I’m a relatively new writer, currently writing a novel with sixteen pov’s. The protagonist is written in first person, present tense, and the others are all third person, past tense. I’ve been encouraged to narrow that down a lot, and I probably will but, for now, with the encouragement of another writer, I’m letting the story unfold as it will and enjoying the process.

I started with just the single first person, present pov, but found I was having to resort other characters coming in and telling him what was happening on the outside (he’s confined), so someone recommended I try another pov and they multiplied like rabbits. I’m trying to keep continuity by having more scenes of my main character’s pov sprinkled throughout.

I love the rule, “Does it work?”

And love this site!

Claudine

When I first started my urban fantasy, I struggled with the viewpoint. I normally write in third, but it felt really wrong for the story. About then, a viewpoint workshop popped up, so I took it. Based on comments, I decided to change the book to first person. Once I wrote fifty, I understand exactly why I was having a problem with the viewpoint. First was way, way too personal for the story. My humor, instead of being funny, turned annoying. Third was better, but only slightly, and neither fit the story.

Then omnniscient was next in the workshop, and I was just hitting a pivotal scene. I switched omniscient, and the story sang. Omniscient had what I needed for this story. Though I had heard everywhere–all the how-to books, other writers–that no one uses the viewpoint and you’ll never get published, I had a hard time buying into. I was seeing omniscient in new releases, so it was selling. And I had never seen an agent or editor have on their list of top ten reasons for rejection “Omniscient viewpoint.” I reasoned that the story needed to shine, and the omniscient viewpoint needed to be done well.

Eventually, I posted the first chapter for a critique. I didn’t expect the extremely negative reactions to the omni I got from writers. You’d think they thought I was a vampire and were going for the stakes and garlic. I was sternly admonished for using the viewpoint and told I wouldn’t get published if I used it. I explained my reasons why I had changed to this viewpoint, and the writers dismissed them, saying it could be done in third. I was even told, “I’m sure you know your story, but here’s how it would be done in third.” Everyone seemed to think it was better to have a badly written story in an “acceptable viewpoint” then a well-written story in a “unacceptable viewpoint.” The vitrol was so bad that I had to take six weeks away from the book so I could think about it objectively. I later talked to another writer who got so much vitrol on his use of omniscient that he changed it to third.

If you choose to use omni and it’s right for your story, stick your guns.

I love the omniscient POV style, but whenever I think of omniscient POVs, I always think of the inclination to ‘tell instead of show’. The narrator is practically god. Why not just tell what they’re thinking and get on with the story. That’s probably why I’m such a Michael Critchton fan, by the way.
How much balance do you think there should be. When or where do you think is the most effective.

Tom

I just finished reading a wonderful book that has a third person omniscient POV that shifts frequently between two main characters as well as briefly to some secondary but crucial running members of the cast. “Independent People” by Halldor Laxness, may be the most famous book you’ve never heard of. First published in 1945, it’s now enjoying a rediscovery as a Vintage paperback. Laxness, who won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1955, wrote this epic novel about Iceland with a stunning range of depth, power, and humor. Don’t miss it.

Speaking of old masters, Tolstoy could tell a story from an omniscient point of view without losing the perspective of several characters in a huge canvas. “War and Peace” famously tells the epic history of Napoleon’s failed invasion into Russia from an omniscient perspective which nevertheless slips seamlessly into several character’s point of view.

A more modern example I read not long ago is “Slow Man” by another Nobel Prize winner (in 2003), the South African novelist J.M. Coetzee. This book is a virtuoso portrait of a 60 year old crippled man who falls in love with his nurse. Coetzee is able to concurrently and consecutively give us the point of view of his protagonist while also getting inside his other characters perspective, the key to successful third person narration.

This isn’t to say that only Nobelists can write successfully in third person! But the omniscient POV is a great way for any writer to paint a big canvas.

-Alan

As I said earlier, several people have read the first two chapters with now difficulties or confusion in following the narrator. Probably because it’s written in about 85% dialog, so the majority of the information offered the reader comes directly from the cast of characters.

