# Opinions on Third-Person Omniscient Narration



## B.A. Spangler (Jan 25, 2012)

Looking for some opinions on Third-Person Omniscient Narration.

For example, do you find it easier to read? 
Do you have trouble connecting with the characters?
Do you prefer an omniscient narrator or shy away from it?


----------



## lmroth12 (Nov 15, 2012)

It depends on the genre. I prefer third person omniscient for epics, especially mythology, where a sense of scope is needed. If it were narrated in first or second person the reader wouldn't be able to see the forest for the trees.

But I think a first person narrative works best for a novel, where we want to connect with the main character and experience his story from his perspective.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Brian Spangler said:


> Looking for some opinions on Third-Person Omniscient Narration.
> 
> For example, do you find it easier to read?
> Do you have trouble connecting with the characters?
> Do you prefer an omniscient narrator or shy away from it?


I prefer a book that is well written and tells a good story that I'm interested in. Honestly, I don't think about person or tense or omniscience or anything like that.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks. . . .please remember we're in the Book Corner -- not the Bazaar or Cafe.   So it's really not appropriate for those who are authors to talk about what they use and why.  The quetion is for readers.  Such posts from an author's viewpoint will be deleted.  

Thanks


----------



## lmroth12 (Nov 15, 2012)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Folks. . . .please remember we're in the Book Corner -- not the Bazaar or Cafe.  So it's really not appropriate for those who are authors to talk about what they use and why. The quetion is for readers. Such posts from an author's viewpoint will be deleted.
> 
> Thanks


Thanks for the reminder, Ann, but my response is as a reader rather than as a writer. I absolutely love to read and merely stated my own preference. And I love the Book Corner where I can connect with others in discussing books.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I don't care at all as long as the story is written well.  And I really can't imagine that most readers think that much about it.  Maybe I'm wrong.  But in discussing books with my friends, which I've done all my reading life, I've never once heard any of my friends talk about 3rd person omniscient.

Betsy


----------



## B.A. Spangler (Jan 25, 2012)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Folks. . . .please remember we're in the Book Corner -- not the Bazaar or Cafe.  So it's really not appropriate for those who are authors to talk about what they use and why. The quetion is for readers. Such posts from an author's viewpoint will be deleted.
> 
> Thanks


Apologies if the thread crossed a boundary.
As a reader I connect better with the character when 1st or 3rd POV and even 3rd Limited. That said, there are some books that I enjoy, but I don't connect to the main characters - is it Omniscient? For example SK's Under the Dome or Lord of the Rings, etc.


----------



## George Hamilton (Dec 14, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I don't care at all as long as the story is written well. And I really can't imagine that most readers think that much about it.
> 
> Betsy


Ditto.
Most books I've read that use 3rd person omniscient don't maintain it throughout. They still have scenes where the reader can get close to the main characters.


----------



## lmroth12 (Nov 15, 2012)

Brian Spangler said:


> Apologies if the thread crossed a boundary.
> As a reader I connect better with the character when 1st or 3rd POV and even 3rd Limited. That said, there are some books that I enjoy, but I don't connect to the main characters - is it Omniscient? For example SK's Under the Dome or Lord of the Rings, etc.


When you mention *The Lord of the Rings*, Gandalf was the character who was omniscient because he alone had the grasp of the entire picture. But since he is directly involved in the story although he frequently fills us in he is not truly 3rd person because he is part of the action. A true 3rd person omniscient is the narrator of *The Iliad*, who knows all of the action taking place among the gods on Mt. Olympus as well as the mortals on the field of battle ("The goddess Dawn now wended her way to vast Olympus that she might herald day to Zeus and to the other immortals, and Agamemnon sent the criers round to call the people in assembly; so they called them and the people gathered thereon.") and yet he is not in the story.

And first person narrative is the most intimate way for a novel to convey the main character's thoughts and feelings. I don't think the classic novel *Rebecca* would have had quite the same power had it not been told from the viewpoint of the second Mrs. DeWinter, who felt the ghost of the first Mrs. DeWinter haunting her with every step she took in Manderley, only to receive a jolt toward the end that simply would not have worked if the story had been told second or third narrative. It is her perceptions and emotional responses that make the book great, where it so easily could have been just a run of the mill gothic novel if it had been handled any other way.


----------



## B.A. Spangler (Jan 25, 2012)

lmroth12 said:


> When you mention *The Lord of the Rings*, Gandalf was the character who was omniscient because he alone had the grasp of the entire picture. But since he is directly involved in the story although he frequently fills us in he is not truly 3rd person because he is part of the action. A true 3rd person omniscient is the narrator of *The Iliad*, who knows all of the action taking place among the gods on Mt. Olympus as well as the mortals on the field of battle ("The goddess Dawn now wended her way to vast Olympus that she might herald day to Zeus and to the other immortals, and Agamemnon sent the criers round to call the people in assembly; so they called them and the people gathered thereon.") and yet he is not in the story.


Good stuff - makes sense since Gandalf is in the action. So LOTR would be considered 3rd Person Limited. Correct ?


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

lmroth12 said:


> Thanks for the reminder, Ann, but my response is as a reader rather than as a writer. I absolutely love to read and merely stated my own preference. And I love the Book Corner where I can connect with others in discussing books.


Yeah. I could tell that.  And you'll note your comment was NOT deleted.  



Brian Spangler said:


> Apologies if the thread crossed a boundary.
> As a reader I connect better with the character when 1st or 3rd POV and even 3rd Limited. That said, there are some books that I enjoy, but I don't connect to the main characters - is it Omniscient? For example SK's Under the Dome or Lord of the Rings, etc.


