# Omniscience is out of fashion... apparently.



## Cappy (Sep 6, 2011)

Following the release of the movie version of 'Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy' I was reading an appreciation of John Le Carre's work in a newspaper.

The journalist said that Le Carre's style of writing - in which no chapter is written from one character's point of view, instead the writer flits around inside the heads of different characters during a chapter - is old fashioned.

What do you think? Do you agree that this style is old fashioned?


----------



## James Everington (Dec 25, 2010)

God I hope not. Le Carre wrote (and still writes!) in a way that was absolutely appropriate for his stories and concerns... if some journalist wants to declare it "old fashioned" as if literary style is nothing more than an appropriate width for a tie, then good for them. But as Le Carre's books still sell bucket-loads, I don't think they're right...


----------



## ML Hamilton (Feb 21, 2011)

I hate when people make blanket statements like that. Because something isn't common any more doesn't mean it's old fashioned. That term makes it seem as if it is no longer acceptable.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

It's just out of style in some genres. No biggie. It comes and goes, just like other things.


----------



## Cappy (Sep 6, 2011)

Worse still would be if publishers believe these things. Do you think they do?


----------



## KR Jacobsen (Jul 19, 2011)

Strictly referring to what I've seen recently (I see lots of new books fairly constantly), there does seem to be some empirical evidence (for what little that's worth) that the omniscient style is a little out of fashion. Then again, I tend toward reading third-person limited, so it may be a matter of seeing red cars. (But first-person is definitely not out of fashion.)


----------



## AnnieOldham (Sep 1, 2011)

I don't think any style of writing should be "out of fashion." It just depends on the preference of the author. As a reader, though, I prefer sticking with one (maybe two characters). I like seeing the story arc of a single character in detail.


----------



## Cappy (Sep 6, 2011)

Annie,

Don't you find reading a story from just one point of view a little restricting sometimes?


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

I do think it is a bit out of fashion these days.  Most people tend to read books told from just one point of view.  I don't really mind either way.


----------



## MeiLinMiranda (Feb 17, 2011)

It is out of fashion, not that I pay fashion any mind. Some people take its unfashionability to mean that it's bad writing--heaven knows it wouldn't be hard to jump to that conclusion based on all the anti-omniscient rants I've read in recent years. It's not bad writing. We might come up with many examples of modern writers who use omniscient and use it brilliantly--LeCarré is one, Patrick O'Brian another, just off the top of my head.

In fact, I'll throw down the gauntlet:

*"Omniscient" is out of fashion because to pull it off you must be an excellent writer. "Limited POV" is easier, therefore in fashion among the lazy writers of our generation.*

Discuss.


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

MeiLinMiranda said:


> It is out of fashion, not that I pay fashion any mind. Some people take its unfashionability to mean that it's bad writing--heaven knows it wouldn't be hard to jump to that conclusion based on all the anti-omniscient rants I've read in recent years. It's not bad writing. We might come up with many examples of modern writers who use omniscient and use it brilliantly--LeCarré is one, Patrick O'Brian another, just off the top of my head.
> 
> In fact, I'll throw down the gauntlet:
> 
> ...


I like gauntlets.

I'll certainly entertain the notion, but I'd like to hear the arguments for why omniscient is much harder. 

I haven't written a book in omniscient, but I suspect it's not considerably harder than third-limited. Third-limited forces the writer to go more deeply into individual characters, and that's not easy. Another difficult thing about third-limited is that the writer has to be more careful with what she can and cannot reveal (i.e. only what the pov character knows and sees). At first glance, omniscient looks easier to me because the author can go into any head she wants to go into, and she can tell anything she wants to tell. Third-limited requires a lot of discipline wrt pov and you have to make each pov character compelling.


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

Omniscient is definitely out of fashion.

How many times have you seen readers cite "head-hopping" as an abominable sin that only bad writers commit? When it's actually, when done well, just plain old _omniscient_ pov.

I don't even consider writing in omniscient because even if I were to do it well, I'd have to stab myself with a pointy object after readings reviews from people complaining about head-hopping.

