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.

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.

What I Didn’t Learn From How-To Books II

The next item on my list is Omnisicent Viewpoint.  To be perfectly honest, until I got to my current project, I never even gave it a second thought.  But I was having such a hard time on the viewpoint issue–nothing seemed to fit write–that a workshop showed me that there was another option.

Just about every how-to book that discusses viewpoint doesn’t do a good job when it comes to explaining omniscient.  Often, we get an example of it, followed by a notation that no one is using it (not true; there are many omni books being attributed to third person).  In one book, the section on omniscient consisted only of “Don’t use it!”  How is that helpful? 

None of them ever explained techniques (hit the omniscient tag for techniques, if you’re interested) for writing.  Even the ones that went into depth and were by actual fiction writers didn’t explain techniques.

So my teacher had to be books written in omniscient.  This was the only way I could understand how to avoid the most common problem: head hopping.  But also, to understand why I thought some omniscient books like the Louise Marley Cantrix series were fantastic while other books actually missed because of the viewpoint.

A lesson learned from this for me:  Just because a writing book says no one is using this any more doesn’t mean it’s true.  Look at what’s being published.

Why Writers Head Hop

I ran into this article from Writer’s Digest on Fiction: Point of View.  Sometimes I find hidden gems in the articles, like this one:

When I see manuscripts in which the POV bounces around, the reason is almost invariably because the author hasn’t figured out who matters to him the most.

It’s an interesting take on head hopping that I hadn’t thought of before.  The first thing people say when critiqued for head hopping is, “I wanted to show what all the characters were thinking” (usually also the reason some gravitate to omniscient viewpoint).   This takes us a step beyond, to look at another problem that’s not so obvious.  Even with omniscient viewpoint, where you might slide into the heads of other characters, there’s still a primary character the scene focuses on.

One of the hardest things from my co-written book (then Valley of Bones) was identifying a primary main character that the story followed.  We had four main characters and tried to give them all equal time.  We hadn’t figured out who mattered the most, and it did create challenges not only in viewpoint characters in the scenes but also with writing a coherent query.  Even little things like head hopping can hint at a far bigger issue that needs to be resolved.

Writing Books for the New Year

Happy New Year!

I thought I’d make a list of writing books that I find particularly helpful. If you asked me for a list in another couple of months, I’d probably have something different on it.  The books always change.

Write Better, Write Faster, by David Fryxell: Okay, it’s mostly for freelancers, but his discussion of organizing your writing is excellent.

Writers Market FAQs, by Peter Rubie:  Rubie’s an agent, and he answers questions about the business of writing.  There’s a breakdown and explaination of a typical writing contract (though that may be dated now, given some recent changes), all in plain English.  Even an explanation of whether you should have your writing copyrighted.

Make a Scene, by Jordan Rosefeld:  I like this one because it made me think about how to open my story in an unusual way.

The 38 Most Common Fiction Writing Mistakes: Worth looking at solely for #34.

The Power of Point of View, by Alicia Rasley: The only book I’ve ever seen that has an in-depth discussion on omniscient viewpoint–and doesn’t start out with “No one uses omniscient any m0re.”  It explains some of the reasons why you might choose this viewpoint.

Omniscient Viewpoint in Romance Novels

On the Lionheart Press, there’s an interesting article on omniscient viewpoint as used in romance novels.  It describes limited omniscient–that means it only dips into the thoughts of just the heroine and hero.  That makes sense, since the book is about only those two characters.

But this particular comment caught my eye:

Don’t waffle into minor characters heads. Too many points of view creates omniscient viewpoint problems, a place you don’t want to go as a romance author. For example, at a wedding, the reader doesn’t need to know what the minister is thinking while he performs the ceremony nor that the maid of honors dress itches. They are unnecessary points of view and serve only as a distraction to the bond being developed between our hero and heroine and the reader.

Okay, so it’s about a romance novel, but even the concepts could be applied to other types of books.  One of the things I didn’t like about the military thrillers is that the narrator tended to visit minor characters who had walk-on roles and weren’t making a second appearance.  It made me think that the character was important because so much attention was paid to him, and then he was never used again.   Instead, it felt like clutter, and unnecessary clutter at that. 

