# Why has the omniscient narrator disappeared?



## Lara Blunte (Dec 11, 2015)

I am new to commercial fiction -- well, I've been writing romance, which is actually not what I read, or at least I don't read the contemporary ones.

I wrote a 19th century story and now get flack from other writers because it "switches POV" -- this, when 10,000 people read it online and had no problem following the POV which doesn't even switch that much.

The only people who say "it makes their heads spin" are writers! No problem for 15 year-old girls, people whose native language isn't English...

How do these writers read actual 19th century fiction, then? Or any fiction before this trend began to be enforced?

From what I understand this has started because a man called Orson Scott Card wrote a book saying there should only be a POV per chapter. One of the writers told me it was Orson Welles who said that -- knowing Welles' penchant to break any rule,  I doubted it.

Can it be that Scott Card (whose writings don't seem to have made it to any eternal hall of fame) was just trying to minimize the possible damage by people venturing out to tell their tales and being quite loose at attributing dialogues and thoughts?

How can we have lost the omniscient narrator? A story in the 19th century BEGS for one! Imagine the wonderful ball scene in Anna Karenina, where Tolstoy turns around the thoughts and feelings of Anna, Vronsky and Kitty, if it had to be written with one POV!

And, I am sorry, but WHY are we forced to submit to this? Why are other writers so quick to fall on this terrible rule-breaking? A scene, a book, is either will written or not, why the need to hold up the yellow or the red card and whistle?

To me the whole point of writing is finding your voice and putting it to good use. I can understand someone saying that my novel is bad, or whatever, but that it doesn't follow a rule?

Why should I follow a rule if it doesn't help my writing and is only restrictive?

I only ever read the old romances -- the Brontes, Tolstoy, Austen, Eliot -- they were splendid. They were omniscient. I don't see why that has to absolutely die.

After being read by almost 10,000 people, on top of it, I can definitely tell it's not the readers minding!

Do you have thoughts on this? I am at a loss to understand!


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Lara Blunte said:


> From what I understand this has started because a man called Orson Scott Card wrote a book saying there should only be a POV per chapter. One of the writers told me it was Orson Welles who said that -- knowing Welles' penchant to break any rule, I doubted it.
> 
> Can it be that Scott Card (whose writings don't seem to have made it to any eternal hall of fame) was just trying to minimize the possible damage by people venturing out to tell their tales and being quite loose at attributing dialogues and thoughts?


Uhm, Orson Scott Card is a winner of multiple Hugo, Nebula and Locus Awards. His novel _Ender's Game_ is a beloved science fiction classic, can be found on the reading lists of lots schools throughout the English speaking world and was filmed a couple of years ago. We can't be sure if his writings will last and make it to any eternal hall of fame, but he's pretty damn famous in the here and now and I suspect that at least _Ender's Game_ will remain popular for a couples of decades yet, unless his political rantings completely destroy his credibility.

I also don't think you can blame Orson Scott Card for the demise of the omniscient narrator, since the omniscient narrator had been declining for decades before Orson Scott Card started writing or was even born. His book on writing science fiction and fantasy, where that quote probably originates, was published in 1990. My highschool German teacher told us that the omniscient narrator was dead, not to mention hopelessly old-fashioned, a few years earlier and he sure as hell did not have the power to declare any literary device dead either. If you want to blame anyone for the demise of the omniscient narrator, blame the modernists of the early 20th century.

And of course it is still possible to use an omniscient narrator today, though it's unusual and hardly ever done in romance, which is dominated by limited third person with a recent resurgence of first person narrators in some subgenres. Even headhopping (which is not the same as omniscient narration) happens quite frequently in romance. Nora Roberts/J.D. Robb headhops a lot and hasn't harmed her sales one bit.

Without having read your book, it's impossible to say whether readers bounced off your novel because they simply weren't used to the style of narration or whether there were execution problems (because omnisicient narration is quite difficult to do well) which caused the confusion.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

Lara Blunte said:


> omniscient narrator


I'm not sure I know what your talking about here.

What is this, and what well known books are examples of it?

Edit: As for Card, he's really up there with the top sci-fi and fantasy writers at the moment. I should be so lucky to have his audience.


----------



## SeanDGolden (Jan 28, 2015)

Miniskirts are in. Miniskirts are out. Miniskirts are in again.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Given that the world-famous and bestselling Harry Potter series was written in limited omniscient narration I wouldn't say it is exactly as dead as you believe.

Omniscient POV can come across as quaint or oldfashioned, e.g. Jane Austen wrote in omniscient and limited omniscient POV, but depending on genre that's just fine. It will come back again. We currently see a resurgence of extremely purplish prose in some genres for instance.

Of course, if you are actually head-hopping instead of writing in proper omniscient voice, you may be giving your readers whiplash.


----------



## geronl (May 7, 2015)

and the trend is not "enforced"

There is no central authority enforcing writing styles. (Although Owell's 1984 comes to mind...)

Write what you want, people will like it or not.


----------



## AlexBrantham (Feb 27, 2014)

Interesting question. On the general point about whether there is an excessive enforcement of "rules", I have some sympathy for OP's dilemma. There are certainly plenty of critics who will get very picky about their favourite grammatical or stylistic preference, declaring it to be an immutable principle which is not to be flouted on pain of death or, at least, a one-star review.

On the other side of the coin, it's also true that some writers can get very sloppy, and pass off all sorts of illiterate nonsense on the grounds that it's their creative vision. Others are merely being constructive in pointing this out.

And I've yet to find a reliable way to tell the difference between these two scenarios!

Moving on to the specific point: I wonder whether one issue here is that OP isn't clear about the difference between an authentic 19th Century Omniscient Narrator - who is pretty much a character in their own right - and a poorly executed modern third person limited with lots of irritating head-hopping. They're not the same...


----------



## Simply Unbound (Mar 7, 2015)

Were you aware that you were using omniscient POV while you were writing? Or was it only brought to your attention after the fact?

Omniscient narrators can be used to weave beautiful, deeply layered tales. But they also tend to be the default choice of inexperienced writers, who often aren't aware that they have POV options beyond "first person" and "third person". Maybe these persnickety writers think they're introducing you to techniques you're not familiar with?

I haven't read your work, but if you enjoy writing it and your readers enjoy reading it, you should ignore trend-based advice and stick with what's working!


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

> No problem for 15 year-old girls, people whose native language isn't English...


Because they aren't sophisticated enough to know any better?

Omniscient has mostly died out because modern tastes don't like it. It's too easy to head-hop, which the majority of readers don't like (they may not be able to articulate why they don't like a story, but that's due to lack of education and experience).

One can get away with a lot of things when writing fan fiction, or when uploading to sites that are free, such as Wattpad. When one expects to be paid for their writing, things can be vastly different.

There's no POV police that will come to your house and arrest you for using omniscient voice. If there were, I'd be reporting people for using present tense. Write what you want, the way you want to write it. Just be prepared for bad reviews from those who were expecting a more up-to-date reading experience.


----------



## alawston (Jun 3, 2012)

Write your thing and bobbins to the lot of them!

The problem is that self-published writers, and indeed amateur book reviewers, are not always the most clued up or sophisticated. Many have learned their craft from blogs and half-remembered English lessons, if at all. They have a tendency to latch on to bits of advice like "the omniscient narrator is a bit old-fashioned" because it's easy to remember, and something they think they understand, and then they start going a bit witch-hunty on any writing they feel transgresses their received wisdom.

In a similar vein, Stephen King once said something about not liking adverbs, so now if you add "angrily" to a single dialogue tag, people will actually come round to your house and chuck thesauruses through your windows.

Meanwhile, deadbeat fantasy author Terry Pratchett failed to ever sell a single copy of his Discworld series, which had the temerity to feature not only omniscient narration, but also a self-aware authorial voice. And as for that Douglas Adams and his Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy? What a loser.

"How do these writers read actual 19th century fiction, then?" Well, let's be honest. They don't. George Eliot wrote the finest novels in the English language anywhere, ever. It doesn't take much browsing through Amazon's next-generation slush pile to realise that a large number of writers have not even attempted to study her mastery of the craft.


----------



## Lara Blunte (Dec 11, 2015)

I wasn't saying that Scott Card hasn't won awards,  I was asking why he ought to be an authority about this issue. His book is now taught in Craetive Writing classes, held up and thumped like a Bible.

I do think this started because of inexperienced writers not attributing emotions or dialogues correctly. Then a "rule" was eventually made. This is different than modernists in the early 20th century, I think. I don't think anyone could accuse James Joyce of keeping to one POV in Ulysses.

When I say "omniscient" I am not necessarily talking of the writer being almost like another character and giving his opinion, but of being able to say what several people in a room are feeling or thinking rather than only seeing things through the eyes of one character -- because then there is an even more effective way of narrating, which is first person.

When omniscient is well done, it's still very good -- especially in a Victorian story, when "people watching and judging" was the greatest occupation of high society.

I find this new third person limited narration exactly that: limited. Why on earth should I stick to it? What is irking me right now is that the readers are all fine with it, no one is confused (that is what I meant by the 15-year old, she responds to the book and the emotions in it rather than  pointing out rules) -- and the writers are holding up the yellow or red card and whistling.

So writing is not a creative pursuit anymore?

Frankly, it isn't that big a deal, I will just go on doing what works for the story. It was surprising to me that rather than read and see if it works, the card is held up by a fellow writer at the first change in POV. I know for a fact that there is nothing confusing there, 10,000 readers understood everything perfectly and never once mentioned confusion. And we write for ourselves and for readers, at the end of the day.

However, I still find it quite bizarre. Whether or not trends have changed, we ought to do what we like in our own book -- especially if we are the ones promoting it! The readers, ultimately, will be the judge of whether or not it works, but I would be very surprised if any of them have heard of this whole story...


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

Are you happy with your sales? 

Yes: Don't change anything.
No: There may be some issues. "No one has said anything" is not a guarantee that issues that prevent people from buying don't exist. Rather, it's an excuse not to scrutinise your writing as objectively as possible, as only one of the potential problems. Could be the cover, could be other stuff. If you're not happy with sales, you should look for possible remedies.

That's really all that should matter.


----------



## Doglover (Sep 19, 2013)

I have never heard of Scott Card and I am not ashamed to say so. By omniscient narrator, do you mean the type of book that says things like 'dear reader'? Stephen King still gets away with that occasionally. There is another writer on another forum who consistently declares that one should only ever use the dialogue tag 'said', never anything else, because some author whom only he thinks is famous says so. 

I like to describe the thoughts and feelings of all the characters in a scene, but certainly the two main characters. It is either that or leave it out altogether, or start again with the same scene but a different POV. Boring! I'm sure everyone will tell me I am wrong, but to my mind there is only one way to write and that is the way the author wants to write. Personally, I won't read anything written in present tense but as long as the author likes it and others buy it, why should I care?


----------



## Jennifer Lewis (Dec 12, 2013)

It's not so much that omniscient narration is "against the rules," more that very deep point-of-view is in fashion. Readers have grown used to seeing events through the main character/s eyes, feeling their pain and joy and living inside the story as an immersive experience. By comparison, the more distant perspective of omniscient POV might seem less intense and even dull to a reader who's grown used to very deep POV. 

I don't know why these writers were contacting you to critique your story. That seems rather odd! Maybe they thought they were offering helpful advice. If you were wondering aloud how to increase your readership, they probably thought they were helping you out by clueing you in to the current trend. The beauty of self-publishing is that you can write your story however you want, publish it, and find readers (hopefully). If you want to write in a 19th century style, then go for it.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Lara Blunte said:


> I find this new third person limited narration exactly that: limited.


Close third person POV is by no means new. It is just as old or new as omniscient POV.

If you aren't satisfied with your critique group, change the group to one pleasing you better.


----------



## danpadavona (Sep 25, 2014)

Stephen King's The Shining, considered by many to be one of the best horror novels ever written, switches POV within chapters and individual paragraphs continuously. First you are inside Danny's head, then suddenly you are getting Jack or Wendy's thoughts. And amazingly enough, any reader with a pulse can follow along.


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

There are no rules.  Tell the story how you want.  If you do it well, nobody is going to care that they're reading omniscient third or close third or POV first.  I have novels in first, novels in close third.  My newest book uses omniscient narration for historical overview descriptions--which are largely comic, which I find that voice is perfect for (and very Douglas Adams)--to close third person.  As long as the handoff between omniscient and third person POV is clearly marked, nobody is going to get confused.


----------



## Jeff Hughes (May 4, 2012)

Cormac McCarthy is one of my favorite authors. He, of course, is well known for his stylistic tic of not including quotation marks to set off his dialogue.

I like his stories because of the _stories_, not because of his f*ck-the-rules style (which, were I having a beer with him, I would take him to task for).

Write what you want, however you want.


----------



## Douglas Milewski (Jul 4, 2014)

No matter what the dominant narrative structure is, there's going to be many people doing it badly. I suspect that a limited narrator became the dominant form because it was the hardest form to do badly and the results generally more readable. The omniscient narrator likely takes a considerably higher set of skills.


----------



## GoneToWriterSanctum (Sep 13, 2014)

Here's my rule: it's fiction, so write any darn way you please as long as you tell the story to the reader.


----------



## stoney (May 24, 2015)

Lara Blunte said:


> So writing is not a creative pursuit anymore?


Who said it's not? Just because writers don't write in a style that you like doesn't mean they aren't being creative.



Lara Blunte said:


> Frankly, it isn't that big a deal, I will just go on doing what works for the story. It was surprising to me that rather than read and see if it works, the card is held up by a fellow writer at the first change in POV.


It's not always a writer who does that.Savvy readers, widely-read readers will do it too.



Lara Blunte said:


> I know for a fact that there is nothing confusing there, 10,000 readers understood everything perfectly and never once mentioned confusion.


You have 10,000 high star reviews? Wow, grats!



Lara Blunte said:


> And we write for ourselves and for readers, at the end of the day.


Yes we do.



Lara Blunte said:


> However, I still find it quite bizarre. Whether or not trends have changed, we ought to do what we like in our own book -- especially if we are the ones promoting it!


Right! Has someone said otherwise? I'm having trouble following.



Lara Blunte said:


> The readers, ultimately, will be the judge of whether or not it works, but I would be very surprised if any of them have heard of this whole story...


This bugs me the most. Readers do, in the end, decide whether something works for them or not. I'm not sure what 'whole story' they are missing out on. That it's okay to like Omniscient? They should be the judge of that and whether they like it or not? I'm not sure wagging a finger at readers and saying 'you only don't like it because you don't know better' is really all that productive. They like what they like and they vote with their dollars.

Nor do I believe it's all that productive to wag your fingers at authors and say 'you should branch out! don't limit yourself! expand your creativity' when your big complaint is something about how you don't like the lack of omniscient POV books out there. I think. I'm not sure I'm even following what the issue is, actually.

If you want to write in omniscient, then do so. No one is stopping you. Readers gonna like what they like. If the writing is good enough, readers will pick up on the trend and read more of it. Perhaps the reason they tend to prefer other POVs is not because they haven't been told the 'whole story' but because it doesn't resonate with them. It doesn't fit in with their _expectations_ in the genre, or their own preferences.

When I hear writers trying to chastise readers for not liking something specific as not being open to something new/different/all-the-greats-used-to-do-it, I find it usually ends up being because it's something the writer wants/likes to do but finds it's not a big seller. Either write what the readers want or write the way you want, or find a nice blending of the two desires. But we're not squashing our creative desires by writing in a POV that is most comfortable for us, or in the POV that the readers respond to most favorably.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Reader here.

For the record, I don't give a hoot what style or person or tense a book is written in.

What I DO care about, is whether I can follow it, whether it makes sense, whether it's a good story, whether the characters are believable. Beyond that, I hardly notice technical specifics.

I'm pretty sensitive to spelling and grammar, and, to a lesser extent, punctuation. But First person vs 3rd, vs omniscient vs present vs past tense -- totally not a factor. I suppose if I _think_ about it, I can figure out what it is. But while reading, none of that matters. I rather suspect I am only like to notice such things if they are pulling me out of the story -- which is a cue that the writing overall isn't particularly good.

Or so it seems to me. YMMV.


----------



## IreneP (Jun 19, 2012)

I wouldn't say omniscient is dead, but it is definitely a bit out of style. I think it is difficult to do well in a way that appeals to modern readers. Also, for most popular fiction, Deep POV is popular as it creates a more intense connection with the characters. Blending Deep POV and omniscient on a more than limited basis is something the average writer doesn't do well at all.

Most writers I read don't stick to one POV per chapter, but only tend to switch at scene breaks. It makes the switch easier for the reader to follow. 

Also, in most instances I've seen (especially with newer authors), it's not that I can't tell the switch happened, it's that the ping-pong around between characters is annoying. A lot of times, it happens just because the author is too lazy to convey the thoughts/feelings of the non-POV character without switching. 

Also, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think omniscient is the same as switching POV frequently? Omniscient is the view of an outside narrator, which is different than constantly switching POV between characters when you are in close third.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

The Gastien Series is written omniscient. So you aren't alone. I have some readers tell me they love my writing style, others blast it. Too bad.  Can't please everyone. Omniscient is what I prefer to read, too. I find it digs deeper into the characters and, for me, makes the feelings much stronger than 3rd. To each their own.