So it's third-limited for me, but with a slightly omniscient voice to get the best of both worlds. IOW, I don't write in such a way that the character's voice fully infuses the prose to the extent that it's as if the character was writing the book. I enjoy books with great character voices, but in the end, I prefer to tell/show a story while sticking to one pov at a time.


----------



## Sean Cunningham (Jan 11, 2011)

I like to hitch my point of view to a single character per scene. Years of reading fantasy and science fiction has left me with this preference and I find a head-hop jarring when I encounter it. A jump on a chapter break is fine though.

It's probably hypocrytical of me to dislike first person as much as I do, considering.

The kind of writing I admire most tends to be heavy on dialog and light on ponderings, so there's little head-hopping to do.


----------



## MeiLinMiranda (Feb 17, 2011)

Moses: It's hard to do because when it's done less skillfully you notice it. When it's done well, you don't even realize it's happened. Hence the head-hopping complaints: few writers are good at it.

(Note that I do not claim to be good at it. I use 3rd person limited, though I change POVs by scene frequently.)


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

MeiLinMiranda said:


> Moses: It's hard to do because when it's done less skillfully you notice it. When it's done well, you don't even realize it's happened. Hence the head-hopping complaints: few writers are good at it.
> 
> (Note that I do not claim to be good at it. I use 3rd person limited, though I change POVs by scene frequently.)


That's what I was thinking too, but I think that would be just a matter of getting your technique down. I would guess that once you learn how to switch heads relatively smoothly and in a way that doesn't trigger the "head-hopping" screams from the audience, that it wouldn't be too hard to write in omniscient.


----------



## Blue Bull Book Design (Sep 18, 2011)

I always feel that since omniscient POV can so easily sound contrived, it's something that a writer has to do with great conviction (and skill goes without saying). It's similar to musical performances - what's the difference between Adele and the million and one other young white female singers making similar music? Conviction. Adele's audience buys into it.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

tothepoint said:


> Following the release of the movie version of 'Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy' I was reading an appreciation of John Le Carre's work in a newspaper.
> 
> The journalist said that Le Carre's style of writing - in which no chapter is written from one character's point of view, instead the writer flits around inside the heads of different characters during a chapter - is old fashioned.
> 
> What do you think? Do you agree that this style is old fashioned?


The bad thing about omniscient is that few people do it well. It isn't "flitting around inside the heads of different characters". It is writing from the point of view of an omniscient character who knows what everyone is thinking.

Flitting around randomly is exactly what ruins most writers' attempts at omniscient PoV. Because it is rarely done and even more rarely done well, few writers read it enough to understand it or learn to do it.

Edit: It has nothing to do with one or the other being "easier" or writers being "lazy". Because it has been out of fashion for a couple of decades, few writers are particularly acquainted with or comfortable with the omniscient PoV so they don't write it.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Omniscient has been out of fashion for several decades now. Modernism dealt it the near fatal blow in the early 20th century, though some writers such as John Le Carré or Patrick O'Brien or Johannes Mario Simmel in Germany have continued to write in omniscient POV.

As for why it went out of fashion, my old teacher told us that in the modern world no one could claim to know everything and no one was omniscient. Also, as others have said above, omniscient is difficult to do well and bad omniscient tends to sound like the dreaded head hopping.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

CoraBuhlert said:


> Omniscient has been out of fashion for several decades now. Modernism dealt it the near fatal blow in the early 20th century, though some writers such as John Le Carré or Patrick O'Brien or Johannes Mario Simmel in Germany have continued to write in omniscient POV.
> 
> As for why it went out of fashion, my old teacher told us that in the modern world no one could claim to know everything and no one was omniscient. Also, as others have said above, omniscient is difficult to do well and bad omniscient tends to sound like the dreaded head hopping.


Quite true. Or even worse, the author thinks that omniscient IS head hopping and proceeds to do said head hopping like a maddened bunny rabbit. Then I thud my head on my desk and weep.


----------



## ashel (May 29, 2011)

Marry me?

(I know it's argument-bait, but still.)



