I want to have a discussion about 3rd person omniscient narrators. (and I'm going to preface the following thusly: I'm tired and my mind is addled from coffee. Perhaps I'm perceiving things incorrectly.)

Why is it that omniscient narrators are practically "wrong" by today's standards? Why are they an invalid form of storytelling these days?

All successful modern novels and good fanfics I've read are 3rd person limited (sometimes changing perspective) or 1st person, and every time I read advice about writing, they ignore omniscient narrators in favor of limited ones. They cite such reasons as emotional distance from the characters, and tendencies towards too much exposition. "Here's four ways to tell a story. You can pick from these two. (1st and 3rd limited)" Since 2nd is only for clopfics and 3rd omniscient is boring.

Is this a symptom of the "show, don't tell" mantra gone too far? To the point where a narrative voice is no longer allowed to comment on events, like the witty observations of Oscar Wilde, or the extensive exposition of Tolkein? People read Tolkein BECAUSE of the exposition. Why is that now "wrong?"

I don't think it's a matter of difficulty in execution. Each perspective comes with its own challenges. Why, then, is the omniscient narrator so often forgotten, and a limited narrator chosen instead? Why is an emotionally distant narrator "wrong?"

772808 I think that it has faded due to the lack of good authors using it correctly along with the fact it can be a useful tool if you wish to hide something from an audience until later.

As far as I know, those who I've spoken to about this say omniscient narrator stories have too much tell, since it's too easy to have a narrator describe emotions/actions as opposed to writing vivid dialogue.

Some take show vs tell too far in my opinion when they start to criticize setting a scene through a paragraph or two of descriptions.

But I'm not much of an expert.

I find non-omniscient stories to be more suspenseful, and have plot twists to be more exciting. Also, I find dramatic irony to be not as great as sudden plot twists that we would never see coming.

There are some times when omniscient is a better choice to some others, like stories with extremely large and complicated plots with many characters. When readers have to play much attention to many different characters, I find that dramatic irony is extremely suspenseful, especially when the thing only we and a select few characters know something that could harm other important characters in the story, such as protagonist(s) that we've come to love so well. I would love to see this a bit more in the show itself, going to a third-person view of what an antagonist sees, since the show loves to stay in limited third-person. I know the show isn't going for a sort of epic with a large plot, but we love the characters, and any sort of thing that could harm them would make many upset inside since we love these fictional equines.

Just my thoughts, I don't know if I share feelings with others.

Having a narrator who knows everything has its benefits, but not all of them.

But an important thing to remember, just because your narrator knows everything, doesn't mean they need to reveal everything, because there are some things that are not important to the story. Nobody gives a toss that the snail hanging from the ceiling is feeling peckish while Twilight is offering emotional support to Rarity, who believes that the first major love interest in her life has been killed by a changeling. (FYI, "A Pierced Heart" In case you wanted to know.)

However, if you insist on an all-knowing, all-seeing narrator, give them an interesting voice, as in they have a way of describing things that is intriguing to the reader. This is particularly useful in comedies, where you can have your narrator insulting your characters or providing absolutely ridiculous asides.

I read an obscure fantasy novel recently which had an omniscient narrator. It had little character development. The plot was slow and simple. But I LOVED it, because the world it was set in was so fascinating. I gobbled up every detail about the history and culture because it was amazing. The author clearly had a knack for world building, and that was the main appeal to me.

I would argue that emotional connection to the characters (the main professed advantage of limited narrators over omniscient ones) is not necessary to a good story. Why? Because the point of a story is to entertain. If your world is fascinating, let that be the entertainment. If it's your characters, then that's fine too. I don't think that we, as a massive writing community, should just ignore omniscient narrators as a tool for storytelling.

As for show vs tell, I really think that we take that too far. Maybe I'm just the oddball, but I don't see it as that big of a deal. IF IT'S AN ARTISTIC CHOICE, rather than just ignorance. Because when it's a choice, it was for a reason, and it provides something that makes the story better. Showing is immersive for the most dramatic scenes. But if you do it all the time, it looses the impact. I seek a balance.