----------



## AngelaQuarles (Jun 22, 2014)

Lara Blunte said:


> I am new to commercial fiction -- well, I've been writing romance, which is actually not what I read, or at least I don't read the contemporary ones.
> 
> I wrote a 19th century story and now get flack from other writers because it "switches POV" -- this, when 10,000 people read it online and had no problem following the POV which doesn't even switch that much.
> 
> ...


I haven't read the other replies, but I'll just jump in with my take, sorry if any of it is a repeat....

First--it's not completely dead. I see it a lot still in works like Christopher Moore where they're writing satire. Science fiction still has it too, with some.

Second--are you sure you're writing in Omni POV and not just head-hopping? There's a huge difference. Nora Roberts is the most famous head-hopper in romance and she can get away with it because she's Queen Nora. Plus, she knows how to do it without causing confusion. I've read a few others that do it skillfully--Susan Elizabeth Phillips comes to mind. But they do it in such a way that it's clear right from the get go that the "baton" has been passed to the next head, so that a reader isn't reading for several paragraphs and then realizing they've been in another head the whole time and having to back up, etc. Bad head-hopping is the worst, especially if you combine head-hopping with Deep POV. Bad head-hopping is where you're reading along and you really have no clue whose opinions had just been voiced in their head, or in the case of Deep POV head-hopping, you feel like you're bouncing around, and it's almost schizophrenic. One of the problems with doing bad head-hopping, especially in Deep POV, is that you never allow a reader to get fully into that character before you yank them back out of their head and dunk them into another. It disrupts their fictive dream (pulls them out of the story) and fails to allow the reader to emotionally connect with them. If you get non-writers who read it (and don't notice the head-hopping because they don't know what that is) but they say things like, "had a hard time connecting with the characters" or "it was okay, but it didn't pull me in" or other things like that which might point to the reader being pulled out of the story too often, this could be why. However, if they're not relatives or good friends of yours (strangers who have no emotional obligation to you) and they're saying they were sucked in, couldn't put it down, kept them up all night until they could finish, keep going with your bad self!

The reason I ask if you're sure you're writing in Omni, is that it's extremely hard to pull off Omni, especially for a new writer. The trick to doing it, so that a reader isn't sucked into thinking its limited third and then comes across bad head-hopping, is that it _has _to be clear from the beginning that the real voice telling this whole story about these characters is YOU. It's your opinions and your filter and your style which is weaving this tale you want to tell about these characters, which allows you to pass judgment on them too as they're going along. There's a reason why it's likened to pretending like you're God. This is also why it works so well in satire.

Third--be aware that there is a phenomenon with other new writers that have just learned a new "rule" that they then make sure everyone else knows it too. You can break rules. Some would argue there are no rules, only guidelines, and that's where I fall too. You just need to know these rules/guidelines so that you _know _when you break them, you're breaking them consciously, and with purpose for your story, and with _skill_. It could also very well be that it was not one of these new rule-enforcer writers who pointed it out, but a seasoned one, because you weren't doing it with skill. Hard to know without reading it. The guiding principle here is whether it _works_.

Fourth--make sure you have critiquers who are in your subgenre in romance. If you're writing historical, make sure they're historical too. Contemp and New Adult is completely different, and much of it is now dominated by first person POV, and Deep POV. I know of several historical writers, like Loretta Chase, who start out in Omni to set the scene and then settle into Close 3rd. It works.

Fifth--when you say you don't read contemporary romance, are you referring to the subgenre of contemporary romance, which is set in the modern era, or do you mean you're not reading any romance published today only old ones from back in the day? If the latter, I urge you to read some good romance in your subgenre. It's the only way to know what is selling and how things are done well. It sounds like you're writing historical romance and some good historical romance writers are Julia Quinn (if you ignore the anachronisms), Courtney Milan, Loretta Chase, Tessa Dare, just to name a few. PM me if you want more.


----------



## Carradee (Aug 21, 2010)

Omniscient is difficult to do well. I've seen it often done badly, or where folks thought they were using it but they were actually flopping about and changing points of view. (Which can work, if you understand what you're doing and it fits the story. Anything can work, if you understand what you're doing and it fits the story.)

PoV flailing about easily gets confusing. Ex. Who's making the value judgements in descriptions? Or is it an external omniscient narrator who's stating objective fact? Many readers will make assumptions about such things and keep reading, enjoying the story, but quite possibly getting very different messages and stories out of it than the author intended—and by no fault of the reader.

My experience is that when multiple writers have noticed but many readers haven't, it's an issue like that, where the author left things for the reader to assume that, perhaps, shouldn't have been left open to assumption. The writer is familiar enough with English to recognize the multiple possible options and therefore has trouble following the story. (Note that some folks definitely have a bias against a particular PoV, but there's a difference between "It was omni. Yuck!" and "It was confusing.")

There are always things that need assuming in a story. That's why two urban fantasy fans can have two completely different favorite authors (and dislike each other's favorite author). Years ago, one friend told me she found Patricia Briggs's to be flat—though she enjoys the scenes when I quote them for her, she doesn't get the emotions when she reads them for herself. There is subtext in Patricia Briggs's books that I fill in but she doesn't. I didn't care for her favorite UF author (though I don't remember why).

If you're hitting the audience you want, there's no need or reason to learn more about what you're doing and leaving open to assumption. But if you're not hitting your target or you want to broaden your target, then learning's great.

There's always more to learn.


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

Card has written several books on writing and taught at universities for decades. One of the things he says in his books are that you need to understand the rules to break them. On the other hand, I can't find anything in his writings that says you can't switch POV. In general, if someone is writing in 1st or close 3rd, switching POV within a scene can be confusing for a reader.

My current WIP is an "epic" sci-fi space opera. In preparing to write the book, I re-read some of the classics in the field. Dune is written using omniscient, distant 3rd, and close 3rd, as is Asimov's Foundation. Tolkien and Eddings do the same. It's very difficult to write a novel of sweeping scope and have the same character present at all events. War and Peace requires multiple POV.

In modern romance, close 3rd or 1st is the current fashion. Many readers of the genre read nothing else, and don't have any experience with classic literature. Many indie authors don't have any experience with classic fiction either.


----------



## mojomikey (Apr 9, 2014)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Reader here.
> 
> For the record, I don't give a hoot what style or person or tense a book is written in.
> 
> ...


This.

When I'm in my reader shoes, this is what I want. As a writer, sure I can write what i want. But if the reader isn't getting it, is that his fault? I'd say the fault lays more with me, for not explaining/writing well enough.


----------



## Debbie Bennett (Mar 25, 2011)

If you've got 10,000 people who have no problems, you have 10,000 great reviews. In which case, who cares what anybody else thinks! I'm impressed.   Be happy and ignore the people who say you are doing it wrong.


----------



## JLCarver (Sep 13, 2015)

Deleted.


----------



## Lou Harpr (Nov 5, 2014)

Omniscient is hard to do well but it can be done. When authors—no matter how accomplished and award-studded—start issuing commands how everyone else should write they are talking out of their asses.

The best writing advice I've ever seen was by Neil Gaiman:

1.	Write.
2.	Put one word after another. Find the right word, put it down.
3.	Finish what you're writing. Whatever you have to do to finish it, finish it.
4.	Put it aside. Read it pretending youve never read it before. Show it to friends whose opinion you respect and who like the kind of thing that this is.
5.	Remember: when people tell you somethings wrong or doesnt work for them, they are almost always right. When they tell you exactly what they think is wrong and how to fix it, they are almost always wrong.
6.	Fix it. Remember that, sooner or later, before it ever reaches perfection, you will have to let it go and move on and start to write the next thing. Perfection is like chasing the horizon. Keep moving.
7.	Laugh at your own jokes.
8.	The main rule of writing is that if you do it with enough assurance and confidence, youre allowed to do whatever you like. (That may be a rule for life as well as for writing. But its definitely true for writing.) So write your story as it needs to be written. Write it honestly, and tell it as best you can. I'm not sure that there are any other rules. Not ones that matter.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

There's a reason modern readers don't like the "classics", and it ain't to be contrary. It's the style of the writing, which today is hard to follow. People have grown up with a different style, and while they may not understand why they don't like something, they'll surely tell you it's crap.

The OP may have 10,000 readers who love the story, but we don't have any context to judge that. Is this from sales, or from downloads on a free site like Wattpad? I'd bet it's the latter, and when actual money is involved there will be some very unhappy readers willing to leave bad reviews.

And headhopping is not omniscient POV. I don't care who does it, or how much money they make.

_Edited. PM me if you have any questions. --Betsy/KB Mod_


----------



## Gone Girl (Mar 7, 2015)

We miss you, Harvey Chute.


----------



## Evenstar (Jan 26, 2013)

IreneP said:


> Most writers I read don't stick to one POV per chapter, but only tend to switch at scene breaks. It makes the switch easier for the reader to follow.


I definitely do what is known as head hopping. I write my main series in the third person and use various peoples points of view, I simply leave a line break before moving to another persons perspective. I very much doubt a single reader would have ever been confused by it.

I would not consider this remotely "omniscient narrator" in style though. That is something different, and something that I rarely see in books these days.


----------



## AngelaQuarles (Jun 22, 2014)

Evenstar said:


> I definitely do what is known as head hopping. I write my main series in the third person and use various peoples points of view, I simply leave a line break before moving to another persons perspective. I very much doubt a single reader would have ever been confused by it.


If you do that, then I wouldn't consider it head-hopping. I write multiple POVs in the same chapter too, but I differentiate them with a clear scene break doodad (though line breaks work too, though that can be hard to see if it falls at the end of a page on an ereader)


----------



## JLCarver (Sep 13, 2015)

Deleted.


----------



## writerbee (May 10, 2013)

I write in the 3rd person, switching between the POVs of different characters. I don't even necessarily skip a line. I just make sure to "anchor" any switch so the reader knows whose POV we're in now. Like a camera following a different character, not just one. 
I think that's just "3rd person, multiple POVs" altho I've heard some people describe it as 'omniscient 3rd'. But there is no "Narrator" character like in Dickens or Fielding ["Dear Reader, we now follow our hero to....." etc. etc.]

It's true that a "rule" has developed over the past decade or so, in the romance genre in particular, that you "shouldn't" switch POVs, that only the Heroine, and Hero, can have POVs (maybe the villain), etc. etc. I believe some of these "rules" developed because too many writers were careless about POV shifts, but it also seems to be a preference for many romance readers, because they can get so deep into the main character.

I understand that impulse, and it can be very effective -- but personally I find it claustrophobic. With so many authors writing in 1st or close 3rd, I often feel like I'm drowning in Deep POV :-D

Similarly, as an author, I find it too confining for my genre.

But there are plenty of contemporary, multiple character 3rd person POV novels out there. I see it all the time in science fiction, mysteries and thrillers (excellent for suspense), sweeping sagas, even some romance (e.g. Jenny Crusie)

Anyway, if your readers like your writing style, ignore the people telling you "the rules."

IMO, FWIW.

DMac


----------



## Lou Harpr (Nov 5, 2014)

she-la-ti-da said:


> There's a reason modern readers don't like the "classics", and it ain't to be contrary. It's the style of the writing, which today is hard to follow. People have grown up with a different style, and while they may not understand why they don't like something, they'll surely tell you it's crap.


Who said modern readers don't like classics? Jane Austen's books still sell by the metric ton. Charles Dickens and bunch of others are doing just fine. My friend's 14-year-old daughter is into Shakespeare, just as I was in her age. I gave her _Middlemarch_ last Christmas, and she's getting _Rebeca_ this year.

No, we don't know if the OP did omniscient well, but we also don't know if she didn't. It's best not to make assumptions.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

The OP might've been dinged for "head-hopping," which is not the same thing as omniscient narration. Head-hopping is third-person narration gone awry. First the POV is from one character, then another, with no filter between the reader and the characters. It can be jarring and confusing. People who recognize what's happening will call it out as a problem; people who don't know enough about POV to recognize it may still feel confused or put off, even if they can't articulate why.

In omniscient narration, the narrative voice is developed as a quasi-character in its own right. The narrator-persona has a distinct personality and attitude(s), which comes through in the way it narrates the story. The narrator has a godlike overview of the situation and can dip into different characters' POVs, or stand back and comment on the action from outside any character's POV. In other words, the narrator may spend time not in any particular character's head. It may brush closer to some heads than others without diving in fully. It's wonderfully flexible.

A lot of older books with third-person narration are omniscient. Jane Austen's _Pride and Prejudice_ is a great example -- and a very, very clear one, which makes it useful. The book begins:



> It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.
> 
> However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters.
> 
> ...


Who thinks it's a "truth universally acknowledged"? It's not one of the characters. It's the narrator. We might be tempted to say the narrator is Jane Austen herself, but it's really not. It's a voice/persona she has constructed for the specific purposes of telling the _P&P_ story to us. An author might develop quite different narrative voices from book to book.

The narrator isn't fully in any character's POV, here. It's closest to Mrs. Bennet's, since it's aware that she IS impatient, not just that she SEEMS impatient, but by and large it's holding back from being inside any particular person's head.

Also, we get a sense for the narrator's personality and values -- sardonic, witty, embedded in the upper-class milieu, given to satirical observations, fond of the pithy mot juste. Omniscient narrators aren't always as jump-off-the-page as Austen's. They can be developed more subtly, without Austen's narrators' tendency to stand back and comment on events. But they do need to feel like a distinct persona, at least to some degree.

Here's one of my favorite narrator-comes-out-to-play passages, from much later in the novel:



> "How very ill Eliza Bennet looks this morning, Mr. Darcy,'' she cried; "I never in my life saw any one so much altered as she is since the winter. She is grown so brown and coarse! Louisa and I were agreeing that we should not have known her again.''
> 
> However little Mr. Darcy might have liked such an address, he contented himself with coolly replying that he perceived no other alteration than her being rather tanned -- no miraculous consequence of travelling in the summer.
> 
> ...


Here the narrator dips into both Miss Bingley's and Mr. Darcy's heads, but the sense of the narrator standing apart from the characters -- as the person capable of observing that "angry people are not always wise" and that "Miss Bingley was left to all the satisfaction of having forced him to say what gave no one any pain but herself" -- makes the movements in and out of the two characters' POVs seem smooth and natural.

Going back to that first passage, in "head-hopping," we might start off firmly inside Mrs. Bennet's head and then jump to Mr. Bennet's:



> "My dear Mr. Bennet,'' said his lady to him one day, unable to contain herself, "have you heard that Netherfield Park is let at last?''
> 
> She watched as he shifted in his chair, opening his paper to a new page. Finally he glanced up and replied that he had not .
> 
> ...


See how different that is? The narrator's own contributions have been stripped away, and there's an abrupt and unexpected POV shift at the asterisk, where we jump out of Mrs. Bennet's head and into Mr. Bennet's. This is very different from omniscient narration, where we sense we're in the hands of a masterful narrator who's choosing to pull X out of one person's head to show us and Y out of another person's head. Without that narrative filter, the POV switch feels jarring and weird.

I don't see why omniscient narration can't still work, even if it's out of fashion at the moment, or generally not used in your genre, or whatever. But it does actually need to *be* omniscient narration. If the narrative voice hasn't been developed in its own right as a separate entity, at least to some extent (can be much more subtle than what Austen does), you're not doing omniscient. You're doing third-person close or limited with unmarked POV shifts, and that does bother some readers. They want some formal marking (a chapter or scene break) between POV shifts.

Of course, just as there are writers who head-hop, thinking they're doing omniscient when they really aren't, there are also writers who don't know the difference and think all unmarked movement between POVs is head-hopping. There's not much you can do about that latter group. Just shrug it off and keep on keeping on.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

AWESOME explanation/illustration, Becca . . . . I was trying to work out the distinction and your post really helps.

Thanks!


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Ann in Arlington said:


> AWESOME explanation/illustration, Becca . . . . I was trying to work out the distinction and your post really helps.
> 
> Thanks!


Glad to hear it, Ann -- thanks! 

I'll just add that if one doesn't see omniscient narration as relying on a separately developed narrative voice, then the idea of "limited omniscient" just seems like an oxymoron. It's not, though. It's a separately developed narrative voice that chooses to limit itself to just one character's head, for the entire book or for long stretches.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Becca Mills said:


> Glad to hear it, Ann -- thanks!
> 
> I'll just add that if one doesn't see omniscient narration as relying on a separately developed narrative voice, then the idea of "limited omniscient" just seems like an oxymoron. It's not, though. It's a separately developed narrative voice that chooses to limit itself to just one character's head, for the entire book or for long stretches.


I think these sorts of things are why I stuck with math and didn't declare an English Major in college . . . . though I still kept taking courses . . . stayed away from the 'creative writing' ones, though, for just this reason!


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Ann in Arlington said:


> I think these sorts of things are why I stuck with math and didn't declare an English Major in college . . . . though I still kept taking courses . . . stayed away from the 'creative writing' ones, though, for just this reason!


I wish I'd kept taking math.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Becca, you should consider teaching this stuff.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Becca, you should consider teaching this stuff.


 

As a writer of genre fiction, I'll probably never been invited to teach creative writing.


----------



## Steve Vernon (Feb 18, 2011)

SeanDGolden said:


> Miniskirts are in. Miniskirts are out. Miniskirts are in again.


Miniskirts are ALWAYS in - only they don't look so good on me.


----------



## Steve Vernon (Feb 18, 2011)

And - all kidding aside - I'm sitting here working on a omniscient narrative novel manuscript right this minute.