MeiLinMiranda said:


> It is out of fashion, not that I pay fashion any mind. Some people take its unfashionability to mean that it's bad writing--heaven knows it wouldn't be hard to jump to that conclusion based on all the anti-omniscient rants I've read in recent years. It's not bad writing. We might come up with many examples of modern writers who use omniscient and use it brilliantly--LeCarré is one, Patrick O'Brian another, just off the top of my head.
> 
> In fact, I'll throw down the gauntlet:
> 
> ...


----------



## Klip (Mar 7, 2011)

CoraBuhlert said:


> As for why it went out of fashion, my old teacher told us that in the modern world no one could claim to know everything and no one was omniscient. Also, as others have said above, omniscient is difficult to do well and bad omniscient tends to sound like the dreaded head hopping.


I've heard this before, and somehow it seems too "pat" to convince? In our modern world, many people do still believe in an omniscient all knowing being. On the other hand, I'm sure that the idea that "nobody knows everything" is not modern at all. But that is not really the problem I have with that statement.

I don't think that an omniscient narrator can only be convincing if you believe that one being can know everything. I suspect the shift has more to do with the importance of the individual as opposed to the group. I mean, the idea that we can exist in ourselves apart from the community we are living in. An idea that is usually stronger in western cultures. It would be interesting to know if the same shift from omniscient has happened in cultures that are still strongly community based for example Asia and Africa.


----------



## MeiLinMiranda (Feb 17, 2011)

Cora, I must say I disagree with your old teacher. And as modernism is fading out of style itself perhaps we may see a return to (well-written) omniscient voice by those who are willing to plug away at it.

Masha, I'm of your way of thinking re: group versus individual emphasis. It'd be an interesting thesis for some enterprising post-grad to compare current POV trends in world literature--American to Asian, African and perhaps even European literature, since the cult of the individual is stronger in the US than anywhere.



JRTomlin said:


> It has nothing to do with one or the other being "easier" or writers being "lazy". Because it has been out of fashion for a couple of decades, few writers are particularly acquainted with or comfortable with the omniscient PoV so they don't write it.


It's easier not to become acquainted or comfortable with any technique. I read a great deal of 19th century literature, so I'm quite comfortable reading omniscient voice, and I work at writing in it as well. I haven't used it much in my published work--I'm not good at it yet, and may never be. I work at it not because I'm some kind of superior hard-working überwriter. I like reading it when it's well done, and so I aspire to being good enough to pull it off myself some day. As Stephen King says, don't write what you know: write what you love. 

Genevieve, I'm already married, but thank you for asking!


----------



## Klip (Mar 7, 2011)

I find that an omniscient narrator often works well in children's stories. For example, it is done so well by Rudyard Kipling in his "Just So" stories.  Even direct appeals to the reader from the author seem to work so well in children's stories.  Maybe because they often get read aloud and there is a different dynamic between writer and the reader?  Or the read-alouder and the listener?


----------



## Cappy (Sep 6, 2011)

I do think that omniscient is harder to do well. The writer has make sure he changes the tone to suit the character. else the reader can easily get confused.

John Le Carre uses omniscience very cleverly in 'Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy' in that the only character whose head you don't enter is the mole.


----------



## Amera (May 22, 2011)

I don't personally care for omniscient PoV. It can be done well, naturally, but I'd almost always prefer a 3rd limited, even if it means lots of chapter breaks to swap perspectives. There are times I don't want to know what X is thinking.


----------



## James Everington (Dec 25, 2010)

CoraBuhlert said:


> Omniscient has been out of fashion for several decades now. Modernism dealt it the near fatal blow in the early 20th century, though some writers such as John Le Carré or Patrick O'Brien or Johannes Mario Simmel in Germany have continued to write in omniscient POV.
> 
> As for why it went out of fashion, my old teacher told us that in the modern world no one could claim to know everything and no one was omniscient. Also, as others have said above, omniscient is difficult to do well and bad omniscient tends to sound like the dreaded head hopping.


Modernism may have dealt it a blow, but surely post-modernism helped bring it back? Because some parts of PM argued that a book doesn't reflect reality but is it's own reality... and if you take that view (not saying I fully do) while no one can be onniscient about this real world, an author can be omniscient about his/her book...

