Forum: Author Hangout

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Writing in 3rd-person omniscient is simply telling the story from an all-knowing narrator's POV. It's the only POV in the story.

Writing in 3rd-limited, each scene is from one character's POV. Just like with 1st-person POV, in that scene you can only tell the reader what the POV character knows, thinks, feels, etc. And if it's a close 3rd-person, you eliminate the filter words.

The first scene in my first chapter is from an unidentified boy's POV. I wrote it from an omniscient narrator's POV, but it could also be the boy's POV. The second scene in Chapter 1 is from a character named Buck's POV. Again, when I wrote it I was writing omniscient. In fact, it wasn't even a separate scene. Simply the omniscient narrator providing more information.

But now that I realized everything I wrote after that is 3rd-limited (meaning from a character's POV, so the character's thoughts can be written as narrative), I had to break the "Buck part" into a separate scene. But the beginning of that scene is omniscient. This is it:

While the shooting was going on, the 911 dispatcher and sheriff's office in a nearby town were inundated with phone calls from petrified students huddled under their desks or locked in classroom closets. Too small to have its own police, Cactus Point relied on the county sheriff—and the local mechanic, Buck Ka-e-te-nay. The sheriff, with the approval of Cactus Point's mayor, made Buck a volunteer deputy. With a body built for football, a calm disposition, and the ability to get along with everyone, he was well suited for what they needed—someone to settle arguments between neighbors.

"While the shooting was going on, the 911 dispatcher and sheriff's office in a nearby town were inundated with phone calls from petrified students huddled under their desks or locked in classroom closets" is omniscient. Buck wouldn't know all that.

Buck wouldn't know all that.

But the Omni narrator would and the subsequent parts of the scene are the narrator telling Buck's thoughts/actions with Buck seeming to be the narrator. Assuming I understand what you meant by "But the beginning of that scene is omniscient" is correct.

But the Omni narrator would

That's the point. When I wrote it, I was writing in 3rd-person omniscient. It was the omni narrator telling the story. When I realized I was writing the story in 3rd-limited, I had to go back and undo the omni narration. I broke the Buck part into a separate scene (since the first scene is from the unidentified boy's POV). Wallah, now the scene is written in limited from Buck's POV.

But the first part of the first paragraph in that scene had to remain omniscient.

The point of this thread is twofold. First, I realized after writing in 3rd-limited for so long I realized I can't write in omniscient any longer. Second, there are times to consciously sneak in an omni narrator in a limited story.

That's the point. When I wrote it, I was writing in 3rd-person omniscient. It was the omni narrator telling the story. When I realized I was writing the story in 3rd-limited, I had to go back and undo the omni narration. I broke the Buck part into a separate scene (since the first scene is from the unidentified boy's POV). Wallah, now the scene is written in limited from Buck's POV.

That's the main contention is using ANY POV in a story. 1st always seems more 'direct' and 'involved for the reader', but it generally limits what you can reveal. So essentially, you trade off some immediacy for the freedom to reveal the none character specific details, or you bite the bullet, realize you can't do both, and stick to the one character's perspective.

In the end, does Bucky really need to know what the dispatchers do? And if so, haven't they invented police radios in your story universe?

In the end, does Bucky really need to know what the dispatchers do?

That was for the readers, not Buck. But it was simply an example. I believe throwing some omniscient into a 3rd-limited story can work. Not sure if you can do it in 1st-person, though.

some people write chapters as 3rd-person limited and then change the view-point character for the next chapter. I'm not saying that this is wrong; I will say that making this the definition of 3rd-person limited is making up your own definition.

That's 3rd-person limited multiple and how most genre fiction novels are written. Many (most?) romance novels are told from both the hero and heroine's POVs. It may be 50/50 or 70/30, but it's told from both.

In fiction, the omniscient narrator is all-knowing. That doesn't mean he tells the reader everything, but he knows all.

is that you have your own definitions

Those aren't my definitions.

In that case the narrator could narrate using the 3rd-person limited POV most of the time and only shift to 3rd-person omniscient when needed.

That's what I'm doing.

As it turned out, I can't. I'm finding omniscient causes too much distance between the reader and character.

No offense, but it seems you are confused.

No offense, but it seems you are confused.

Can you elaborate?

Can you elaborate?

In your OP you said

I'm finding omniscient causes too much distance between the reader and character.

I said

In that case the narrator could narrate using the 3rd-person limited POV most of the time and only shift to 3rd-person omniscient when needed.

By that I meant the Omni narrator could narrate as if using the 3rd-person limited POV. Perhaps that is what caused the confusion for you said

That's what I'm doing.

the Omni narrator could narrate as if using the 3rd-person limited POV.

I don't understand that.

I don't understand that.

You can have your narrator writing in 3rd person. When you consider the entire story, the narrator is using either the Limit or the Omni POV.

When the narration is presented using only 3rd person Limited, the story is being told from the 3rd person Limited POV.

Now if any of the narration is told from the Omni perspective, then you can have a mix of some scenes told using the Limited perspective and some scenes told from the Omni perspective. In this case, the story is using the 3rd person Omni POV even though there are scenes that appear to be 3rd person limited.

the narrator is using either the Limit or the Omni POV.

This is the part that confused me. There is no narrator in limited. I guess there's an invisible narrator — the author. But with omni, the narrator has it's own voice. It's true narrator.

If there were no narrator in limited, then there would only be dialog. The narration may change from person-to-person, but someone is doing the narration.

ETA: I should have said the narration can change from character-to-character or from character-to-Omni narrator

The narration may change from person-to-person, but someone is doing the narration.

I've heard it referred to as an invisible narrator.

1st-person = narrator is the character telling the story. It's the voice of the narrator as his dialogue would be. Like Ishmael (in "Moby Dick") or Huck Finn.

omniscient = an all-knowing narrator. Not a character in the story, but a narrator with a distinct voice. (1st-omni is actually a character in the story.)

limited = the invisible narrator recording what the POV character sees, hears, thinks, etc. Some say each POV character has their own voice. I don't agree. I believe it's consistent across all POV characters and is close to formal English.

Changing from character to omni? That's what I'm going to do.

I would certainly restrict the 3POV omni to scenes when your MC is not present. Ideally, I'd want omni and limited scenes separated into different chapters and that the first sentence of every chapter clearly establishes which POV it uses. If that results in some very short chapters, so be it. Ideally too, the omni narrator should be a fly on the wall only reporting what they can see, but whenever the story really needs it, they may get inside the heads of other characters.

Well done, Ross, I agree with your entire summation,as it also encapsulate my definition of 'satisfying chapter breaks', as it gives readers time to process the POV shift, though you don't need to TELL the readers who is speaking, only start off with dialogue by the new POV character.

Sounds like different terms describing the same basic thing.

ETA: I wouldn't worry about putting the "proper" label to what you are doing and just go ahead and do what seems right to you. If others disagree, that is their problem.

Sounds like different terms describing the same basic thing.

ETA: I wouldn't worry about putting the "proper" label to what you are doing and just go ahead and do what seems right to you. If others disagree, that is their problem.

In my view, your 'decision' to write in 3rd limited was a faulty one, based on your assumption that 3rd omni is 'less' personal (as assumption I personally don't buy). So again, you're playing games in order to MAKE your POV choice work, rather than picking the proper POV for the story in the first place.

It sounds to me that you're simply biased against 3rd person Omni, but can't live with your own decision. That's called bad decision making, based on faulty assumptions rather than proper planning ahead of time. But again, that's just me. If you're satisfied, AND the story works, that's enough to cover your ass. I just wouldn't play those kinds of games. I've done it myself, again because I was forced to, and I was NEVER satisfied with my original POV choice as a result. If you NEED to insert 3rd omni segments, you should NEVER start writing in 3rd limited to begin with. You only want to eat your cake, and preserve it too, that's just not a realistic choice.