No boundaries crossed -- it's a perfectly good discussion topic. But at least one post WAS deleted because it was by an author talking about why they chose the tense/person they did.  Hence, my reminder.


----------



## lmroth12 (Nov 15, 2012)

Brian Spangler said:


> Good stuff - makes since since Gandalf is in the action. So LOTR would be considered 3rd Person Limited. Correct ?


I think so. It bounces back and forth between the 3rd person narrator who fills the _reader _ in on the history of the Shire, Rohan, Minas Tirith, Shelob and the Old Forest, and Gandalf who relays information to the _characters_ through knowledge that is both natural and supernatural. A good example of the natural is when he tells Frodo the history of the Ring as it applies to Gollum and Bilbo which has been told to him. But in the Golden Hall he confronts Wormtongue and asks how long it has been since Saruman bought him, and revealed the promised price was Eowyn. He does not know this information in the natural; it is revealed to him through his powers of sorcery as a wizard, yet it is found to be correct when it is confirmed by Eomer that Wormtongue has been stalking her for a long time.


----------



## The Hooded Claw (Oct 12, 2009)

"Claw pondered the question before muttering to himself, 'Of course a book can be written well in many different ways. Even L. Ron Hubbard could have seen that. But some books and especially some characters cry out to be written in first-person. The classic hard-boiled private eye just wouldn't be the same written in third person. Stories that involve frequent character shifts clearly will seem schizophrenic if at least some of the scenes are not written in third person. A few stories have gotten around this by having the narrator insert something reportedly submitted by another character in the book.' Claw a rolled his eyes back in thought, and absently lifted his right hand to push up the sagging rim of his floppy hat. It dropped down again as soon as his hand returned to rest, but Claw continued, 'there was a scene in Treasure Island where a supposed letter from Squire Tre-whatsisface described the action at the stockade while Jim was off having his solo adventure. And I believe Watson did something of the sort in Hound of the Baskervilles. And probably there is some character type that is better-suited to having his story told in third person than first, Though I'm baffled what it would be....Oh well, which doorstopper should I read next?'

As Claw pondered his reading options, two Furies sat watching from Olympus and giggled at the prospect of luring Claw to try to write a story so they could REALLY mess with his mind."


----------



## lmroth12 (Nov 15, 2012)

The Hooded Claw said:


> And probably there is some character type that is better-suited to having his story told in third person than first, Though I'm baffled what it would be....


How about the heroine in an epic, who must seem aloof in order to give her an air of mystery and seem far removed from the world of mere mortals? We suffer with the hero, such as Hercules performing his labors, or Odysseus trying desperately to return home to his wife and son, and feel an empathy with him, as a hero is a mortal called on to do the impossible. But Helen of Troy must be written _about_ rather than speak to us, for hers is the face that launched a thousand ships and if we know what she is thinking we might not feel as much sympathy for a woman who left her husband for another man. When she remains merely a trophy that men fight for, the third person is necessary in order to portray her in that light.


----------



## Carrie Rubin (Nov 19, 2012)

I prefer reading a book from one character's perspective at a time. I don't mind if it's first person or third. I once read a book written from first person plural point-of-view (we instead of I). That was a bit unusual.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

I don't mind if a book is done first or third person (what happened to the second person?) as they're both entertaining.  Regarding the rest, I'm really not sure the difference between limited or omniscient or whatever so I can't say on that regard.


----------



## MartinStanley72 (May 17, 2011)

As long as the story is well written it doesn't matter. I've read books with multiple first-person narrators, books with second-person narration, books with third-person omniscient and books that combine first and third, and none of the delivery method really matters as long as they are written well enough to tell a good story or communicate something to me as a reader.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

MartinStanley72 said:


> As long as the story is well written it doesn't matter. I've read books with multiple first-person narrators, books with second-person narration, books with third-person omniscient and books that combine first and third, and *none of the delivery method really matters as long as they are written well enough to tell a good story or communicate something to me as a reader.*


That's where it comes down for me. There mare many ways to tell a story and many ways to piece a book together. I've seen most all of them done well and most all of them done poorly. I don't really have a preference in narration styles or formats so long as the book itself is well written and entertaining. I pay much closer attention to stumbling blocks in the narrative itself - such as overly Mary Sue practically perfect characters or _deus ex machina_ solutions to insurmountable problems...


----------



## bhazelgrove (Jul 16, 2013)

You can also cheat with a Literary First Person who has prior knowledge. The best of both worlds. Faulkner used this


----------



## Debbie Bennett (Mar 25, 2011)

Not a fan, personally. I like to read books where I'm in so deep with the characters that I'm living their story with them. Where I can look up and realise it's 3 in the morning and I haven't noticed. I tend to find omniscient stories don't grab me enough to involve me and I get bored easily.


----------



## Christopher Meeks (Aug 2, 2009)

While I don't think most readers notice what type of third-person narration is going on, they may come to not like a book if the wrong POV is given. I used to review books for newspapers, and I found that third-person omniscient worked best in epics by writers who understood that when you jumped into a person's head, that person must be important and will come back into the story. John Irving is particularly adept at this, but it's more old-fashioned these days. Most novels aren't omniscient, and short stories rarely are. Unfortunately, a lot of bad writing pops around willy-nilly into a number of character's heads.


----------



## Scott Pixello (May 4, 2013)

"Depends entirely on the context," he said omnisciently.


----------

