# In Defense of the Omniscient PoV



## Jabrosky (Sep 1, 2012)

Certain writing "authorities" have declared writing scenes with an omniscient point of view a cardinal sin, insisting instead that we limit ourselves to either first-person or third-person limited. Those PoVs have their places, but in this thread I will advocate for using the omniscient PoV in certain circumstances. Let me articulate as best as I can:

When I imagine a scene in my stories playing out, I don't picture myself looking through my protagonists' eyes, as if I were playing a first-person shooter video game. I picture myself looking _at_ them, as if I was watching a movie. In fact I picture everything in my story as if a movie camera was recording it. Think of the omniscient PoV as functioning like a movie camera, recording not only the MCs but also supporting characters and the environment. 

This movie camera-like PoV has a critical advantage in that it allows you to record more of the setting and the characters' visual appearances than the more limited PoVs. For example, similar to a movie camera, the omniscient PoV can provide the reader a more panoramic view of an entire environment than one character's limited vision can perceive. Additionally the movie camera PoV allows us to better describe how our protagonists look than more limited PoVs, since protagonists probably wouldn't think about their own appearances all the time. The omniscient PoV has wonderful potential as a tool for communicating visual images. Since I'm a very visually-minded writer, I for one would love to use it.

It's true that limited PoVs have the advantage of better immersion into individual characters' thoughts, but IMO that kind of stuff can come later after setting up the scene.


----------



## Ankari (Sep 1, 2012)

The problem with omniscient point of view is that you have no excuse for hiding things from the reader.  This eliminates the element of surprise.  Also, when you eliminate the filter of Third Person Limited, you're distancing your reader from the character.


----------



## Jabrosky (Sep 1, 2012)

Ankari said:


> The problem with omniscient point of view is that you have no excuse for hiding things from the reader.  This eliminates the element of surprise.


You don't understand my movie camera analogy, do you? Movie cameras don't have to show us _everything _that happens in a story. They simply show us a _greater variety _of things happening than one character's PoV. No one complains about movies "hiding things" or "eliminating the element of surprise" from viewers simply because the camera shows us more than one individual's eyesight could.

I should add that I personally advocate using omniscient mainly to set up scenes and introducing main characters' visual appearances. If you have a better way of accomplishing those goals, let's hear it.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Sep 1, 2012)

I think the distinction between limited and omniscient is somewhat arbitrary. It's good form to show the reader early on how close you're going to get to your characters, but you can ride on a character's shoulder without letting her dictate the story. (In general, I stay farthest away when writing characters who're meant to be unlikeable, and get closest to characters who're at least partly sympathetic.)


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 1, 2012)

Nothing wrong with writing an omniscient POV if that's what you want to do. It certainly isn't necessary, as none of the various POVs you might choose are necessary, but it is a valid option.


----------



## Jabrosky (Sep 1, 2012)

I should admit exactly why I like the idea of omniscient so much (besides the fact that it works well with my visual thinking style):

I have a strong need to describe my characters' visual appearances whenever I introduce them. Especially physical characteristics. Most of my stories have "exotic" settings different from the standard Ye Olde European Middle Ages, so a lot of my characters are so-called people of color. What really terrifies me is the possibility that, were someone to adapt my stories into film or fan art, my non-white protagonists might get "whitewashed" or at least lightened up. For example, if I were to write a black heroine, especially one who was supposed to be attractive, Hollywood would cast someone like Beyonce or Zoe Saldana to play her in the movie version unless I specified how dark she really was.

Unfortunately the third limited PoV isn't really conducive to describing protagonists' appearances since, as mentioned earlier, most protagonists probably won't consciously think about their appearances in most contexts. Only omniscient would allow me to clarify that.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 1, 2012)

Go for it. Omniscient POV has been used to great effect. It is less common now than it used to be, but it is still used. If you have any doubt that a fantasy can work in omniscient POV, look no further than _Lord of the Rings,_ because that's what Tolkien used.

With respect to the movie/screenplay thing - unless you have a great deal of clout a director is going to do whatever they want with the script. Authors generally don't get much say. They could cast someone light-skinned no matter how dark you describe the person in the book (or even in screenplay; they don't care). Of course, you can always say 'no' to the person who wants movie rights, or demand control. But as a new person to the scene, that will probably just mean no deal.


----------



## Jabrosky (Sep 1, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Go for it. Omniscient POV has been used to great effect. It is less common now than it used to be, but it is still used. If you have any doubt that a fantasy can work in omniscient POV, look no further than _Lord of the Rings,_ because that's what Tolkien used.