But then, I'm the one with the oversized morality complex. None of the rest of you are as 'morally obsessed' as I am, so take my refusal to follow your lead as a personal choice. I don't disagree with your approach, I could just never justify following your lead.

In my view, your 'decision' to write in 3rd limited was a faulty one

I don't know what you're smoking CW, but I never made the decision you are referring to and I have no opinion regarding Omni being more or less personal. I also have absolutely no idea what any portion of your post is referring to.

I don't know what you're smoking CW, but I never made the decision you are referring to

That was directed at me, not you.

You're probably right.

Still from what I know of you, CW's comments were still out-to-lunch and inappropriate.

That was directed at me, not you.

Yeah, sorry REP. Your response sparked a renewed response about Switch's decision to write the book in first person, and then crying foul when he's forced to include change in perspective. I considered his initial decision, in that case, to have been faulty. He should have considered that upfront in deciding which format to use in writing the book. But I'll admit, you don't typically know where you'll run aground until you're actually out in the water.

Actually, Switch decided to use third person omniscient and found that he kept wanting to use third person limited. He felt that switching between Omni and Limited wasn't a proper thing to do.

As I discovered, there is a third person alternating narrator, which is a narrator who alternates between using the third person limited and third person omniscient.

As I discovered, there is a third person alternating narrator, which is a narrator who alternates between using the third person limited and third person omniscient.

I must admit, it's likely very entertaining, and ultimately very informative, wrestling with the various perspectives in the same story, as it provides an informed knowledge of which ultimately work the best. But still, I think I'd go for 'consistency', rather than experimenting or simply trying to 'make it work somehow'. (I'm not belittling the effort, as that's ultimately a fruitful learning process, but in the end, if you're continually teasing the reader with a constantly changing landscape, you'd be better off never letting anyone read it and only using the accumulated knowledge in a later story. (That's essentially my 'sweat until you bleed, but never let readers see you struggling' philosophy.)

It sounds to me that you're simply biased against 3rd person Omni,

Not at all. It means, after writing in 1st-person and 3rd-limited for so long, I find it difficult to write in omni. I don't like all the telling in omni and distance between character and reader, so I end up writing in limited without even realizing it. When I realized it, I succumbed and decided to write it in 3rd-limited with some omni thrown in.

The purists would call what I'm doing head-hopping. I know the rules which is the requirement for breaking them.

If you go back to my original post (Post #1) that's what I said. I wasn't saying one is better than the other.

I apologise for my wise crack about "driving yourself crazy" and "us here too". I trust you realise it's the kind of "joke" I cannot resist making. :-)

And here I'd thought that "driving yourself and us too crazy" comment was directed at me!

If you go back to my original post (Post #1) that's what I said. I wasn't saying one is better than the other.

Good point. But my opposition still stands, as you're trying to 'patch' an initially faulty decision (to write entirely in first person). Having done that before, and having subsequently to NEVER repeat that mistake, I can relate to your plight, but it also reinforces my issue. More care needs to be taken in choosing the correct presentation of the book BEFORE it's ever written.

You can get such perspectives to work, but it always revolves dancing around the central issue, rather than just writing the story one way or the other.

Good point. But my opposition still stands, as you're trying to 'patch' an initially faulty decision (to write entirely in first person).

I never intended to write it in 1st-person. I was going to write it in 3rd-omniscient. It was not a faulty decision. I knew the omniscient narrator would be needed.

But as I wrote, I ended up writing in 3rd-limited because of the way I now write. I didn't want the omni narrator telling the reader what the characters did. I wanted to show the characters doing it.

So the decision I ended up making was to write it in a close 3rd-limited with some omni thrown in (controlled head-hopping).

So the decision I ended up making was to write it in a close 3rd-limited with some omni thrown in (controlled head-hopping).

Just throwing this out there, but rather than applying whichever technique seems to work with the passage in question, why not treat the narrator POV as a character trait? That way character A tells the story in 3rd Omni, character B covers their details in 3rd-limited, and character C uses expository narration (where you can't tell the difference between the narrator and the character).

That way, the narration itself helps define the character, and rather than seeming fleeting, it helps define how the character sees the universe around them. In the end, you could tie everything together by having each character dealing with the fallout of that worldview, as the narration style falls apart just as their lives do, with the only one standing ending up with the ONLY world view which leaves them intact, making the readers wonder whether it isn't just the result of a faulty narration.

It may not work, but it would certainly be entertaining to read, and fascinating to see how it unfolds over the course of a story.

Just saying, not that I expect you to undertake such a challenging piece.

I don't understand that.

You can have your narrator writing in 3rd person. When you consider the entire story, the narrator is using either the Limit or the Omni POV.

Many of my stories fall into that category, as the Third-person narrator is actually an unidentified character in the story, who's relating what happens. Rather than an Omniscient being who 'KNOWS' everything, the character knows what the others were thinking at the time, because over time they've all revealed those detailed in private conversations with them.

Literary examples range from The Book Thief, where the third-person omni narrator was Death, to The Lovely Bones, where the 1st person narrator was the woman murdered at the very start of the story.

Literary examples range from The Book Thief, where the third-person omni narrator was Death, to The Lovely Bones, where the 1st person narrator was the woman murdered at the very start of the story.

The Book Thief is 1st-person omniscient. Death is a character in the story telling the story.

Isn't The Lovely Bones written in 1st-person? Yeah, the character is dead, but she's telling the story in first person of what happened.

Literary examples range from The Book Thief, where the third-person omni narrator was Death, to The Lovely Bones, where the 1st person narrator was the woman murdered at the very start of the story.

Isn't The Lovely Bones written in 1st-person? Yeah, the character is dead, but she's telling the story in first person of what happened.

Read the line you're quoting once again. Apparently I'd forgotten the POV in The Book Thief, but got it right in The Lovely Bones.

Then again, there's my newest story idea, where the mind-control story villain is the cat, who's free to take whatever POV they want 'cause: they're a damn cat! 'D

In that case the narrator could narrate using the 3rd-person limited POV most of the time and only shift to 3rd-person omniscient when needed.

That's what I'm doing.

The danger in that—which you can certainly circumvent with some careful planning—is that readers frequently find it disconcerting to suddenly switch from 1st person or 3rd person limited to 3rd Omni, just for a few brief 'author interventions'.

The key, if you take that approach, is to ensure those transitions are seamless and natural, so they don't feel like violations of the story.

I've not heard the term Objective Narration. I've heard of "objective" vs "subjective" where objective is the ultimate "showing." Everything is described from a camera view in objective. For example, you can't say he was sad. You'd have to say only what the camera could see, like he frowned or tears flowed down his cheeks or something else that can be observed.

distinguish between third-person omniscient, where a narrator has interiority of multiple characters but can step outside of them and universal omniscient, where the narrator has access to and relates information not known by any character.

I never heard he term "universal omniscient." I thought 3rd-omni was all-knowing — knowing everything about the characters AND stuff no character knows.

I never heard he term "universal omniscient

I hadn't heard the term either. I tried to find its description on the internet, but got no hits.

I did find a term - limited omniscience. That is where the narrator knows everything about a single character, but not the other characters.

It sounds to me that people are creating their own terms for variations of the basic term omniscient.

Dicrostonyx is throwing out terms that many of us are unfamiliar with. He also said:

Things can get very complex when you start studying this stuff. But for someone who hasn't studied formal criticism, and doesn't need to know (or care) what the difference is between third person omniscient and free indirect speech, for example, this can all seem a little overworked.

Besides the meaning of the terms he is using, I would like to know what "formal criticism" has to do with literary points of view. I found a definition for formal criticism, but it was so general it was useless.

That's what Creative Writing is for!