Well, actually I am farting around kboards trying to put off working on it.

I'm the guy who put the "pro" in procrastination!


----------



## JLCarver (Sep 13, 2015)

Deleted.


----------



## TonyU (Dec 14, 2014)

Not really related, but sort of...

When writing third person/third person deep, I know it's frowned upon to go omniscient and include something the character doesn't/shouldn't know. But is that always the case? For instance, when writing horror, it would be very challenging to create suspense, like the monster sneaking up on the hero, if we can only see it through the hero's eyes.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

> But is that always the case? For instance, when writing horror, it would be very challenging to create suspense, like the monster sneaking up on the hero, if we can only see it through the hero's eyes.


It's not easy, but when you can do it, it's so much more rewarding.

It's called writing skill.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Becca Mills said:


> As a writer of genre fiction, I'll probably never been invited to teach creative writing.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

alawston said:


> The problem is that self-published writers, and indeed amateur book reviewers, are not always the most clued up or sophisticated. Many have learned their craft from blogs and half-remembered English lessons, if at all. They have a tendency to latch on to bits of advice like "the omniscient narrator is a bit old-fashioned" because it's easy to remember, and something they think they understand, and then they start going a bit witch-hunty on any writing they feel transgresses their received wisdom.


Amen.


----------



## Jack Krenneck (Feb 9, 2014)

As a matter of interest, Tolkien, Louis L'Amour and David Eddings all "head hop." They're also some of the best selling (and most widely loved) authors of all time. They still sell well. 

These authors chose to break the rules. And they did it because, sometimes, there are good reasons to do it. They just made sure that whenever they head hopped that it didn't cause confusion.  

The no head hopping/no changing POV within a scene rule is pushed by the literary set, which pretty much control all institutions that teach writing. The reason they control those institutions is because successful authors are busy writing fiction and making millions - they've got better things to do than clap each other on the back, give each other meaningless awards and impose arbitrary rules so they can look down on the people who don't follow them.

OK. Maybe some of my prejudices are showing...

But my point is, the rule is artificial. It doesn't exist in a historical context. Many successful authors choose not to adhere to it, but it's universally accepted as sound writing advice.

So, personally, I take my cues from the great authors and ignore advice from people who "teach."


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Jack Krenneck said:


> As a matter of interest, Tolkien, Louis L'Amour and David Eddings all "head hop." They're also some of the best selling (and most widely loved) authors of all time. They still sell well.
> 
> These authors chose to break the rules. And they did it because, sometimes, there are good reasons to do it. They just made sure that whenever they head hopped that it didn't cause confusion.
> 
> ...


I haven't read L'Amour or Eddings, but Tolkien uses omniscient narration. He doesn't head-hop. Actually, _The Hobbit_ is one of those super-clear examples of omniscient, like Austen -- a chatty (almost twee, for adult readers) narrator who's always inserting commentary on the book's characters and goings-on. The narrator even drops first-person comments occasionally, which should be weird but seems to work, giving the book a sort of oral-storytelling flavor. At any rate, a separately developed narrator-persona means it's functional omniscient narration, not head-hopping. No rule-breaking there.

All writing rules and practices are artificial. That doesn't mean they can't have a lot of power. Norms shape reader expectations, and readers may react negatively when their expectations aren't met.


----------



## JLCarver (Sep 13, 2015)

Deleted.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

JLCarver said:


> I don't think you can discount the role of teachers in writing. While I do certainly agree that you can gain a lot of great insight simply from reading great writers, teachers are the ones who shape that knowledge. Some of them might teach odd things, but most do a great job.
> 
> And it's a thankless job at that, yet they still do it.
> 
> If it weren't for some of my high school English teachers, I probably would've taken much longer to fall in love with writing. And some of the professors that I had in college and graduate school shaped who I am today. I would sit in a class with Joyce Carol Oates, Margaret Atwood, Hannah Pittard, Stuart Dybek, Mark Turcotte, Rebecca Johns, and a long list of so many others any day. They're writers, but they are also great teachers. I wouldn't ignore their advice at all. But even they will tell you that advice is all it is. It's stepping stones on the path to finding your own writing voice, and that's where a good teacher can help a young writer along.


 

I think its safe to say - my english teachers put me right off! Nor did they teach me anything particularly useful.

If anything, my english teachers taught me that one paragraph could answer most questions, even when they expected a page and a half. Needless to say, we didn't get on too well, and I dropped english as a subject as early as possible.

It was somewhat of a surprise to find much later in life that people actually enjoyed what I wrote.


----------



## Jack Krenneck (Feb 9, 2014)

Becca Mills said:


> I haven't read L'Amour or Eddings, but Tolkien uses omniscient narration. He doesn't head-hop. Actually, _The Hobbit_ is one of those super-clear examples of omniscient, like Austen -- a chatty (almost twee, for adult readers) narrator who's always inserting commentary on the book's characters and goings-on. The narrator even drops first-person comments occasionally, which should be weird but seems to work, giving the book a sort of oral-storytelling flavor. At any rate, a separately developed narrator-persona means it's functional omniscient narration, not head-hopping. No rule-breaking there.
> 
> All writing rules and practices are artificial. That doesn't mean they can't have a lot of power. Norms shape reader expectations, and readers may react negatively when their expectations aren't met.


Most of _The Fellowship of the Ring _is told from Frodo's POV. But try this as the the hobbits are setting out on their journey:

Just over the top of the hill they came on the patch of fir-wood. Leaving the road they went into the deep resin-scented darkness of the trees, and gathered dead sticks and cones to make a fire. Soon they had a merry crackle of flame at the foot of a large fir-tree and they sat round it for a while, until they began to nod. Then, each in an angle of the great tree's roots, they curled up in their cloaks and blankets, and were soon fast asleep. They set no watch; even Frodo feared no danger yet, for they were still in the heart of the Shire. A few creatures came and looked at them when the fire had died away. A fox passing through the wood on business of his own stopped several minutes and sniffed.
'Hobbits!' he thought. 'Well, what next? I have heard of strange doings in this land, but I have seldom heard of a hobbit sleeping out of doors under a tree. Three of them! There's something mighty queer behind this.' He was quite right, but he never found out any more about it.

The morning came, pale and clammy. Frodo woke up first, and found that a tree-root had made a hole in his back, and that his neck was stiff.

Just in that section I count, in order, the narrator, the fox, the narrator again and then Frodo. That's head hopping...


----------



## Steve Vernon (Feb 18, 2011)

JLCarver said:


> Just tell people you're meditating over your writing. Then instead of the "pro" on procrastination, you can say you're putting the "om" in omniscient.


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

Jack Krenneck said:


> Most of _The Fellowship of the Ring _is told from Frodo's POV. But try this as the the hobbits are setting out on their journey:
> 
> Just over the top of the hill they came on the patch of fir-wood. Leaving the road they went into the deep resin-scented darkness of the trees, and gathered dead sticks and cones to make a fire. Soon they had a merry crackle of flame at the foot of a large fir-tree and they sat round it for a while, until they began to nod. Then, each in an angle of the great tree's roots, they curled up in their cloaks and blankets, and were soon fast asleep. They set no watch; even Frodo feared no danger yet, for they were still in the heart of the Shire. A few creatures came and looked at them when the fire had died away. A fox passing through the wood on business of his own stopped several minutes and sniffed.
> 'Hobbits!' he thought. 'Well, what next? I have heard of strange doings in this land, but I have seldom heard of a hobbit sleeping out of doors under a tree. Three of them! There's something mighty queer behind this.' He was quite right, but he never found out any more about it.
> ...


I would call that omniscient narration


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

This whole conversation is very interesting in a "behind the curtain" kind of way...but I can count on one hand the number of times I've thought of POV when reading a book.  The book either works for me or it doesn't.  I even had to go back and doublecheck once to see that To Kill a Mockingbird was written in first person POV.  Once I get immersed in the book, I forget these things.

Betsy


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> This whole conversation is very interesting in a "behind the curtain" kind of way...but I can count on one hand the number of times I've thought of POV when reading a book. The book either works for me or it doesn't. I even had to go back and doublecheck once to see that To Kill a Mockingbird was written in first person POV. Once I get immersed in the book, I forget these things.
> 
> Betsy


Right! If you're reading 'just for fun' and noticing things like that _while you read_ then there's something wrong! 

It's different, of course, if you're reading for purposes of analysis . . . . when I took all those English courses in college I generally ended up reading everything at least twice. First time through I was reading for the story. Second time through was slower for more analysis. In some cases I'd read a third time to find things that had been pointed out in class that I'd missed -- 'cause, of course, if it was pointed out in class, it was going to be on the exam.


----------



## AngelaQuarles (Jun 22, 2014)

Jack Krenneck said:


> Most of _The Fellowship of the Ring _is told from Frodo's POV. But try this as the the hobbits are setting out on their journey:
> 
> Just over the top of the hill they came on the patch of fir-wood. Leaving the road they went into the deep resin-scented darkness of the trees, and gathered dead sticks and cones to make a fire. Soon they had a merry crackle of flame at the foot of a large fir-tree and they sat round it for a while, until they began to nod. Then, each in an angle of the great tree's roots, they curled up in their cloaks and blankets, and were soon fast asleep. They set no watch; even Frodo feared no danger yet, for they were still in the heart of the Shire. A few creatures came and looked at them when the fire had died away. A fox passing through the wood on business of his own stopped several minutes and sniffed.
> 'Hobbits!' he thought. 'Well, what next? I have heard of strange doings in this land, but I have seldom heard of a hobbit sleeping out of doors under a tree. Three of them! There's something mighty queer behind this.' He was quite right, but he never found out any more about it.
> ...


That's not head-hopping, that's Omni. The Omni narrator is telling you Frodo's thoughts. The narrator is not Frodo...


----------



## JLCarver (Sep 13, 2015)

Deleted.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Jack Krenneck said:


> Just in that section I count, in order, the narrator, the fox, the narrator again and then Frodo. That's head hopping...


Not if the book has established an omniscient narrative voice.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

JLCarver said:


> But it's the work of the author and her attention to this detail that creates a world that allows you to forget these things. To readers, the writing is supposed to be invisible. If it's not, then it's like showing the audience of a play all the stage hands carrying the scenery on and off the stage. Writers have to consider these things so you as a reader don't have to.


I think we're all in violent agreement. 

As a writer -- it's important to pay attention to these things _so your readers won't even notice them_! Which is why Betsy and I find the discussion interesting . . . . we don't think abut it as a reader, but are intrigued by the care good authors take to be sure that whatever they've done, they've done on purpose.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

JLCarver said:


> But it's the work of the author and her attention to this detail that creates a world that allows you to forget these things. To readers, the writing is supposed to be invisible. If it's not, then it's like showing the audience of a play all the stage hands carrying the scenery on and off the stage. Writers have to consider these things so you as a reader don't have to.


Exactly. That's why it's interesting in a "behind the curtains" kind of way. I think almost anything can be done if it's done well....but too often it isn't.

Betsy


----------



## A past poster (Oct 23, 2013)

Becca Mills said:


> All writing rules and practices are artificial. That doesn't mean they can't have a lot of power. Norms shape reader expectations, and readers may react negatively when their expectations aren't met.


Fiction creates a dream in the reader's mind. That said, the dream can be broken by a mistake--an abrupt change in the POV, a confusing, poorly constructed sentence, etc. Readers react negatively when the dream is broken. It isn't so much about the POV as it is about the writer's skill in telling the story. The story dictates the POV.


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> This whole conversation is very interesting in a "behind the curtain" kind of way...but I can count on one hand the number of times I've thought of POV when reading a book. The book either works for me or it doesn't. I even had to go back and doublecheck once to see that To Kill a Mockingbird was written in first person POV. Once I get immersed in the book, I forget these things.
> 
> Betsy


To be honest, I don't much think about it when I write, either. The Spaceship Next Door is in third, and I can go in after the fact and underline the parts that are omniscient third vs the parts that are close third, but I didn't think about it when I was writing it.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

GeneDoucette said:


> To be honest, I don't much think about it when I write, either. The Spaceship Next Door is in third, and I can go in after the fact and underline the parts that are omniscient third vs the parts that are close third, but I didn't think about it when I was writing it.


As a reader, I have no idea what the difference is. 

Betsy


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> As a reader, I have no idea what the difference is.
> 
> Betsy


this isn't a bad thing.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> As a reader, I have no idea what the difference is.


Close third is when the narrative perspective is so deep in the POV character's head that you could make it into first-person narration just by switching the pronouns. The narrator's voice is (or almost is) the POV character's voice, just like in first-person.

First:

I didn't have much money, and I wasn't a particularly eager church-goer, so I hadn't planned on participating. But when dirty water is actually dripping on your church's altar, the social pressure gets pretty strong. So I bought a raffle ticket. When Pastor Ezra called my name for the camera, I couldn't have been more surprised. I'd never won anything before.

Close third:

Beth didn't have much money, and she wasn't a particularly eager church-goer, so she hadn't planned on participating. But when dirty water is actually dripping on your church's altar, the social pressure gets pretty strong. So she bought a raffle ticket. When Pastor Ezra called her name for the camera, she couldn't have been more surprised. She'd never won anything before.

See how nearly interchangeable these two modes are? They may _feel _different, but in terms of what you can do with them, they're very similar.


----------



## Anonymously Anonymous (Sep 25, 2015)

I write in omni, and have been accused of head hopping. I think that, sometimes, people simply confuse omni AS head hopping.

Many, many years ago, I was told by a respected English teacher that writing in first person is lazy. Now that it's a trend, omni is considered... maybe not lazy, but out of date? Wrong, somehow?

Trends come and go. Who knows what tomorrow will bring? Tomorrow, everything that's considered wrong right now might be considered genius.


----------



## Sam Kates (Aug 28, 2012)

I think the difference between omniscient POV and head-hopping isn't easy to define, but as a reader I can spot the latter and it yanks me out of the story every time.


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

Anonymously Anonymous said:


> I write in omni, and have been accused of head hopping. I think that, sometimes, people simply confuse omni AS head hopping.
> 
> Many, many years ago, I was told by a respected English teacher that writing in first person is lazy. Now that it's a trend, omni is considered... maybe not lazy, but out of date? Wrong, somehow?
> 
> Trends come and go. Who knows what tomorrow will bring? Tomorrow, everything that's considered wrong right now might be considered genius.


This is interesting to me, because I think first person is a lot more challenging, and I say that as someone who's written a half a million words in first.


----------



## lostinspace (Sep 17, 2015)

I've studied a lot of older fiction, so when I used omniscient in a writers' forum I was taken aback to find that they criticised the POV. But what this told me more than anything, is that these writers didn't understand very much at all about omniscient. Take any Terry Pratchett book and you'll probably find that he's in omniscient. That's because the distance created in omniscient is often better for comedy. 

What I did realise, though, is that there's potentially a trend to want to get deeper inside the character's head. So I do write in 3rd person most of the time. You need to consider the genre you're writing and what's best for you. 

I also find myself growling when people talk about no adverbs etc. My favourite writers use adverbs with no qualms. Remember, there are no rules in writing, except for grammar etc. The writers that pushed the boundaries to do their own thing are the ones who were most remembered.


----------



## Jack Krenneck (Feb 9, 2014)

I've always taken omniscient POV to mean that the narrator knows all, sees all, hears all and can report to the reader whatever they wish. And when the narrator tells us what someone is thinking, it's still the narrator telling us that. For instance, in the quote from Tolkien this bit is omniscient narration.

"A few creatures came and looked at them when the fire had died away."

The hobbits were asleep, and they didn't know what was happening, but the narrator did and we're hearing his voice reporting events of which the characters were unaware.

But this bit is the direct thought of the fox:

'Hobbits!' he thought. 'Well, what next? I have heard of strange doings in this land, but I have seldom heard of a hobbit sleeping out of doors under a tree. Three of them! There's something mighty queer behind this.'

Not only is this tagged as the direct thought of the fox, but it's also in a different voice. The omniscient narrator normally speaks in a tone like this:

"The morning came, pale and clammy. Frodo woke up first, and found that a tree-root had made a hole in his back, and that his neck was stiff."

In this passage the narrator is giving us Frodo's thoughts/feelings, but it's being reported to us second hand. It's not direct thought. But the very next bit is Frodo's direct thought, once again in his own voice:

'Walking for pleasure! Why didn't I drive?' he thought, as he usually did at the beginning of an expedition. 'And all my beautiful feather beds are sold to the Sackville-Bagginses! These tree-roots would do them good.' He stretched. 'Wake up, hobbits!' he cried. It's a beautiful morning.'

So, in my view, we're head hopping throughout this passage. You can't be in two different POV's _at the same time_. The narrator is either _reporting _to us what someone is thinking, or what multiple someone's are thinking, (one omniscient POV) or we're privy to the direct thoughts of characters - unfiltered by the narrator - multiple POV's.

Here's a link to a writing teacher and her definition of omniscient POV. She's a literature instructor for Bethel University, and I take her statements to reflect the mainstream position.

http://kayedacus.com/2011/01/11/debunking-writing-myths-omniscient-pov-is-bad/

I said that you can't be in two POV's at the same time. I feel that's technically correct, but in practice I think the omniscient narrator becomes invisible once the reader invests in the main character. The narrator continually gives the direct thoughts of the MC (which helps the reader to invest in them). Once that happens, the reader is immersed in the MC and still looking out from their eyes irrespective of the narration, so to the reader flipping between narrator and MC isn't head hopping. But introducing the _direct _thoughts of another character, unfiltered by the narrator, unmarked by chapter or scene breaks, is head hopping.


