Forum: Author Hangout

Would first person omni work?

He specifically said the 1st-person narrator is an 80-yo looking back.

Because he's looking back, he has pretty much unlimited information. Just like I can talk about the Spanish Flu even though I wasn't alive back then. It's common knowledge. The narrator doesn't have to be all-knowing (omni). He just has to know what happened in the past.

An all-knowing (omni) narrator can tell you what's happening in the present time in the story that the 1st-person narrator wouldn't know. Like what the person he was narrating the story to was thinking. But that wasn't the question.

Am I missing the point? Couldn't a 1st omni narrator reveal things from a secret report that they didn't even know existed at the time?

Sure. Omni = all-knowing.

where the narrator can only write what they personally observed.

Not observed. Knows.

They may know it from observing it. But they may know it from hearing about it or learning about it or reading about it. They may know it because it's common knowledge, like the stock market crash in 1929. You didn't have to be alive in 1929 to know the market crashed.

The way you want to write it is the way it should be written. The narrator knows his great grandfather and grandfather fought in those wars so he can tell it. That's not all-knowing. That's knowing.

where the narrator can only write what they personally observed.

Not observed. Knows.

The key here, is that he's observing about events when he learns of them, recollecting other events in relation to them. He's not Omniscent himself, he's just reflecting on the things that he's learned over the course of his life. So, it's best not to reveal every single detail in the book, only the things he'd either witness, was told, or heard about later, and keep them straight, because it's vital the sources are acknowledged by the narrator.

The tricky bit though, is the difficulty employing flashbacks. Personal recollections is one thing (ex: "Hearing that, it reminded me of Grandpa saying …"), but things that were only related by the participants in the story while he wasn't there should be kept separate (ex: "Peter confessed he did it, years later, when he was in a drunken haze.").

The other tricky bit is to keep the narrative flowing forward, so the readers knows where he is, and isn't confused by the narrator jumping back and forth. It's find to 'recall' something, but don't dedicate an entire chapter to something that happened twenty or thirty years ago, as it'll seem forced, and will generally confuse the story.

Just as authors need to be aware of the story's pacing, they also need to be aware of the current moment and the flow of events. Leapfrogging back and forth in time completely undermines that sense of timeliness, making a jumble of the complete story. Often, it's best leaving details blurry, rather than accounting for every single detail in the story.

Just as authors need to be aware of the story's pacing, they also need to be aware of the current moment and the flow of events. Leapfrogging back and forth in time completely undermines that sense of timeliness, making a jumble of the complete story.

"Prince of Tides" is told through flashbacks. The book even had more than the movie. There's no jumble.

"Prince of Tides" is told through flashbacks. The book even had more than the movie. There's no jumble.

Yes, flashbacks can work, and work well, but they're not easy to carry off, and I've found that only certain stories are suitable for it, while the others generally aren't. So, until to learn to differentiate those subtle difference, it's best to stick with a linear progression, that way, the various flashbacks have a linear progression, that than ping-ponging the reader back and forth. But context is king in these regards, the reader needs a consistent context, otherwise the story slips through their fingers dripping away and soiling their shoes.

Yes, flashbacks can work, and work well, but they're not easy to carry off, and I've found that only certain stories are suitable for it,

I just watched the movie "For the Love of the Game" and it's also told through flashbacks.

I agree, it's hard.

So, narrators who are 80 cannot devote a whole chapter to, say, their own sixth grade, even though it is important because of the influence it on on their later life. To me, that sounds like an unnecessary restriction. Why should that be a rule?

As everyone knows, there are no RULES in publishing. Whatever you can get away worth is considered legitimate, though traditional publishing houses would beg to differ. But I never intended to set limits on anyone. Instead, I'm merely advising newbie authors to initially watch their step. A chronological narrative (pick a point in time, then do mini flashbacks before returning to that timespan appears to be the easiest to carry off.

Also, as noted, certain books are simply more suited to flashbacks than others, though honestly, I can't formulate a way to list what makes it so. All I know is that, if the book is not suited for it, you're probably going to waste months trying to 'prop up' the multiple flashbacks and flash forwards, only to end with an unmanageable mess at the end (based on my own experiences, and the various books I've read which employ them).

As always, if you have a knack for flashbacks, then knock yourself out. Otherwise, your muses should seriously start waving warning flags when you first begin considering it. But, IMHO, limiting flashbacks to one consistent 'chronological narrative' seems like a handy, safe compromise. Again, there's no Rule against doing it, but they simply become more problematic if the timeline just jumps around, confusing the readers as to what's actually happening.

I've dumped a few books that've done that unsuccessfully, while I can count those who've done it successfully on one or possibly two hands.

P.S. Prologues and Epilogues are exempted, of course, since they typically take place outside the 'normal' scope of the story anyway.

It's easy to imagine a scenario in which the protagonist seeds a pivotal, lifelong relationship in sixth grade, whether good, bad or bumping uglies, in which case it's quite necessary to show how the fledgling starts and develops.

It's your story. Tell it as you see fit and feel free to ignore any would-be experts who tell you otherwise.

AJ

An all-knowing (omni) narrator

Don't take that term too literally. A 3rdperson omni narrator knows what several people think.

Don't take that term too literally. A 3rdperson omni narrator knows what several people think.

That's why I prefer, when first starting a book, to define who the narrator is. I rarely acknowledge it in the story itself, but I find it easier to provide the narrator with their own literary 'voice', which it also helps define just what they'd know at any given point in the story.

External events are inherently third person. For that matter, so are many very personal events. "Mary kissed me softly." Not, "I was kissed softly by Mary."

Both are first person, the first active voice, the second passive.

As for what a first person narrator can know, first person narrators are notorious liars.

As for what a first person narrator can know, first person narrators are notorious liars.

Beyond the occasional lying narrator, how many people do any of us truly know who isn't somehow 'deceiving themselves' on a number of fronts? Should a reader ever trust a narrator, or an author? They have their own idea of how the story plays out, but if a reader objects to their assumptions, just how meaningful is their perspective anyways?

The story within a story also offers other opportunities to convey information the narrator learned later, by popping out to scenes where the narrator is speaking with his audience.

Its handy, but its also as annoying as hell to readers!

but its also as annoying as hell to readers!

Why?

Why?

For the same sort of reason as readers generally find other forms of hopping (eg head-hopping, time-hopping) to be annoying. It interrupts the flow of their reading.

AJ

It interrupts the flow of their reading.

Not if done correctly.

Personally, I wouldn't call that flashbacks.

Technically, the point where you present the narrator relating the story could be either the present (if it's at the end of the story) or a flash forward if it's at the beginning.

I'm just going to drop a link to the last time you posted this thread.

A wonderful example of flashbacks!