There are six shortlisted novels for this year's Man Booker Prize. All the authors have a formal Creative Writing qualification. All the novels fit my 'File 19' criteria :(

AJ

All the novels fit my 'File 19' criteria :(

Would I be right to think your File 19 is the same as my round file storage unit that sits beside the desk to take excess items until I remove them to the larger storage unit which is emptied each week?

Would I be right to think your File 19 is the same as my round file storage unit that sits beside the desk to take excess items until I remove them to the larger storage unit which is emptied each week?

Exactly!

AJ

I'd be interested in reviewing or proofreading something like that it you care to ask.

So would I, as I said, I'm willing to look under any rock for whatever bits of useful knowledge I can uncover. If there's a fair amount I can use, I'll sign up myself rather than bitching about it!

So, third-person omniscient is the most common narrative style in modern novels

Novels of the past, but not current ones. The most common genre fiction is 3rd-limited.

Free indirect speech also called free indirect discourse or style takes that a step further and shows the character's thoughts and feelings as part of the narration, with the voices of the narrator and character being indistinguishable.

So does close 3rd-limited which is what I try to write.

Free indirect speech also called free indirect discourse or style takes that a step further and shows the character's thoughts and feelings as part of the narration

I disagree. In the first definition, the only thing said in the definition is what the narrator knows. The definition does not define how the narrator is to express what he knows. If the definition were to be expanded to include how the Omni narrator expresses this knowledge, the expansion could include how the narrator goes about showing the character's thoughts and feelings as part of the narration, and that the narrator would show those thoughts and feeling with or without the voices of the narrator and character being indistinguishable.

Same concept, but the interiority has shifted to being part of the narration instead of being explicitly someone else''s thoughts.

In both of your examples, the narration is explicitly someone else's thoughts but the narrator is wording the thoughts differently.

I have read the Wikipedia descriptions in the past and just reviewed the portion applicable to the Third Person voices. Sounds to me like the article differentiates between the subjective and objective narrator. It then it wants to differentiate between the omniscient and free/indirect narrator. However, it defines the free/indirect narrator's narration as the more lively portion of the omniscient narrator's narration. Authors make their narrator's narration more lively at time to emphasize or draw attention to something. It is the same narrator. Trying to differentiate between the lively and boring portions of a narrative as different types of narrators is just splitting hairs as far as I'm concerned.

It is a recognized fact that in academia, professor must publish to maintain their position and standing. In order to publish, the professor must "create" something different to address. This often results in the professor selecting a topic and generating a "spinoff" from the basic idea. It sounds to me like most of what you have been saying has come from professors who are teaching their "spinoff" concepts. Of course, I could be wrong about that. But that is what I usually think of when I encounter someone who basically puts us plebeians down by telling us all about what wonderful things they learned at university, which is just too difficult for us plebeians to understand without extensive discussion.

@ Switch

The Wiki article on narration did include a definition of the third-person, alternating narrator, which is a narrator who alternates between using the third person limited and third person omniscient.

Trying to differentiate between the lively and boring portions of a narrative as different types of narrators is just splitting hairs as far as I'm concerned.

Not really. Most of the time, the narration describes the 'day-to-day' moments of the character's life, with the emphasis on the futility of it and how lost they are. However, when something the narrator reveals has a direct impact in the unfolding of the story (beyond simply setting up the situation), that's what's is delivered most succinctly and directly, as it's the most meaningful to the characters.

What I wasn't addressing the narration. I was deriding the idea of the narrator changing from omnificent to free/indirect in the middle of the narration.

Just picture it - the omni narrator starts the paragraph. Three sentences later, he is a free/indirect narrator. Four sentences later, he is back to being the Omni narrator. That is a totally ridiculous concept to me.

Just picture it - the omni narrator starts the paragraph. Three sentences later, he is a free/indirect narrator. Four sentences later, he is back to being the Omni narrator. That is a totally ridiculous concept to me.

I agree, that undermines the entire purpose of the narrator, and negates any value (reader trust) he brings to the story. Though in the post you responded to (I believe), I wasn't suggesting changing the narrators POV, but was suggesting it helps the author craft their story (but has little effect on the reader's enjoyment of a story) if the author defines 'who' the speaker is so he can better predict how he'd phrase his observations.

I'm not suggesting an author switch between 3rd omni to a casual 1st (or 3rd) person delivery, but that even though the narrator knows everything that happens in the story, that doesn't necessarily imply he IS God (i.e. he can still be a flawed narrator, having his own agenda and will thus present what happens to the characters based on his interpretation of events.

Omniscience merely means that the narrator 'knows everything that happens', but there are many ways they might come to possess that knowledge, without changing the narrator's POV.

I just meant that there's a difference between how professionals and academics in a given field discuss writing and how people on amateur writing boards do.

Although I'm not fond of anti-intellectualism in general … the first are mostly unsuccessful—those who sell a lot don't waste their time talking about it—the second mostly use the terms simply to prove how much they know (i.e. proving how little their student's known), whereas the 'people' on amateur writing boards are mostly honestly trying to figure out how everything works. Frankly, I'll listen to the first two when they offer something meaningful and/or useful, but otherwise I'd listen to those offering useful information over those trying to obscure the obscure the meaning. As Einstein supposedly said (though it's never been verified): "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

Though that's not to say studying writing in a university setting isn't worthwhile, just that you've got to figure out what parts of that education are utterly useless (typically once you graduate and everyone in the field rolls the eyes anytime you mentioned what you've learned). In the end, it's what you can apply to real-life situations, rather than what they ask for on tests.

The same is true for 'professionals'. Most 'professional' authors who spend their time talking about writing are busy selling useless information, rather than writing successful books. And after having spent time trying to track down reliable information, I remain convinced the only authors who offer any reasonable information about writing are those without a vested interest (i.e. Steven King's book is excellent, since he clearly doesn't need to earn money promoting how 'smart' he is, while most 'learn how to write books' tend to provide information designed to keep you from competing with them).

In the end, like us, you pick up a TON of useless information, and figure out on your own how to apply the only useful tidbits. Frankly, the best bet is to find someone with some knowledge who'll pass on useful information for the love of the work. Most won't know what they're talking about, but you glom onto those who help you the most.

And as far as 'formal criticism' is concerned (no offense Dicrostonyx), 'literary' criticism is the ability to impress your professors with bullshit which the literary greats your writing about insist is utter garbage (I'm not saying that criticism is worthless, just that professors get promotions by spouting nonsense that no one understands).

In the end, most 'creative writing' students have to spend a LONG time trying to unravel which of the many unfathomable details they learned are of any use. Colleges graduate more poets than anything else, and guess what's the most difficult field to earn a living in? Again, studying poetry makes sense, but you can't hang your hat on it, just as you don't pay for 'crash-learning' courses guaranteeing you'll be a successful writer when you finish (but without offering to refund your tuition when it proves false (kinda like a certain out-of-business 'business' school)).

In short, the industry is filled with utterly useless information, and the sooner you put it aside and start cranking out some real stories, the better your chances (though, honestly, a formal 'literary' gives you the best possibility of getting your stories accepted by a major 'literary' publisher, since the schools teach you how to 'sell' your story using the best lingo).

Now, I KNOW this sounds like bitter grapes, but again, as I struggle to figure out what works and what doesn't, I've learned to decipher utter crap from workable solutions. I'll never become a 'success' or even a 'recognized' author, but I like to think I write 'passable' fiction, and frankly, that's good enough for me (writing the best I'm able, by dedicating myself to the process).

By the way, Dicrostonyx, we'll have to compare notes when you finish, as I'm truly curious how much useful information a formal education offers, as I'm convinced there's a LOT of useful nuggets buried in all the crap, otherwise no one would ever bother if it left them utterly unable to earn a living.