I know Robert E. Howard used it to great effect in his _Conan the Barbarian_ stories, and while I don't agree with his typically 1930s social attitudes, he's somewhat of a literary inspiration and perhaps influence for me.

Anyway, back to writing!


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 1, 2012)

Yes, I like Howard and Lovecraft both, and Lovecraft was probably the worse of the two in terms of attitude about dark-skinned peoples. I don't condone it. I simply try to place them in historical context and enjoy the works for what they are given the time period.


----------



## Penpilot (Sep 1, 2012)

If Omniscient is what you think works for you, then by all means go for it. Just be aware of the trade-offs. With omniscient it's harder to get the reader to engage emotionally. This isn't to say it can't be done. It's just, in general, its harder to do. Actually, omniscient is IMHO probably the hardest POV to write well. The prose tends, to me at least, sound dated and old fashion if it's not done well.

One choice you have to make is do you want the omniscient narrator to have a distinct voice or do you want them to just blend in with the background? Also choosing what to reveal, and when becomes more tricky because you can reveal everything or nothing at any moment, and you may run into issues of the reader feeling they're being led along unfairly.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Sep 1, 2012)

There's more to omni POV than just panned out cameras looking down on the setting & characters. What makes omni difficult to do well is the need to understand the thoughts and motivations of all the characters in a scene & how those interactions play out.

There's certainly nothing wrong with writing in omni POV. Go for it. However, there's one comment I'll make... In my own experience, & this might be specific to me, I grew as a writer when I stopped viewing scenes like movie footage and started thinking through a character's emotional or sensory experiences.

Either way... Give it a whirl. It might work perfect for your voice.


----------



## FireBird (Sep 2, 2012)

Whenever I tell people not to do omni I'm not doing it because I'm incredibly biased against it or something like that. I do it because as a new writer omni is VERY HARD to do correctly. It is even harder now because a good portion of readers want to be immersed in the character they are reading about and omni can't do that very well. 

I think that comparing movies to books is like comparing apples to oranges. They are two completely different art forms and must be judged differently as well. You just can't say that having a camera follow a character will work wonderfully in books because it does in movies. 



> This movie camera-like PoV has a critical advantage in that it allows you to record more of the setting and the characters' visual appearances than the more limited PoVs.





> It's true that limited PoVs have the advantage of better immersion into individual characters' thoughts, but IMO that kind of stuff can come later after setting up the scene.



I strongly disagree about your points here. Honestly, and I know I'm not alone, I don't care about knowing every detail of someones appearence. Setting by itself is very rarely ever interesting. It's the character telling you about the setting that makes it interesting. I WANT to be immersed in the character(s) that I'm reading about from the first page to the last. Immersion into thoughts should come FIRST, not later. You as an author shouldn't be setting the scene, the characters should be. Immersion is what makes books interesting. If I'm reading a book and I'm always aware I'm reading a book the author has failed in my opinion.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 2, 2012)

There is no reason you can't create character immersion with an omniscient point of view. In fact, the omniscient POV can allow you to immerse the reader in the thoughts and feelings of as many characters as you like, without limiting that perspective to a few viewpoint characters. That is one of the reasons one might choose an omniscient POV.


----------



## Ankari (Sep 2, 2012)

> There is no reason you can't create character immersion with an omniscient point of view. In fact, the omniscient POV can allow you to immerse the reader in the thoughts and feelings of as many characters as you like, without limiting that perspective to a few viewpoint characters. That is one of the reasons one might choose an omniscient POV.



I would hazard to say that most wouldn't consider omniscient as offering immersion but detail.  The reader would know everyone character's thoughts, motives, features, and failings.  Paradoxically, this is a bit distancing.  If you recall the excerpt I posted from Steven Erikson, telling means you don't trust the reader.  Well, omniscient is pretty much _telling_ all the time.  Nothing is left to the imagination, not even events that the characters of a scene should have not business knowing but will eventually impact the characters. 

If I recall correctly, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but Glen Cook did a hybrid omniscient/third person limited approach to his Dread Empire series.  I liked how he did it.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 2, 2012)

I don't agree that omniscient is telling all the time. I'm not sure you have to tell any more in omniscient POV than in any other POV. You can tell if you wish, and if you feel it is appropriate, but it is not a limitation of the POV.

I haven't read Cook's _Dread Empire_ books. They are on my list


----------



## Ankari (Sep 2, 2012)

> I haven't read Cook's Dread Empire books. They are on my list



My friend, you spend too much time on these forums.  Log off and go read it.  I actually thought they were better than some of the Black Company books.  Not all, but some.