I’m working on a chapter now where the characters are in a restaurant, and they’re served by a waitress.  She’s unnamed, and I stay outside of her thoughts but spend a few extra sentences describing her so the reader will remember her later when she something that puts the main character further out into the limelight.  That comes from #34 in The 38 Most Common Fiction Writing Mistakes, which was to think about what else I could do with the character.  But dipping into her thoughts, giving a mini-bio?  Overkill for a minor role and a distraction from the other events in that scene.

Identifying With a Character in Omniscient Viewpoint

While searching for something else, I ran across a manuscript editing service that said that omniscient viewpoint shouldn’t be used because the reader can’t identify with the character. 

I don’t like sweeping statements like this because it sounds like those arbitrary rules that writers run into the time like “Don’t use adverbs.”  The ones that suggest absolutes when in fact, there’s few absolutes in writing (other than typos:) ).  Omniscient does have a distant quality to it, and that makes it a good choice for some types of books and not for others.

But does it make it hard to identify with the character?

Depends largely on the story itself.  I could see that being an issue with the political and military thrillers.  But then, the goal of those type of books is to solve the problem and save the world, not to worry about the personal problems of the main character.

But is there a book in omnscient where the reader identified with the characters?  Sure.  Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone.  The story goal was quite different from the military thriller one, and the writer picked details that drew sympathy from the reader for the character.

In fact, I don’t think the story would have worked as well if it had been one in either first or third.  Harry Potter had a lot of terrible things happen to him in his life, and in the traditional viewpoints, his own viewpoint would have likely made it come across as whiny and annoying rather than sympathetic. 

Originally, when I was still trying to decide on viewpoint for my Urban Fantasy, I tried first.  The main character has been through a lot, and first person tended to bring out the worst elements of it.  Distance made a BIG difference, as it does with the Harry Potter books.

Yes, it is possible for the reader to identify with a character from the omniscient viewpoint.

—-

Want a list of books in omniscient viewpoint to read?  Check out my page tab at the top called “Omniscient Viewpoint Books.”

The Distance in Omniscient Viewpoint

Several years ago, a writer in my critique group submitted a couple chapters from the thriller he was writing.  It was in omniscient viewpoint, and it was so distant, it was like it pushed me away.  I didn’t understand why until recently.

I just finished Black Magic Woman, which is an urban fantasy done in omniscient.  It didn’t push me away like the writer from critique group; but it was rather distant.

Why?  What makes it different from J. K. Rowlings, Clive Cussler, Vince Flynn, and other similar writers?

The omniscient narrator had personality. 

With Black Magic Woman, it felt to me like the narrator was reporting objectively on what was happening.  Factual yes, but it didn’t add anything to the personality of the story or the characters.   I kind of wish it had; the characters reminded a little of Mr. Steed and Mrs. Peel. 

Not sure about the critique group piece, though.  I wish I still had it so I could look at it again.  I’m guessing it was some combination of reporting objectively and word choice.

Making Transitions in Omniscient Viewpoint

A final part of avoiding head hopping in omniscient viewpoint is to make a transition before sliding into a new character.  Head hopping tends to make an abrupt jump, which is jarring and confusing, and the wording choices make the reader have to stop to regroup.

The transition is often quite subtle.  What I did was pick up a book written in omniscient, find a place where the narrator slipped into a character’s head, and then see what the author did.

The most common form was to use dialogue.  It often looked something like this.

“Dialogue from Character A.”  Narrative that slips into his thoughts.  “More dialogue.”

“Dialogue from Character B.  More dialogue.”  Narrative that slips into her thoughts.  “More dialogue.”

Because we’re already focused on the new character speaking the words, it makes the transition easier. 

Another type of transition I found was even more subtle.  The narrator had slipped into the character’s thoughts, then stepped back for an overall camera view–only one sentence–then slipped into the second character’s thoughts.

All of these are quite subtle.  I had to read the sections several times, studying them closely to see how it was done.  But if done right, the reader reads right past it without being jarred out of the story.

Another Way to Describe Omniscient Viewpoint

Omnisicient is one of those viewpoints that can take on different tones, depending on what the writer does in the story.

With books by Clive Cussler and Vince Flynn, it feels more like a movie.  The camera is trained on the scene as the story unfolds, zooming in for occasional closeups.

With Tamora Pierce, it’s like you’re on a trip and being told a story.  J.K. Rowlings takes it a step further: It’s like you’re sitting in front of a warm fire in the fireplace being told the story.