----------



## AngelaQuarles (Jun 22, 2014)

Right in your link is your answer: "In OPOV, the author is basically narrating the story and can dip into any character’s thoughts at will."

Yes, the OPOV is telling us his thoughts, and he knows how Frodo would express those thoughts, and that of the fox, because s/he is Omniscient. This debate is exactly why it's so hard to successfully pull off OPOV--there has to be the feel that there is a narrator telling us this story and passing judgment and commentary on the characters in the story, even when they're also telling us different characters direct thoughts.


----------



## JLCarver (Sep 13, 2015)

Deleted.


----------



## Gone Girl (Mar 7, 2015)

We miss you, Harvey Chute.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Jack Krenneck said:


> I've always taken omniscient POV to mean that the narrator knows all, sees all, hears all and can report to the reader whatever they wish. And when the narrator tells us what someone is thinking, it's still the narrator telling us that. For instance, in the quote from Tolkien this bit is omniscient narration.
> 
> "A few creatures came and looked at them when the fire had died away."
> 
> ...


I think you're misunderstanding what Kaye Dacus is saying, Jack. Omniscient narrators are perfectly capable of reporting characters' thoughts and feelings. Those thoughts and feelings are framed and reported by the narrative voice, so they aren't "direct" in the way they'd be in my first-person books, where there's no framing needed because the narrator and the POV character are the same person. Characters also speak and think aloud in omnisciently narrated books, just as they do in books narrated in other ways. That's what's happening in the fox passage. The fox's thoughts are being presented as internal monologue, complete with quote marks. You can see the framing, there ("he thought"). This is different from the way I can present internal thoughts in an unmediated way, using my first-person narrator:



> For a long time, I just sat there on the basement floor, staring at nothing. I had no idea what to do. I felt oddly listless and distant, as though most of me was far away, connected to the rest of me by a thin tether.
> _What am I going to do?
> Move. I have to move.
> _I shifted against the wall, and my body came alive with sensations. None of them were pleasant.


The above would work in close third, too, but not in traditional omniscient, where the narrator would frame and present the thoughts, transitioning into the character's mind ("A fox passing through the wood on business of his own stopped several minutes and sniffed.") and then pulling back out ("He was quite right, but he never found out any more about it."). This is how an omniscient narrator dips into individual characters' POVs.

You can also see the narrator establishing itself as a separate entity at several points. This is the hallmark of omniscient narration: "Soon they had a merry crackle of flame [who thinks it's "merry"?] ... He was quite right, but he never found out any more about it [only a godlike presence could know the state of the fox's knowledge for the rest of its life] ... The morning came, pale and clammy" [who thinks it's "pale and clammy"?]. Over the course of the book, these kinds of asides and judgments establish the narrator as a separate entity. It can be done more subtly than this, but it has to happen.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

FWI, Becca is also a professor of English at a university.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Cherise Kelley said:


> FWI, Becca is also a professor of English at a university.




Actually, I'm just a writing-program lecturer, these days, and not of creative writing, either!


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

"just"


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Cherise Kelley said:


> "just"


Heh.  I love the job, but it's pretty durned far down in the academic pecking order.


----------



## Jack Krenneck (Feb 9, 2014)

Becca Mills said:


> I think you're misunderstanding what Kaye Dacus is saying, Jack. Omniscient narrators are perfectly capable of reporting characters' thoughts and feelings. Those thoughts and feelings are framed and reported by the narrative voice, so they aren't "direct" in the way they'd be in my first-person books, where there's no framing needed because the narrator and the POV character are the same person.


I'm not really worried about the framing. I'm looking at what goes inside the frame. What's happening with the fox is about as direct as you can get. You're in his head, hearing his very thoughts, looking out from his own eyes. He has his own distinctive voice. He has his own worldview. For instance, he doesn't think of the place as the Shire, as the hobbits would, but only as "the land." To me, that's intimate and direct. The framework is just a means of leading into his POV and then out of it again. You can put a steak between two slices of bread and call it a steak sandwich. Or you can put it inside a toasted bun and call it a steak burger. But the steak is still a steak no matter what surrounds it.

Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree, I suppose. Fascinating thread though.


----------



## JLCarver (Sep 13, 2015)

Deleted.


----------



## Steve Vernon (Feb 18, 2011)

Becca Mills said:


> As a writer of genre fiction, I'll probably never been invited to teach creative writing.


Not necessarily so, Becca. I have given my writing/storytelling workshop to kids all across Canada for many years now. I've performed and read and told and taught kids from primary all the way to University. You just need to find the proper platform, is all.


----------



## Gone Girl (Mar 7, 2015)

We miss you, Harvey Chute.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

CarlaBaku said:


> Have you quite recently finished marking final essays? If so, enjoy your holiday liberty!


Thank you! But alas, I haven't even received them yet. 



Steve Vernon said:


> Not necessarily so, Becca. I have given my writing/storytelling workshop to kids all across Canada for many years now. I've performed and read and told and taught kids from primary all the way to University. You just need to find the proper platform, is all.


Well, perhaps it'll work out, then. Dunno. In my experience, the people who are officially qualified (published, MFA-holding folks) to teach creative writing classes protect their turf pretty vigorously from folks like us. To tell you the truth, I'm not sure I'd want to teach poetry and literary fiction, anyway. My interests just don't lie in that direction, so it'd be a bit of a stretch. Maybe they could be enticed to offer a genre fiction class, though ...


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Jack Krenneck said:


> I'm not really worried about the framing. I'm looking at what goes inside the frame. What's happening with the fox is about as direct as you can get. You're in his head, hearing his very thoughts, looking out from his own eyes. He has his own distinctive voice. He has his own worldview. For instance, he doesn't think of the place as the Shire, as the hobbits would, but only as "the land." To me, that's intimate and direct. The framework is just a means of leading into his POV and then out of it again. You can put a steak between two slices of bread and call it a steak sandwich. Or you can put it inside a toasted bun and call it a steak burger. But the steak is still a steak no matter what surrounds it.
> 
> Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree, I suppose. Fascinating thread though.


What you're saying doesn't make sense to me because it means any book that contains internal monologue or dialogue (i.e., characters' direct words being reported) can't be omnisciently narrated, and every omnisciently narrated book in existence stands as counter-evidence to that idea. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.


----------



## AngelaQuarles (Jun 22, 2014)

Jack Krenneck said:


> I'm not really worried about the framing. I'm looking at what goes inside the frame. What's happening with the fox is about as direct as you can get. You're in his head, hearing his very thoughts, looking out from his own eyes. He has his own distinctive voice. He has his own worldview. For instance, he doesn't think of the place as the Shire, as the hobbits would, but only as "the land." To me, that's intimate and direct. The framework is just a means of leading into his POV and then out of it again. You can put a steak between two slices of bread and call it a steak sandwich. Or you can put it inside a toasted bun and call it a steak burger. But the steak is still a steak no matter what surrounds it.
> 
> Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree, I suppose. Fascinating thread though.


Except I'm not sure that this is a subjective thing to agree or disagree on. Pretty much any writing professor is going to tell you that LoTR is Omni, so you'd be disagreeing with them. I just did a cursory look on Google, and Wikipedia sites it as an example of Omni, as does Spark Notes, and many other writing blogs/sources that talk about Omni. How do you reconcile what you're saying with even the person you linked to?


----------



## Jack Krenneck (Feb 9, 2014)

AngelaQuarles said:


> Except I'm not sure that this is a subjective thing to agree or disagree on. Pretty much any writing professor is going to tell you that LoTR is Omni, so you'd be disagreeing with them. I just did a cursory look on Google, and Wikipedia sites it as an example of Omni, as does Spark Notes, and many other writing blogs/sources that talk about Omni. How do you reconcile what you're saying with even the person you linked to?


I'm not disputing that TLOTR is in omni. I'm just saying that omni is an actual POV - the POV of the narrator. Most authorities agree that omni can dip into anyone's thoughts. Most authorities also say those thoughts are"filtered" through the consciousness of the narrator. With the fox, there's no filtering. We're not merely being clued up as to what he's thinking - we're in his head, and for that period of time we're not in the narrator's head. That's why I think it's head hopping.

This is how I reconcile what I'm saying with the person that I'm linking to. To quote her:

What separates OPOV from head-hopping is the fact that the omniscient narrator maintains a distance from the characters, even though he occasionally will let the reader in on what the character is thinking-but, again, in a style that's more told than shown.


----------



## Gone Girl (Mar 7, 2015)

We miss you, Harvey Chute.


----------



## SasgoraBooks (Aug 27, 2015)

I'm not understanding the backlash against Jack? At no point did I see him claim that TLOTR was not Omniscient. Infact here is the first paragraph of his post where he specifically says Tolkien is using Omniscient.



Jack Krenneck said:


> I've always taken omniscient POV to mean that the narrator knows all, sees all, hears all and can report to the reader whatever they wish. And when the narrator tells us what someone is thinking, it's still the narrator telling us that. For instance, in the quote from Tolkien this bit is omniscient narration.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

DarkarNights said:


> I'm not understanding the backlash against Jack? At no point did I see him claim that TLOTR was not Omniscient. Infact here is the first paragraph of his post where he specifically says Tolkien is using Omniscient.


There's no "backlash," just people pointing out the problems they see with his understanding of how omniscient narration works.



CarlaBaku said:


> Take heart. I feel your pain. Please accept this offering of warm gingerbread with hard sauce and a shot of brandy on the side.


Thank you! <downs brandy, buries face in saucy gingerbread>


----------



## JLCarver (Sep 13, 2015)

Deleted.


----------



## Jack Krenneck (Feb 9, 2014)

Becca Mills said:


> What you're saying doesn't make sense to me because it means any book that contains internal monologue or dialogue (i.e., characters' direct words being reported) can't be omnisciently narrated, and every omnisciently narrated book in existence stands as counter-evidence to that idea. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.


A good point.

But as I said earlier, I think you can get away with direct thought/POV of the main character in omni, although technically I still think it's a breach in relating the story from an omniscient POV. This method is very common though. In fact, Tolkien uses it constantly. We're always flipping between Frodo's POV and the narrator's POV. What Tolkien practically never does is flip POV into a third character. He always _reports _what other characters are thinking. We dip into their thoughts via the narrative filter. But the only instances I know of that constitute a true swap of POV in _The Fellowship of the Ring _ are the fox example and one other occasion where we're directly in Smeagol's head.

My experience of old school literature is that most writers operated the same as Tolkien. Some of them head hopped a bit more. And I don't think it was a bad thing, I just recognize it as a shift in POV.

On another note, I realize that some of my earlier comments about teachers were offensive. Especially to teachers. I apologize for that.


----------



## Jack Krenneck (Feb 9, 2014)

DarkarNights said:


> I'm not understanding the backlash against Jack? At no point did I see him claim that TLOTR was not Omniscient. Infact here is the first paragraph of his post where he specifically says Tolkien is using Omniscient.


Thanks for that. But if there's any antagonism I brought it on myself. See my previous post.

Cheers!


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Jack Krenneck said:


> A good point.
> 
> But as I said earlier, I think you can get away with direct thought/POV of the main character in omni, although technically I still think it's a breach in relating the story from an omniscient POV. This method is very common though. In fact, Tolkien uses it constantly. We're always flipping between Frodo's POV and the narrator's POV. What Tolkien practically never does is flip POV into a third character. He always _reports _what other characters are thinking. We dip into their thoughts via the narrative filter. But the only instances I know of that constitute a true swap of POV in _The Fellowship of the Ring _ are the fox example and one other occasion where we're directly in Smeagol's head.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I see what you mean, here, but I think of that variety of distance or depth as just being part of the flexibility of the omniscient narrator. It can dive really deeply into a character's POV (see Tolstoy, for instance); or it can just brush against a character's POV, picking up a touch without really entering into it; or it can engage at a whole range of levels between those two polls; or it can hover above and comment globally. It can stick with one character for long stretches or entire chapters, or it can dip into multiple heads in one scene. It can stick mostly with one character but then poke into another at an opportune moment.

All of these various modes could be quite jarring for the reader. What makes them feel coherent and understandable, I think, is the stable "center" the narrator provides when it's well developed as a distinct entity. Instead of feeling tossed willy-nilly, left alone to make sense of a confusing mishmash of perspectives, the reader feels like she's sitting down with a not quite identifiable but very competent _someone_ who's directing her attention first here, then there, orchestrating everything in just the right way.


----------



## Jack Krenneck (Feb 9, 2014)

JLCarver said:


> _Little Women_ is a book that handles omniscience in much the same way as Tolkein.
> 
> We're very much in the heads of these girls, even seeing through their eyes, so to speak. But there is still that sense of omniscient distance. This is similar to what Tolkein is doing with the fox. The last sentence with Meg thinking "of all the pretty things she wanted" is what the Fox is doing in Tolkein. It's a moment of limited POV, but it doesn't qualify as head hopping, because the overall story is told in OPOV. Alcott maintains a consistency of POV throughout the book that makes this kind of head dipping allowed.


Sorry. I think this is dead wrong.

Absolutely, there's omniscient distance in your quote. And that distance is maintained throughout. We're not really in the heads of those girls. We're not seeing through their eyes. The last sentence with Meg thinking "of all the pretty things she wanted" is not direct thought. It has no real character voice, and it's vague. _What _pretty things was she thinking about? _How _did she feel about not getting them? "Regretfully," could be her. Or it could be the narrator. It's not strong enough to substantiate a shift in POV.

The great emotion, and the connection between character and reader, in that passage comes from the dialogue. But all the thoughts are reported. It's the complete opposite of the fox.


----------



## AngelaQuarles (Jun 22, 2014)

DarkarNights said:


> I'm not understanding the backlash against Jack? At no point did I see him claim that TLOTR was not Omniscient. Infact here is the first paragraph of his post where he specifically says Tolkien is using Omniscient.


I don't think we're backlashing, just trying to clarify what Omni is. He says it's Omni, yes, but then says it also has head-hopping, and we're just discussing that portion of his analysis. If any part of what I've contributed sounds like an attack, it wasn't meant to be. I love discussions like this about craft.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

There's been some fervent disagreement, but nothing that we would consider "backlash" or an attack.  Thanks to everyone for the respectful discussion and debate.  Carry on!  We're finding it very interesting!

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## AngelaQuarles (Jun 22, 2014)

Becca Mills said:


> All of these various modes could be quite jarring for the reader. What makes them feel coherent and understandable, I think, is the stable "center" the narrator provides when it's well developed as a distinct entity. Instead of feeling tossed willy-nilly, left alone to make sense of a confusing mishmash of perspectives, the reader feels like she's sitting down with a not quite identifiable but very competent _someone_ who's directing her attention first here, then there, orchestrating everything in just the right way.


Bingo. And this is why it's so hard to pull off for a new writer. The writer has to have the skill to pull off that sense of authority. The reader has to encounter the text and _feel_ that they're in good hands here, this author I can trust to tell me this story in this way. A reader might not realize it in those terms, but they know when their fictive dream is broken (they no longer trust that the author knows what they're doing).


----------



## Carradee (Aug 21, 2010)

Jack Krenneck said:


> But as I said earlier, I think you can get away with direct thought/POV of the main character in omni, although technically I still think it's a breach in relating the story from an omniscient POV.


You therefore think that omni narrator can't directly quote a character's thoughts and that a person's thoughts must be quoted indirectly. Why? They can directly quote a person's dialogue. Why are a person's thoughts an exception?


----------



## JLCarver (Sep 13, 2015)

Deleted.


----------



## Lou Harpr (Nov 5, 2014)

Chuck Wendig had a good post on different POVs:  [URL=http://terribleminds]http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2013/02/12/25-things-you-should-know-about-narrative-point-of-view/[/url]


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

AngelaQuarles said:


> Bingo. And this is why it's so hard to pull off for a new writer. The writer has to have the skill to pull off that sense of authority. The reader has to encounter the text and _feel_ that they're in good hands here, this author I can trust to tell me this story in this way. A reader might not realize it in those terms, but they know when their fictive dream is broken (they no longer trust that the author knows what they're doing).


I've never tried using omniscient, but it does seem to me that it'd be hard to do it well, especially outside something like a kid's book or a satire, where you can lean heavily on commentary/asides to help develop the narrator as a separate persona. Having to pull it off more subtly ... that sounds very challenging.


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

Becca Mills said:


> I've never tried using omniscient, but it does seem to me that it'd be hard to do it well, especially outside something like a kid's book or a satire, where you can lean heavily on commentary/asides to help develop the narrator as a separate persona. Having to pull it off more subtly ... that sounds very challenging.


I used it in The Spaceship Next Door. I honestly didn't think much about it as I was using it. This could mean A: I didn't pull it off (which I won't know until it releases next week), B: it's not as challenging as it sounds, or C: I'm special or something.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

GeneDoucette said:


> I used it in The Spaceship Next Door. I honestly didn't think much about it as I was using it. This could mean A: I didn't pull it off (which I won't know until it releases next week), B: it's not as challenging as it sounds, or C: I'm special or something.


Heh. I'm voting for C, Gene.


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

Becca Mills said:


> Heh. I'm voting for C, Gene.


Me too!


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

GeneDoucette said:


> Me too!


