The problems of 3rd person omniscient/3rd person limited, and a compromise

[Griff4815]

I'm currently writing a Digimon story in the non-pokemon fics section and I've come across a few problems. The first one is that sometimes my writing style isn't as engaging as it could be. For background, the story's central protagonist is Examon and a lot of the story will revolve around him, but not all of it. There are eleven other characters who are active members of the story and I want each of them to have their own personalities and have the opportunity to take center stage from time to time. In short, I don't want the story to be just "The Examon Show".

I started off writing the story in 3rd person omniscient, as I usually do in my writing. The problem with this was that the way I did it was kind of like reading an encyclopedia, for the most part. Most of the emotion stemmed from the characters and the dialogue, not from the narrative.

So I received advice from two people that I should try writing the story in third person limited, which would ground the reader and perspective to a single viewpoint, which I could potentially change between scenes and chapters, as well as bring out emotion in the narrative. I liked the idea, so I tried it out, with a chapter being from Examon's viewpoint. On one hand, it succeeded in making the storytelling and writing style more descriptive and engaging, which I liked. However, I didn't really like being tied down to a single character with a limited perspective. I found it rather, well, limiting as I had to tiptoe around the actions and thoughts of all of the other characters because I couldn't have Examon noticing every single thing that went on. It was especially difficult when there were several things going on at once. Plus when writing 3rd person limited, there's also the problem of readers confusing a focal character's subjective views for a what one might have thought is supposed to be objective narrative (this has happened to me personally.) 3rd person limited can also be difficult if one focuses too much on one character and not enough on others, making some characters forgotten.

So, I was wondering if it was possible to find a compromise or a happy medium, where I could have the storytelling freedom of 3rd person omniscient and the emotion and description of 3rd person limited to make the narrative more engaging.

 

[JX Valentine]

What you're looking for is actually an expansion of third-person limited. While most definitions of limited tell you to tell a story from a particular character's point of view, that character doesn't necessarily have to be the same one all the time. It's entirely possible to change the perspective (read: which character you're telling the story through), depending on the necessities of the scene.

If it helps, this has a pretty thorough discussion on all the ways third person can be used, including all the ways third-person limited can shift from one character to another without delving into omniscient (which is defined as being the point of view in which the story is told from a godlike narrator looking down on the thoughts and actions of all the characters, rather than seeing the story through one character at a time).

Tl;dr, yes, there is most definitely a compromise.

 

[Kutie Pie]

This is what my story is written in: third-person omniscient--for the most part. There are chapters where it slipped into third-person limited from time to time, and though I don't have people telling me it's a problem, it's with the omniscient where problems come up. I somehow mess up viewpoints in omniscient because I'm trying to give each unique character their own turn in the spotlight when they speak. It's not too bad from what I hear, but it's noticeable. This is probably the biggest issue with third-person omniscient.

There can be a compromise depending on what you exactly want to focus on. If all characters are involved with whatever is happening that moment, use omniscient. If it involves all of them, but the main focus should be on the one (sometimes a couple) character, then draw our attention to that character(s). I personally don't see much of a problem with that, but keeping your readers in mind helps you decide how you want to present the picture.

In all honesty, it really should just depend on what is going on in a certain moment, and who it directly involves. Doesn't mean you should leave the other characters in the dark, you can pan back to acknowledge them, but then you gradually return to the main focus, and once the event is over, if it's needed, spread out into omniscient, otherwise keep the "camera" on the focus until he or she needs a little time off-screen, and it's time to see what the others think of it.

Does that make sense by any chance? It makes sense in my head, but I was recently introduced to the word despite having used it before, so needless to say, I'm still wrapping my head around it, heh.

EDIT: Poop, Jax ninja'd me, and answered it a lot better than I did. Listen to her more than me, she knows her stuff better.

 

[Griff4815]

Thanks for the replies.

@Kutie Pie. Hmm. That helps a bit. I think I see what you mean.

What you're looking for is actually an expansion of third-person limited. While most definitions of limited tell you to tell a story from a particular character's point of view, that character doesn't necessarily have to be the same one all the time. It's entirely possible to change the perspective (read: which character you're telling the story through), depending on the necessities of the scene.

