In Defense of the Omniscient PoV

[Jabrosky]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.