Your cynicism about those who offer "advice" to others about writing is understandable, but I think a little bit over the top.

I freely plead guilty to the charge, but my cynicism isn't (completely) based on my own opinion of myself, but is based on how faulty is misleading many bloggers offering writing 'secrets' appear to be. Too often, their advice seems to be directed at eliminating competition from new authors, rather than trying to help new authors craft stronger stories.

However,there are many authors writing well-respected advice that deserves serious considerations. The problem is separating the wheat from the chaff.

My personal favourite is Writing Tools by Roy Peter Clark who is primarily a teacher of journalism. It's not directed at authors of fiction, but equally applicable to them too, and addresses the kinds of issues that make so many of us despise much formal writing so intensely.

Another I'll have to read, but they key (in my view, at least), is if you know the differences between fiction and non-fiction writing, it's relatively simply to apply their advice to your writing. And most of the main differences between fiction and non-fiction prose have been discussed on this forum.

In general, what I'm planning is two essays/posts on writing, one technical the other stylistic, and one on sex. While certainly a lot of erotic fiction uses tropes that everyone knows are fantasy (eg, size fetishes), there's a tonne of misinformation these days. It's not really anyone's fault; sexuality research is actually pretty new and what we know is changing rapidly. But some of what shows up commonly in "erotic stories" is so wrong that it's distracting; I just want to bust some of the obvious myths.

That makes sense, and would make for terrific articles, but as we've discussed in the past, most 'style guides' fall into 'write like I do', rather than presenting the various techniques and warn when each technique works and when they fall apart.

The currently published offerings are very good, but I find them less informative for which techniques to apply in a pinch (i.e. they're largely generalities without specific details which would help you chose one style over another).

As far as 'fiction authors' sex guides' are concerned, the most flagrant mistakes fall into distinct categories (ex: Mary Sue where the author imagines his life if he had a 12" dick, or if he had women crawling into his bed without questions), or they are based entirely on common misconceptions (most typically involving the physical location of a hymen). Thus such a guide would probably be better if you restricted it to those common mistakes, rather than a complete overview of the fictional sex field.

However, as much as I argue with people about 'bad information', I'm not implying that it's worthless or damaging to formerly study writing and composition, just that you need to go into the field with your eyes open, so you'll recognize the bad advice when you see it, rather than spending years trying to 'unlearn' the bad advice you've picked up.

In my case, I've been wanting to take an online (pass/fail) course on writing, but I'm in a difficult position: writing on a fairly advanced level (understanding when you'd want to violate the standard guidelines) but not fully comprehending the basics (like how sentences are composed and how the various elements fit together). Thus I'm afraid (paranoid) that I'll spend more time arguing with the professor than studying the material (which, you've got to admit, is a very likely possibility! 'D

Generally, regarding academics and professional writers, most of what you have to say about these people has more to do with popular media portrayal than it does with the actual people in these jobs, at least in my experience.

Again, my own jaundiced view is heavily shaded by professors who at first encouraged me to 'run with my ideas', but when they finally figured out that I wasn't just arguing moot points, but that I actually believed what I was saying, they turned on me (my Senior Thesis advisor prevented me from ever completing it, but continually erecting roadblocks rather than point out what was wrong with my arguments). I still got a great grade, but given how I never produced a completed thesis, I consider both the grade and the entire process a complete sham/failure.

But again, I'm projecting the faults of random individuals on entire groups of authors. Many are tremendous authors, but they're generally not successful fiction authors, but mostly focus on non-fiction works, and thus don't always what works in fiction and what doesn't. :(

Again, as long as you realize where a professor might go wrong, you're better prepared to recognize it when they offer misguided advice.

I've had multiple classes where the prof has themselves put together a collection of material from other sources (not published, except technically), is using a book written by someone else in their department, or is using a book by someone they personally know at another institution. This isn't nepotism, precisely; it's simply a dislike of existing materials.

Back when I was in school, way back in the mid to late 70's, these cases mostly fell into the 'I wrote this book on XXX, which I couldn't publish, but I'm expecting you to purchase it from me by the chapter as your 'unoffical' text books for the class (i.e. you'll fail if you don't pay me for it). So year, I've learned to maintain an overly skeptical position with most 'authority figures'.

But you've convinced me to purchase Jack Hodgin's Passion for Narrative. As I said, I'm eager to learn, but as paranoid of being caught between knowing too little (my rock) and too much (my hard place).

Here's the first rule for free: "The first draft is always crap. Accept it, move past it, and write it. Then you can get down to the real task of editing and rewriting."

I read a quote by a famous author recently (I forget who) who said that the "hardest part of writing a book, is finishing it". While that's true, as 'finishing it often includes extensive editing and revisions', but the way he phrased it, it sounded like he meant 'finishing the first draft.

Editing, revisions and fixing outstanding plot holes are most of the work, but you can only start that part once you've not only written the entire book, but have crafted a compelling story.

I would assert that, absent your own experience, there's no way to know in advance which book or article or essay will offer you bad advice. And, having read the advice, there's still no way to know it was bad advice until you have enough experience to have learned that it just doesn't work for you.

That's true. I keep looking at the popular writing magazine (is that an oxymoron) hoping to pick up something useful, but most often see information that runs counter to both what I've encountered, and what most successful authors recommend (which is where I came up with my 'they're more interested in stiffling competition than in helping new authors' idea).

Still free writing advice is much like using Wikipedia. No matter what they claim on the page, you simply assume that you've got to validate anything they say, as their record for factual information is highly questionable.

Obviously the nuts and bolts of spelling, grammar etc are important, but only to a point. A writer can be a best seller without possessing the knowledge of an editor, just as editors rarely if ever write a best seller.

You can't describe a forest by dissecting a tree.

I totally agree, and that's why I still don't bother learning/memorizing the basic components of a sentence. The problem for many of us who self-publish, is that rather than simply writing and assuming a publisher will eventually handle all the formatting and editing duties, is that we have to do everything ourselves.

For the vast majority of SOL authors, this isn't a concern because they're simply not interested in publishing, and have no reason to.

For many of us, though, we're interested in turning out the best writing we can—especially if we're charging for it. Thus we put in the extra effort learning which techniques work best, and under which circumstances.

I tend to go overboard, because I tend to charge more for my books than most independent publishers ($5.99 instead of $.99 or $2.99). I do that because I've discovered that my prices are not price dependent (i.e. my readers are willing to pay more for my books, and the readers I attract with cheap or free prices don't return), so I also put in LOTS of bells and whistles (epigraphs, fancy fonts, graphics, etc.) as a way of justifying the added cost. (P.S. it also makes them more fun to read, though extras don't change the stories at all.)

I have several editors who are good at calling me on basic grammar issues, so I don't stress about that too much (though it frequently shows up on my frequent forum posts, much to my consternation), but I tend to focus more on the basic writing issues (ex: things to avoid, when to 'flaunt the rules' and what frequently gets authors into trouble), rather than the basic nuts & bolts issues.

This is probably going to sound insulting, that is not my intent.

Not at all, and you raised a good point, one shared by many. But my "free writing advice is much like using Wikipedia" comment was in response to the discussion of why I distrust most 'writing experts'' advice, which I'd mistakenly assumed was what you were responding to.

'flaunt the rules'

Grammar Nazis flaunt the rules, authors flout them ;)

AJ

Does that make King a bad adviser to authors, or a bad author, or an author? :-)

It makes him a highly successful author, who knows how to craft his stories properly, but who chooses to violate his own rules on a continual basis. Make of that what you will. He's either a genius for knowing when to cheat, or he's a charlatan who says one thing, while doing the opposite. (Though I suspect which side you fall on depends upon how much you like his stories.) However, I've always loved his non-fiction writing, and seek to emulate it His horror stories, not so much.

