How common is the omniscient narrator these days?

[nancylebov]

From an essay about post-modernism:
One rarely sees the universal, omniscient narrator any more; one expects to ride the "novel" inside one of the character's heads.

I've noticed that getting inside the character's heads is more common-- first person is typical for urban fantasy-- but has third person omniscient actually become rare?

I don't know if there's an important difference between being inside one character's head, or in many characters' heads, as in Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire.

Link from haikujaguar.

Comments

[twistedchick]

There's an important difference in terms of focus -- if you view action only from one character, you only see what that character sees. Bren Cameron in CJ Cherryh's Foreigner series is a good example -- it's told in third person but you only see what he sees, and sometimes you know a lot more from what he misses.

The sterling example of multiple character viewpoint is Faulkner's As I Lay Dying, in which every chapter is from a different character's viewpoint, including that of the corpse. It can be really good or it can be schizo, depending on the author.

True universal omnicient viewpoint is always third-person, remote and doesn't get into anyone's head for any length of time. It's looking at the whole scene. It isn't sequential single-person viewpoint, but more distant than that. And, no, I haven't seen it done in SF in a while. A good example in an older style is Lord Dunsany's The King of Elfland's Daughter.

[rm.livejournal.com]

Third omniscient has become so rare that when I do it in short stories people go "I noticed your viewpoint kept switching -- oh wait! I forgot about third omniscient. REALLY?"

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

I find third-person limited much more interesting. Third-person omniscient seems a little lazy in comparison.

[malkingrey.livejournal.com]

I know that Sherwood Smith, in her Inda series, has been working with true omniscient POV (as opposed to multiple-third, which is relatively common in sweeping epic stories.)

[richardthinks.livejournal.com]

So I'm reading kids' books with my kids these days, and Lemony Snicket has started a trend of chatty omniscient narrators that I strongly dislike. This Book Is Not Good For You (by "Pseudonymous Bosch," alas) has a paranoid narrator who accuses the reader of trying to poison him/her, but who is omniscient within the overtly fictional narrative.

Snicket/Daniel Handler, BTW, apparently wrote an "incest opera", which mixed Jewish mythology with modern sexuality. And he's a fan of C. S. Lewis. Not sure what to make of that.

[green-knight.livejournal.com]

Omniscient means that the narrator - implicit or explicit - knows things the characters don't and puts them on the page, often with comment. Good omniscient is a joy to read; sloppy omniscient comes across as headhopping (though genre Romance seems not to mind it at all).

Many tight viewpoints ('multiple third') doth not omni make.

There's also first person omniscient, which happens in the form of 'as someone told me later, back at the ranch' - it's first person, but told after the fact, and putting in events the character didn't know at the time, or including 'I was stupid enough to believe this at the time' etc.

Personally I feel that doing omni well is difficult - you need to build the narrating personality, at least in your own head, and keep it consistent - and there's more to keep in mind. It's probably best suited to writers who have a very strong voice.