PS: I'm only jesting about "too much time."  I seem to rub a few hairs the wrong way lately.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 2, 2012)

Hmmmm. With that comparison to _The Black Company_ series maybe I should move them to the top of my list. They've been on my to-read list for ages, and something else always seems to find its way to the top of the stack 

Also, no need to qualify anything to say in response to me. I'm not easily offended or rubbed the wrong way.


----------



## FireBird (Sep 2, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> There is no reason you can't create character immersion with an omniscient point of view. In fact, the omniscient POV can allow you to immerse the reader in the thoughts and feelings of as many characters as you like, without limiting that perspective to a few viewpoint characters. That is one of the reasons one might choose an omniscient POV.



I wasn't talking about omni in the second half of my post. I was talking about a camera-follow pov. You can create good character immersion with omni if you can write it well, but limited just works so much better as far as that goes.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 2, 2012)

FireBird said:


> You can create good character immersion with omni if you can write it well, but limited just works so much better as far as that goes.



I'm still not sure I follow. Why does limited work better? What are you thinking that you can do with limited that you can't do in omniscient? Seems to me you can do the same thing with an omniscient POV. Can you think of an example of what you mean?


----------



## Ankari (Sep 2, 2012)

> Can you think of an example of what you mean?



My problem is that with limited we go by what the character knows.  Even if its wrong.  We may _know_ the truth, but we are lead to believe it _is_ the truth.

With omniscient this, by definition, can't be done.  So the writer can't purposefully mislead the reader.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 2, 2012)

Ankari said:


> My problem is that with limited we go by what the character knows.  Even if its wrong.  We may _know_ the truth, but we are lead to believe it _is_ the truth.
> 
> With omniscient this, by definition, can't be done.  So the writer can't purposefully mislead the reader.



Is that true? An omniscient narrator can dip into any head he wishes, but isn't obliged to do so. I can dip into the head of a character who is mistaken about something. Think of something like _The Brothers Karamazov_. That's an omniscient narrator, as I recall, and yet there is certainly some misdirection as to who committed the murder, and the reader doesn't know all along who it was.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 2, 2012)

Also, another thought: _The Lord of the Rings_ uses an omniscient POV, and yet Tolkien allows the reader to wonder about the 'white wizard' who appears when Gimil, Aragorn, and Legolas are trying to find Pippin and Merry in the forest, not letting on as to their mistaken belief that it is Saruman rather than Gandalf returned to them.


----------



## Ankari (Sep 2, 2012)

Perhaps my problem is that I don't read a lot of omniscient books.  I couldn't read LotR.  The first chapter made sure of that.  I've read Robert E Howard books and those are straight forward.  I can't recall any misdirection.  As I said, Glen Cook's Dread Empire seems to use omniscient in parts.


----------



## FireBird (Sep 2, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I'm still not sure I follow. Why does limited work better? What are you thinking that you can do with limited that you can't do in omniscient? Seems to me you can do the same thing with an omniscient POV. Can you think of an example of what you mean?



In my opinion omni is best at setting immersion. Seeing the same thing through so many character's povs can be downright amazing at times. 

To me limited is much more grounded and feels so much more real than omni. I want to NOT know everything the characters know. Sometimes I want to be left in the dark to wonder. In limited I can put myself in one character's head and be them. I can feel their emotions and empathize with them because I don't know anything that they don't know. In limited I can truly feel an emotion like fear in all situations. In omni I will know whether that fear is justified or not. I don't want to know that. Reading about a character that is afraid and yet knowing that they have nothing to be afraid of isn't interesting to me. To me character immersion can sometimes be more about what you don't know than what you do.

I guess the whole idea of omni doesn't appeal to me. Knowing what everyone is planning and just watching the outcome is not as interesting as not knowing what everyone is planning. Right now in the back of my mind I'm imagining reading A Song of Ice and Fire in omni.


----------



## Ankari (Sep 2, 2012)

> In my opinion omni is best at setting immersion. Seeing the same thing through so many character's povs can be downright amazing at times.



But wouldn't multiple third person limited work even better?


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 2, 2012)

Firebird - an omniscient narrator doesn't have to tell you what every character knows. Often they don't. With an omniscient POV, the narrator can do if desired, but there is no requirement for it.