LOL. Another awe-inspiring instance of Kboards bipartisanship.


----------



## AngelaQuarles (Jun 22, 2014)

GeneDoucette said:


> I used it in The Spaceship Next Door. I honestly didn't think much about it as I was using it. This could mean A: I didn't pull it off (which I won't know until it releases next week), B: it's not as challenging as it sounds, or C: I'm special or something.


It could be that your story really called for it and it just felt natural to you to tell it that way, so you probably did pull it off. *fingers crossed* But you're also not a new writer


----------



## Christopher Bunn (Oct 26, 2010)

Maybe the omniscient narrator disappeared because he knew something? Kind of like how animals know when there's going to be an earthquake.


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

AngelaQuarles said:


> It could be that your story really called for it and it just felt natural to you to tell it that way, so you probably did pull it off. *fingers crossed* But you're also not a new writer


 fingers and toes crossed. Omni is the only opportunity I have to flex my inner Douglas Adams.


----------



## Jack Krenneck (Feb 9, 2014)

Carradee said:


> You therefore think that omni narrator can't directly quote a character's thoughts and that a person's thoughts must be quoted indirectly. Why? They can directly quote a person's dialogue. Why are a person's thoughts an exception?


I don't make the rules...and if I could, I wouldn't.

But here are some respectable authorities whose point of view matches up with what I've been saying. See what you think.

http://jamigold.com/2011/02/what-makes-omniscient-pov-different-from-head-hopping/

http://www.scribophile.com/academy/using-third-person-omniscient-pov

http://www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com/omniscient-pov/

So, getting back to Tolkien's fox, it's head hopping because we're not in the POV of the omniscient narrator. Or Frodo's POV. We're in the POV of the fox - drawn into it by his direct and unfiltered thought, and by his "voice."

As it happens, I think in this case the head hopping is a good thing. It serves several useful functions - which was the point of my original post, but it's still head hopping.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jun 18, 2015)

Jack Krenneck said:


> I don't make the rules...and if I could, I wouldn't.
> 
> But here are some respectable authorities whose point of view matches up with what I've been saying. See what you think.
> 
> ...


I'm not nearly as knowledgeable on this subject as most of the people who are commenting, but I've been following the discussion with interest. I didn't read all your articles, but I did read the first one. From what I read, it contradicted your point.

Here's your fox quote for LOTR:



> 'Hobbits!' he thought. 'Well, what next? I have heard of strange doings in this land, but I have seldom heard of a hobbit sleeping out of doors under a tree. Three of them! There's something mighty queer behind this.'


Here's what that first article says on the subject:



> In other words, an omniscient POV story would be able to share different characters' thoughts and feelings, but would not word them in the characters' voices. Head-hopping occurs when the narrative jumps from one character's voice to another without a signal or break in-between.


So I get where you would read this and think it backs up your point. It says, "an omniscient POV story ... would not word them in the characters' voices." LOTR did word the thought in the character's voice. Thus, LOTR head hopped.

But read the rest of that quote. Head hopping occurs when the narrative jumps from one character's voice to another *without a signal or break in-between*. (Emphasis mine)

In the example from LOTR, the fact that the fox is clearly thinking is signaled by "he thought." Therefore, it seems that your example does not meet the articles definition of head hopping.

It seems to me that the LOTR example treated the "thought" in the say way he treated a "said." Since it's okay to directly quote dialogue in omniscient, it's seems like it's okay to directly quote thoughts as long as you clearly indicate that the omniscient narrator is directly quoting a character's thoughts.

If the narrator instead suddenly started talking like the character without that attribution, that, by the standards of the article you referenced, would be head hopping. The example in LOTR, however, does not seem to meet that standard.

That's what I got out of it, anyway.

Thanks.

Brian


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jun 18, 2015)

Jack,

After reading the rest of the articles you listed, I'm even more convinced that you got the LOTR example wrong. I didn't find a lot in the scribophile article (though I kinda skimmed it, so I may have missed something). The last article, however, did directly address the issue:



> Rather, in the omniscient POV, the narrative is free to observe the mindsets of various characters. What it's not free to do (at the risk of confusing readers) is portray those thoughts in the unique and personal voices of the individual characters. Basically, what that means is that direct thoughts are pretty much off-limits (although there will always be the occasional exception to confuse things).


Again, on first read, I really see why you claim that the fox is head hopping. Digging a little deeper, however, I really think that attribution of "he thought" makes it one of the exceptions this article alludes to. All the examples the article gives are direct italic thought without attribution and are, in my way of thinking, good examples of head hopping.

Both articles are very generic ones written to, on a broad level, help authors avoid head hopping when in omniscient POV. I don't think that any of them were meant to be exhaustive guides on the subject, and none of the address the specific LOTR example.

I agree with you, after reading the articles, that an omniscient narrator switching to the voices of specific character is head hopping.

For the specific example, though, I don't think that's what Tolkien did. Instead, I think that Tolkien, as the narrator, observed a specific thought from the fox and reported that thought in the same way the narrator observed speech and reported that speech. Again, I have to say that that is okay usage and is not head hopping.

Thanks.

Brian


----------



## Carradee (Aug 21, 2010)

Jack Krenneck said:


> But here are some respectable authorities whose point of view matches up with what I've been saying. See what you think.


Your references actually match what I said, not what you said. (Example: "Third Person Omniscient [...] even *shows* what multiple people are thinking within a scene." "Shown" thoughts are necessarily directly quoted. Indirect descriptions of thoughts is "telling".)

You seem to be conflating direct quotes with filtering. Omni cannot be filtered through the characters.

See, if a narrative description says, "The building loomed ominously over the dark street," then the building looks ominous to the PoV character--that's the scene filtered through the PoV--but if the PoV is omni, then the building must *objectively* look ominous. (ETA: Unless the omni PoV isn't literally omniscient-such as some being that's outside conventional constraints and able to report on folks' thoughts-but in that situation, the "omni" PoV is actually a limited PoV and the narrator's just an "omniscient" character, so it's essentially a hybrid PoV, but then you're getting in semantics and could functionally view it either way.)

The filtering through the character perception = character voice.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

I agree with you, BW. The passage Jack is citing from LOTR is not _narration_. It's _dialogue_. The quote marks around the material should make that very clear. Insisting that the presence of dialogue, whether internal or spoken, makes something head-hopping doesn't make sense to me. If that were the case, then every book in existence would be head-hopping every time a new person starts speaking.


----------



## JLCarver (Sep 13, 2015)

Deleted.


----------



## Deke (May 18, 2013)

Head hopping is easy in screenwriting, you just point the camera at a different person. So when I started writing novels, the initial feedback was to stop with all the head-hopping. And the notes were right…it's really jarring. Fun that someone else here mentioned Harry Potter…which I haven't read…but I am reading Cuckoo's Calling and sure enough there is some head hopping throughout the book. It's weird to view a scene from one character's POV, then suddenly jump to another's POV for a paragraph or two. Don't do it!


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

Until you've read Mrs. Dalloway, I don't think you've really experienced head-hopping.

This aside has been brought to you by my English degree.


----------



## Jack Krenneck (Feb 9, 2014)

BWFoster78 said:


> So I get where you would read this and think it backs up your point. It says, "an omniscient POV story ... would not word them in the characters' voices." LOTR did word the thought in the character's voice. Thus, LOTR head hopped.
> 
> But read the rest of that quote. Head hopping occurs when the narrative jumps from one character's voice to another *without a signal or break in-between*. (Emphasis mine)
> 
> ...


I think you're confusing "voice" with "thought."

The article is talking about jumping from "one character's voice" without signaling, and you're talking about a signal being given that the fox was _thinking _by the attribution "he thought."

"He thought," signaled that the fox was the owner of the thoughts, _but not that there was a change of voice_.

Nowhere does the article say that an omniscient narrator can signal a shift in voice via he/she thought. But the article does talk about the usual methods - chapter, scene and line breaks.

He/she thought signals _both _direct thought or indirect thought. As the difference between the two is key to establishing POV, it's impossible for the attribution to signal whether or not there's been a shift.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Becca Mills said:


> I've never tried using omniscient, but it does seem to me that it'd be hard to do it well, especially outside something like a kid's book or a satire, where you can lean heavily on commentary/asides to help develop the narrator as a separate persona. Having to pull it off more subtly ... that sounds very challenging.


I think another great use of omniscient POV is the unreliable narrator. Which is, in its essence, then a mindf*** of an epic scale.


----------



## Jack Krenneck (Feb 9, 2014)

Becca Mills said:


> I agree with you, BW. The passage Jack is citing from LOTR is not _narration_. It's _dialogue_. The quote marks around the material should make that very clear. Insisting that the presence of dialogue, whether internal or spoken, makes something head-hopping doesn't make sense to me. If that were the case, then every book in existence would be head-hopping every time a new person starts speaking.


I'm not sure why you're drawing dialogue into it. I never said an omniscient narrator who quoted dialogue was head hopping any more than I said Tolkien didn't write in omni...

You can call a character's thoughts dialogue. I think a better term would be internal dialogue. But neither conveys the nuances that are key to the whole issue. Fortunately, there's a literary term that does: _direct thought_. And it doesn't bring in a whole range of issues that have nothing to do with what I'm saying.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jun 18, 2015)

Jack Krenneck said:


> I think you're confusing "voice" with "thought."
> 
> The article is talking about jumping from "one character's voice" without signaling, and you're talking about a signal being given that the fox was _thinking _by the attribution "he thought."
> 
> "He thought," signaled that the fox was the owner of the thoughts, _but not that there was a change of voice_.


Jack,

If I understand your concern correctly, it's that the head hopping occurs because the fox's thought is expressed in the voice of the fox instead of the voice of the narrator. If that statement doesn't reflect your actual concern, then I've misunderstood you and you can ignore the rest of this post 

I disagree with your conclusion that the use of the fox's voice instead of the narrator's constitutes head hopping in this example (and only in this specific example).

If two characters are speaking, it is okay for the omniscient narrator to relay that exchange to the reader in the voices of the characters. In your next post, you agree with that conclusion by saying, "I never said an omniscient narrator who quoted dialogue was head hopping."

Here's where we depart: I feel that quoting thoughts, as long as the thoughts are directly attributed as being quoted, is no different than quoting dialogue.

In the example, Tolkien clearly says, "Hey reader, the fox is thinking these exact thoughts in these exact words." If you see a difference between doing that and quoting dialogue, you're going to have to explain it to me because I'm just not seeing it.



> Nowhere does the article say that an omniscient narrator can signal a shift in voice via he/she thought.


As I stated above, I can't see how the article was ever intended to be an exhaustive guide on the use of omniscient narration. To me, it doesn't make a whole heckava lotta sense to say that something can't be done using a particular method simply because a short article that briefly touches on the subject doesn't specifically call out that particular method.



> He/she thought signals both direct thought or indirect thought. As the difference between the two is key to establishing POV, it's impossible for the attribution to signal whether or not there's been a shift.


There is no shift in POV. The author isn't trying to put you in the fox's head. Instead, the author is using a narrator to tell you the fox's direct thoughts. Again, if the quotes and the thought tag were absent, I'd agree with you completely that the author head hopped. Since the quotes and thought tag are present, however, I disagree with you.


----------



## Carradee (Aug 21, 2010)

It's worth noting that _The Chicago Manual of Style_ (16th ed.) refers to both quoted words and quoted thoughts as "discourse".


Quoted dialogue is "direct discourse" (ref. 13.37).
Paraphrased dialogue is "indirect discourse" (ref. 13.43).
Quoted thought is "unspoken discourse" (ref. 13.41).


----------



## AngelaQuarles (Jun 22, 2014)

Jack Krenneck said:


> http://jamigold.com/2011/02/what-makes-omniscient-pov-different-from-head-hopping/


Jami's my best Beta buddy  I'll see if she'll weigh in, but I think her post about voice you linked to actually proves our point. In her post she says (emphasis mine):



> [V]oice is that sense there's a person behind the words.
> 
> Yes. We've often heard that voice can be enough to overcome many writing sins. Why? *Because if we have a sense of someone sharing this story, we're more likely to pay attention.*


The Omni voice is established so well, we have the sense that the Omni narrator is sharing this story with us. And I don't think even a direct thought, which is no different than a piece of dialogue, in a character's voice violates that.

What _would_, would be Jami's example here she gave for headhopping:



> She didn't know what to say. *How the heck was she supposed to react when her ex called out of the blue to tell her he's dying?* He coughed a couple times and then a couple more, just to stretch out the interruption and make her squirm.


The bolded part is a direct thought _in that person's voice_, just plopped in there as the narrator. And so with that, and then immediately going into the guy's head, makes that clearly head-hopping. In the LoTR fox example, it's clear that it's the narrator telling us what the fox thought. It's the narrator, the well-established Omni narrator, that is clearly giving us a delightful insight into everything happening.

Jami, feel free to disagree if you do stop by...

ETA: I actually _do_ think "s/he thought" can _help_ with adding that narrative distance required in Omni, but it alone doesn't make it Omni, it's the authoritative, skillful voice that establishes that. But phrases like s/he thought, s/he wondered, s/he felt, etc are all what's called "filter phrases" and writers who want to go the opposite of Omni and write in Deep POV are urged to cut them out. And they're urged to do so because it adds a subtle layer of distance between the reader and the prose and reminds them that someone other than the protag is telling this story, which is not what you want in Deep POV. In Deep POV you want the reader to feel as if they're inside the protag's head. Whereas in Omni, someone _is_ telling you the story.


----------



## Carradee (Aug 21, 2010)

AngelaQuarles said:


> What _would_, would be Jami's example here she gave for headhopping:
> 
> 
> > She didn't know what to say. How the heck was she supposed to react when her ex called out of the blue to tell her he's dying? He coughed a couple times and then a couple more, just to stretch out the interruption and make her squirm.


Actually, the "headhopping" in that example is due to what I marked with colors: the very paragraph changes points of view in the middle, from the gal to the guy.

"Headhopping" in omniscient PoV would be changing points of view midscene, which is easier done than avoided if you don't have a solid sense of how an omniscient narrator is essentially a character in and of themselves, even if they're primarily a camera lens. That character is what the story is filtered through, be it an objective and telepathic camera lens or some teenage psychic.


----------



## JamiGold (Jun 10, 2014)

Hi Everyone,

Angela asked me to stop by and clarify my omniscient vs. head-hopping article that's been invoked here. 

I skimmed through the comments, and the bulk of you in these last two pages have it right. Sorry, Jack, but internal thought that is expressed with a distancing method, such as a "he thought" tag, maintains the distance to continue the omniscient POV. As others have said, when combined with a tag, it is like the _reporting_ of dialogue. It is not a case of the POV itself _becoming_ that character.

Please let me know if you have any questions!

(And boy, do I hope that I didn't get anything wrong in my articles, as I've never considered myself an omni expert. LOL!)

Jami


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

OP, I think you have your answer:

We hesitate to write in omniscient nowadays lest we be accused of the newly minted 'sin' called 'head hopping'.


----------



## JamiGold (Jun 10, 2014)

As for the larger question from the OP, as others have said, the POV trend has been veering toward deeper POV for over a century. (There was just recently an article about how one of Jane Austen's books could qualify as the first deep POV story.) I have several theories for why that is the case, everything from the advent of TV giving us a taste of "you are there" entertainment to the isolation that many feel in the modern world (which means for some, the opportunity to connect with anyone--even a fictional character--has its appeal).

That said, several genres tend to be exceptions: children's, middle grade, scifi, fantasy, etc. However, as romance is both the groundbreaker of the trend (if Austen was indeed the first) and the genre that appeals to readers _mostly_ for the connection to the characters and not the plot (above all other genres, romance readers need to _care_ that these characters get together), I wouldn't doubt that romance readers would be _more likely_ to push back against any technique (POV or otherwise) that creates distance between them and the characters.

So while omniscient might work very well with some genres and in some stories in genres other than the typical exceptions, I would expect that it would be far more difficult to keep _romance_ readers happy with that POV choice. That doesn't mean it _can't_ be done, but it would have to evoke strong emotions in readers by some other methods. Unlike many other genre readers, _romance_ readers tend to read for the emotional aspect, not just the story, the plot, the entertainment, etc.

What that means--getting back to the OP's question--is that if the story _is_ a romance and if the previous readers weren't _romance_ readers and if the push back is now coming from author/readers who _are_ romance readers, that might explain the sudden difference in response. That's a lot of ifs.  But I wanted to add another layer of understanding to the omni vs. head-hopping vs. skilled-or-unskilled use of omni debate. It might simply be a difference of the types of readers and their expectations.

I hope that makes sense... 
Jami


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jun 18, 2015)

> Jami's my best Beta buddy  I'll see if she'll weigh in, but I think her post about voice you linked to actually proves our point. In her post she says (emphasis mine):


So if you're having a back and forth discussion/disagreement over an article, you should just have the article's author weigh in?

I seriously never would have even thought of that solution 

Good call!


----------



## AngelaQuarles (Jun 22, 2014)

Carradee said:


> Actually, the "headhopping" in that example is due to what I marked with colors: the very paragraph changes points of view in the middle, from the gal to the guy.
> 
> "Headhopping" in omniscient PoV would be changing points of view midscene, which is easier done than avoided if you don't have a solid sense of how an omniscient narrator is essentially a character in and of themselves, even if they're primarily a camera lens. That character is what the story is filtered through, be it an objective and telepathic camera lens or some teenage psychic.


