Writing Stuff: The Omniscient POV

 Another from Nathan Bransford - How to bridge characters’ thoughts in an omniscient POV. You should also read my Writing Stuff: Head Hopping.

A true, consistent omniscient perspective is not a string of third person limited head jumps around a scene. It’s its own voice, almost as if it’s a unique character, even if the omniscient voice is never named. The key is that we consistently imagine the scene from the omniscient narrator’s perspective, even as we dip into individual characters’ minds.

We don’t “need” to check in with a character. There’s no obligation to tick everyone’s thoughts off on a list. And Lee and Unsworth are judicious with how often we dip into characters’ minds within a scene. The only reason we shift is because it builds to our overall understanding of what’s happening. We’re not ping-ponging between characters’ heads, we’re gently and sparingly guided.

One challenge with an omniscient perspective is that there’s a risk of having too many different shallow perspectives without forging a deep attachment to the core characters. Every time you shift us over to see what a minor character is thinking, it dilutes our connection to the most important protagonists, and it may obscure why they’re doing what they’re doing.

Reading this I thought of Thackeray's Vanity Fair. I read this in prison, egged on by a piece in the Wall Street Journal declaring that there had never been a good movie adaptation of this novel (compared with Dickens) because of the narrative voice. Having read the novel, I have to agree with the WSJ about the narrative voice (I cannot say anything about the move adaptations). The narrator interjects commentary and personality into the narrative. I have a love-hate relationship with Dickens, but I did very much liek Vanity Fair. I recommend it to you.

sch 11/7