Rosemary for Remembrance - In Defense of Third-Person Omniscient

I posted an early version of this to a list coffeeandink and I belong to. She asked me to expand it, so here it is.

Modern third-person limited says "You are this character, and you will go where she goes, see what she sees, feel her emotions. Pay no attention to the storyteller behind the curtain." Third-limited ties the reader tightly to the character.

Third-person omniscient says "I am the storyteller, and you are the listener, and together we will find out what happens." Third-omniscient ties the reader tightly to the storyteller and, if the storyteller is good, to the characters as well. The storyteller's passion for the characters and situation can increase the listener's passion for them.

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.

In a hole in the ground lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort.

Tell me that either of those would be better without the description. That's not Elizabeth Bennett's point of view. That's not Bilbo Baggins's point of view. That's called narration. Some books have a transparent narrator. Some books have a narrator who participates in the action. (We call that first person.) Some have a narrator who comments, but does not participate.

There is a spectrum, and there are valid writing choices to be made all along the spectrum. And this is just as true of pleasure fiction as it is of literary fiction. Exposition is a sin when it is boring and when it slows the narrative down unintentionally. Exposition is bad when the reader skips right past it. There are certainly things in the 19th-century novel that are dead as a doornail—long lyrical descriptions of scenery, for instance. We don't need those. We have photographs. But I think there is still very much a place for the present narrator. Right now, a lot of literary fiction uses it for self-conscious irony "and you the reader are not enjoying this, are you?". But that's not the only use. A modern example:

For old times' sake, the doctors of zoology had driven out of town that Tuesday afternoon to make a final visit to the singing salt dunes at Baritone Bay. And to lay a ghost. They never made it back alive. They almost never made it back at all.

Jim Crace, Being Dead. This book has some omniscient POV, some close third. It has to have omniscient, because the viewpoint characters are dead, and can speak only in flashbacks. To move forward in time, we need a narrator. The narrator has strongly-stated opinions about life and death and (most importantly) decay. That's part of what makes the book compelling. Crace couldn't have written that novel using limited-third.

Jane Austen and Georgette Heyer write not just in omniscient third, but with a narrator who has opinions. I don't know what the technical term is; in my mind, there's a "transparent" third which simply narrates, and a present narrator who participates in the narrative. It's the difference between "John walked slowly forward and hit Sophia" and "John, whose temper had never been of the best and who had read far too much Mickey Spillane, hit Sophia." (Neither of which is great writing.)

Right now, limited-viewpoint narration is in fashion, and it's a good strong fashion—it brings the reader tightly into the story. However, it also has weaknesses—you can't introduce a viewpoint that is not a character in the story, and if you use a viewpoint once, you should probably find a way to use it again.

Third omniscient is the language your mother used to tell you stories. It is the language of fairy tales. It is a powerful tool, with deep ties to memory and emotion.

The first stories you ever hear are third-omniscient. American children's picture books are (usually) third-omniscient. Goodnight, Moon. The Napping House. Sheep In A Jeep. When I cuddled my daughter and told stories, I said "Once upon a time there was a princess named Ellen who lived in a castle by the sea."

Now, my daughter is named Ellen, but I didn't tell this in second person. And I certainly didn't tell it in third-limited. I framed the story as a story -- I said "Once upon a time". "Once upon a time" is magic. "I am the teller, and I am about to tell you a story, now pay attention." There is no "once upon a time" in third-limited, because there's nobody to say it. Third omniscient is ancient, and sometimes it's the only tool for the job.

29 sounded | Sounding Spheres | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend | Link

User:	cofax7
Date:	21 Oct 2003 17:03 (UTC)
Subject:	(no subject)
Keyword:	machete

Ooooh, excellent. Thanks so much, that helped hugely.

Reply | Thread | Link

User:	matociquala
Date:	21 Oct 2003 18:08 (UTC)
Subject:	applauds
Keyword:	headbang

Go. You.

I chased a link from melymbrosia to get here. And go you. *g*

Reply | Thread | Link

User:	rivkat
Date:	21 Oct 2003 20:27 (UTC)
Subject:	(no subject)

Interesting points. Do you recommend the Jim Crace book? That quote stirred my interest.

Reply | Thread | Link

User:	jonquil
Date:	22 Oct 2003 07:52 (UTC)
Subject:	Being Dead

Yes, I recommend it. (I also recommend air.) Being Dead is one of the best novels I've read in the last five years. It's about death, yes. But it's also about love -- real love, flawed love, the kind in which you are terribly annoyed by your family and never quite understand them. It's from an explicitly atheist point of view in which there is no afterlife, and yet it defends the lasting importance of love.

And it's damned hard to persuade people to read, because one of the plot threads is corpses lying on a beach decaying. My husband had to recommend it repeatedly over three years before I gave in and read it. I was very glad I did.