? That's what I said, I believe. That her thought combined with his is what made it headhopping


----------



## JamiGold (Jun 10, 2014)

BWFoster78 said:


> So if you're having a back and forth discussion/disagreement over an article, you should just have the article's author weigh in?
> 
> I seriously never would have even thought of that solution
> 
> Good call!


Heh. Crazy idea, right?  But I hope my answer above adds clarity.

Jami


----------



## Maggie Dana (Oct 26, 2011)

Here's a bit of omniscient in my latest MG/tween novel (book 13 in a series) that's told from three 3rd person POVs (Kate, Holly, and Twiggy). But sometimes, at the beginning of a new chapter, you have to give the reader a birds-eye view and drill down, quickly, to the narrator for that particular scene.

***

The Timber Ridge team left at dawn on Friday morning with Liz at the wheel. Meredith sat beside her, clutching a large thermos of coffee that they passed back and forth. Squashed into the van's back seat, Kate, Holly, and Twiggy took turns yawning and arguing over who had the most room. Mrs. Dean had already driven off with Angela and Kristina, leaving their horses for everyone else to deal with.

_Typical_, Kate thought.


----------



## Carradee (Aug 21, 2010)

AngelaQuarles said:


> ? That's what I said, I believe. That her thought combined with his is what made it headhopping


Your bold didn't catch the full delineation of where the his/her break was.


----------



## AngelaQuarles (Jun 22, 2014)

Carradee said:


> Your bold didn't catch the full delineation of where the his/her break was.


Because I was only trying to point out the direct thought in the character's voice to make the point I was going for, but in my explanation, when I was then talking about headhopping I pointed out that it was the two combined that made it so.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Jami,

thanks for weighing in on what has been a very interesting discussion!

Betsy


----------



## Jack Krenneck (Feb 9, 2014)

JamiGold said:


> Hi Everyone,
> 
> Angela asked me to stop by and clarify my omniscient vs. head-hopping article that's been invoked here.
> 
> ...


Thanks for chipping in.

Honestly, this is how I feel. I'm not convinced. My instincts scream at me when reading the Tolkien passage that I'm in the head of the narrator, and then the head of the fox, and then finally the head of Frodo. The direct thought of the two characters, together with the expression of those thoughts in their own "voice" transports me there. And the attribution "he thought" does nothing to distance me from that feeling. Rather, it intensifies it. The contrast between the direct thought of the characters and the narration of the author serves to make each more distinct. That increases the feeling of moving from one head into another.

Having said that, I'm willing - more than willing - to concede the debate.


----------



## stoney (May 24, 2015)

Seems to me this entire detailed discussion on what is, and isn't, Omni is why we rarely see it these days. It's hard to get right, it's easy to get wrong and very few seem to even understand the distinction.


----------



## AngelaQuarles (Jun 22, 2014)

stoney said:


> Seems to me this entire detailed discussion on what is, and isn't, Omni is why we rarely see it these days. It's hard to get right, it's easy to get wrong and very few seem to even understand the distinction.


Yep.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

We have 'problems' with omniscient narrators the same way we have a lot of 'style' problems: some famous writer said something stupid one day and everyone who wants to be that person parroted it forever without ever actually thinking about it or how it works.

Same with show not tell, same with 'no adverbs', some with unpacking. People need to stop listening to anything ever said about style and think more about storytelling.


----------



## thewitt (Dec 5, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> We have 'problems' with omniscient narrators the same way we have a lot of 'style' problems: some famous writer said something stupid one day and everyone who wants to be that person parroted it forever without ever actually thinking about it or how it works.
> 
> Same with show not tell, same with 'no adverbs', some with unpacking. People need to stop listening to anything ever said about style and think more about storytelling.


This....absolutely.


----------



## mmflores (Jan 3, 2016)

Becca Mills said:


> The OP might've been dinged for "head-hopping," which is not the same thing as omniscient narration. Head-hopping is third-person narration gone awry. First the POV is from one character, then another, with no filter between the reader and the characters. It can be jarring and confusing. People who recognize what's happening will call it out as a problem; people who don't know enough about POV to recognize it may still feel confused or put off, even if they can't articulate why.
> 
> In omniscient narration, the narrative voice is developed as a quasi-character in its own right. The narrator-persona has a distinct personality and attitude(s), which comes through in the way it narrates the story. The narrator has a godlike overview of the situation and can dip into different characters' POVs, or stand back and comment on the action from outside any character's POV. In other words, the narrator may spend time not in any particular character's head. It may brush closer to some heads than others without diving in fully. It's wonderfully flexible.
> 
> ...


So what does JK Rowling use in Harry Potter. The very first book opens from the 3rd POV limited of Mr. Durseley, then goes to Dumbledore without any kind of mark in the shift.


----------



## RightHoJeeves (Jun 30, 2016)

Jeff Hughes said:


> Cormac McCarthy is one of my favorite authors. He, of course, is well known for his stylistic tic of not including quotation marks to set off his dialogue.
> 
> I like his stories because of the _stories_, not because of his f*ck-the-rules style (which, were I having a beer with him, I would take him to task for).


Crikey, a beer with Cormac McCarthy would be brutal. Would he even drink beer? Is whiskey too cliche? Maybe tequila, because of his interest in Mexico. Maybe he's like JM Coetzee, who abstains from everything (and, who, as a colleague of ten years said, has apparently never laughed or smiled once in his life).


----------



## Frankenrainbow (Jan 8, 2017)

alawston said:


> Write your thing and bobbins to the lot of them!
> 
> The problem is that self-published writers, and indeed amateur book reviewers, are not always the most clued up or sophisticated. Many have learned their craft from blogs and half-remembered English lessons, if at all. They have a tendency to latch on to bits of advice like "the omniscient narrator is a bit old-fashioned" because it's easy to remember, and something they think they understand, and then they start going a bit witch-hunty on any writing they feel transgresses their received wisdom.
> 
> ...


Pure gold!


----------



## Jack Krenneck (Feb 9, 2014)

I knew this thread would make a comeback...

I don't think there's anything inherently good or bad in head hopping. The key is in the execution. Get it right and it can be used to good purpose. Get it wrong and it confuses the reader. The trick is to study those writers who use the technique and figure out why they did it and how they pulled it off.


----------



## GoneToWriterSanctum (Sep 13, 2014)

Jack Krenneck said:


> I knew this thread would make a comeback...
> 
> I don't think there's anything inherently good or bad in head hopping. The key is in the execution. Get it right and it can be used to good purpose. Get it wrong and it confuses the reader. The trick is to study those writers who use the technique and figure out why they did it and how they pulled it off.


I truly don't think it matters, as long as the story is told. You, as an author, can use whatever POV you want. In a couple of my stories, I've flipped between first person and the narrator, simply because I needed to shift the story to someone else's perspective.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

mmflores said:


> So what does JK Rowling use in Harry Potter. The very first book opens from the 3rd POV limited of Mr. Durseley, then goes to Dumbledore without any kind of mark in the shift.


That first chapter is omniscient. See the moments where we're not in any particular person's head? That's the narrative voice, existing as a separate entity. I don't know that we ever really get inside Dumbledore's head in that scene, nor McGonagall's. The narrator is close with Mr. Dursley but then pulls back to a more distant position with the other two:

His last, comforting thought before he fell asleep was that even if the Potters _were _involved, there was no reason for them to come near him and Mrs. Dursley. The Potters knew very well what he and Petunia thought about them and their kind. ... He couldn't see how he and Petunia could get mixed up in anything that might be going on -- he yawned and turned over -- it couldn't affect _them_ ....
 How very wrong he was.
Mr. Dursley might have been drifting into an uneasy sleep, but the cat on the wall outside was showing no sign of sleepiness. It was sitting as still as a statue, its eyes fixed unblinkingly on the far corner of Privet Drive. It didn't so much as quiver when a car door slammed on the next street, nor when two owls swooped overhead. In fact, it was nearly midnight before the cat moved at all.
A man appeared on the corner the car had been watching [...]
It seemed that professor McGonagall had reached the point she was most anxious to discuss, the real reason she had been waiting on a cold, hard wall all day, for neither as a cat nor a woman had she fixed Dumbledore with such a piercing stare as she did now. [...]

In the red material, the narrator is close with Mr. Dursley: we're inside his head, seeing his thoughts in real time. Then we get a godlike comment that's divorced from anyone's POV, in green. Then we focus on McGonagall and Dumbledore, but it's not close. See how the narrator does really _know _if McGonagall has reached the point she's most anxious to discuss? The narrator is outside her head, so all he/she can do is report that the McGonagall _seems _to feel that way, based on the way she looks at Dumbledore.

This is the power of omniscient -- so flexible. It's an amazing tool. I've never tried to use it. I'm scared I'd muff it up.


----------



## Steve Voelker (Feb 27, 2014)

There is a HUGE difference between omniscient POV and head hopping. 

I read books written in omniscient POV all the time. 

I would give up one a book after only a few pages for head hopping. 

When people talk about head hopping, they are referring to the jarring clash of POV that happens sometimes when unskilled writers try their hands at writing omniscient. It makes it difficult for the readers to figure out what is going on, or who they are supposed to be following at any given time. 

Head hopping is not the same thing as omniscient. Head hopping is a danger to avoid when writing omniscient. That's why many new writers are warned against using omniscient POV, because it is hard.

In know it sounds cool to be all - Screw all those writing rules and just write whatever you want!

But in reality, especially if you want to actually sell books, those rules are there for a reason. 

Are they hard and fast? Of course not.

But most of them are pretty damn good guides for a new writer to keep in mind. 

People say no adverbs. Of course you can use them. But it VERY easy to over use them. 

Nothing but said as a dialogue tag? Of course you can use other words. But is is really easy to sound like an amateur when you make the wrong choice there. 

Show don't tell? Of course there are times when you need to do some telling. But as a general rule, showing the reader has a stronger effect. 

Don't write omniscient, because it is head hopping? That's not something I've ever heard. It's usually more like - be careful of head hopping when you write ANY 3rd person POV, because it will be jarring and confusing to the reader. 

If you can manage to head hop while writing 1st person. then good for you! 

We all know rules are made to be broken. But I think it is essential to know why those rules were there in the first place before your toss them out. 

A good writer can make those choices, because a good writer has studied their craft.


----------



## archaeoroutes (Oct 12, 2014)

I'm not laying down or intentionally quoting any rules here. Here goes my attempt to express my understanding...
1. Third person omniscient narrator is an actual character (albeit usually not one involved in the events) who tells the story. He/she knows everything that is happening at all places and times, and knows what everyone is thinking and what they feel. They may tell the story in any person, though usually in my experience they use the third.
eg. Fred agonised over his choice of socks. Little did he realise that in a matter of hours the colour wouldn't matter, as the Martians stood poised to attack Earth.
2. Third person omniscient knows and tells everything but doesn't have a voice of their own.
eg. Fred agonised over his choice of socks. Overhead, Admiral Xplk readied her troops to attack Earth.
3. Third person limited (aka close third person) only knows what one particular character knows at any point.
eg. Fred agonised over his choice of socks.

Head-hopping or switching POV too often is when using 3 but which character's head you are in changes too quickly for the reader. Obviously, what point that occurs is subjective.
It is possible for 2 to be misunderstood as headhopping if the overall tone doesn't suggest it is 2, or if it lingers too long in one particular head.
It is possible for 1 to be misunderstood if the narrator doesn't have a strong enough voice.


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

"This is the power of omniscient -- so flexible. It's an amazing tool. I've never tried to use it. I'm scared I'd muff it up."

writing omniscient is AWESOME. you have to try using it immediately.


----------



## archaeoroutes (Oct 12, 2014)

Steve Voelker said:


> If you can manage to head hop while writing 1st person. then good for you!


Challenge accepted!


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

I've thought about this a bit in the year since this thread, and you know, there definitely is omniscient where the narrative voice is not fully developed as a entity whose distinct presence you can sense in the text. There aren't any of those godlike comments that establish the separateness of the narrative voice. It's like the narrator is transparent. It's that kind of omniscient that risks becoming confusing. When it does, we get the "head-hopping" label. Either that, or you just have a newbie writer who hasn't thought about the logic of how different POVs work and thus does random stuff.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

GeneDoucette said:


> "This is the power of omniscient -- so flexible. It's an amazing tool. I've never tried to use it. I'm scared I'd muff it up."
> 
> writing omniscient is AWESOME. you have to try using it immediately.


Can't make me. 

Seriously, I have a feeling it'd come off as twee if I tried it. Like in _The Hobbit_. (Nothing against _The Hobbit_ -- it's for kids, and the narrative voice works well.) Developing an effective grown-up narrative voice feels a little beyond me, at this point.


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

Becca Mills said:


> Can't make me.
> 
> Seriously, I have a feeling it'd come off as twee if I tried it. Like in _The Hobbit_. (Nothing against _The Hobbit_ -- it's for kids, and the narrative voice works well.) Developing an effective grown-up narrative voice feels a little beyond me, at this point.


i think i mentioned it already downthread, but i used it in The Spaceship Next Door, and I don't think any readers fully recognized it was being used. (I certainly didn't think about it when I was writing it.) I begin a lot of chapters in omniscient, and then drill down to close third. I prefer to think of it as describing Sorrow Falls as if the town was a character. In that sense, I wasn't describing things nobody knew except the omniscient voice. I was describing things everybody knew.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

GeneDoucette said:


> i think i mentioned it already downthread, but i used it in The Spaceship Next Door, and I don't think any readers fully recognized it was being used. (I certainly didn't think about it when I was writing it.) I begin a lot of chapters in omniscient, and then drill down to close third. I prefer to think of it as describing Sorrow Falls as if the town was a character. In that sense, I wasn't describing things nobody knew except the omniscient voice. I was describing things everybody knew.


I will have to take a look at _Spaceship_ -- haven't read it yet.

Could you also argue that no one except that particular narrator would put the things everyone knows about Sorrow Falls together into that particular vision of the town in that particular way, so there is an entity there giving us its version of the town?

I guess what's often missing in discussions of POV how varied an approach can be. A book that starts with omniscient and then drills down to close third ... why not? There's this sense that we have to choose "a POV" for each work, but POV can be flexible. I suppose the conventions of genre fiction often leave less room for flexibility, but sci-fi is more varied than the other genres.


----------



## Mari Oliver (Feb 12, 2016)

I write mostly in omni, even my romances. So, not sure how that will go once I release but it's how I have the most freedom to tell story. I love omniscient narrator, which is done powerfully most of the times I've seen it (not sure why people say otherwise).


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

The OP made the observation that she got the most flack from other writers. I ran into that with a book written in 3rd person that occasionally dipped into close 3rd, and the POV did change sometimes, albeit with a scene change. A beta reader (unpublished novelist) ripped me a new one for head hopping. Actually told me that she was offended by my writing and that 1st present was the only modern way to tell a story. I think there are a lot of very young people who began reading for pleasure only after the self-pub 99 cent ebook revolution. Now they're authors.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Me and JK Rowling are both British and there is just 18 months of a difference in age. She is writing in the typical British children's writer voice, which is modelled on the voice of a parent or teacher reading and explaining a story to a child. Even as Harry etc grew older the style remained very much that of British children's literature. In this tradition the narrator functions as a sort of Sparks notes for the parent or teacher who feels obliged to add explanations and the author keeps control of the story by obviating the need for the parent or teacher to adlib.


----------



## Word Fan (Apr 15, 2015)

brkingsolver said:


> Actually told me that she was offended by my writing and that 1st present was the only modern way to tell a story. I think there are a lot of very young people who began reading for pleasure only after the self-pub 99 cent ebook revolution. Now they're authors.


No, they're just people who put words down and _think_ that that's all there is to being an author. They have no concept of what true "authorship" consists of.


----------



## Mari Oliver (Feb 12, 2016)

brkingsolver said:


> The OP made the observation that she got the most flack from other writers. I ran into that with a book written in 3rd person that occasionally dipped into close 3rd, and the POV did change sometimes, albeit with a scene change. A beta reader (unpublished novelist) ripped me a new one for head hopping. Actually told me that she was offended by my writing and that 1st present was the only modern way to tell a story. I think there are a lot of very young people who began reading for pleasure only after the self-pub 99 cent ebook revolution. Now they're authors.


Ugh! Tell me you sent her to the curb! This is precisely why I stopped using critique groups and sites. Now I work with one close writing buddy and betas so I get actual feedback pertaining to story.


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

Becca Mills said:


> I will have to take a look at _Spaceship_ -- haven't read it yet.
> 
> Could you also argue that no one except that particular narrator would put the things everyone knows about Sorrow Falls together into that particular vision of the town in that particular way, so there is an entity there giving us its version of the town?
> 
> I guess what's often missing in discussions of POV how varied an approach can be. A book that starts with omniscient and then drills down to close third ... why not? There's this sense that we have to choose "a POV" for each work, but POV can be flexible. I suppose the conventions of genre fiction often leave less room for flexibility, but sci-fi is more varied than the other genres.


The narrator knows all things collectively, but is stuck in the same "now" and that might be why it's more palatable. I think perhaps omniscient that dips into "little did she know..." is going to end badly.

