An Appendage to the Question of Character Perspective

from the archives...18 February, 2008

The omniscient third person. I won’t say that all has been cleared up in my mind; that a resolution is that much closer, but it is the means to an end. It is with the third person point of view divided into two and sometimes three perspectives that I find the answers to all of my bewilderment over the issue of ‘tense’. And in a second letter to a friend that I share with you now...

In the omniscient third person, the writer acts as narrator but with the ability (unlike in ‘limited third person’) to get inside those characters heads, traveling between the deeper view of not only one chosen character but a second or more.

While it is not an unheard of technique, it is an old one, used by writers ‘past tense’ so to speak, examples found in Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina, Mitchell’s Gone with the Wind and McCullough’s The Thornbirds. (Not so shabby.) So it seems it is an old technique, something many readers and writers of today either abhor or avoid, feeling more of a connection with the storyline of a book when it follows just one character the whole way through, or none at all when it comes to those inner thoughts.

Two things ring out at me that I cannot leave without commenting on at this point in my ramblings.

First, omniscent perspective has been noted as an ‘unheard of’ and ‘lost’ tradition in a negative sense, one in which writers like myself should shy from, feel injured to think one might be grouped with these writers of another time and should in the least attempt to bring one's writing into this century in answer to the readers of today. Rather, I find myself filled with childish glee, laughing within at the thought of bringing it back, tasting those waters of times past. I am glad, honored, excited at the thoughts of having perhaps an ‘old heart’ in my modern day writing, even giddy simply because it isn’t typical anymore. My back is up, reader, intrigued not only to continue on my merry ‘omniscient’ way through writing, but to say, ‘fie you readers of this century! I will bring the story out and most certainly bring you in!’

That being said—and granted, it was said with far too much enthusiasm, but I got on a roll and there is no one but myself to stop it—I come to my second point.

I look back, now that I have defined the difference in writing, and it pops out with a sudden burst in my mind that I have in fact seen this before. I have noticed a change, a difference, and many times over, it has gurgled up into annoyance when reading. I have read many novels, particularly those of historic romance but traditional ones as well, where we follow the narrator through the eyes of a single perspective, written in limited third person.

It picks away at me as I read. I am flustered, intrigued to know more of the other characters. It is as if I, the reader, am but a finger’s reach away and cannot get inside the thoughts of the others. And I need to. I crave it almost, want to yell out when those characters walk away and I am to be left with the thoughts of one character alone. While it’s nice to relate to the female heroine, as often is the perspective focus in romantic fiction, I am frustrated that I can’t know more, that I am ‘stuck’ with her alone as I travel through a story, sometimes bored that this perspective is not extending outward and beyond.

Now I understand. I know where I am most comfortable, why my characters seem to cry out, ‘open me up, tell my story as well as hers!’ I cannot and will not leave them in the dust. I will give them their time, though only in the right place, to do so.

I have, however, while holding firm and stubborn, been enlightened. I am eager to peruse my past books, explore my writing in future, now constantly aware of being careful with omniscience. I am to look ahead with a watchful eye that I don’t lead the reader down a path of confusion by keeping my character’s thoughts in their right place.

I remember a time I picked up a novel written not only in first person point of view but in present tense (she says rather than she said) as opposed to past which most stories, regardless of POV are written. It was odd, and as my eyes found the words, I lost their meaning. It took time. I admit, being that it was something new, I struggled at first, determined not to like this new form and not to read another. But in the end, aside from the flow becoming natural, easier once I understood and accepted the method, it was refreshing. And refreshing felt far better than the frustration of sticking with the norm, the same old, same old, gliding along with typical enjoyment, nothing more, nothing less.

As was noted to me by a kind reader lending his advice through another, the omniscient method can work, opening up another relatable character, so to speak, in that of the narrator. But only when done right.

So let’s move forward, bold reader, and venture in new directions. Many speak or write against it, this omniscient perspective. But why? Because it’s old, traditional, never done anymore? Well then, doesn’t that make it fresh? I refuse to ‘not write’ something because someone says, ‘but no one does that.’ I think it not impossible, but instead an intriguing challenge. And I always look at challenge with a glint in my eye and fire flowing from my fingertips as the words hit the paper.

In the end, there are many acceptable ways to write. For me, I want my characters forefront. I want them heard, not stamped out. I want their voices strong, their hearts speaking with a song. So they will. For that, I cannot see Omniscient Third Person as drawing the reader out but rather in, looking on with a new light through an old one.