If it helps, this has a pretty thorough discussion on all the ways third person can be used, including all the ways third-person limited can shift from one character to another without delving into omniscient (which is defined as being the point of view in which the story is told from a godlike narrator looking down on the thoughts and actions of all the characters, rather than seeing the story through one character at a time).

Tl;dr, yes, there is most definitely a compromise.

Hm. I know I can switch focal points in 3rd limited between scenes in chapters, but... I suppose I'm wondering if I can write in 3rd omniscient, but still have the "close" and "intimate" viewpoints of a character like in 3rd limited (without using their "voice" in the narrative), yet not be confined to that character until the next scene break. Can I change 3rd person limited perspectives within a scene? Or would it just be better to go with omniscient?

It's a difficult subject, for me, anyways. Ideally, I'd like to have engaging narrative while still having freedom to move around and explore more than just one character's senses. Maybe I should try the various ideas and see if one works particularly well.

Also, is it considered taboo to switch between omniscient and limited within a story/chapter (though not a scene)? For example, one scene (that involves ten or so characters all doing different things) being omniscient and the scene after (which might be more intimate with just one or two characters) being limited? Or could that be accomplished in simply using omniscient, though obviously not telling the latter scene from a single character's limited POV?

Sorry if this is confusing. I'm probably confusing myself. Heh.

Thanks for both of your replies.

 

[Kutie Pie]

Hm. I know I can switch focal points in 3rd limited between scenes in chapters, but... I suppose I'm wondering if I can write in 3rd omniscient, but still have the "close" and "intimate" viewpoints of a character like in 3rd limited (without using their "voice" in the narrative), yet not be confined to that character until the next scene break. Can I change 3rd person limited perspectives within a scene? Or would it just be better to go with omniscient?

I see nothing wrong with doing it like that, I do it all the time. And actually, I have seen it in other works before (Harry Potter's coming to mind). I don't think it's incorrect as long as the point-of-views don't get mixed up.

But again, it depends on the scene and the importance of it between the character or two. It can get jarring if the perspective changes back and forth all the time without a way to smooth into the transition.

 

[Cutlerine]

Hm. I know I can switch focal points in 3rd limited between scenes in chapters, but... I suppose I'm wondering if I can write in 3rd omniscient, but still have the "close" and "intimate" viewpoints of a character like in 3rd limited (without using their "voice" in the narrative), yet not be confined to that character until the next scene break. Can I change 3rd person limited perspectives within a scene? Or would it just be better to go with omniscient?

I don't see that there's anything wrong with sliding in and out of the limited narrative as and when you need it. You can change the focus of third-person limited narrative within a scene - it's just a matter of sliding out of one character's view and into another (perhaps by way of third-person omniscient). The easiest way would be to establish the normal tone of the scene as third-person omniscient and focus on various characters as and when you need to, which is what I usually do when I require a certain character's view on a situation. It can work, it just needs careful management to prevent it from becoming too confusing. I mean, why limit yourself? Conventions aren't rules, after all.

Also, is it considered taboo to switch between omniscient and limited within a story/chapter (though not a scene)? For example, one scene (that involves ten or so characters all doing different things) being omniscient and the scene after (which might be more intimate with just one or two characters) being limited? Or could that be accomplished in simply using omniscient, though obviously not telling the latter scene from a single character's limited POV?

Again, why care about whether it's taboo? If it's right and it works, do it; people keep telling me you can't write (retrospective) first-person narrative interspersed with omniscient third-person sections, but I've been doing it ever since I began writing in first-person when I was nine, and the stories I use it in are perfectly readable. (Besides, Charles Dickens did it all the way through Bleak House, which sort of proves my point about these sorts of taboos being completely worthless and usually unfounded.) It would make sense to have an intimate scene in third-person limited and a broader one in omniscient, so unless there's another good reason why you shouldn't, go right ahead.

Of course, that's not to dismiss omniscient out of hand. It's perfectly possible to express a specific character's emotion properly through third-person omniscient, though it isn't perhaps quite as effective as in limited or first-person. You can still describe closely, without having to be clinical and detached, if that's what you're concerned about. It's simply a question of the tone of your omniscient narrator.

F.A.B.