I do plan to call you soon to discuss some of your available services to determine which will benefit my book most, and am excited about the prospects there.

Thanks again for encouraging this first time novelist;

Dina

Thanks, Tom.

I can tell you as an acquiring editor with decades of experience doing mysteries of all sorts, that your critique partner’s statement is not true. It’s OK to write in an omniscient point of view, as you have, even with head hopping, if you do it well.

Deciding on your point of view is a very important artistic as well as practical decision. Do you want to take on a first persona and live inside your character? Do you want to get outside a character so you can see, tell or comment on a character’s perspective and behavior? Do you want to move around various points of view so you can offer the reader behind the scene clues and a chance to figure out what happened? It’s your call.

Good luck,

Alan

Thank you for this article (for the entire site, really). I’m writing a Thriller in which I’ve taken the omniscient POV and the subsequent head-hopping. Several people have read the first two chapters and say they follow along with no difficulty or confusion; and that my hook is good because they want more.

My problem now comes in that one man in my critique group mentioned I should change the POV to 3rd person limited because Editors will not purchase anything from a first-time author not written in that POV; and that once I have my first publication I can choose which ever POV I want. As soon as he stated that, others in the group began confirming.

I honestly can’t say whether I’ve even ever read any piece written in 3rd person limited, I tend to gravitate toward the omniscient POV books, because I like to know what’s going on with everyone. It’s more comfortable for me.

So I have two questions:
1. Is my critique partner’s statement true?
2. How does one decide at the on-set, which POV a story should be written in?

Thanks so much for your help; and again I am so thankful I found your site, thanks for taking the time to have it here for us.

Dina

I write middle-grade and there are “rules” floating around that children’s books should always be in the one POV. Neil Gaiman’s The Graveyard Book switches POV a lot, and that won the Newbery Medal.

I’m currently writing a book whose protagonist isn’t the child, but the child in the story (children, actually) help the protagonist. I was thinking some scenes might be in the POV of the main child when the protagonist isn’t around. This post helps me be more confident with the switches, and I’ll remember you’re advice about balance.

Thanks

“We want … not be tricked into believing something that turns out not to be true.” BUT #3 Break some rules :..”Slick genre plots sometimes include a last reversal which turns everything on its head.”

For a totally unexpected and brilliant use of this, I can recommend reading Fingersmith by Sarah Waters. I had no idea it was coming and it was tremendous.

There’s no “rule” against breaking through the first person to address the reader on occasion as “you”, but I’d be careful about doing it too frequently in too many places. The criteria for right or wrong usage of this technique is whether it intrudes or confuses or annoys.

-Alan

Tim Sunderland, author
Rules for Giving, WIP

C. Patrick Schulze

I’m book-marking your web site!

Again, thank you for taking the time to respond.

~Bonnie

That’s a wonderful homework assignment you’ve given this young writer. I applaud your ability and willingness to provide such good summer schooling for her. You’re part of a great tradition that I’ve appreciated first hand when visiting Alabama for writer’s conferences: a great literary culture and long-standing devotion to the hard work of quality writing.

-Alan

I think you’re right. If you can understand and get under the skin of your character, then your POV will be deep. Seems like a no brainer, so do stay away from stress and do it the natural way without having to follow rules or use jargon.

-Alan

Kiki, this isn’t to say your WIP won’t work in this fashion. I’d follow Alan’s advice to the letter to make sure this is well-balanced to pull off. Even the most seasoned, experienced writers have trouble doing this, if they did do it at all. Trouble was, in times past, writers who did this–and the editors who got story-lazy in the cleanup process–let these reads out there that weren’t executed properly and a head-hopping mess. A wonderful critique group helps your revision process, too.

Love the article, Alan! Great stuff for my content editor colleagues at Red Rose, thank you.

Happy weekend, everyone!
~Missye

I recently finished reading Characters & Viewpoint by Orson Scott Card, and I recall him referring to a “deep” or “deeper” third-person narrative. Perhaps that is where many people first heard of the concept.