And there's a difference between omniscience and head-hopping which is getting blurred - certain modernists (I'm looking at you here Woolf) hopped heads constantly; but that's not the same as pretending to know everything about all their characters. Rather the opposite - hop into the head of a man passing in the street to show what he thinks of the main character he's passing, then leave him never to return, as if he had just passed the reader on the street too.


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

Bleekness said:


> Shouldn't you guys be writing?
> 
> King
> McCammon
> ...


I loved this.


----------



## Cappy (Sep 6, 2011)

Bleekness said:


> I saw one guy in another forum say all head hoppers should be decapitated. Decapitated. Really.


'HEAD HOPPERS' - now there's a title.


----------



## MeiLinMiranda (Feb 17, 2011)

Cappy said:


> 'HEAD HOPPERS' - now there's a title.


DOOO EEET!


----------



## Kimberly Llewellyn (Aug 18, 2011)

It's always risky to make a blanket statement like that because we can all list tons of popular books written in that POV..._The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo_, to name one. Do I write in omniscient? No. Is reading omniscient for me? Not really. But if the author does it well, I'll go along for the ride, as long as he doesn't "break the dream."


----------



## ashel (May 29, 2011)

Related question, or possibly a rant disguised as a question:

For whatever reason, in the past few days I've come across a number of authors or writing people or what have you using Jane Austen as an example of how you're no longer allowed to write. Or something. The POV switches, the pacing, the description, whatever. It's Not Done anymore.

But here is where I start to feel like a crazy person: _people still read Jane Austen._ For fun! They love her! I didn't read Austen in the early 19th c. and decide I liked her then, but wouldn't re-read her now; I'm not even 30! (29 and _holding_, people.) I loved Pride and Prejudice as a teenager. An impatient, attention-challenged, vacuous teenager!

I find these things irreconcilable. And since one seems to be a matter of opinion and fashion, while Jane has proved her mettle over a number of years, I am probably going to find myself squarely in the "Jane is still good!" camp. And, for me, logically it follows that readers are still fine with that sort of writing, as long as it's actually good.

So, the question: how do people reconcile this? The argument makes sense if it's qualified by a conditional, as in "you cannot write like this if you hope to sell your book to a large publisher through traditional means." But that's not usually how it's stated. It's usually stated as the result of current reader preferences.

And yet...Jane still sells.

*continues to bang head on desk*

I just do not understand.


----------



## Klip (Mar 7, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> Related question, or possibly a rant disguised as a question:
> 
> For whatever reason, in the past few days I've come across a number of authors or writing people or what have you using Jane Austen as an example of how you're no longer allowed to write. Or something. The POV switches, the pacing, the description, whatever. It's Not Done anymore.
> 
> ...


It might be because what people expect, and like in a classic, does not translate to other genres or types of writing? I dont believe this myself - I think it is far too vague and general a statement - but that may explain it at least a bit?

Like - you may be willing and even happy to dress up in a corset and button boots in one situation, but in another it would just not be appropriate?


----------



## ashel (May 29, 2011)

mashadutoit said:


> It might be because what people expect, and like in a classic, does not translate to other genres or types of writing? I dont believe this myself - I think it is far too vague and general a statement - but that may explain it at least a bit?
> 
> Like - you may be willing and even happy to dress up in a corset and button boots in one situation, but in another it would just not be appropriate?


Sure, I guess. I am certainly the type to show up wearing whatever I feel like at any given event, regardless of whether it's considered appropriate. (I'm fun at parties! It's cool, people who invite me to things know what they're getting into.)

But, I dunno. Wouldn't this have applied to Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, for example? If the idea is that readers make certain allowances for books written ages ago, but not books written 10 years ago, I'm not sure how that fits.

It just seems like no one gives readers credit for being fairly open-minded about everything other than "is it good?"


