-around-the-bush?  Heh.

I think the sort of histrionic character voice in your example would work, but I don't think it's the only way to build a good story. In fact, that sort of voice is what annoys me about some limited POV writing, particularly when the main character always ratchets up to a 10, is angsty, confused, upset, etc., and rants. I do like that sort of character—but sometimes, I like it better from a distance than up close. An overhead view.

Telling is not always a bad thing, and showing isn't only about having lengthy paragraphs of free indirect speech. 

Third limited is an odd thing, because there really is a separate narrator from the POV character; the narrator's just ventriloquizing. For instance, Malfoy in your example isn't referring to himself as "he." That's a separate narrator. Also, I doubt that Malfoy's thoughts about Harry, in that moment, are as coherent and structured as those sentences you've used. Yet, this method of ventriloquizing acts as sleight-of-hand; we readers are meant to understand that each of these issues has piqued his ire in the past. It's a clever way for the narrator to tell us this, hiding behind that mask of free indirect speech.

Rowling opened the first HP book with this paragraph:

_Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much. They were the last people you'd expect to be involved in anything strange or mysterious, because they just didn't hold with such nonsense._

We were told the Dursley couple were proud to be normal, also that they didn't hold with strange and mysterious nonsense. Telling things like this early in the tale can set the stage—so that we can move on to more interesting things. We don't need two pages of histrionic interior character voices, heh. Telling has this useful result of allowing us to convey things quickly when dwelling upon them would ruin the pace, possibly lead to boredom for the reader, and maybe even push the story in a wrong direction. (On that last point: We readers don't really need to dwell on the Dursley mindset for this story; the story isn't about _them_.)

That first HP chapter is written in omniscient. In my example, I probably ventriloquized the ventriloquist—erm, well, I had Rowling's style for that chapter in the back of my mind. But you're right, it was a quick example, and since posting it I've thought about how I might revise it were it more than that. My primary point in that post was to suggest that leading with an obviously omniscient approach might be a good strategy if the whole book is going to be omniscient. (And there are other ways to do this than what I did, I think....)


----------



## Vaporo (Jun 15, 2019)

Well, an angsty, brooding, melodramatic teenager is exactly the character I was trying to portray so... success?

But yes, I agree. There are countless ways to tell a story, and as an opener I don't mind telling vs. showing as much, but I still think that I'd prefer my approach over yours in most cases. For some reason, I can't help but read that sort of writing in a pretentious-sounding British accent. Personal preference, though. Not saying that one is necessarily better than the other. However, my point is that sometimes there will be an entire book written like your example, or at least with several out-of-place segments like it, and usually I find such books extremely tedious to read.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 15, 2019)

Not necessarily, although this is most often the case. A true oral tradition narrative wouldn't have a narrator pretending to be anything but a story-teller. 



Chessie2 said:


> Yes, but it's not you the author doing the storytelling.
> 
> For example, my 1940s novels are written in omniscient. In the second book I pretended to be someone who worked with the main characters and related to the reader how everything unfolded. The reader doesn't learn the identity of the individual telling the story--and she was the same individual who told the story in book one of the series as well. You--the author--basically take on the voice of someone other than yourself even though it's you writing the story.


----------



## FifthView (Jun 16, 2019)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Not necessarily, although this is most often the case. A true oral tradition narrative wouldn't have a narrator pretending to be anything but a story-teller.



I think the narrator is likely to be viewed as a person separate from the author either way, unless it's an autobiographical novel. 

This probably relates to that old saying that you are three people: the person you think you are, the person others think you are, and the person you really are. (Paraphrasing. Was it Emerson who first used this?)

Being aware that others may think we are a certain something when they encounter our words, we may be more likely to put on airs when choosing those words. Heh. It's a kind of performance piece. The storyteller is a persona. I'd like to think that ye old storytellers in the oral tradition were like actors putting on a performance; maybe they'd slink offstage, drink some hard liquor and beat their dogs while cursing their audience--who knows? 

Maybe they'd have seen themselves hit the mark, and the liquor afterward is celebratory.  But young Galen and his friends slunk off confused and a little irritated that the storyteller's story didn't make much sense but the old man was probably trying to teach them some moral lesson anyway. Whereas, he wasn't. Or was he?

Anywho. If you attempted to tell us a tale in your own voice, or to be the narrator, and your story is set in Narnia or Midkemia, I would think you were lying to me or else that the narrator isn't you. You can't have real knowledge about fictional worlds, but a fictional narrator can seem to have real knowledge about fictional worlds.

A live oral telling probably blurred the distinctions, in the same way an actor on stage delivering a monologue can seem to be that character delivering it. I don't think the same blurring can happen as easily in written fiction. But this might not matter much to the reader who simply encounters a narrator telling a great tale. The question, "Is this the author narrating directly?" probably won't even arise; it's unimportant. However, as a writer, you're obviously going to be careful in crafting a narrator, insofar as you are choosing particular words to accomplish particular things, heh.  You'll want the reader to trust the narrator who knows all about elves and such.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 16, 2019)

I would call this a great deal of overthinking. “Performing” doesn’t change who the narrator is by default.

When reading A Tale of Two Cities would I ever consider the narrator is anybody other than Dickens? Hell no. Dune is narrated by Frank Herbert.

If I drop into Third Om it’s me, not some mythical bloke named narrator. In fact, in Sundering the Gods, outside of dialogue and internalized thoughts, the narrator is “me” relaying the information I’m relaying. I’m not trying to craft a narrator at all. I already have one. It’s me. Why would I try to make another one? If this Narrator isn’t going to do something useful for me, like do my shopping, I’m not going to bother creating him.

