posted
In OSC's weekly column Uncle Orson Reviews Everything (or whatever) on this site, he just covered David Gemmell. He praises the recently-deceased, british fantasy author fairly well. I'm not disputing this, because I have been a fan for a while now.
Here's the thing:
David Gemmell wrote in Omniscient, infused with info-dumps, and switched POV at will. He broke ALL the rules. And he didn't do so intentionally, knowing all of the rules before hand and breaking them for effect, he was just an instinctive storyteller.
Most of the bestselling fantasy I've read is like that.
So, the question (which has ironically been heavily on my mind lately, even before reading the new OSC article) is: How can we really preach strictly 3rd-person limited POV, when the story can be much more full with Omniscient?
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited September 25, 2007).]
posted
I disliked the one Gemmell book I read, but others have told me to try the other series. I figured I'd give him another shot if Uncle Orson likes him so well. (And in fairness, OSC read a different series than I tried to write.)
I sure don't preach third-person limited. I just think the author should know the difference.
The thing is, I didn't like any of the book. It wasn't good storytelling with some bad PoV switches. TO me, it was bad storytelling and everything else.
Anyway, OSC points out some good cases for omniscient in Characters and Viewpoint. The example I remember is a couple eating at a fancy restaurant. He explained how with limited the author could be in either head and show how each person reacted to the dinner, the conversation, etc. It was only in omni that the author could say they both would have been more comfortable in a sports bar with a bear and a burger, screaming for the Yankees to finally win one. Or something like that. The idea was that the omni gave the scene a depth that couldn't have been achieved otherwise.
As far as writers who break the rule, my question is how much stronger would they have been without doing that? If he is a good storyteller--could he have been better? If not, then he probably did the right thing when he broke the rules, consciously or not.
posted
I didn't know anyone preached strictly 3PL. It's a good and popular POV nowadays because in this day of TV and movies, it does what they can't do -- really get you inside a character's thoughts. It's my favorite to read and write because I love that sense of closeness and connection to a single character. Omniscient is, by nature, distant, even if it peeks inside the heads of one or more characters. For this reason, I tend to need the story itself in omniscient tales to be incredibly engaging. I find that humor often works well in omniscient because it's easier to laugh at something if you're not too connected with the feelings of those involved. (Terry Pratchett comes to mind as an example of good humor/omni)
[This message has been edited by Christine (edited September 26, 2007).]
posted
Haven't read Gemmell, but 3PO seems an advanced viewpoint, not to be tackled by beginners.
In the same review, Card mentions Sons Of The Oak, the first book in the new Runelord saga. Now, I'm a big fan of the old Runelords series, but I couldn't stomach Sons Of The Oak. The novel employed 3PO bigtime, but it felt shallow. I couldn't care about any of the characters. I didn't feel involved. So perhaps 3PO is something that even established authors should be wary of.
posted
There are advantages and disadvantages to both. 3PO allows the reader to see every character's thoughts, but by doing so, also limits the connection the reader has to any single character because it's spread out. 3PL allows only one character's thoughts, and requires that the viewpoint remain on a single character through out a scene, but lets the reader really immerse themselves in that one character. Deciding which of these is right for a story is part of knowing and understanding your own voice and your abilities as a writer.
What really surprises me is how much more I notice about older stories now that I'm writing a lot myself. It's astoundiung how many of the accepted voices and methods used for them then, are not the best way now.
I think Chris is right that it is harder to write in 3PO and have it be considered good writing by today's standards. Most readers now want complete characters they can care for, which 3PO, by its very nature, diminishes. That certainly wasn't always the case, and someday may change, but for now, that's the way it is.
posted
How can we say, don't use the most complex and easily screwed up pov unless you have a clue? Easy. Face it, there are people out there that have the skill and can whip out fairly good omni without problem. Then there is the rest of us. The problem with most people writing in omni have no idea what a pov is, much less how to actually write in one. So, with the rare exception of the individual who does have a natural skill at it, people should be encouraged to figure out how to write so others might be inclined to read it.
I don't think people with a natural talent for it will have that many problems. The issue is that most people who try to write in it, do it in a way it is not only noticeable, but jarring. Writing should be the mechanism for telling the story, not the way to show how clever we are with words. A few might enjoy the clever games, but most people would rather enjoy a good story. When you write and no one even notices that they are reading your words, but becoming a part of your story...that is the best compliment you will ever get.
posted
Maybe preach was a bit strong. (And I'm guilty of it too, that's what got me pondering.) I haven't read a first 13 that employed omniscient that wasn't questioned about PoV. How is one supposed to develop this skill, if everyone suggests cleaning up the PoV?
In my case, I love to read all sorts of PoVs. Some of my favorite books seems to employ 3PO and 3PL at will. Orson Scott Card says he uses hot and cold 3PL, but isn't that just camouflaging the jump from 3PL to Omni?
posted
My writing professor, David Robbins, says that the masters can get away with breaking all the rules because they are the masters. Through some freak genetic combination they are brilliant storytellers. The rest of us have to (usually) follow the rules if we want to write a coherent story and be published.
Ben
[This message has been edited by TheOnceandFutureMe (edited September 26, 2007).]
posted
IB, I don't know that I've seen a lot of deliberately omniscient writing on Hatrack before. Omni must be established, like 3PL must be, and most of the time when there's been a POV issue it's because the reader is flipping around multiple 3PL POVs.
The difference between hot and cold 3PL is definitely not the same as the difference between 3PL and omni.