772851 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tooth_and_Claw_%28novel%29 was the novel, by the way.

I stray away from 3rd person omniscient narration when writing. But it's just a personal preference for me as a writer, there are plenty of fics in 3rd person that I love to bits.

Honestly, I think a lot of writers just aren't good at 3rd person. Not that I'm saying I'm not good at it! I just feel like I'm more comfortable with 1st person. Should I point out that both of my featured fics are in 1st person? Getting inside the narrator's head allows the reader to better identify with them. 3rd person narrators often feel like someone is reading a book to you. Know what I mean? There's often that 'disconnect.' But not always. I think a 3rd person narrator, omniscient or not, should be more 'involved' in the story, as if it were a person recanting a story of their life to you, the reader. Feels much more personal that way.

Another 3rd person method that I like, which is used sometimes, is when the narrator, for lack of a better phrase, 'takes sides' with certain characters. Where the narrator will exclusively talk about one character sympathetically, even making the other guy look bad, rather than equally treating all characters.

772808

Yes, it has to do with the "show don't tell" advice being taken too far, but I guess also about simple trends. Omniscent narrators sound kinda quaint nowadays, and indeed when it's used its often to give the story kind of a quaint, old-fashioned air to it. Fantasy uses it quite a bit, for example.

773018

Omniscent narrators sound kinda quaint nowadays,

This.

I can't even picture an omniscient narrator without thinking of some olde timey novel.
If you want to capture that feel, go for it!
If you have a very strong narrator, it can be an incredibly good read. I like the snarky ones, myself.

It's sort of like a story written in the present tense. You can do it, it isn't incorrect, but you probably don't want to, without having a very good and specific reason for doing so.

Well, I did read a book that kind of poked fun at the idea of a omniscient narrator by having him watch everything on a television screen and be able to hear their thoughts.

But when the other characters found out about this, they visited him and the story shifted to first person and then once they left, it switched back to the narrator narrating the story.

It made a hell of a lot more sense when you read the story. Simon Bloom and the Gravity Keeper (don't know if anybody here as read that book)

While there are people who take ‘Show, Don’t Tell’ too far, I don’t think the issue with omniscient narrators comes directly from that, but I can see where that thought comes from.

The argument of exposition isn’t unique to an omniscient narrator, either. Many first person books I’ve read are full of exposition; Heinlein’s Starship Troopers always comes out as a prime example, but the more modern Dresden Files is much the same in that regard.

For omniscient narrators done right, I’ll immediately go to Terry Pratchett as a good example. My mind’s going to the books Mort and Small Gods right now; cabbages and the maze respectively. I’m also thinking of A Christmas Carol, which is written almost as though you’re sitting down with a kindly, old narrator. Which is odd since that book’s more or less in third limited, as I recall. Been a while.

In similar vein, the book I’m currently reading, Phule’s Company, effectively has an omniscient narrator. It’s supposedly in third person limited, except when it’s not, with handwaves as to how the narrating character is listening in on some of the things he does, though you do have to just smile and nod every now and then.

The other one added here is about Oscar Wilde’s commentaries, which I admit to knowing nothing about. In any of these cases, though, there’s one thing that’s constant: the narrator is a character in his own right. The exception here is Pratchett, but if you read his stuff, you’ll know that the narrator has a distinct voice just the same.

The exposition in good works generally happens as part of an interesting aside (preferably in small doses) given by the narrator and, so, is tempered by their voice and how they view the subject. I’d actually recommend checking out last week’s Extra Credits (found here) and take note of the bits about GlaDos from Portal, as she functions like a narrator in many respects.

I think that that’s something often forgotten when most people go to write, and that it, as a rule, may well sink the story when that happens. The unfortunate other side is that far, far too many people wind up using the omniscient voice because it’s easier to get functional, but harder to get right. To be blunt, a lot of people wind up using it as a crutch.