This notion of thinking the writer is lying to you because its placed in a mythical world mystifies me... It’s a story. It is neither a lie nor the truth. Much like politics.


----------



## Mythopoet (Jun 17, 2019)

I feel like there's a disconnect in the terminology. When reading, there is a huge difference to me between omniscient third where there is a distinct narrative voice and omniscient third where there is no distinct narrative voice. Yes, technically the term is used to refer to both but to me they feel like such hugely different styles that I think there should be separate terms. For example...



Demesnedenoir said:


> When reading A Tale of Two Cities would I ever consider the narrator is anybody other than Dickens? Hell no.



I agree with this. Most books, at one point in time, were written this way. Authors took on the role as storyteller/narrator who sees all naturally. However, that changed very drastically in more contemporary times.



Demesnedenoir said:


> Dune is narrated by Frank Herbert.



This I disagree with. Dune isn't narrated by anyone. From the reader's perspective, its just exists, forming in your mind from the words themselves, no one is telling it to you. 

Because that's what a narrator does. They _tell_ you a story. But within the last century pretty much all fiction writing has moved away from that idea. Most writing advice/instruction I have come across tells the writer to distance themselves from the narrative as much as possible. Don't put a voice in your exposition unless it's from the point of view of a specific character. The reader should completely forget that anyone wrote this book. The author doesn't exist once the story begins. Show, don't tell. Books are written more and more often these days as if they were movies. A series of images is presented to your eyes. There is no narrator, no source for the story. It simply is. 

Now, I won't claim that there's necessarily anything wrong with this style of storytelling. Though most of the time it doesn't appeal to me. So whenever I come across a book with a distinct narrative voice with an omniscient pov that is well written it's really refreshing to me.


----------



## FifthView (Jun 17, 2019)

In fiction, I think a narrator who is separate from the author is created by default when the author crafts the narrative.

I would go further than Mythopoet. Although we should be careful to distinguish the storyteller narrator with a distinct, fictional personality from a more hidden omniscient narrator, both sorts are crafted in the crafting of the tale.

This creation of a narrator doesn't require the picturing of some mythical bloke with an obvious personality distinct from the author's personality that will color the narrative. For the more obvious storyteller voice, yes, picturing this other fictional person will probably be necessary—although I think some of it can be as instinctive as being able to write a distinctive character voice when you have that character firmly appearing in your head.

Perhaps creating the other sort of omniscient narrator, the sort not obviously inserting himself, can rely more on instinct—as you say, it's "you"—but even so, the words you create are crafted and the result is a narrator who is not you. The reader doesn't have access to you, but only to the words you've given them.

This last point comes more into focus when considering fictional worlds populated by fictional characters involved in fictional events. The reader has a sense that someone is telling him the story. If the story begins by telling the reader that "Robed figures" huddle "in an oasis of flickering brazier light as bones hit the cave floor," then having the feeling that the person narrating this _is there _ or at least _was there_  (however far overhead, or close) lends authenticity. This isn't a tall tale, an author fabricating a fiction; the world being described is real _now_.

At least, that's the sort of goal most genre fiction has. I suppose the sort of silly, "tall tale" impression —_man, this guy is just lying to us, but it's fantastic!_—might be the target for some authors in some tales. Even then, I'd say the author's putting on the robe of "tall tale fabricator" and creating just such a narrator separate from himself.

Incidentally, cracking this open even further..._who_ is telling me that the flickering brazier light is an _oasis_? That's a subjective evaluation and requires the sense of a person who can exist and so _be_ subjective. I think the author chose well with that description; but the result for me is a narrator who 1) is able to make subjective evaluations and 2) will insert his own voice into the tale even if the author didn't picture him as a completely separate persona. Reading that, I don't know the author. I don't need to know the author. But I'm pretty sure the author wasn't in that cave at that time witnessing the event.



Demesnedenoir said:


> I would call this a great deal of overthinking. “Performing” doesn’t change who the narrator is by default.
> 
> When reading A Tale of Two Cities would I ever consider the narrator is anybody other than Dickens? Hell no. Dune is narrated by Frank Herbert.
> 
> ...


----------



## FifthView (Jun 20, 2019)

Demesnedenoir said:


> When reading A Tale of Two Cities would I ever consider the narrator is anybody other than Dickens? Hell no.



Not to beat a dead horse, or maybe yes to beat it...

Dickens can't be telling me the story; because, he's dead. When he was alive and writing it, he couldn't have been telling it to me because I did not exist.

I suppose he may have felt he was telling the story to all future generations, but this is a hazy thing for me. Anyone can pick up the book and read it, even without knowing anything about Dickens, and encounter a disembodied narrator, a narrator "alive" in the book. Does this narrator have Dickens' voice? Yes, probably. Will a reader 500 years from now, who has zero knowledge of the specifics of ancient literary scenes and figures, be able to make this assessment? Will the question of the author's identity matter?

If the future reader is a literary archaeologist, will they be able to say much that is definitive about the real Dickens? I think there will be obvious clues, but these won't create the whole picture. Who was Shakespeare? (A writing prompt for a science fiction story: the protagonist is a literary archaeologist.  This field arose because the past being studied has been preserved in discourse—fiction, Twitter, on thumb drives chockablock full of documents—whereas much else about that time period has disappeared into history. Set it 1000 years in the future, or at whatever distance makes most sense. Perhaps the protagonist is a citizen of another planet, and the ancient home planet, Earth, has just been rediscovered.)

I don't think Dickens needed to be asking these same questions when writing the book, at least not consciously, although I do wonder if he might have wondered how the book would be received long, long after he became dust.


----------