----------



## MeiLinMiranda (Feb 17, 2011)

"Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrel" broke just about every rule of What Is Not Done in Modern Writing, including the use of copious footnotes. I have not actually read it--I listened to Simon Prebble's wonderful unabridged performance of the book. The interesting thing is, even with the footnotes it reads aloud beautifully, which to me is a hallmark of a well-written book. It's a tour de force, and I have asked for a hard copy (preferably a hardcover, even) for Yule. I want to be Susanna Clarke when I grow up, even.

What I like about omniscient is that it is more cinematic. In cinema we change POVs all the time, often in the same scene. No one says they're confused. Confusing POV shifts are not a sign of a bad writing technique. THEY ARE A SIGN OF BAD WRITING SKILLS. Not everything should be in omniscient, but it's a technique that should not be dismissed out of hand.


----------



## Klip (Mar 7, 2011)

All of this stuff is very new to me, still figuring it out. In the book I'm writing at the moment, I move the POV from one character to another, but only change when chapters change.  I'm being very careful to keep it limited - not too many characters get to show their POV otherwise it would get really confusing.  At the moment it looks like there will be three - my main character, her sister and the "young man" 

I also only switch to the sister when the heroine is absent, and to the love interest when neither the sister or the heroine is around.  

This makes it possible, for example, to show the impression my heroine makes on the hero - if I show him thinking back on their meeting and describe how she seems to him.  

I can see that I will also have to be quite careful about the amount of time I devote to each POV - the young man's for example, will have to be very limited.


----------



## CollinKelley (Sep 1, 2011)

I don't mind book with omniscience and John Le Carre is one of my favorite thriller writers. In my books, the chapters switch POV from character to the next but there are several chapters where two POVs are at play. I think critics and lit snobs get too hung up on this kind of detail. If the story is well written, it doesn't matter how it's told.


----------



## ashel (May 29, 2011)

MeiLinMiranda said:


> Confusing POV shifts are not a sign of a bad writing technique. THEY ARE A SIGN OF BAD WRITING SKILLS.


Print it up, put it on a tshirt.

And possibly a hat. A really big hat.


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

MeiLinMiranda said:


> "Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrel" broke just about every rule of What Is Not Done in Modern Writing, including the use of copious footnotes. I have not actually read it--I listened to Simon Prebble's wonderful unabridged performance of the book. The interesting thing is, even with the footnotes it reads aloud beautifully, which to me is a hallmark of a well-written book. It's a tour de force, and I have asked for a hard copy (preferably a hardcover, even) for Yule. I want to be Susanna Clarke when I grow up, even.
> 
> What I like about omniscient is that it is more cinematic. In cinema we change POVs all the time, often in the same scene. No one says they're confused. Confusing POV shifts are not a sign of a bad writing technique. THEY ARE A SIGN OF BAD WRITING SKILLS. Not everything should be in omniscient, but it's a technique that should not be dismissed out of hand.


I'll start an exclusive club called Third Person Limited Writers In Support of Omniscient Writers.


----------



## MeiLinMiranda (Feb 17, 2011)

Moses: sign me up. 

I'm seriously working on omniscient. I'm totally not there yet. I've got a couple of scenes in my biga** draft/original webserial that worked well--both long "tracking shots"--but nothing ready for prime time. I may never get there, but it's fun to try.


----------



## Joseph Robert Lewis (Oct 31, 2010)

Speaking very generally, the statement is correct. I've read lots of classics from the 19th century, and it was very common for the narrator's voice to tell the reader what each character thought and felt, and offer bits of back-story, in every scene. Today, the majority of popular books focus on a single character throughout the whole book, or rotate the POV from chapter to chapter. But omniscience is less common now. And I think that's a good thing. An omniscient narrator feels like a person is telling me the story, instead of allowing me to experience the story first hand.


----------



## Klip (Mar 7, 2011)

Joseph Robert Lewis said:


> And I think that's a good thing. An omniscient narrator feels like a person is telling me the story, instead of allowing me to experience the story first hand.


...except that ...a person IS telling you the story  , just more focussed on hiding their own presence.

I think it is worth making a distinction between the omniscient style of narration, and a didactic or allegorical tone. What was that fantastic quote by Tolkien ?
"The purposed domination of the reader by the author". That can be the case with any style of writing if the author is clumsy or arrogant enough.