This is also where I wind up constantly yelling at people to cut out the redundancies in what they wrote.

IE: (In an Apple Bloom-centic piece where Applejack has died)

...unable to hold it in any longer, Apple Bloom began to cry.

Sweetie Belle looked on, sadly, fighting back her own tears. She knew that there was nothing she could do or say to ease the pain her friend felt at the loss of her sister. She couldn’t even imagine how she would feel if she anything ever happened to Rarity.

She looked at her friend’s heaving shoulders and, her numbed mind coming to a decision, she reached out to her. Apple Bloom flinched when she first touched her, but when her friend didn’t pull away, she knew this was something her friend needed. Cautiously, she wrapped her hooves around Apple Bloom’s shoulders. The other pony leaned into her.

Sweetie just held her friend close while she cried.

Vs.

...Apple Bloom began to cry.

She flinched when she felt Sweetie Belle’s timid hoof on her shoulder, but she didn’t pull away. As Sweetie slowly wrapped her hooves around her, she leaned into the familiar comfort of her friend. Neither said a word as Apple Bloom cried.

Off the cuff, so please bear with me. Note the stuff in green, it’ll come up in a minute. But, first, this also brings up a few other points.

One of the key issues with an omniscient narrator is that you have to be careful where and when you switch points of view and/or heads. Had the above happened after ten pages taking place purely in Apple Bloom’s head without an active narrator (keyword: active) to keep things from getting too personal, then it’s jarring and will knock you clean out of the story.

Sadly, this is often the case.

It’s also precisely why books like A Song of Ice and Fire, which shift POV between chapters without a narrator, might have character names as chapter titles.

Properly done first and third limited can’t have this problem.

Which brings up one of the other points again. A properly done story with an omniscient point of view (narrator or not) must be told from a greater distance. This is necessary to avoid constantly jarring the readers and having the above problem. The result is that anything requiring the audience to be deeply invested in the characters will be at an immediate disadvantage. Ergo, you’re doing yourself a disservice using omniscient if you’re doing a character study. Not saying it can’t be done, mind you.

Which now brings us back to the green, and the part about omniscient POV being a crutch. In many stories I’ve read in this POV, published and otherwise, the part that I put in green tends to be missing. Rather than showing us how Sweetie is feeling, it’s much easier simply to say it. Having said it, nothing more needs be done.

In some cases, it’s by necessity, but in most it’s not. It compounds the issue of not being able to be invested in the characters. This is, to me, the essence of Show vs. Tell, though I reword it as ‘Show where you can, Tell where you must.’

What I find interesting and worth noting (and, yes, this is a problem with the author and not the style), is that whenever this happens, the characters didn’t do anything. While the audience may be aware that Sweetie feels for Bloom; Bloom really doesn’t. While this isn’t an intrinsic problem with the POV, it is a very easy trap to fall into and one that’s eliminated in first or third limited.

And that brings us to both types of focus; what’s seen and story.

Whenever you’re using an omniscient point of view, you need to choose what you allow the audience to see. If you’re doing this straight-up, then anything that’s pertinent to the current situation must be shown. If you’re trying to be clever, it takes a very deft hand.

IE:

He heard a noise behind him. He tried to turn but, before he could move, an iron-strong hand clamped over his mouth, silencing him and pulling him back. He tried to shriek as a knife plunged into his back, slicing through cloth and flesh. He tried to struggle as hot blood flowed out around the cold steel, but his assailant held him fast. Slowly, the warmth left his body and, with it, the pain ebbed away leaving only cold. The hand released him and he fell, but his world was black long before he hit the floor.

Again, off the cuff. In a third limited piece, that’s fine. In an omniscient piece, it’s not fair and your audience will call you out for it. I see this kind of thing a lot with omniscient pieces, and the writer will almost invariably then say that he’s using an unreliable narrator.

