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?

Critiquing Omniscient Viewpoint

One of the pitfalls of writing in omniscient viewpoint is that it can be very hard to get a critique.  If you run into a piece written in omniscient viewpoint, these are some things to remember:

Critique the work.  Okay, this sounds obvious, but people can get so focused on the use of the viewpoint they don’t do any actual critiquing.

If you’re not sure about how to critique omniscient, these are some things to look for:

• Distance:  It’s a natural part of omniscient viewpoint.  But there are different levels, and the writer may not be aware they’re hitting the wrong level.   Give specifics where you can. 
• Telling.  Omniscient has a telling component–A challenge when we’re all told “Show not tell.”  Be alert for where it might be too much, but don’t instantly codemn it because it is telling.
• Viewpoint switches.  Just look for places where it’s jarring and confuses you.

The rest of the critiquing is basic.  Do whatever you would normally do for any story in your genre.

 Avoid Lecturing.   A writer asking for a crit may receive multiple lectures admonishing them not to use the viewpoint like “You’ll never get published with omniscient.”  It might just be me, but this veers awfully close to “This work is garbage.  You’ll never get published.” 

Avoid Fixing.  Critters often rush into an omni critique and explain how to convert it to third, as if it was broken and needed to be fixed.  That comes across as condescending and insulting, rather than helpful.

Be Respectful of the Writer’s Reasons.  When I stated my reasons, critters pooh-pooed them away as if I didn’t really understand what I was doing.  Granted, there are writers who pick omniscient because they haven’t figured out who they want the viewpoint character to be.  But there’s a huge difference between “I wanted to show what all the characters were thinking” and “The distance of the viewpoint works best with the type of humor in the story.”

But the biggest thing?  Crit as you would want to be critted.

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!

My Editing Process Part II

This what I’m doing on my current project, based on things I learned both from the last project and from a business writing course I took.

Phase One is where I’m at.  I’m going through the manuscript (which is not completed yet), and searching for places where I short-changed the story or could legimiately expand.  I’m even paying attention to placement of subplots, which I’m adding after the fact.  For whatever reason, I can’t put subplots in during the initial draft because it will derail me.  But now I see where I need to put them to change the pacing and give the reader a break.

Other expansions have been to fix problems or shake out an element of the story a little better.  There’s been a couple of very difficult areas, and this, combined with the subplots, will help with that.   I remember during the original drafts how hard it was and how I never felt like I would get it to work.  Now I’m telling myself that all I need to do is add two chapters to solve it by filling in a few gaps.

Once I get all of this fixed, it’ll make it easier to set up everything for the end of the story.

For Phase Two, right now I’m guessing it’s going to be an Omniscient Viewpoint pass.  I’m going to look for problems with:

• Too distant.  This seemed to be a problem when I introduced a new character the camera was following.
• Too much telling.  I’m not sure this is a problem.  The viewpoint tends to use telling, and most writers seem not to like the viewpoint in general to start with.  So it’s hard to tell from any comments I’ve received whether it’s appropriate for the viewpoint or if I need to work on it.  I’m erring on the side that I might need to work on it.
• Any head hopping.  I don’t think I’m going to have a problem with this, but I want to keep an eye out for it anyway.

I’ll probably do a repetition pass during this phase, but it’ll be different with this project.  I’m not doing the kinds of repetitions I did in the last book, like where I would say it was cold, and then a few sentences later say it was cold again.  This time, I think I’m going to find them primarily where backstory is brought it.  Omniscient allows me to bring in the more complicated aspects that would come across as tedious in showing by telling them.  The minus of this is that it’s easy to bring it back a couple more times, and that’s what I have to watch out for.

Phase Three will be a general check of sentences, structure, grammar, and such.  Maybe catch any repetitions I didn’t pick up on the previous pass.  Probably continuity errors, too.

Phase Four will be proofreading.  Sure, I’ll fix a typo if I spot it at any other time, but I’m not trying to weed them all out at every phase of the story.  I’ll take care of them here.

Interior Monologue to Close Distance

Editor to Rent has an interesting post on interior monologue.  The author is the same person who wrote The Power of Point of View with an extensive section on omniscient viewpoint.

Particularly interesting to me:

 ”Telling” the character’s internal state (rather than showing it directly with interior monologue) can serve as a sort of depth midpoint between the more distant feel of the omniscient and the more intimate feel of the interior monologue.

When I got a crit of the first chapter, the one comment that I got was that it was distant.  I’d expected complaints about distance, since many writers are more familar with the intimacy of third or first.  However, when I looked at the chapter again, I thought I could do better and make it less distant.  This looks like an interesting technique to try.