Stephen King is actually a bad example. He has openly admitted he doesn't follow his own writing advice.

That's why I've said, that although I love his advice, I won't read his stories (in general, I've never been a fan of horror stories, but beyond that, he purposely chooses to use techniques he knows aren't fitting to his stories. They sell, but I'd rather not waste time on someone doing the wrong things.

Now, if someone purposefully breaks rules, I'll gladly read their work to see how well they succeed, or to figure why they fail so spectacularly, but horror just seems to thrive on 'surprise' by violating the premises of their own stories. (Again, this is largely based on my dislike of horror in the first place, so I've got a particularly disjointed perspective of those stories.)

One of the issues with amateur writing is that people have a wide variety of backgrounds, many of them not including any formal, academic training in writing.

This is true, however, the sad part is most of the formal academic training in writing is designed to stifle creative thinking and free flowing writing expression. In the past i had training on technical writing and academic writing as well as legal writing. I found all three to be very different and none of them suited fiction writing at all.

A better way to phrase it in fiction is that an omniscient narrator can know anything. It may also help to imagine who or what the narrator is. Even if the narrator is some disembodied spirit, never mentioned in the story, having an idea as you write may help you to maintain focus.

Bingo! I keep repeating that, and everyone ends up arguing that I don't understand what the word "omniscient" means. But for me, I like to decide who my narrator is, even if I never reveal their identify in the story, simply because it allows me to better visualize the narrator's perspective, and what they're likely to think.

I refuse to believe that '3rd person Omniscient' can ONLY mean that God is literally the narrator is EVERY case.

Trying to classify or label differences in Omni Narrator actions or behaviour below that seems to be minor nit picking just to pick nits.

I agree completely with your understanding of Omni Narrators, and you expressed it much more concisely than I did. But, if we didn't keep picking those minor nits, we may have to actually write something!

Now, having wasted hours addressing a few posts on a single thread, I'd best get off my ass and accomplish something meaningful.

I picture the Omni Narrator as being like a person who is in a position to see all that is going on everywhere as well as them being able to know everything everyone is thinking and feeling. However, they are under no obligation to pass all of that information along to the reader, so they only pass along what they feel the reader should or needs to know at this time as being relevant to reveal right then.

Yes.

Now in omni, if you have direct thoughts by a character it's head-hopping. The omni narrator can tell you what they're thinking, but you can't hear the character's thoughts directly.

omniscient narrator, which means in certain genres the narrator could have 'powers' us mere mortals don't possess.

I've always been taught, and viewed, the omni narrator as having full deity like powers who sees all and knows all, but is just a little terse in what they pass along. Thus they can know and pass on thoughts of characters, but they would be in the terms of a paragraph concerning the character. Example:

Fred went about doing the normal chores while thinking about the problems. It was when he was tossing the feed down to the horses from the hay loft he thought, If I just shoot the gunman first he can't kill anyone else. After some more thought on how to do it he smiles as he settles on a plan of how to get rid of the hired killer without getting killed in the process.

(NB:Italics is the actual thought itself).

Edit to add: This way I get to respond to both comments at once.

Fred went about doing the normal chores while thinking about the problems. It was when he was tossing the feed down to the horses from the hay loft he thought, If I just shoot the gunman first he can't kill anyone else.

That's head-hopping. You entered Fred's direct thoughts. You would have to say something like:

…he thought that, if he could just shoot the gunman first, he couldn't kill anyone else.

With an omni narrator showing the characters thoughts is no more head hopping than putting down the dialogue is head hopping.

Head hopping is an issue that mostly occurs in 1st person when you improperly move the POV character focus. In omni to head hop you'd need to have thoughts from multiple characters in the one paragraph.

With an omni narrator showing the characters thoughts is no more head hopping than putting down the dialogue is head hopping.

That's not my understanding.

That's not my understanding.

My understanding is a head hopping POV character (narrator) reveals the thoughts and actions of another character that the POV character has no way of knowing. The key point being the narrator reveals things they should not know.

Alternatively, the Omni narrator knows everything about all characters to include their thoughts. If we accept an Omni 1st person narrator, then they know everything about the other characters and revealing the thoughts of other characters is not head hopping.

If we accept an Omni 1st person narrator, then they know everything about the other characters and revealing the thoughts of other characters is not head hopping.

I agree. But the operative phrase is "revealing the thoughts of other characters."

The omni narrator, whether it's 1st or 3rd, can tell what they're thinking. But you can't hear their thoughts directly. You can hear their dialogue because they're saying it out loud. But you can't hear their thoughts. Only the omni narrator can tell you their thoughts.

Agreed. Thus an Omni narrator describing another character's thoughts is not head hopping.

What Switch objected was the direct display of Fred's thoughts (i.e. 'I thought'), which I regard as an overly formalistic view. I see no sin in it either.

Yep. You hopped from the omni narrator's head to the character's.

But I gave a link to someone who agrees with Ernest and says it's effective to do it that way.

Switch suggested EB's can be rewritten to convey the same information without head-hopping. So what's the problem? I see no sin in how EB wrote the thoughts in his sample of text.

The objection, which I've seen elsewhere too, is in how they interpret 3rd Omni. If they see it as a version of 3rd Omni limited multiple (which is a stretch in itself), then the narrator can only reveal what that one character can know at any given time. (Note: It turns out that was one central issue with the professional editor I paid thousands, but who left me with an utterly unpublishable work).

But that limited framework often gets lumped into the 'it's just not a clean way to write, so we prefer not to show internal thoughts at all' crowd, which is much larger, but not as adamant.

the narrator can only reveal what that one character can know at any given time.

That's never true in omni. The omni narrator, if he chooses, can only tell about one character, but he knows about all characters and can tell about any of them at any time if he chooses.

The problem with direct thoughts in omni is simply that you switched POVs from the omni narrator to the character. Rather than the narrator telling you the character's thoughts, you hear them from the character. The voice changes from the narrator's to the character's. And switching POVs is head-hopping.

Ernest says that's no different from spoken dialogue. I don't have an answer to that.

Ernest says that's no different from spoken dialogue. I don't have an answer to that.

I'm in the 'I prefer not doing it (telling readers what a character is thinking), but if it fits the situation and benefits the story, I'll do it anyway', simply because it's SO damn easy!

how they interpret 3rd Omni. If they see it as a version of 3rd Omni limited multiple (which is a stretch in itself), then the the narrator can only reveal what that one character can know at any given time.

https://www.darcypattison.com/writing/characters/pov-outside-inside/

Omniscience. Traditionally, "limited omniscience" means that the narrator is inside the head of only one character; "regular omniscience" means the narrator is inside the head of more than one character.

I love Jauss's comment: "I don't believe dividing omniscience into 'limited' and regular' tells us anything remotely useful. The technique in both cases is identical; it's merely applied to a different number of characters."

He spends time proving that regular omniscience never enters into the heart and mind of every character in a novel. A glance at Tolstoy's WAR AND PEACE, with its myriad of characters is enough to convince me of this truth.

And he also covers why I believe you don't have direct thoughts in omni.

Rather, Jauss says the difference that matters here is that the omniscient POV uses the narrator's language. This distinguishes it from indirect interior monologues, where the thoughts are given in the character's language. This is a very different question about POV: is this story told in the narrator's language or the character's language?

This is a very different question about POV: is this story told in the narrator's language or the character's language?

And once again, Switch and I agree entirely on our approach, though we label what we do with different terms. (I write in 3rd omni, though the narrator follows the MC around, while Switch refers to a nearly identical style as being 3rd Limited, because he's supposedly not allowed to show anyone's thoughts.

We're both playing the same game of stickball, but we're both insisting we're playing two different games on the same field, and with the same ball. 'D

witch refers to a nearly identical style as being 3rd Limited, because he's supposedly not allowed to show anyone's thoughts.

