More on Telling and Omniscient Viewpoint

 As a viewpoint, omniscient goes against the grain of “show not tell,” often using telling to get the point across. The reason for this is that instead of seeing the scene through the character’s eyes, we have an outside narrator observing it.  That narrator might see a character get angry, might even dip into their thoughts, but the narrator is not going to experience that anger to show it.  Unfortunately, everyone’s so locked into following the “rules,” there’s virtually nothing on when to use telling or how to.

Part of the problem is that it’s not as black and white as “everyone” makes it out to be. I like this explanation from Editor Unleashed:

Telling is bad because it stops the story and forces the reader to receive information she doesn’t care about. But even I won’t say that telling is always evil. Indeed, in my Operation: Firebrand novels I invariably have a briefing scene in which someone tells the characters, and thus the reader, what’s going on and what has to happen. Isn’t that telling?

No, and here’s why: Telling stops the story and forces unwanted information on the reader. When the briefing scene comes in the Firebrand novels the story doesn’t stop—it can’t actually go forward without it. And the reader is interested in what’s going to be covered. Your reader will tolerate telling to the degree that she is interested in what is being told and to the degree that the story can’t advance without the information.

Emphasis mine.  One of the basic requirements is that the telling needs to be interesting.  I remember reading a Clive Cussler book where he used telling to give us a mini-biography of one of the characters.   Omniscient viewpoint allows this because the narrator is telling the story–the main character may have no idea of this information.  Telling works here because it’s a relatively minor character who will disappear once his mission is accomplished, but it makes him more memorable.  Showing all the same detail–in this case, developing it–would have consumed pages, but not added anything to the story because the character was so minor.

Telling also helps when showing forces unwanted information on the reader.  Can showing do that?  Sure.  Try Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.  Near the end Harry runs into Voldemort, and the reader is shown everything.  That’s fine.  When Harry returns to Hogwarts, we get shown a fairly lengthy scene where Harry runs through what happened again.  The reader already knew, so a few sentences using telling would have been more effective and interesting because we would gotten into new information quickly.

Omniscient Viewpoint and Telling

One of the first “rules” every writer gets greeted with is “show, don’t tell.”  That is, don’t tell the reader what’s happening, but show the character experiencing it.  Kaye Dascus’ blog on Making Viewpoint Work For You says:

When we “tell” that a character saw something (She watched him running down the street), we are holding the reader back from truly being inside the head of the character. When I see something, I am not (usually) cognizant of the fact that I am in the process of “seeing.” I just experience the action going on outside of me.

But in omniscient viewpoint, the narrator is observing the scene and not inside the character’s head, viewing the scene through her eyes, so we do get more telling.  Good thing or bad thing?  When I first starting using omniscient viewpoint, I imitated writers who used it.  Then I got a crit and got the accusatory finger pointed at me because I was breaking one of the rules:  “You’re telling!”  And I’m thinking, “Yeah, but that’s the way the authors writing in omniscient viewpoint did it.”   I did have to relook at what I was writing to ensure that I wasn’t doing too much of it, but it’s tough because it’s breaking commonly accepted wisdom.  There isn’t any information outside of everyone rehashing “Show, not tell”–even though some telling is perfectly acceptable in the other viewpoints.

I think the first step is recognizing what’s good telling.  When I read a published author who writes in omniscient viewpoint and he does telling, it’s very different than reading an early draft from a beginning writer who is doing a lot of telling.  The telling needs to be interesting and engage the reader.  In Tamora Pierce’s book Squire, it opens using telling in omniscient viewpoint, but each bit of it pulls us further into the story.  We get something about the character, what’s going on, and we’re instantly in the story.  In pieces I’ve crtiqued where telling has been done badly, it’s dull and flat, and even difficult to get through.  It often doesn’t give us anything interesting, but maybe recites backstory or tries to set up the character. 

What are some other ways to identify good telling from bad?