Using LOTR again, for example...Gandalf knows he isn't Saruman when he is in white in Fangorn. But the reader doesn't find out it is him and not Saruman until the three characters who come upon him do. Likewise, in The Brother's Karamazov, the narrator knows the murderer, and the murderer knows who he is, but the reader doesn't find out until the confession. 

An omniscient POV means a narrator can pull back as far as he wants, or jump freely into the head of whoever he wants at any time. He is not obligated to divulge every bit of information that every character knows.


----------



## FireBird (Sep 2, 2012)

> An omniscient POV means a narrator can pull back as far as he wants, or jump freely into the head of whoever he wants at any time. He is not obligated to divulge every bit of information that every character knows.



Wouldn't this be jarring though? Randomly hopping into someones head and then pulling back, only to jump again. When you head hop and then you skip a head, that tells you something. I'm starting to think that I'm misunderstanding omni a bit.



> Likewise, in The Brother's Karamazov, the narrator knows the murderer, and the murderer knows who he is, but the reader doesn't find out until the confession.



I was under the impression that omni followed one pov at a time hopping between paragraphs when needed. If someone is narrating the whole story is it still omni?


----------



## Penpilot (Sep 2, 2012)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> In my own experience, & this might be specific to me, I grew as a writer when I stopped viewing scenes like movie footage and started thinking through a character's emotional or sensory experiences.



You're definitely not the only one. This is my experience too.



FireBird said:


> Wouldn't this be jarring though? Randomly hopping into someones head and then pulling back, only to jump again. When you head hop and then you skip a head, that tells you something. I'm starting to think that I'm misunderstanding omni a bit.



This is one of the reasons writing Omni is so difficult. To have the skill to move around from head to head without it giving a reader epileptic seizures is paramount. 



FireBird said:


> I was under the impression that omni followed one pov at a time hopping between paragraphs when needed. If someone is narrating the whole story is it still omni?



Third person, from my understanding, is all one narrator. In Omni the narrator knows all and can relate all. In limited the narrator is limited to the POV character's knowledge of the world. In each you can express a very distinct voice and personality or not. 

Think of Omni as your grandfather taking you on their knee and relating a story about their youth to you. He knows the whole story and all its secrets, so he can tease you in its telling, leaving bits out or expanding on things using his knowledge of future and past events.

FYI: One classic book I know that's written in Omni and reveals all the characters motivations is Dune.


----------



## Lorna (Sep 2, 2012)

I think writing omniscient is immensely difficult to do. The main problem I've had with writing omniscient is when and where to feed in information. In 1st person / 3 person limited you give away what your character knows / thinks as they move through the plot. 

Also, an omniscient narrator is a character in themselves, the person who gives voice to the world and colours the world as much or more than the characters. 

I've found this viewpoint in older books such as Leguin's _Earthsea Quartet_ and Michael Moorcock's _Eternal Champion_ series. Whilst I enjoyed these stories immensely I often wonder what it would have been like to see Ged and Elric's experiences through their eyes and experienced their sensations and emotions.

@ TAS


> In my own experience, & this might be specific to me, I grew as a writer when I stopped viewing scenes like movie footage and started thinking through a character's emotional or sensory experiences.


I definitely agree with this. When I first started writing I began with omniscient and experimented with a bit of what I've seen termed here as 'head hopping.' My novel improved when I began using third person limited but is still a far cry from being as engaging as I would like it to be. For this reason I'm thinking about experimenting with writing in the first person.


----------



## FireBird (Sep 2, 2012)

> Third person, from my understanding, is all one narrator. In Omni the narrator knows all and can relate all. In limited the narrator is limited to the POV character's knowledge of the world. In each you can express a very distinct voice and personality or not.



Thats just the thing. In 3rd limited there is no outside narrator. The character is telling us everything. Narration is a completely different type of pov. In omni I'm not sure if you can pull out and explain things as a narrator or have to use a character to do it. I feel like I've completely botched this subject.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 2, 2012)

In omniscient, you can pull out and explain. The writer can editorialize, if she wants to. The narrator may become a "character" in and of itself, dipping into heads for a close perspective through the character's eyes, pulling out to give a broad perspective or even to comment, and so on. I think part of the reason people have a hard time writing it is precisely because you can do anything along these lines, and it is difficult to make it all work well together.


----------



## Penpilot (Sep 2, 2012)

FireBird said:


> Thats just the thing. In 3rd limited there is no outside narrator. The character is telling us everything. Narration is a completely different type of pov.



Actually there is an outside narrator in 3rd limited. By definition third person is told by well... a third person. If the character is telling us everything then it's first person. In limited, the narrator's knowledge is limited to what the POV character knows and the only thoughts the can be heard are from the single POV character. Third limited is often described as riding on the POV character's shoulder. 