----------



## GerrieFerrisFinger (Jun 1, 2011)

Publishers and agents and writing gurus everywhere say it's out of fashion, a no-no, one to get your manuscript rejected; however, I see it all the time in debuts as well as best sellers. Although I write one head per scene, I'd say it's all in the skill of the writer and how well the reader accepts the shifting povs.
Happy Sunday!


----------



## ashel (May 29, 2011)

mashadutoit said:


> ...except that ...a person IS telling you the story  , just more focussed on hiding their own presence.
> 
> I think it is worth making a distinction between the omniscient style of narration, and a didactic or allegorical tone. What was that fantastic quote by Tolkien ?
> "The purposed domination of the reader by the author". That can be the case with any style of writing if the author is clumsy or arrogant enough.


Or whether you like the narrative voice.

Really, though, this. This thing I quoted. (Hi Masha!) Every time I see someone lecturing about "authorial intrusion" I either laugh or get a headache. Intruding into what? The story? _The story that the author made up?_ Did anyone think the reader was fooled to begin with?

Like with many things, I think it's a matter of degree and - most importantly - personal taste. And that is absolutely fine! The world needs different types of folks. Diversity is good! Which is why all the "no no, it's just bad writing" comments drive me up a freaking wall. Not to mention all the "I didn't mind it before I took writing classes, but now I think it's bad" comments. Those...those are in a class unto themselves, in driving-me-up-a-wall terms.


----------



## Joseph Robert Lewis (Oct 31, 2010)

mashadutoit said:


> ...except that ...a person IS telling you the story  , just more focussed on hiding their own presence.
> 
> I think it is worth making a distinction between the omniscient style of narration, and a didactic or allegorical tone. What was that fantastic quote by Tolkien ?
> "The purposed domination of the reader by the author". That can be the case with any style of writing if the author is clumsy or arrogant enough.


Sure, and it all comes down to personal preference in the end. But for me personally, it's like this - I like movies based on Neil Gaiman's books. I like experiencing those stories. But I do not like reading Gaiman's books themselves because his style feels too "narratorial" for me. He offers too much extra voice or commentary or side jokes for my taste.


----------



## MeiLinMiranda (Feb 17, 2011)

The really interesting thing is, omniscience is like breaking the fourth wall in cinema/theater. That's considered modern, while omniscience is not. Interesting, nu?


----------



## Kate R (Apr 7, 2011)

I thought omniscience was back in fashion, as is the way of so many styles. I think when it is executed with irony and wit, it takes some beating.


----------



## SheenahFreitas (Oct 7, 2011)

I hope omniscience isn't out of style. I love it when I can dive into the characters' minds and see what everyone is thinking, though I admit that first person POV seems to be popular right now, especially in the YA books.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

Joseph Robert Lewis said:


> But I do not like reading Gaiman's books themselves because his style feels too "narratorial" for me. He offers too much extra voice or commentary or side jokes for my taste.


I've never seen it put this way before, but it does explain why I like Gaiman so much. I absolutely adore the narrative voice (when it's done well.) I'm definitely in the "tell me a story" group, and this is probably why I love fairy tales and mythology so much - it's nearly always told from the Master Narrator's POV.

To me, head-hopping is a changing 3rd person POV, where you lose track of exactly which 3rd person is telling (or being) the story. I don't care for that, but I don't mind changing POV as long as can follow the changes.


----------



## tim290280 (Jan 11, 2011)

MeiLinMiranda said:


> It is out of fashion, not that I pay fashion any mind. Some people take its unfashionability to mean that it's bad writing--heaven knows it wouldn't be hard to jump to that conclusion based on all the anti-omniscient rants I've read in recent years. It's not bad writing. We might come up with many examples of modern writers who use omniscient and use it brilliantly--LeCarré is one, Patrick O'Brian another, just off the top of my head.
> 
> In fact, I'll throw down the gauntlet:
> 
> ...


This was essentially the point I wanted to make on this topic.