Describing Characters?

A hot topic among writers is whether to describe characters or not.  A lot of writers say not to describe the characters, to let the reader imagine them.

I’m always a little disappointed when a writer doesn’t bother to describe the characters.  Mind you, I’m not looking for a detailed vital statistic description of everything possible in the character’s appearance.  One or two sentences might be enough if they’re the right sentences.

And I don’t think it necessarily needs to an actual visual description–hair and eye color and whatnot.  I was in a description workshop, and I think I drove them crazy because I wasn’t describing things visually.   I actually wanted to expand beyond that because there are so many interesting things that can be done.  Here’s a few:

Description by dialogue:  I’ve seen this done a couple of times.  In one of Sue Grafton’s books, a hairdresser gives Kinsey a hard time for hair that looks like rear end of a dog.  In a J.A. Konrath book, the description was, well, quite shocking.  Well written, but it made me go “Eew!”

Through story development:  In a lot of urban fantasies, the character’s appearance comes into play as part of the story.  In the Riley Jensen series, she’s part of the rare red werewolves; in Darkfever, the main character ends up having to dye her hair because the bad guys can identify her.

Through impression:  This is what I’ve been using from MAGIC STUD.  It comes from some of the thrillers I’ve read, and it’s not a vital description statistic, but an impression of the person.  It’s great with an omniscient narrator because I can have a lot of fun with it.  I have a character who gives the outer impression of being a fluffball (see title of book), and he’s actually an extremely dangerous assassin.

What are some other non-traditional ways of describing characters?

More Reasons to Use Omniscient Viewpoint

I’ve been doing a list of reasons why a story might need omniscient viewpoint.  One freelancer (sorry, don’t recall the name offhand) said that a story should be able to work both in first or third, but I don’t agree that’s true.  I’ve read novels in first person that I thought would have been better in third, and I’ve also read novels in third that I thought would be better in first.  And I’ve also read some novels that I thought would be better in omniscient.

So, for the next three reasons:

The Story.  Some stories might just fit better in omniscient.  I had a lot of trouble with MAGIC STUD.  I started out in third person because that’s the way I always wrote.  Just wasn’t working.  My instincts told me is was viewpoint, so I tried the other choice: First.  That was scary.  The viewpoint so clashed with the book that it was painful writing.  With omniscient, the book immediately settled in, nice and comfortable.

Parts of the story need to be told, not shown.  I’m reading through Clive Cussler’s Flood Tide.  There are scenes with Perlmutter is researching this ship, and it’s basically four or five pages of telling the reader what he’s finding.  It could be shown yes, but there’s a high liklihood that it would be tedious.  All of the telling is background to build up for when the Perlmutter delivers the news (showing) to the other characters.  Thrillers, in particular, may have complex storylines where it would be tedious to show.  But children’s books also use omniscient for telling, though for a different reason–telling the story is very natural for that audience!

Large Cast.  Omniscient works better for large casts.  There’s this post on a message board about “Where are your characters?”  Everyone else has two or three characters.  Maybe five tops.  I’m the one with 21 (and I’ve cut down on that number).  It’s hard managing that many in first or third, because they have to revolve around the viewpoint character.   Laurell K. Hamilton tends to have huge casts in her Anita Blake books, but because they’re in first, all the characters have to revolve around the main character.  First is made to me more intimate, like a piece of the character’s life, and a cast of thousands ends up feeling like clutter.  Omniscient is more like a movie, where you can have a cast of thousands.  The viewpoint allows the writer to pick details at the right time instead of having to show only what the main character sees.

Do you have any of your own reasons why a book might be better in omniscient?

Reasons to Use Omniscient Viewpoint

Usually when I see someone post a piece in what they think is omniscient viewpoint, the reason they give is “I wanted to show what all the characters are thinking.”  Then they write in third and head hop like crazy!