You can show direct thoughts in 3rd-limited. It's in omni that you're not allowed to (according to some and me).

You can show direct thoughts in 3rd-limited. It's in omni that you're not allowed to (according to some and me).

But once again, we're just dabbling around the sides of two identical plots, as we're essentially both writing the same type of story (i.e. cooking in the same pots), but we're describing it using different terms (3rd limited vs. allowable exceptions to 3rd Omni).

but we're describing it using different terms

For me, the terms are important. Mixing up terms makes it confusing.

For me, the terms are important. Mixing up terms makes it confusing.

For me, I've always written in 3rd Omni, it was only years after that awful encounter with the one editor, that I slowly pieced together what she was implying about my 'not being allowed' to reflect on what other characters do doing or responding (according to her, the narrator couldn't even intimate what another character might feel, say by saying they 'sneered' or 'was surprised').

It turns out she self-defined my stories as 3rd Limited and ripped out ALL the character's motivations, drives, ambitions and interests, simply because the story was primarily about a single character, which still seems overly simplistic to me.

Thus, I'll continue to write in 3rd Omni, even if I occasionally have to bend a few guidelines now and then. I understand the warnings, and the costs when I do, but it's still my story, and I'll do whatever makes the story itself stronger. For me, that means the narrator describing how the other characters react, even if he doesn't list their exact thoughts.

that awful encounter with the one editor … [who] … self-defined my stories as 3rd Limited.

Yes, I'm sure of it. I don't believe most editors today understand omniscient. They assume 3rd-limited so they say it's head-hopping.

Thus, I'll continue to write in 3rd Omni, even if I occasionally have to bend a few guidelines now and then.

And I'll write in 3rd-limited and bend a few rules to throw in a little omniscient. That's what the traditionally published thrillers I'm reading are doing.

What I've learned is, if it's not confusing or annoying to the reader, it's okay.

Exactly..!! After all, isn't that what all the rules are really about?

Yes, head-hopping is a no-no because supposably it's jarring to the reader. But if you do it right and it's not jarring but adds something to the experience of reading the story, it's fine to do.

That's why I call them principles and not rules. Math has rules. Punctuation has rules. Creative writing has principles.

With an omni narrator showing the characters thoughts is no more head hopping than putting down the dialogue is head hopping.

Ok, I finally found someone who agrees with me about direct thoughts in omniscient being a no-no: https://www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com/omniscient-pov/

in the omniscient POV, the narrative is free to observe the mindsets of various characters. What it's not free to do (at the risk of confusing readers) is portray those thoughts in the unique and personal voices of the individual characters. Basically, what that means is that direct thoughts are pretty much off-limits (although there will always be the occasional exception to confuse things).

For example, you might write:

"Jeb wanted to go home, Sally was happy to stay where she was, but Billy just wanted them to stop arguing."

But you wouldn't write:

Jeb stared out the windshield. Man! I just want this stupid vacation to end, so we can go home.

Beside him, Sally studiously flipped through her magazine. I don't care what he says. I'm staying.

In the backseat, Billy covered his ears with his hands. Even when they're not fighting, they're fighting!

Seconded.

Thirded. I appreciate people who don't resort to name calling and bad language to try to score points.

Switch Blayde is a gentleman!

AJ

So do we have a quorum ?

only after you share around the Captain Morgan and we all have a good slug.

So do we have a quorum ?

One person voting twice, while the other merely 'liked' his comment does not represent a quorum (instead we'd need 2/3rds of all the author in the Author's forum), but I'll throw my hat in the ring and join in the chorus of accents.

I'm hoping the trend-followers get at least as far as sixthed, which I'd love to hear people trying to pronounce in normal speech ;)

AJ

Switch Blayde is a gentleman!

And he's a dim-witted, bastard of a gentleman at that! 'D

Sorry, I just couldn't resist. You tossed me the perfect softball pitch!

Switch, there's one thing I very much appreciate about your contributions to these forums. You are willing to post links to references which both support and oppose your opinions on particular issues. Winning debates doesn't seem to matter to you. Providing others with information helping them find what best suits their needs does seem to matter.

I agree with your idea, that we should all provide more concrete examples both for and against our positions, but in this case (at least based on my one personal research into the debates), it seems to be more matter of personal interpretation. Thus they're more 'self-imposed' limits, based entirely on how the person/group interprets the 'head-hopping' problem. Thus while one side may be very adamant about their position (i.e. "I'd NEVER do that!), it really doesn't prevent anyone else from trying it and seeing how it 'fits' their own writing style.

Now, I'll allow both sides to attack me for that overgeneralization of everyone else's thoughts. 'D

I'm not taking a position on what constitutes head-hopping but I have a couple of observations.

"Jeb wanted to go home, Sally was happy to stay where she was, but Billy just wanted them to stop arguing."

It strikes me that approach is pure telling, whereas the head-hopping version is more showing-oriented.

If the author is trying to generate empathy for more than one character, showing what each thinks is surely a good thing.

So if the consensus is that head-hopping is generally bad practice, I think there are times when there's good reason to flout that rule.

AJ

It strikes me that approach is pure telling, whereas the head-hopping version is more showing-oriented.

Omniscient is the most telling of all the POVs. The narrator is telling a story and what every character is thinking and feeling. That's one of the problems with omniscient with today's readers.

If the author is trying to generate empathy for more than one character, showing what each thinks is surely a good thing.

Today's reader wants to be close with the characters. Wants to empathize with them. That's done more easily in 1st-person and a deep 3rd-limited. Again, that's why omniscient is out of favor today.

Today's reader wants to be close with the characters.

I have to admit I prefer stories where I can empathise with the, or one of the, main characters. Yet nowadays there seems to be something of a trend for realism, with authors writing an ensemble of characters who are all deeply flawed and unlikeable :(

AJ

More is the pity. It skews the perception that real = flawed

I read a report that claimed young women were reluctant to get married today because they'd been brought up on movies, especially Disney, which caused the women to believe in and hold out for 'the impossible dream'.

AJ

You mean a guy that puts the toilet seat down AND puts his dirty washing in the wash basket...?? :P~

... and rides a white charger and knows the lyrics to the songs from 'Frozen' ... ;)

AJ

and rides a white charger

Ford don't make that model car any more, anyway, they had a range of colours as well.

Ford never made that model. The Charger is/was a Dodge.

We don't have Dodges here in Australia, the Charger was made by Ford down here.

the Charger was made by Ford down here

Did/does it have any relationship to the Fiat/Chrysler/Dodge version?

Sometimes model names get reused by unrelated companies. For example, in the UK market at different times there have been a Triumph Toledo and a Seat Toledo.

(On the other hand, the Austin/Morris/British Leyland Mini and the BMW Mini are completely different cars but BMW obtained the rights to the 'Mini' name from the defunct Rover Group.)

AJ

BMW obtained the rights to the 'Mini' name from the defunct Rover Group.)

Who had previously owned British Leyland.

Did/does it have any relationship to the Fiat/Chrysler/Dodge version?

Ayep, getting so old I forgot that Chrysler used to do business here as Valiant and it appears to be the same vehicle as Dodge sold back in the 1970s.

Chrysler ceased operating as such back in 1981 after Mitsubishi bought them out.

... and rides a white charger and knows the lyrics to the songs from 'Frozen' ...

In other words ... gay men. 'D Plus, women like a challenge AND they like changing the 'perfect man' once they've found him, so what's better than turning the prefect gay man into an attentive romantic partner—other than the fact it simply never works.

Love is the morning dew on a fresh bloomed rose.

True love is embracing the thorns, whilst kissing the petals.