I think you may be getting confused between narration and hearing a character's thoughts. In third limited it can be hard to tell which is which because the narrator tends to be invisible and the prose is more subservient to the character's voice.


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 2, 2012)

Third person limited is also known as third person intimate... because you can get inside your character's head. The issue seems to be how close or how distant you choose to be with that, zooming in or out so to speak. The psychic distance - where the reader/narrator stands in regard with the character and how it moves from one to the other. E.g being deep inside one character's head, to jumping deep inside another is where the problem of jarring the reader arises - too quick to catch the transition, it's how to do it slowly that's the problem.


----------



## FireBird (Sep 2, 2012)

> I think you may be getting confused between narration and hearing a character's thoughts. In third limited it can be hard to tell which is which because the narrator tends to be invisible and the prose is more subservient to the character's voice.



This.

The narrator should be invisible, which is why I really don't think there is one. You can say that someone is telling the story, but it is the voice of the character that is telling it to you.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 2, 2012)

But it is not the case that the narrator should always be invisible. It is a stylistic choice. Some authors may want the narrator to be conspicuous at times.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Sep 2, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> But it is not the case that the narrator should always be invisible. It is a stylistic choice. Some authors may want the narrator to be conspicuous at times.



Yes. In some cases the narrator must be visible to carry the story as intended. Most of the time we read things where the narrator should disappear into the background but some excellent books have been written where the narration is as much a character as any single entity in the story.


----------



## Penpilot (Sep 2, 2012)

FireBird said:


> The narrator should be invisible, which is why I really don't think there is one. You can say that someone is telling the story, but it is the voice of the character that is telling it to you.



If that's the way you prefer to think of it fine, but it's still not the character's voice. The narration can be and is generally colored by the pov character's voice but it's still not them. It can be subtle, but there is a difference.

As for unique authorial voice, Gaiman has a unique voice/presence in his third limited books. To me it's a part of his appeal.


----------



## ChristielleKeenan (Sep 7, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> There is no reason you can't create character immersion with an omniscient point of view. In fact, the omniscient POV can allow you to immerse the reader in the thoughts and feelings of as many characters as you like, without limiting that perspective to a few viewpoint characters. That is one of the reasons one might choose an omniscient POV.



This is a major issue for me for some reason. I begin writing in Omni pov. I think I am doing it wrong though. Does one need to put an actual page break between each pov as it changes from one character to another? or is it acceptable to just continue on. I have read many things about this and many times, the suggestion is to start a new chapter when pov changes from one character to another. Can someone help me with this? thank you


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 7, 2012)

ChristielleKeenan said:


> This is a major issue for me for some reason. I begin writing in Omni pov. I think I am doing it wrong though. Does one need to put an actual page break between each pov as it changes from one character to another? or is it acceptable to just continue on. I have read many things about this and many times, the suggestion is to start a new chapter when pov changes from one character to another. Can someone help me with this? thank you



Typically, people suggest at least a break in the page. Some people like to see you start a new chapter. The advice of using a break is provided because it can be difficult to transition effectively without them. In other words, the break provides an easy visual cue for the reader that says you are changing POV.

That said, there is no reason you can't hop between heads within a given paragraph. I've seen this done effectively by good writers. I believe Virginia Woolf, in at least one story, switched through multiple POVs in a single paragraph and even switched between two POVs in the course of a sentence. The danger in trying this approach is that it won't be half as effective as you think it is, and that will have a negative effect on the reader. As writers, we always know what we mean, so sometimes it is hard to determine whether a reader will be able to follow it as well.


----------



## ChristielleKeenan (Sep 7, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Typically, people suggest at least a break in the page. Some people like to see you start a new chapter. The advice of using a break is provided because it can be difficult to transition effectively without them. In other words, the break provides an easy visual cue for the reader that says you are changing POV.
> 
> That said, there is no reason you can't hop between heads within a given paragraph. I've seen this done effectively by good writers. I believe Virginia Woolf, in at least one story, switched through multiple POVs in a single paragraph and even switched between two POVs in the course of a sentence. The danger in trying this approach is that it won't be half as effective as you think it is, and that will have a negative effect on the reader. As writers, we always know what we mean, so sometimes it is hard to determine whether a reader will be able to follow it as well.



Very well put. I need to go back and re-think how I am doing things. See if there is a better way of transitioning between my characters. Perhaps I will write it several ways, then post them here? thank you


----------