It’s not an easy viewpoint to write in to start, and the learning curve can be difficult.  When I decided to switch MAGIC STUD over to omniscient (after trying it in third person and then first), I started by thinking about all the reasons why any book might need omniscient.  Given that it seems like everyone says, “You won’t get published using omniscient,” I had to  start by fully embracing why I needed it.  The answers were in the omniscient books I’d read, and some were quite interesting.  Here’ s the first three:

First and third are too intimate for the story.  When I read Perfume: The Story of a Murderer, which is in omniscient, I was grateful.  The story needed the distance.  First or third would have been a little too intimate (note: This book was made into a movie in 2007).  For mine, being inside the character’s head was way, way too intimate.  In first, he turned downright annoying and insufferable.  Most of the humor is derived from those elements, so the distance helps.

Too one-sided.  This is what made me think about omniscient.  I’d just hit a confrontational scene between the main character and another character, and third person was skewing it out of balance.  The first books I think of to compare here are the Vince Flynn ones.  The main character is a front line guy, and his boss is the head of the CIA.  Two very different roles.  Scenes shown through either character’s eyes would skew it to one side or the other, but omniscient brings it back to center.  By the way, if you ever have an opportunity to hear Vince Flynn speak, take it.  He’s a great speaker.

Fight Scenes.  On my last project, there were four main characters, all in a fight scene together. Do you know how hard it is to write a fight scene from one person’s viewpoint when he isn’t supposed to be able to see what all the other characters are doing?  In third, the only solutions are to either head hop (which, sadly, is how I resorted to solving the problem because of the limitations of the viewpoint) or to do lots of short scenes to stay in viewpoint.  In hindsight, I remember reading fantasies where the author split up the characters before the main fight at the end.  It makes me wonder if viewpoint was a problem for those stories.  For omniscient fight scenes, I always go back to Clive Cussler for the fights because he often brings a lot of characters in to party, but military thrillers will do this as well.

See my next post More Reasons to Use Omniscient Viewpoint.

Learning to Be a Better Writer by Reading

When I was in a critique group, there were two writers who were working on a novel but didn’t do much reading.  One stated, “I don’t have time to read!”  and the other wouldn’t read anything unless it was recommended to him.  They both had a very hard time understanding plot and premise–both difficult concepts even for voracious readers.

Jennifer Roland’s Read to Be a Better Writer brings up interesting points on how it can improve your writing.  When I first started writing in omniscient viewpoint, I went in search of books that were written in the viewpoint.  My main goal was not just to find any books written in omniscient, but to find ones recently written–and study them.  Not one of the how-to books explained how to do omniscient, so I’ve had to learn by reading the novels to see how other authors used the techniques.  And I did find books.

When I asked for critiques, the response I got from other writers varied from, “I’ve never read omnisicent viewpoint,” to “Omniscient viewpoint isn’t used any more.  Why can’t you change it to third?”

Uh, I have a thriller I got from the library yesterday.  It’s in omniscient viewpoint and was published this year.  Clearly, we aren’t reading the same books.

Ms. Roland’s advice on sampling different genres comes into play here.  While I do tend to stay within about four genres, I also will go outside of the genre if a book catches my eye.  I’ve found some good books that way.   I always look through the books the library puts out on the table as recommended reading.  And I’m doing Christian fiction reviews even though I would never pick up the books on my own.  Why?

Because if I’d stuck with just mystery or just urban fantasy, I would have never learned there were other viewpoints besides first.  And if I’d listened to other writers and how-to books, I would have thought that omniscient wasn’t used any more.  Who knows what else reading widely might give me?

Characters Description Boring?

Describing character always seems to be a hot topic among writers.  Some people describe all their characters and try to get the description in up front.  Others are adamant about never using any description and leave it up to the reader to picture the character.

I like seeing character description.  Usually if it’s missing, I find the description and the narrative lacking in general.  It’s like the description adds a bit of sparkle to the book, and it’s the ones that sparkle that gets me to read another of the author’s books or to buy the book.