 

[Griff4815]

Hmm. You both make good points. Thanks! That helps a lot. I'll keep them at the front of my mind.

 

[SilentMemento]

Yeah, I do think that there can be a compromise. At the beginning of a chapter, I often use an omniscient third person perspective to bring readers into the story (description of the background and setting, for example) and make a subtle shift to limited third person perspective to delve into the character whose story is being told at the moment. I think the only time where I haven't used that method is when I write from a first person perspective. I'm pretty sure I've seen it in some books I've read as well, but I'm not certain what the technique is called.

I personally don't see a problem with mixing perspectives so long as it doesn't jar the reader. If the writer can make it flow with the story so that the shift in perspective seems more natural, it could possibly add to the quality of the story and make it all the more unique and intriguing.

But these are just my thoughts.

 

[JX Valentine]

Another thing to take into consideration is that we're not really talking about first versus third, meaning your pronouns will be consistent throughout the story. Why is that important to think about? Because not that many people can notice a shift from one point of view to another unless you're obvious about it. For example, it's rather easy to tell changes in perspective in first-person narration, and it's painfully obvious to see a work slip from first to third or vice versa. That's why it's not quite as acceptable on a general level: because unless you're a particularly skilled writer, the transition tends to be jarring, especially if you're not consistent about it. (As in, if one scene is in first person and another is in third for no reason that the reader can discern, then it comes off as inconsistent because the reader can't expect to grasp a pattern from the changes in perspective.) When it comes to third person, so long as your pronouns are consistent, it's less likely that a reader will be able to tell the difference between moments when you write in omniscient point of view and moments when you write in limited point of view. So, to answer your question, yes, you can shift perspectives so long as you stick to one set of pronouns, and you can do that because it's highly probable that no one would notice the difference. b)'')b

 

[Kamotz]

The issue, of course, comes down to two things: consistency and empathy.

Consistency: this is comprised of smooth shifts in the narrative distance and between perspectives. Shifting between several characters in a single scene can be jarring, especially with a cast of 11 characters like you're planning. Readers are left floating around a scene with little to hold on to and anchor themselves with. Omniscient is great in that it gives you a panoramic, birds-eye view of the events. But then you have to zoom in for the reader to feel any emotional connection to the character, and if you shift then to another character and another...well...think about it visually. You get very dizzy.

And that leads to Empathy: What the close third does very well is give you a deep insight into the characters it covers. You feel something for them, whether it's love or hate. You're able to make up your mind, and by the end of even the first chapter, you feel as if you know the character and have some understanding of who they are and what (might) make them tick. I rarely find myself empathizing with characters and events written from the omniscient perspective. It's a lot of telling instead of showing, especially when it comes to the emotional responses of the characters. Closer perspectives allow you to zoom in on a characters reactions and emotions, the grinding of teeth, the clicking of fingers, the sweat on their brow, their thoughts, etc.

Jumping from that to an entirely different character in a different situation leaves the writing hollow and leaves readers confused.

The biggest problem with 3rd Omniscient is that if you're not VERY good at it, your story comes off as hollow and your characters don't elicit as much of an emotional response. It's VERY hard to do 3rd Omniscient well. Jumping around between perspectives in a scene doesn't give the same consistency that allows readers to develop empathy for the character. We go from Chuck to Laurie, to Moe, to Grisby. And guess what? By the time we're at Grisby, I've lost track of what Chuck is doing and why I should care about it.

That's why I've always held firm to the idea that the best way to shift perspectives is from chapter to chapter while in close-Third. Chapter 1: Chuck; by the end, we feel for him and know him. Chapter 2: Laurie; we learn about her and know her. Chapter 3: Moe. And I'd leave Grisby out. Because he's obviously an author-avatar. Though again, doing that with 11 characters is going to be hell. And...quite frankly...I wouldn't recommend it. To go from Examon, to Alphamon, to Omnimon, to Magnamon, to UlforceVeedramon, to Crusadermon, to Dynasmon, to Sleipmon, to Gallantmon, to Craniamon, to Duftmon...and give enough convincing insight and depth to their stories to make us care about all of those characters without it coming across as background-splurge...It's not something I'd be comfortable with or sure that I could do well enough.

But if you're convinced, then hell, go for it. And don't let anyone tell you different.