POV in Spaceship is very fluid, but there are clear indicators of the drill-down, it's just not obvious. For example, one chapter begins with a long description of a mural on the wall, discussing the historical event which is depicted in the mural and the known deviations from historical fact the mural represents. Eventually it gets to a paragraph that begins with something like "that was Annie's favorite part of the mural" and it's close third from that point until the next break. The first part of the break is an omni-third description of a mall, and then we're back to close third again.

At no point, though, does the narrative talk about what is going to happen. Omni narrator can go back to the past and talk up to the present, but not to events-to-come.


----------



## Lu Kudzoza (Nov 1, 2015)

brkingsolver said:


> The OP made the observation that she got the most flack from other writers.


Every single bit of bad advice I've seen about writing comes from writers. Maybe writers should ignore advice from writers.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

GeneDoucette said:


> The narrator knows all things collectively, but is stuck in the same "now" and that might be why it's more palatable. I think perhaps omniscient that dips into "little did she know..." is going to end badly.
> 
> POV in Spaceship is very fluid, but there are clear indicators of the drill-down, it's just not obvious. For example, one chapter begins with a long description of a mural on the wall, discussing the historical event which is depicted in the mural and the known deviations from historical fact the mural represents. Eventually it gets to a paragraph that begins with something like "that was Annie's favorite part of the mural" and it's close third from that point until the next break. The first part of the break is an omni-third description of a mall, and then we're back to close third again.
> 
> At no point, though, does the narrative talk about what is going to happen. Omni narrator can go back to the past and talk up to the present, but not to events-to-come.


Interesting! Did you plan this approach ahead of time, or did it evolve as you wrote?

It's helpful to think of an omniscient narrator as potentially being temporally restricted in one way or several.


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

Becca Mills said:


> Interesting! Did you plan this approach ahead of time, or did it evolve as you wrote?
> 
> It's helpful to think of an omniscient narrator as potentially being temporally restricted in one way or several.


No, I just wrote. I never really thought about it before this conversation. But I think most of the omniscient we see--the not-so-noticeable kind--works this way.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

GeneDoucette said:


> No, I just wrote. I never really thought about it before this conversation. But I think most of the omniscient we see--the not-so-noticeable kind--works this way.


Cool, thanks for the info. Food for thought ...


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

I've tried writing omniscient and am terrible at it. It's harder than it looks to do well. There should be a 'don't try this at home' warning on it.


----------



## J. Tanner (Aug 22, 2011)

Missed this thread the first time around, but the whole premise of the thread seems off.

Omniscient narrator is less common than it used to be because readers have shown a preference for more limited POV options.

It has nothing to do with writers. Writers simply figured out why certain stories resonated with readers and codified that into POV "rules" that help newer writers with structure. But they aren't really rules. They're guidelines. Without a shared understanding of the concepts new writers who want to learn flounder. The advice is all too vague. Craft books make things less vague because there is a demand for precise answers.

You can totally color outside the lines, or ignore them entirely. But it's best to understand it all and know why you're doing it because doing it for no reason or badly only hurts you in your attempt to build a readership.

And it's totally possible to build a readership through ignoring (or complete ignorance of) these guidelines. It's just tends to be more difficult and less common.


----------



## Mari Oliver (Feb 12, 2016)

JRTomlin said:


> I've tried writing omniscient and am terrible at it. It's harder than it looks to do well. There should be a 'don't try this at home' warning on it.


See, I think it all comes down to practice. Can't be good at something if you don't practice, right? It honestly does get easier the more you do it (omni, that is).


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

In romance, it'll have a somewhat old-fashioned, distanced feel to it w/ omniscient, that you aren't really deeply into the characters' heads. 

I was re-reading some M.M. Kaye recently and realized that it was all omniscient. It struck me how different it was. More English as well--not dwelling as much on people's emotions, because you aren't there experiencing it with them, quite. Which is weird for romance now. 

(But could be a good thing if you wrote, say, true-to-period historical romance.)


----------



## Christopher Bunn (Oct 26, 2010)

I bet the omniscient narrator knows where the omniscient narrator has disappeared because, you know, he's omniscient.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Vintage Mari said:


> See, I think it all comes down to practice. Can't be good at something if you don't practice, right? It honestly does get easier the more you do it (omni, that is).


Perhaps, but do I want to put months or years into changing my writing style? Not really. 

ETA: A couple of my most beloved books as a reader are written in omni, but I simply decided it wasn't for me.


----------



## Mari Oliver (Feb 12, 2016)

JRTomlin said:


> Perhaps, but do I want to put months or years into changing my writing style? Not really.


This is exactly why I gave up on 3rd limited. I tried for about 2 years to write only in that POV and it was very difficult. I just connect better with omniscient and find it more flavorful. Different strokes and all that.


----------



## Frankenrainbow (Jan 8, 2017)

TimothyEllis said:


> I think its safe to say - my english teachers put me right off! Nor did they teach me anything particularly useful.


As a teacher myself, I fully agree. The curriculum at my school includes teaching "The Writing Process":

1. Pre-writing
2. Drafting
3. Revising and Editing
4. Rewriting
5. Publishing

Yes, "The Writing Process" has capital letters because according to these folk, _*there is only one way to write*_. And it's taught by people who are not writers, the vast majority of whom have never sat down and written anything voluntarily, and 99% of whom would be utterly incapable of sitting down and writing a piece of fiction if you asked them to.

As a pantser, I don't do step 1, "pre-write" (synonym for pre-writing), and I also write clean and one-draft, so I don't do step 2 (except for fixing typos) and most of all, I would never, ever, EVER do step 4 and rewrite a single word. So my writing process is just steps 2 and 5, and anything else kills it for me.

Wonder why it took me until I was out of college before I started writing voluntarily under my own initiative...


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

This discussion has been fascinating. I've never studied writing craft as such so I had no idea about these things, but now that I look at my books it strikes me that I automatically write in mainly third-person omniscient, and I get a lot of nice comments on my writing style, so if it has been out of fashion (which I never knew) maybe it's something worth trying if you feel you can do it. Perhaps there is a bigger market for it than you might think.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Lydniz said:


> This discussion has been fascinating. I've never studied writing craft as such so I had no idea about these things, but now that I look at my books it strikes me that I automatically write in mainly third-person omniscient, and I get a lot of nice comments on my writing style, so if it has been out of fashion (which I never knew) maybe it's something worth trying if you feel you can do it. Perhaps there is a bigger market for it than you might think.


I've been following this, and just wanted to add, that every author who writes a phrase like "little did she know how dire this would turn out to be" is already writing in omniscient POV. That is an omni POV statement, as the character herself has no way of knowing something like that. It is common enough, too. I see it all the time.


----------



## devalong (Aug 28, 2014)

I just read a pretty popular zombie book that was omniscient  - come to think if it maybe that was a tongue in decaying cheek jab at the idea that omniscient  is dead?


----------



## J. Tanner (Aug 22, 2011)

Nic said:


> I've been following this, and just wanted to add, that every author who writes a phrase like "little did she know how dire this would turn out to be" is already writing in omniscient POV. That is an omni POV statement, as the character herself has no way of knowing something like that. It is common enough, too. I see it all the time.


It's fairly common for an entire chapter to be in limited POV and then to throw in an omniscient "sting" as the last line to prompt pageturning.

I wouldn't say that makes the book omniscient. It's just rule-breaking for a very specific purpose.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

J. Tanner said:


> It's fairly common for an entire chapter to be in limited POV and then to throw in an omniscient "sting" as the last line to prompt pageturning.
> 
> I wouldn't say that makes the book omniscient. It's just rule-breaking for a very specific purpose.


That's up for definition. To me it's moving in and out of omni POV, which means there IS an omniscient POV alright, even though the writer may not actually be aware of it.


----------



## H.C. (Jul 28, 2016)

*Present tense, passive voice, and adverb stroll into the ballroom*

"Are we late to the party?"


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Nic said:


> That's up for definition. To me it's moving in and out of omni POV, which means there IS an omniscient POV alright, even though the writer may not actually be aware of it.


I don't know ... if the narrative voice isn't developed at all as an entity and only appears to even be present at one brief moment in the text, that feels more like a breaking of POV.

I once saw a creative writing colleague teach that breaking POV is often assumed to be a no-no but is actually a powerful tool when used carefully. She was focusing on literary fiction, of course. Unfortunately, I don't remember which stories she'd selected as examples, but I remember thinking at the time that she was absolutely right.


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

Becca Mills said:


> I don't know ... if the narrative voice isn't developed at all as an entity and only appears to even be present at one brief moment in the text, that feels more like a breaking of POV.
> 
> I once saw a creative writing colleague teach that breaking POV is often assumed to be a no-no but is actually a powerful tool when used carefully. She was focusing on literary fiction, of course. Unfortunately, I don't remember which stories she'd selected as examples, but I remember thinking at the time that she was absolutely right.


There's a Tumblr out there--or there used to be--belonging to an editor who used to post edits of the Twilight books. She pointed out a ton of instances where first person POV was violated. I think it's something one can get away with, but in my mind it means the author isn't in full command of what they're doing. (With allowances to the fact that Twilight obviously sold... rather well.)


----------



## Mari Oliver (Feb 12, 2016)

Becca Mills said:


> I don't know ... if the narrative voice isn't developed at all as an entity and only appears to even be present at one brief moment in the text, that feels more like a breaking of POV.
> 
> I once saw a creative writing colleague teach that breaking POV is often assumed to be a no-no but is actually a powerful tool when used carefully. She was focusing on literary fiction, of course. Unfortunately, I don't remember which stories she'd selected as examples, but I remember thinking at the time that she was absolutely right.


Yes. I write in omni, but there are times when I move into a (brief) 3rd limited pov, then zoom back out. I've been told this is a no-no by other writers but I don't care. The narrator needs to have full control otherwise why am I writing in omni?

Omniscient is a beautiful, powerful tool that can be done just as awful or amazing as 1st, 2nd, or limited 3rd. Or adverbs. Or anything else in life for that matter.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Vintage Mari said:


> Yes. I write in omni, but there are times when I move into a (brief) 3rd limited pov, then zoom back out. I've been told this is a no-no by other writers but I don't care. The narrator needs to have full control otherwise why am I writing in omni?


I agree. I mean, I don't have formal training in creative writing, but I've always thought omniscient narrators were free to move in and out of various characters' heads as they see fit -- close, distant, outside everyone, whatever. And most of the omniscient narrators I've read tend to hover close to one character's mind at a time, "limiting" themselves during portions of the text, as it were. Not for a whole chapter or scene, necessarily, but for chunks of conversation, at the least.



GeneDoucette said:


> There's a Tumblr out there--or there used to be--belonging to an editor who used to post edits of the Twilight books. She pointed out a ton of instances where first person POV was violated. I think it's something one can get away with, but in my mind it means the author isn't in full command of what they're doing. (With allowances to the fact that Twilight obviously sold... rather well.)


Yeah, I'm sure a lot of the time it's just a slippage, not an intentional breaking.

I have to say, traditionally published authors should get better service from their houses. Like all the little continuity errors in the Harry Potter books. I mean, seriously! These books are making their publishers millions of dollars. A few weeks of attention from a good editor doesn't seem like an unreasonable ask.


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

Becca Mills said:


> I have to say, traditionally published authors should get better service from their houses. Like all the little continuity errors in the Harry Potter books. I mean, seriously! These books are making their publishers millions of dollars. A few weeks of attention from a good editor doesn't seem like an unreasonable ask.


I think indies tend to attribute more skill to publishers' editors than is realistic. I know that I long for having someone who "really knows what they're doing" take a look at my work. On the other hand, I know what the "best and the brightest" wrote like in the classes I taught at the university. I'm not sure what kind of quality you're going to get by paying someone in New York City $50K a year and working them 60 hours a week.


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

"I have to say, traditionally published authors should get better service from their houses. Like all the little continuity errors in the Harry Potter books. I mean, seriously! These books are making their publishers millions of dollars. A few weeks of attention from a good editor doesn't seem like an unreasonable ask."

I honestly think omniscient is the easiest. And I say that having written four novels and five novellas in first, and a novella and novel in close third. First person was by far the most challenging, because it's hard to give a full accounting of what's happening without breaking POV, which is what Stephanie Meyer was doing a lot of, apparently.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Nic said:


> I've been following this, and just wanted to add, that every author who writes a phrase like "little did she know how dire this would turn out to be" is already writing in omniscient POV. That is an omni POV statement, as the character herself has no way of knowing something like that. It is common enough, too. I see it all the time.


It is omniscient and it is very common, although probably began life as a dire example of how not to do foreshadowing. That may be a clue as to why many writers are uncomfortable with omniscient nowadays: they are afraid of moving their marginalia into the main text.


----------



## Disappointed (Jul 28, 2010)

Herefortheride said:


> *Present tense, passive voice, and adverb stroll into the ballroom*
> 
> "Are we late to the party?"


Present tense, objective POV crawls out from under the buffet table and dips a dirty sock in the punch bowl. "Hey guys, where've you been?"


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

brkingsolver said:


> I think indies tend to attribute more skill to publishers' editors than is realistic. I know that I long for having someone who "really knows what they're doing" take a look at my work. On the other hand, I know what the "best and the brightest" wrote like in the classes I taught at the university. I'm not sure what kind of quality you're going to get by paying someone in New York City $50K a year and working them 60 hours a week.


I hear you, but at the same time, if normal readers are able to compile these long lists of continuity errors, it seems as though an editor should be able to chase down most of them. This isn't challenging writing-mechanics stuff. This is things, places, and characters changing or moving without explanation; world-building inconsistencies; altered facts -- that sort of stuff. It's just a matter of reading attentiveness. Maybe there really is a lack of ability, there. But I suspect it's more what you say just at the end there: publishers' employees being very rushed, even when it comes to extremely important books. It shouldn't be that way. Sure, many readers might not notice, but the author will be placed in an embarrassing position with those who do notice. 



GeneDoucette said:


> First person was by far the most challenging, because it's hard to give a full accounting of what's happening without breaking POV, which is what Stephanie Meyer was doing a lot of, apparently.


I sort of like that limitation. I find it generative. That said, I do resort to third-person chapters when I need to incorporate other POVs for the story to work. So ... cheating.


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

Becca Mills said:


> I hear you, but at the same time, if normal readers are able to compile these long lists of continuity errors, it seems as though an editor should be able to chase down most of them. This isn't challenging writing-mechanics stuff. This is things, places, and characters changing or moving without explanation; world-building inconsistencies; altered facts -- that sort of stuff. It's just a matter of reading attentiveness. Maybe there really is a lack of ability, there. But I suspect it's more what you say just at the end there: publishers' employees being very rushed, even when it comes to extremely important books. It shouldn't be that way. Sure, many readers might not notice, but the author will be placed in an embarrassing position with those who do notice.


What really gets me, both with trad pubs and indies, is that when such errors are pointed out, they often don't get fixed. If someone notices a missed quote mark in one of my books, it's corrected and "in review" before I go to bed. How can someone get a review that slams on the editing, and just blithely ignore it?


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

GeneDoucette said:


> "I have to say, traditionally published authors should get better service from their houses. Like all the little continuity errors in the Harry Potter books. I mean, seriously! These books are making their publishers millions of dollars. A few weeks of attention from a good editor doesn't seem like an unreasonable ask."
> 
> I honestly think omniscient is the easiest. And I say that having written four novels and five novellas in first, and a novella and novel in close third. First person was by far the most challenging, because it's hard to give a full accounting of what's happening without breaking POV, which is what Stephanie Meyer was doing a lot of, apparently.


Omniscient being 'easy' is one thing. Easy to do WELL is another matter entirely.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Becca Mills said:


> I hear you, but at the same time, if normal readers are able to compile these long lists of continuity errors, it seems as though an editor should be able to chase down most of them. This isn't challenging writing-mechanics stuff. This is things, places, and characters changing or moving without explanation; world-building inconsistencies; altered facts -- that sort of stuff. It's just a matter of reading attentiveness. Maybe there really is a lack of ability, there. But I suspect it's more what you say just at the end there: publishers' employees being very rushed, even when it comes to extremely important books. It shouldn't be that way. Sure, many readers might not notice, but the author will be placed in an embarrassing position with those who do notice.
> 
> I sort of like that limitation. I find it generative. That said, I do resort to third-person chapters when I need to incorporate other POVs for the story to work. So ... cheating.


Barry Eisler takes a very different view and invites submissions of continuity and factual errors and devotes a whole section of his website to them. Maybe he likes being placed in embarrassing positions?


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

JRTomlin said:


> Omniscient being 'easy' is one thing. Easy to do WELL is another matter entirely.


I find it easy and I do it well. Is that better?


----------



## Linn (Feb 2, 2016)

Jack Krenneck said:


> Honestly, this is how I feel. I'm not convinced. My instincts scream at me when reading the Tolkien passage that I'm in the head of the narrator, and then the head of the fox, and then finally the head of Frodo. The direct thought of the two characters, together with the expression of those thoughts in their own "voice" transports me there. And the attribution "he thought" does nothing to distance me from that feeling. Rather, it intensifies it. The contrast between the direct thought of the characters and the narration of the author serves to make each more distinct. That increases the feeling of moving from one head into another.


I read through Lord of the Rings twice before I ever heard the term "head-hopping," and on neither of those two occasions did this passage with the fox catch my attention. But during a third read, after having lost that innocence, my progress ground to a screeching halt right then and there as I asked myself - "Wait a minute! Did Tolkien just put me in the head of a fox?!" It completely took me out of the story. And to be honest, I wasn't sure if this was an example of head-hopping, or if the narrator was just telling me what the fox was thinking. What _is_ clear, though, is that it was _unclear_ enough to me as to break the writer's spell and shatter the illusion.