I think some people stay away from character description because they think it’s a boring vital statistic description–height, weight, hair color, eye color.  I even participated in a description workshop where the teachers were convinced that was the only way to describe characters.  The truth is that I can’t tell you the height, weight, hair color, and eye color of any of my characters–not even the main character.  But I describe every one of them, even the walk-on characters.

Which is a lot of characters.  I have 22 named characters, plus the walk-ons.  That’s why I don’t come up with the vital statistics for each one.  It’d be too time consuming and would tend to make everyone sound alike.  Instead, I tend to hit one or two important details.  The details vary.  It could be a basic description, like what they’re wearing and how it plays into their characterization.  Or it could be a metaphor.  With omniscient, I can use the narrator to bring in a detail about their life that we wouldn’t know in first or third.  As I’m writing this, I’m thinking that I haven’t used smell as a description, so I could have someone wearing distinctive perfume or colonge, use too much perfume or colonge, or smells like cigarette smoke.

I also try to do something else with the description besides simply telling the reader what the character looks like.  Sometimes there’s a little humor, or a bit of characterization (particularly useful when doing a walk-on role on a character who returns later).  Maybe even a bit of backstory.

Character description doesn’t need to be a boring list of vitals!

Omniscient Viewpoint Distance

A number of years ago I critted a manuscript where the author had used omniscient viewpoint and it was so distance I felt like it was shoving me away.  I don’t have it now to look at, but as I’ve tried the viewpoint myself, I’ve wondered why that might happen.

Now as I do some revisions, I see a potential cause for the extra distance.  Most of my chapters work pretty well, but three stood at as being too distanct.  One was a fight scene, and the other two (one was Chapter 1) were introducing characters.  In all three cases, the problem was obvious once I got distance from the story (pun not intended): the story wasn’t following a specific character.  In the case of the fight scene, all I did was shift the opening to make it clear who the scene was following, and it was amazing what a difference it made.   I guess not having a character for the narrator follow added and magnified the distance.

Are Other Viewpoints Coming Back?

First person has been so popular the last few years that it seems like every time I pick up a book, it’s in first.  When I read first person years ago, I didn’t care much for it.  The viewpoint, as used in the books I was reading, seemed a little bland and distant (odd for first, right?).  Third and omniscient was what I found more interesting.

When the first person books came out in the mid-nineties that had sassy people with an attitude, the viewpoint became fun to read.  But now, when I look at what I saw as fun then, it now feels old and tired.  Been there, seen that.

If I’m feeling this way, I’m sure other people must be, too.  Do you think we’re going to see a shift back?  Editor to Rent thinks there are signs objective viewpoints might be coming back.

Something to Remember Characters By

EditortoRent has an interesting blog entry up about things that can really derail a book (worth reading just for the description of the book where all these happened).  Most notable was this comment on characters:

2. When you introduce a character, give us something to remember him by. Hint: The character’s opinion of white bread probably won’t do it unless you plan to have him eat a lot of sandwiches.

A lot of writers don’t like to describe characters, at least in the books I’m reading.  I often have a problem with mysteries because I get to the end where the murderer is revealed, and I don’t know who he is.  The character was not made memorable over the course of the book.  A memorable description might have helped that.

But I think the description needs to be more than a vital statistics description (i.e., height, weight, hair color, eye color).  Those details aren’t particularly memorable, unless the characters has bright green hair in a mullet.  On the other hand, things that suggest class, attitude, painful past, etc.–would do double duty, both making the character memorable and maybe bringing in another element of the backstory, story, personality, or even the theme.

Omniscient viewpoint gives the option of the overall narrator giving a mini-biography of the person.  I’ve seen this in thrillers, and it’s a cool idea.  It does come across as telling though, but at the same time can work for a character who is important in his portion of the book, but isn’t staying around for the entire book.