Nice sentiment, I may have to steal it sometime. 'D

I have to admit I prefer stories where I can empathise with the, or one of the, main characters. Yet nowadays there seems to be something of a trend for realism, with authors writing an ensemble of characters who are all deeply flawed and unlikeable :(

Now that over-generalization I can agree with. In my case, despite enjoying large casts who argue with each other (mainly because I find group scenes to be an easier way to show what people are thinking without investing the necessary work to do it without having the characters TELL you), I go to a similar extreme as Switch, in that most of my 3rd Omni stories are actually 3rd limited, as the entire story revolves around a single character, who the reader can relate to, even though he's often flawed himself.

In other worlds, my stories are the worst of all worlds, as I'm writing in 3rd Omni, when I should be writing in first, and I have large casts, but focus on one character who's still deeply flawed!

Talk about writing oneself into a corner, which again, is what I like since I enjoy the 'impossible to write' stories over the 'everyone wants to read this type' of story. So I often create artificial obstructions which make my stories overly complex.

I'll surely never be well-known and well-recognized, but I'll always be an interesting 'case study'. 'D

Omniscient is the most telling of all the POVs. The narrator is telling a story and what every character is thinking and feeling. That's one of the problems with omniscient with today's readers.

You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true. Instead, you merely prefer 1st person, but there are good examples of showing in 3rd omni, and bad, just as there are terrible renditions of 1st POV too. It's not restricted by the POV itself.

you merely prefer 1st person

Did I miss something? I thought the venerable Mr Blayde preferred 3rd limited.

AJ

I thought the venerable Mr Blayde preferred 3rd limited.

I do.

Did I miss something? I thought the venerable Mr Blayde preferred 3rd limited.

Sorry, you're right. We keep getting our wires crossed, as Switch keeps referring to the 'more personal feel of 1st), which is what most younger publishing 'experts' insist on, while I tend to see 3rd limited as a variation (with the same distancing from the reader) as 3rd omni entails.

But in the end, both Switch and I are essentially writing the same kind of story, we just choose to paint it with our own colors so it feels more like our own unique writing style.

"Jeb wanted to go home, Sally was happy to stay where she was, but Billy just wanted them to stop arguing."

It strikes me that approach is pure telling, whereas the head-hopping version is more showing-oriented.

If the author is trying to generate empathy for more than one character, showing what each thinks is surely a good thing.

Except it's seen by the various literary 'experts' as a short cut, often taken by inexperienced authors, as a shortcut between showing and telling. Thus instead of 'showing' what the characters are thinking by showing how they respond, they're instead 'telling' in another way, with a poorly thought out 'internal one-sided dialogue'. Thus while it's not technically incorrect, it's just not an elegant solution. In other words, don't quibble, either show or tell, but don't try to play both sides of the issue.

With an omni narrator showing the characters thoughts is no more head hopping than putting down the dialogue is head hopping.

I found an article where the person agrees with you: https://www.standoutbooks.com/how-express-characters-thoughts/

Because of this, communicating thought in italic form can be incredibly effective for the omniscient narrator.

I actually got to the above by clicking on a link on "thoughts" in the following article on head-hopping: https://www.standoutbooks.com/avoid-head-hopping/

It said under omniscient:

The narrator sees all, knows all, and can report on the thoughts of any and all characters at will from a distanced position.

When I read "from a distanced position" I interpreted it as not getting into the character's thoughts directly. But when I clicked on the "on the thoughts" link, it said what I quoted above.

In this head-hopping article, he says:

This definition might sound inherently like head-hopping, but it's not. In omniscient narration, head-hopping occurs when the narrator stops telling the story from this distanced perspective and begins to tell the story from the characters' perspectives.

Head hopping is an issue that mostly occurs in 1st person when you improperly move the POV character focus. In omni to head hop you'd need to have thoughts from multiple characters in the one paragraph.

There are variations of 3rd Omni. In true 3rd Omni, you'd show how all your characters are responding, but in most stories, the emphasis is on the protagonist, almost to the exclusion of everyone else. That's technically a version of 3rd limited and you shouldn't reveal anything the protagonist doesn't know. In practice, however, it often boils down to 3rd limited omni. It's still 3rd Omni, but the switch character POVs, as needed, between chapters to explain what's happening behind the scenes. Again, that's mostly because the author didn't account for how they'd handle various scenes in advance ans is, once again, just winging it as they go.

Here's another person who agrees with you about showing internal thoughts in italics with omniscient: https://ellenbrockediting.com/2013/11/26/the-difference-between-omniscient-pov-and-head-hopping/comment-page-1/

but when their emotions and thoughts are described in omniscient, the narrative should read with the exact same voice unless it is italicized as a direct thought.

sometimes the narrator is a 'character' rather than just the omniscient narrator

Well, if the narrator is not an omni narrator, it's different. The narrating character can tell the reader what they know. If they can read minds, they know what others are thinking.

"The Green Mile" is written in 1st-person. The 1st-person narrator is telling a story that happened in the past. So Stephen King wrote something like: "I found out later, after reading the report…" So at the time of the story, the character didn't know it. But since he was telling a story that happened in the past he had more knowledge than he did at the time.

"The Green Mile" is written in 1st-person. The 1st-person narrator is telling a story that happened in the past. So Stephen King wrote something like: "I found out later, after reading the report…" So at the time of the story, the character didn't know it. But since he was telling a story that happened in the past he had more knowledge than he did at the time.

That's more of an example of 'cheating' on the final chapter to justify a thoroughly undeserved happy ending (one where they didn't prepare for the story to turn out well).

I've always been convinced that King wrote the entire book, said 'I need something different here' and just winged the ending, rather than planning the ending from the story's conception.

But, as with any writing guidelines, if you can pull it off, you can do anything you want. 'D If you can't, then you have no one else to blame but yourself for ignoring the advice warning you not to try it.

I've always been convinced that King wrote the entire book, said 'I need something different here' and just winged the ending, rather than planning the ending from the story's conception.

He actually wrote 6 short stories, each related but sold separately for a small cost, and then combined them into a novel. It was mentioned in the introduction. I'm too lazy to look it up, but I think it was modeled after Dickens.

He actually wrote 6 short stories, each related but sold separately for a small cost, and then combined them into a novel. It was mentioned in the introduction. I'm too lazy to look it up, but I think it was modeled after Dickens.

I'd never heard that, and it actually makes me respect the book more, as like me, he was supposedly trying to emulate the successful authors of the past's techniques. But it might also explain why the ending seems so at odds with the rest of the story, as it was likely thrown on at the end to tie everything together (i.e. not planned initially as the story's natural conclusion).

I love experimentation, and taking chances, especially if authors know what to expect going in, but decide to risk it anyway. Even if the author fails spectacularly, the rest of us can learn from what it might teach us, and if it succeeds, it helps us understand when to employ certain questionable exceptions.

But it might also explain why the ending seems so at odds with the rest of the story,

Why do you say that? The ending was learning that the mouse was still alive and that the protagonist was going to live for quite some time, suffering through the deaths of those he loves. That was his punishment for killing an angel.

The ending was learning that the mouse was still alive and that the protagonist was going to live for quite some time, suffering through the deaths of those he loves. That was his punishment for killing an angel.

Are we discussing the same Stephen King novel? You lost me with that one.

Are we discussing the same Stephen King novel? You lost me with that one.

"The Green Mile." The movie was with Tom Hanks playing the supervisor on Death Row. He's the protagonist. I loved the movie but found the novel boring. Probably because it was identical to the movie. I even recognized some of the dialogue.

The big black guy is convicted of killing two little girls. He's on death row. He has powers like bringing a dead mouse back to life and curing the warden's wife of a cancerous tumor. He also didn't kill the girls, but was executed anyway. He wanted to die saying he was too tired. But the supervisor knew he was innocent and special, like an angel of God, and lived with the guilt of executing him.