Going back to the narrator bit above, if you want to pull this trick, you need to have an actual narrator. Second, that narrator is lying to you. As in, the audience, and doing so directly. There needs to be an in-story reason for this as well. The other option is a narrator who simply doesn’t have all the information, but then the narrator isn’t omniscient and you’re back to limited or first person.

For the record, the above would have required seeing the assailant as he became aware of the protagonist and entered play. The recent TinTin movie had almost this exact scene, albeit with a candlestick holder, done well. Dealer’s choice on whether the scene needs to fade to black with the main character, though.

For an example of a subversion of this done well, check out the movie Silence of the Lambs. To work, the movie required the audience to have a foreknowledge of who Buffalo Bill was. However, the face scene only really works because the movie had kept a strong sense of who the lead was in any scene, so once the focus shifted off of Lector and onto the police, it was trained into us to expect the next part to play out as the police. Also, worth mentioning, they only did this once, which was probably all they could get away with.

Tension and suspense have to be played very different between the two styles, and in the one it needs to be out in the open. It’s one of the reasons I generally avoid romantic comedies. Five minutes in I know that he loves her, she loves him, they’re both tortured by it, but with nearly zero actual tension or conflict. I’ve got better things to do with my time.

The story focus element I mentioned, though, is more that when the limiters are off, people will tend to try to reach out and pull in as much as they can. There’s a drive to make things bigger, more dynamic, more epic and exciting, and people forget that they need to keep their feet on the ground. Or, they just cram in everything they can as exposition rather than letting the world breathe. Either way, the story is in danger of becoming sludge.

The current record I’ve seen is about eight pages, computer printed, 12-point font to walk from one end of a room to the other because everything in the room kept reminding people of stuff.

There’s also the issue that there’s a misconception that bigger, grander set pieces are the height of tension. They can be fun, sure. Still, two armies, each a million-strong, meeting out on the field to wage holy war isn’t really tense. Could be nice imagery, but that’s where it ends. Try as we might, people really can’t split the focus and handle that much at once. It’s too big and, so, loses the impact. At best, we understand what’s going on as an abstract.

Tension is: A room with one door. Two zombies between him and it. One bullet.

One man among that million looking out at a wall of iron and bladed steel, wondering why in the hell he signed on for this? That works.

And that’s what first person and third limited do very well. Aside from being a (mostly) surefire way to avoid all the pitfalls up to here, it also forces the story to be small and locks it in place. It immediately forces the story to tighten up and prevents it from wandering off to other characters, and forces the audience to see as they see.

A single person we can relate to and grow to understand. The world will be coloured by their view, but only a single view. The story will, as a rule, come out sharper and cleaner for it, and the reveals will occur to the audience at the same time as the character, giving a greater impact and empathy for what’s going on.

In short, unless a project actually requires an omniscient point of view to work (some do), there’s probably no reason to use it.

779966 That's a really thoughtful and through analysis.

However, if a story features say three main characters (like say a story about Batman that focuses on his, The Joker's and Gordon's POV) would that mean we break the narrative into sections? I.E. the first part of a chapter might show only Batman's POV, the next part The Joker's and then the final part Gordon's?

Because I usually write that way. I try to stick to one POV as much as possible, and break my chapters into sections, switching the POV with each section. Therefore, I keep third person limited as much as I can, but I'm not locked down in one POV either.

Of course, I'm writing a crossover that deals with a lot of characters (I think I've had about 5 major POV's in the story so far) so that might be the reason I prefer it that way.

779989
There are some people I know who disagree, but I'd recommend that, yes. Myself, I consider Game of Thrones to be written in a variant of third person limited and it does exactly that. (on re-reading my comment, I'm not sure if I made that clear.) So long as the main characters are defined, mostly consistent (a limited cast that doesn't change) and they only change who's the lead between chapters or something similar, I don't see a problem.

That said, I recommend staying with one character if at all possible, but I know it isn't always.