Here's Chesterton establishing an omniscient viewpoint in a story from "The Man Who Knew Too Much" (it's in the public domain):
quote:Harold March, the rising reviewer and social critic, was walking vigorously across a great tableland of moors and commons, the horizon of which was fringed with the far-off woods of the famous estate of Torwood Park. He was a good-looking young man in tweeds, with very pale curly hair and pale clear eyes. Walking in wind and sun in the very landscape of liberty, he was still young enough to remember his politics and not merely try to forget them. For his errand at Torwood Park was a political one; it was the place of appointment named by no less a person than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Howard Horne, then introducing his so-called Socialist budget, and prepared to expound it in an interview with so promising a penman. Harold March was the sort of man who knows everything about politics, and nothing about politicians. He also knew a great deal about art, letters, philosophy, and general culture; about almost everything, indeed, except the world he was living in.
Now, there's no way that March himself was thinking all of these things as he was walking vigorously across the commons. This isn't March's POV: it's the narrator's. There are other sections that have this sense, too, such as this one:
quote:The eccentric fisherman dropped his net and walked swiftly toward the spot, his new acquaintance following him.
"His new acquaintance" is March, and people don't think this way about themselves.
There's very little in the story that has someone else's POV. You mostly see what March sees. But the ideas expressed and the ways in which they're expressed are clearly not limited to the main character, and, as a result, when Chesterton does move from March's character to another character's POV, it's done gracefully, rather than with a lurch.
posted
Hm, interesting... Haven't read Gemmell. I will say, though, that badly done 3PO is precisely the reason why I think a lot of fantasy is terrible. I think ultimately it's a trade-off.
Tolkien is written in 3PO, and I think it works for the kind of story he's trying to tell, a milieu and event story, more than a character story. Only through the 3PO can he really expound on the history and culture of the world he's created. However, there were times when LOTR and The Hobbit felt incredibly slow to me, and some have complained about the lack of dimension in his characters.
Contrast that to GRR Martin who is almost Tolkien's polar opposite. Martin writes in what I think of as third person entrenched. That is, he's so locked in third person. There's scarcely a line in his book that's not coloured by the nuances of character. The short coming of such an approach is that there's a lot of work for the reader to sort through all of it. There's very little guidance.
Being in the hands of an artful narrator is incredible. But I think 3PO is incredibly difficult to pull off because it's such a balancing act. On the other hand, it's a little easier to pull off 3PL, because the more specific you get, the easier it is to make a work original and compelling. On the other hand, setting up the milieu, among other things, becomes that much harder.
Here's my underlying theory. Humans have an incredible capacity to empathize. However, because of the speed and amount of information and experiences we're subjected to, we've become somewhat jaded. A story has to really grip our attention in order for it to be worthwhile. I'm more interested in reading about characters, and in 3PL, the writer has so many more opportunities for specificity.
As for the first 13--I think it's hard to judge whether a writer is going to be able to pull 3PO off in the first 13. Some stories start off with the first paragraph in omniscient (OSC's "free" paragraph), while others start in the depth of character. Both kinds get criticism, as far as I can tell. In 3PO, the most common comment seems to be that the story doesn't grip people. In 3PL, the complaint is that the reader doesn't understand what's going on.
You can have the same character depth that you do with 3PL but 3PO gives you the opportunity to color the scene or provide the reader with information that they need to know but the MC wouldn't. You don't have to maintain a "narrator's" distance with 3PO. It's also a good way to build suspense.
An example: in 3PO
Heroine is being introduced at the UN. Cut away to the street - Van pulls up. Heroine makes her opening remarks. Men in black masks with machine guns spill out of the van and a fire fight ensues. Heroine accepts applause for her speach. Men in black run up the stairs. Heroine resumes her seat. Men in black break into room.
In 3PL (Heroine POV)
Heroine is introduced Heroine makes her speech Assembly applauds. Men break into the room.
The first version builds suspense - the reader is worrying about the Heroine. The second builds to a suprise.
Is one version "better" probably not. One may be more suited to certain genre than the other.
- Also - Full Omni does not mean you have to tell every characters' every thought. Just like with 3PL you have to only tell or show what matters to the plot.
Some of the stories I like the best have been 3PO. I'll point out in crits whether the start seems to be 3PO rather than 3PL. If the writer intended to make that choice, its fine.
Also, I think the multiple POV 3PL is really a form of 3PO. If you are switching POV on a chapter or scene break, you are Full Omni. If you have multiple MC's you almost have to be in 3PO or you send them to different ends of the world ao they aren't all in the same scene like Robert Jordan did for his series.
Yes, the mechanics have to be better (it can't feel like head popping or be jarring) but 3PO is a great choice.
[This message has been edited by kings_falcon (edited September 26, 2007).]
quote:Here's Chesterton establishing an omniscient viewpoint in a story from "The Man Who Knew Too Much"...
I think the reason that piece works is because it quickly says things we couldn't have got in a limited PoV.
That's an advantage of an omniscient PoV.
quote:Orson Scott Card says he uses hot and cold 3PL, but isn't that just camouflaging the jump from 3PL to Omni?
I don't think so. Limited is limited. OSC talks enough about omni to show he knows what it is. If he's not switching PoV, except for at logical breaking points, he's not Omni. Hot and cold just means he's either deep into the character's thoughts or he's not so deep. I do it myself. I look for the time and place to go deeper or lighter into the character's head. I'm sure I don't do it as artfully as OSC, but I try.
quote:My writing professor, David Robbins, says that the masters can get away with breaking all the rules because they are the masters.
Myself, I don't think they're breaking the rules nearly often as novice writers claim they are. The more I learn, the less stuff looks broken to me. In fact, the rules don't matter. Tell a good story and make me care about it.
quote:I haven't read a first 13 that employed omniscient that wasn't questioned about PoV.
But were they good, or careless? The ones I remember seem to have been more careless than anything else.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
(Terry Pratchett comes to mind as an example of good humor/omni)