But the supervisor knew he was innocent and special, like an angel of God, and lived with the guilt of executing him

Ah, I see your point now. My take on the movie was that, rather than his being 'convinced' the man was a physical angel, he simply felt guilty that he'd helped execute someone who helped, rather than hurt people. A completely different take on the same scenes. (I tend to see those 'savior' moments as metaphors, rather than proofs of Divine intervention (or, as I keep typing it "Devine's intervention", which is something else entirely)! 'D

Angels can be killed ??

Sure, just as holy water will kill a witch, tap water will surely kill an angel. Why do you think angels never appear anywhere they serve bottled water? However, they're fine with beer, although like all good Catholics, they prefer wine.

I think you are getting your fluids mixed up. It's the petrol poured on the bonfire that kills witches.

I was thinking of 'famous movies from the 60's' witches. :)

Angels can be killed ??

They can on the TV show "Lucifer."

Angels dying would mean those in heaven can also die. Life after afterlife?

OK. I've asked my brother to give me the Biblical references I need. However, from my memory of those oh so distant theology classes, certain angels were cast down from Heaven because they disobeyed Yahweh, so they became the Demons of Hell and they set out to seriously disobey Yahweh. Thus, it's either possible to destroy demons and angels or not possible to destroy any of them. Choose what you will. It's definitely possible to send angels, demons, or any other soul to purgatory, which is what may be happening when people see a demon vanish and think it's been killed or destroyed.

OK. I've asked my brother to give me the Biblical references I need. However, from my memory of those oh so distant theology classes, certain angels were cast down from Heaven because they disobeyed Yahweh, so they became the Demons of Hell and they set out to seriously disobey Yahweh. Thus, it's either possible to destroy demons and angels or not possible to destroy any of them. Choose what you will. It's definitely possible to send angels, demons, or any other soul to purgatory, which is what may be happening when people see a demon vanish and think it's been killed or destroyed.

Technically, if you choose to listen to the biblical verses, even God can't kill an angel. Instead, God 'cast him out', so he's no longer God's trusted adviser, so instead Satan, once his right-hand man, is now out to prove to God that humans aren't to be trusted, as they're so easily mislead, thus proving Satan's point about not putting them above angles in the first place.

But there are no biblical verses where God condemns him to Hell. Instead it's a place Satan created on his own. Which therefore means, being 'cast out' by God inherently means you become almost as powerful as God himself, as no other angel has their own personal playground other than those two.

Angels dying would mean those in heaven can also die. Life after afterlife?

Isn't that the entire purpose of an afterlife?

No Bobby, Grandma didn't die, she just went to visit Grandpa in heaven, just like we sent your puppy to that farm in the country where he's having fun running around with all the animals.

If religion didn't have a free 'get out of our mortal coil' card, no one would be interested.

Angels dying would mean those in heaven can also die.

If you use the common US spelling of angle, they can be subject to an angle-grinder ;)

AJ

If I put on my old school uniform, pigtails and innocent look, would that make me a cute angle?

When you get to my age, you'll be lucky to look anything other than a rectangle ;)

AJ

Unless your narrator is an Empath.

You'll notice that there's a common convention, across many stories on SOL, where empathic or telepathic communication received it's own formatting ('telepathic thoughts') which combines both italics and single quotes, to differentiate it from dialogue and/or the internal thoughts of any of the characters.

And while Switch is right that showing thoughts in 3rd Omni is head-hopping, it's not an uncommon practice. Technically, if you're doing that, your story should be in 3rd limited multi, but again, authors tend to flaunt that limitation fairly regularly. :(

I know some people regard omni narrators as if they're following a person around with a camera and thus never, or rarely, show anything away from the protagonist.

Actually, that's exactly what 3rd-limited is.

Actually, that's exactly what 3rd-limited is.

I know, but many people confuse it with 3rd omni and don't see the significant difference between them. I think they stop at 3rd and see all the same.

Regardless of what people think, the best method to use in writing is the one that works for you and the story you're telling.

Regardless of what people think, the best method to use in writing is the one that works for you and the story you're telling.

I wholehearted agree, and while many experts complain about head-hopping in 3rd Omni, many openly use the technique and there's really nothing wrong with it, as it allows for author's to emphasize the character's underlying motivations, rather than just what they reveal to the other characters (after all, how often will the protagonist's best friend admit he's hot for his girlfriend?).

Actually, that's exactly what 3rd-limited is.

Switch has a point, Ernest, as someone watching from a tower with a high def camera can describe everyone's actions, but since he's focused on following the protagonist, he can't report on anyone's internal thoughts, or anything that the protagonist doesn't experience himself.

You're making his point for him.

I've found the best way to regard an omni narrator (and to write as one) is to picture the narrator sitting in a tall tower with a panoramic view of all around him supported by a perfect sound system.

I prefer to think of 3rd Omni narrators as people who are either involved in the story, or who know the participants intimately (even if it's your classic fireside storyteller repeating a tale he's heard endless times before). In that sense, they know precisely what each person was thinking because they were told so, often by the individuals themselves.

That approach doesn't require them to be perfect beings, and also allows them to have their own take on events, and often to have their own agendas (i.e. flawed narrators). But knowing what that agenda is allows authors to better craft the story to enhance the narrator's voice, and better showcase the narrator's perspective.

By the way, just out of curiosity, can anyone recall an Omni narrator who turned out to be the primary antagonist in a story?

If head-hopping were banned, would headlice become extinct?

AJ

In that case when each of the heads talk, would that be head hopping?

Did the group Talking Heads ever hop while singing?

Did the group Talking Heads ever hop while singing?

Yep, they hopped quite a bit during performances!

Why weren't they the Singing Heads?

Their name was actually a reference to a common U.S. term for 'experts on TV', where all the TV shows are the heads while they talk, but it also reflected their manner of singing, a pre-rap form of rapid talking to music, but which overlaid the music, rather than being sung (or spoken) in tune.

They were quite successful, but as you can easily imagine, no one else ever attempted to duplicate their unusual style. :(

Their name was actually a reference to a common U.S. term for 'experts on TV'

I thought it was describing TV news people. They used to sit behind a desk so all you saw was their upper bodies, their heads.

I thought it was describing TV news people. They used to sit behind a desk so all you saw was their upper bodies, their heads.

Typically, the TV news people DID sit behind a desk, but the viewer almost always saw much more of them (head, torso, and their hands were always in motion, keeping the viewer engaged so the viewers would always watch the host, rather than the guests). The 'talking heads' motif is more what you see on MSNBC, where you see a split screen, where they show one 'talking head' followed by the other contradicting everything the first said.

I recall watching the movie The Thing with Two Heads.

How to get Ahead in Advertising is another.

AJ

schizophrenic, specifically those with multiple-personality disorder.

In my defence, I've never seen the film - only trailers showing the protagonist with a second head :(

AJ

schizophrenic, specifically those with multiple-personality disorder.

Can it be head hopping when only one head is involved?

In most actual cases of schizophrenia (ignoring the many TV and film inventions), the personalities aren't even aware of one another. But if one explained the other's motives or intentions, then that would quite literally be 'head hopping', as the narrator (the currently speaking personality) is describing the thoughts of another personality which he has no way of knowing personally.

I never took the recreational drug responsible for that again.

Do you mean LSD, your girlfriend at the time, or what the film producer was hopped up on when he first conceived of the film?

The drug was Mogadon, BTW. I don't recall how many I took.

Trust me, it's better that way. I never could that particular drug, and could never last through more than a few moments of the godawful film. :( Personally, I found "Plan 9 From Outer Space" to be funnier and strangely more believable.

I recall a Robert Heinlein story about a character with two heads. In that case when each of the heads talk, would that be head hopping?

No, that was just the narrator's description of what the fleas in the man's two beards were doing. 'D