Looking back at it now, I think part of what makes this passage so jarring is the degree to which Tolkien is anthropomorphizing the fox. It feels a little out of place in this story, even though it is a fantasy.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Mercia McMahon said:


> Barry Eisler takes a very different view and invites submissions of continuity and factual errors and devotes a whole section of his website to them. Maybe he likes being placed in embarrassing positions?


That's awesome. Terrific approach.


----------



## Jack Krenneck (Feb 9, 2014)

Linn said:


> I read through Lord of the Rings twice before I ever heard the term "head-hopping," and on neither of those two occasions did this passage with the fox catch my attention. But during a third read, after having lost that innocence, my progress ground to a screeching halt right then and there as I asked myself - "Wait a minute! Did Tolkien just put me in the head of a fox?!" It completely took me out of the story. And to be honest, I wasn't sure if this was an example of head-hopping, or if the narrator was just telling me what the fox was thinking. What _is_ clear, though, is that it was _unclear_ enough to me as to break the writer's spell and shatter the illusion.
> 
> Looking back at it now, I think part of what makes this passage so jarring is the degree to which Tolkien is anthropomorphizing the fox. It feels a little out of place in this story, even though it is a fantasy.


I've thought a lot about this thread during the last year. I had no doubts at the time of my original posts that Tolkien was head-hopping. Now, I have even less 

But here's the thing. I too read TLOTR many times before I noticed the head-hopping. Tolkien broke the rules sparingly, but always for good reason. But readers don't even notice when he does it. I only became aware after I'd been writing, and studying craft, for a _long _time.

Readers don't know the rules, let alone the very slight distinctions of rules being debated in earlier posts of this thread. They don't know, and they don't care. But they know when they're in a hobbit's head and when in a fox's head. But Tolkien pulled it off without any confusion, so the reader just reads on.

And that's the key to head-hopping. Break the rules if you want, but only if you have a good reason to do so. And do it in a way that the reader won't notice (get confused).

In the case of the fox, one of the reasons that I think Tolkien head-hopped was to increase tension/foreshadow drama. Tolkien was big on foreshadowing...


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

M R Mortimer said:


> Sorry, but I have to most stridently disagree here. FIRST PERSON was by far the most overused POV by "inexperienced writers" (read students) when I was teaching. So much so, I to this day will put down any book which opens with the word "I". The torture of so much terrible first person writing! My brain shrinks just thinking about it.


I think its been established that writing books has nothing at all to do with education. As such, you're letting a personal experience get in the way of some good books.

"I threw up all over the teacher."
Now this is an opening line guaranteed to make me read further.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

M R Mortimer said:


> Call me fussy, but if I DID write a first person novel, there is no way in hell it would start with the word "I". LOL.
> What about
> "My vomit dripped in stinking globs from the Gym teachers chin."


No student is going to use the word vomit. And I doubt globs would come to mind either.

"I barfed on the teacher."
is probably more likely.

Your way is probably better literature. My way is how a teenager thinks.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Tolkien wrote the early chapters of Lord of the Rings as a sequel to the Hobbit and only gradually revealed that this was a very different type of book. Asides from foxes is standard British children's literature. Tolkien was not breaking any rules (insofar as there are any to break).

Omniscient does not require shallower characterisation; depth is not dependent on sounding like a teenager's diary.


----------



## geronl (May 7, 2015)

Shuddering silently on weak legs as my knees threatened to give out, I watched my regurgitated lunch and stomach bile drip off the teachers face to the growing orange-yellow puddle on the otherwise pristine ceramic floor. The class was completely silent since the gasps ended. I watched helplessly as the teachers right arm moved upward, his hand shaking as if frigid, to wipe his face.

"Nervous, cadet?" He asked, ominously. The room spun around and the world went black before I could answer.


----------



## D. A. J. F. (Mar 29, 2019)

deleted


----------



## C. Gold (Jun 12, 2017)

Oh wow, a nice old thread. 

Perhaps omniscient has gotten a bad rap because sometimes you run across it done very poorly. When head hopping happens in the same sentence and you are left wondering who is speaking or thinking what, that's not good. For me, omniscient most of the time means the reader is kept at a bird's eye level away from the emotions of the characters which is what I enjoy most in reading. If the writing is emotionless, I'm not engaged. I usually like being kept in the dark with the character, but if done well, omniscient can add suspense as you wonder when the character will finally learn what you already know and how they will react. It's a tool in the writing arsenal, same as third close or first present/past. If the author deliberately chooses to write in a particular style, hopefully they also know how to make the most of it.


----------



## Jack Krenneck (Feb 9, 2014)

There's a big difference between omniscient and head hopping. 

Omniscient, as pointed out above, has that "bird's eye level" feel to it. It's slightly distant because everything, including the thoughts of any number of characters, are filtered through the narrator. This means the narrator can more easily build suspense and withhold information.

Head hopping isn't filtered. You're getting the viewpoint of the character here, direct. Even thoughts are in the character's voice and aren't filtered. Many of the great writers head hopped all the time. It's no big deal. It's quite useful. And they were good enough to follow the golden rule of not causing confusion. That's the only rule that counts, not artificial ones from writing teachers - "Thou shalt not head hop."

Tolkien's fox, described, above is an excellent example. His thoughts aren't filtered by the omniscient narrator. They're in character, and they build suspense and drama in a way that could not be done by staying inside Frodo's head. 

Head hopping is an awesome tool at a writer's disposal, if used well.


----------



## boxer44 (Aug 6, 2016)

For those authors above that state they never read “present tense” … just a thought from our chats in another writer forum.  In active thriller and suspense novels, I personally prefer to write in present tense ... but don't require that in what I read, and find past and present equally enjoyable.

COPY:
There's been a bit of discussion about tense choice and writing - don't want to steal that thread ... so offer this for discussion. It seems quite a few authors believe present tense lacks "good style" ... In particular, XXX earlier stated her opinion that it "... comes from amateurish and sloppy writers."  
  
We're all entitled to our opinions - When we observe the absolute difference between past and present tense aside from the sense of time? We find very little change in the narration. When XXX states the above comment "...amateurish and sloppy writers" in a present tense work." It's generally from a sloppy and amateurish writer, and not the tense choice.
  
It's difficult to define what makes one author choose past over present from a technical standpoint, but it appears to come from the fact that many writers choose past because it's a bit more forgiving if an author errors in the narrative context - present takes a lot more concentration and mental engagement in the story as one writes (my opinion) -- so maybe those that dislike present tense can comment on this phrasing below and give their own personal reasons.
  
Set the scene: Three local ‘not the brightest’ guys are in a jail cell for beating up another guy at a bar - they confessed when the cops confronted them. Photos show Porter, allegedly the man that hired them to beat the guy. Deputy Joe wants a confirmed ID and them to ‘rat’ on the guy that paid them.  A bit out of context here, but illustrates the point.
  
Present Tense: 150 words ...
  
    Deputy Joe keys the gate leading into the holding cells. "All right, Tank and you two goons-in-training, take a look at these." He holds up two photos. "Is this the guy?"
    Tank wastes three seconds of his life and asks a stupid question. "Do we get off if we help you ID this guy, Joe?"
    "Nope. But I'll give you and extra dessert tonight and we won't kick your ass after lights out if you identify him." Joe laughs. "Just kidding, Tank. You're already beat up enough, and the court's gonna kick it anyway."
      Pretty open and shut case with the confessions, and knife wound on Tank's cheek and a cut hand. Joe's not worried, but he'd like an ID if it's Porter.
      Tank says, "Okay, we'll take extra chocolate cake. That's the guy." All three agree.
      Deputy Joe just shakes his head and walks away, grinning. "Idiots."
  
Past Tense: 150 words ---

      Deputy Joe keyed the gate leading into the holding cells. "All right, Tank and you two goons-in-training, take a look at these." He held up two photos. "Is this the guy?"
      Tank wasted three seconds of his life and asked a stupid question. "Do we get off if we help you ID this guy, Joe?”
      "Nope. But I'll give you and extra dessert tonight and we won't kick your ass after lights out if you identify him." Joe laughed. "Just kidding, Tank. You're already beat up enough, and the court's gonna kick it anyway."
        Pretty open and shut case with the confessions, and knife wound on Tank's cheek and a cut hand. Joe's not worried, but he'd like an ID if it's Porter.
        Tank said, "Okay, we'll take extra chocolate cake. That's the guy." All three agreed.
        Deputy Joe just shook his head and walked away, grinning. "Idiots."
  
The change from present to past takes only eight minor changes... unless I missed one? 
Two words change ... 'hold to held' and 'shakes to shook"
Six letters change from ... 's' to 'ed' from present to past.

I believe many readers miss out on some very good stories due to a preconception of Present Tense ...


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

well, i'm not gonna read nine pages from a thread in 2015, but the omniscient narrator hasn't disappeared. I think it's a difficult voice to pull off, and far more frequent in traditionally published fiction than in indie fiction. (I also think first person, and especially first person present, are more common in indie than trad.) I've used it (In The Spaceship Next Door and The Frequency of Aliens) and plan to use it again, given the right project.


----------



## alhawke (Apr 24, 2019)

Great post! My opinion: TV and movies.

1st and 3rd person limited narration are generally more personable. Nowadays we have TV. Why read a book in omniscient narration when you can watch it on a screen? Only in the art of writing can you really get into somebody's head. That's the golden perk of our trade and I'd argue 1st and 3rd narration limited does it better.

I've been experimenting a lot with 1st person lately. One thing I don't like about it is it turns me into a bit of an actor. The writer literally becomes the character. 

I say write whatever's your cup of tea. I personally don't write omniscient because I can lose focus on POV - but that's me. The trade-off is I can't write sweeping vistas outside of my character's head. But my personal form of writing focuses on conversation and action between characters making the settings more secondary.


----------



## Decon (Feb 16, 2011)

I once wrote a story in third person, switching  POVs between the two main characters in separate chapters, but then they meet up and go for a meal. The meal scene I wrote in omniscient POV sharing both their thoughts with the reader as they were of equal importance in depth as characters and work colleagues, and each was trying to guess what the other was thinking as they fenced each other with double-innuendo dialogue, both wanting to know if the other had an attraction to each other. 

There were other scenes at their workplace where I used the same technique. 

To me it worked great, but my editor told me to change it to one point of view. I did, but it didn't work nearly as well. I wish that I had ignored him. Omniscient POV has its place in literature, just as it is used in film scenes.

Maybe I don't have a problem with it because I was brought up to read the classics. Pride and Predudice is a good example, but there are many in different genres, including some modern works. 

However, my experience is that if you go on any writers sites as I and many others have and put work up for crit with omniscient POV, other authors will dismiss it as head hopping, amateurish, and a no no, without considering its merits even if well crafted. 

I can recall some years ago an agent saying on her Web site. 

"Do not submit any work if it has more than 1 point of view as it will be rejected out of hand." 

But then that is only one agent out of hundreds that I looked at.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2019)

alhawke said:


> Great post! My opinion: TV and movies.
> 
> 1st and 3rd person limited narration are generally more personable. Nowadays we have TV. Why read a book in omniscient narration when you can watch it on a screen? Only in the art of writing can you really get into somebody's head. That's the golden perk of our trade and I'd argue 1st and 3rd narration limited does it better.


Holy walking dead... er, thread, Batman!  (2015)

Anyway, to the extent that it is used less (it hasn't disappeared just not as common), I generally agree with the above quoted. TV and movies are brilliant at bringing us nearly every thing a book can in terms of laying out and presenting a story except one thing: the kind of character intimacy you get with unarticulated thoughts and feelings and how characters are filtering things in the moment, but 1st person and tight 3rd limited are terrific at doing so.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2019)

D. A. J. F. said:


> They call writing in omniscient "head hopping" now.


No they don't. Head hopping and omniscient and two different things. The omni narrative is common in epic fantasy, I haven't seen it in other genres but then what I read tends to be tight third or first. If a book has head hopping I'll DNF it - it's weak writing.


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

Decon said:


> I once wrote a story in third person, switching POVs between the two main characters in separate chapters, but then they meet up and go for a meal. The meal scene I wrote in omniscient POV sharing both their thoughts with the reader as they were of equal importance in depth as characters and work colleagues, and each was trying to guess what the other was thinking as they fenced each other with double-innuendo dialogue, both wanting to know if the other had an attraction to each other.
> 
> There were other scenes at their workplace where I used the same technique.
> 
> ...


I've never written a book in close third that had only one POV character. When I have POV characters meet, instead of switching to omni, I tell it from the perspective of one of the POV characters. If I want to know the other POV's innermost thoughts, I'll wait for a different scene, rather than have it happen in the same scene. (I break up my chapters into subsections with a * * * break. This is what I mean by different scenes.) This works just fine as long as you call out the change in POV immediately. Like: "Brenda thought Bobby's suggestion was pretty insane."

Put that at the beginning of a break, and the reader knows that where we were with Bobby before, now we're with Brenda.

Anyway. I understand why it was suggested you stick with one POV rather than go to omni for that scene. I use omni for big-picture descriptions, not so I can hear everyone's thoughts.


----------



## D. A. J. F. (Mar 29, 2019)

deleted


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2019)

Omniscient is actually a much harder POV to write in, it hasn't disappeared, but I don't see it too often. Omniscient has some pros but there are also some HUGE cons, but that hasn't stopped first person present from being a popular POV in some genres(young adult).

If you read the original post I don't think the OP actually knew the difference between head hopping and omniscient. To be honest, most authors don't. I've seen many people on _this_ forum refer to third person limited as omniscient just because they used a different characters POV in each chapter.

It's true that writers will call out a book for bad writing when they see head hopping far more than readers will. If it only happens occasionally and it's clear what's going on readers generally don't care. I've seen famous writers do it in books that have sold millions of copies. And I don't mean "crappy" writers who got lucky with one popular series, but actually talented authors who know what they're doing.

In writing, ALL rules can be broken (and some should be broken) but you need to know the rules first and why they exist before you go about breaking them.


----------



## D. A. J. F. (Mar 29, 2019)

deleted


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

D. A. J. F. said:


> I usually know when I'm breaking teh writing rules. But there would be no difference if I didn't know--my prose is the way I like it, rule or no rule, known or unknown.


If you know the rule you can choose to break it for good effect. If you don't, you could be making mistakes all the time, which could turn off readers and you wouldn't even know.


----------



## Doglover (Sep 19, 2013)

Until I began publishing some six years ago, I didn't know there were 'writing rules'. Now, instead of enjoying a novel, I am forever keeping one eye out for broken rules. Someone who used to be one of my favourite authors is now someone I don't read because she had characters shrugging their shoulders (what else would they shrug?) and is guilty of using the semi-colon three or four times in one sentence.

To hell with the rules. Write from the heart and stop thinking about whether it's correct or not. Good grammar, good spelling, good punctuation is all that is needed.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

I'll be blunt. I write mostly in third person, and I don't know if it's omniscient or limited. I disclose the inner dialogue of characters, but do not do it in amounts to either impede the action, or jolt the reader. I also don't switch back and forth, ever. I think that could confuse the reader. Generally, I think you can get perspectives across enough with dialogue and other techniques.


----------



## Dayseye (Mar 20, 2018)

boxer44 said:


> For those authors above that state they never read "present tense" &#8230; just a thought from our chats in another writer forum. In active thriller and suspense novels, I personally prefer to write in present tense ... but don't require that in what I read, and find past and present equally enjoyable.
> 
> I believe many readers miss out on some very good stories due to a preconception of Present Tense ...


Agreed. In my view, it adds a sense of immediacy/urgency that's especially suited to thrillers.

I tend to bash out first drafts in present tense because it's a real help in visualising action, in particular, cause & effect.


----------



## D. A. J. F. (Mar 29, 2019)

deleted


----------



## Jack Krenneck (Feb 9, 2014)

The more you look for head hopping in the great writers, the more you find it. Even when they write in omniscient.

It's like passive voice. A bunch of do gooders get together and say it's bad. Then they make a rule against it. But actually, used well, passive voice is a great tool.

For myself, I take craft lessons from great writers and not rule makers.


----------



## KayRennie (Nov 10, 2018)

Read Fay Weldon's Habits of the House Book 1 in a historical romance series. She uses the omniscient narrator to great effect. The series is in KU. She's a respected British writer from way back. Wrote the first series of Upstairs Downstairs. I personally prefer 3rd person limited when writing, but do enjoy the 19th century style as well.


----------



## markpauloleksiw (Jan 15, 2019)

True story.

My editor freaked because I had two POV in the same chapter. My response was to ignore the editor because that is what made the story work.

I don't have any high-level background in literature. However, I am the writer and art is not a science with rules that you have to follow. So if the reader likes the book, who cares?

Mark


----------



## Doglover (Sep 19, 2013)

markpauloleksiw said:


> True story.
> 
> My editor freaked because I had two POV in the same chapter. My response was to ignore the editor because that is what made the story work.
> 
> ...


I could not agree more. Unfortunately, there seem to be more 'editors' than authors nowadays and I imagine them all keeping shelves full of rule books to follow.

Nobody knows your book better than you and don't let anyone tell you different.


----------



## J. A. Wallace (Mar 31, 2019)

If the readers aren't complaining, it's all good.


----------