LeCarre is a fantastically skilled author. He spent a lot of time honing his skills to be able to use the "omniscient" point of view. A lot of the very popular authors these days are usually not at the same level of skill. I think this is possibly partly due to the need to hit publishing windows and using the tried and true forumlae they have developed. I'd also say that there is probably a level of discouragement of this style - except were done excellently - as readers reading for pleasure don't particularly like head hopping. I wouldn't be surprised if editors who would normally work with authors to help clean this style up probably prefer to change it so that it isn't used at all.


----------



## Kate R (Apr 7, 2011)

StaceyHH said:


> I've never seen it put this way before, but it does explain why I like Gaiman so much. I absolutely adore the narrative voice (when it's done well.) I'm definitely in the "tell me a story" group, and this is probably why I love fairy tales and mythology so much - it's nearly always told from the Master Narrator's POV.
> 
> To me, head-hopping is a changing 3rd person POV, where you lose track of exactly which 3rd person is telling (or being) the story. I don't care for that, but I don't mind changing POV as long as can follow the changes.


I'm not sure I see the difference between head-hopping changing 3rd person view and changing pov. I think the key is that it is done well, that way, the changing of viewpoints is irrelevant


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2011)

I like flitting. I know a ton of editors hate it, but I think it's pretty good still.


----------



## Nancy Beck (Jul 1, 2011)

MeiLinMiranda said:


> Moses: It's hard to do because when it's done less skillfully you notice it. When it's done well, you don't even realize it's happened. Hence the head-hopping complaints: few writers are good at it.
> 
> (Note that I do not claim to be good at it. I use 3rd person limited, though I change POVs by scene frequently.)


This. It's the same, I think, when reading something written in present tense. I used to avoid any story written in that tense because the ones I came across sucked.

Then I saw one (a short fantasy story) that was lovely, wonderful (wish I could remember the name of it), and it has stuck in my head - in a good way - ever since. So I changed my mind on that score.

As for me writing either in omnicient or in present tense - no way I'm going to touch either of those at this point in my writing life (if ever, lol.)


----------



## Stephen T. Harper (Dec 20, 2010)

MeiLinMiranda said:


> What I like about omniscient is that it is more cinematic. In cinema we change POVs all the time, often in the same scene. No one says they're confused. Confusing POV shifts are not a sign of a bad writing technique. THEY ARE A SIGN OF BAD WRITING SKILLS. Not everything should be in omniscient, but it's a technique that should not be dismissed out of hand.


Well, there's some good dialogue right there. And more cinematic, yes. I come from a screenwriting background, and an omniscient voice seems very natural to me. But just because your narrator is omniscient doesn't mean he should be overloading you with information. Like the director/editor of a film, he's simply making choices of what you should look at from moment to moment. An action here, a thought here, another character's reaction... soon you've got a very rich scene that should not be confusing at all.

As to the skills aspect, it's a little bit like juggling. Juggling is hard, and if you aren't good at it, you really aren't doing it at all. You're just making a mess of knives, bowling pins, and half-eaten apples.

I'm currently writing a first person comedic/detective novel, and I must say, it's fun as hell to do. But like a previous poster said, it does feel a little self-indulgent to me as well. Part of the skill of omniscience is in how deeply you can inhabit the thoughts and motivations of completely different people. How dark can you get to create a realistic villain with hopes and challenges of his own instead of a mere sociopath? Writing in first person is a lot of fun, especially if the character is fun, but it's also a lot less difficult because all of the other characters really amount to being the opinion of the lead.


----------



## MeiLinMiranda (Feb 17, 2011)

Stephen T. Harper said:


> Writing in first person is a lot of fun, especially if the character is fun, but it's also a lot less difficult because all of the other characters really amount to being the opinion of the lead.


SO. MUCH. THIS.

As with any technique it can be done skillfully or unskillfully. I read both first and third person and generally speaking I prefer third. I never write in first myself; it just doesn't feel like my storytelling style.

BTW, for an example of terrific present tense writing, read Ian McDonald's "The Dervish House"--a tour de force. Best non-classic book I've read this year.


----------

