OK I have a first "part" of my WIP that feels very much like a prologue, but it is rigidly in third limited of a single character, up until the end of the scene at which point I break free from third limited and jump suddenly to omniscient because I have to explain how the after effect of the situation kind of like "they were never seen again," but though I want to be consistent in pov, that seems to dictate that I must be omniscient the whole time.
Except that when I restrict it to oniscient it feels like I lose some of the character I have developed, which is something I'm not interested in compromising over. (Hence the jump.)
Would this put you off as a reader?
Posted by HuntGod (Member # 2259) on :
Depending on what happens to the character, you could have the charcaters POV shift to omniscient. i.e. he dies and the shift in POV reflects his change in perception.
Posted by KayTi (Member # 5137) on :
I've just recently read two books by Robin McKinley from the 1980s that were award winners/honorees. The Blue Sword and The Hero and the Crown. The point of this is that she seems to do a mix of omni and 3rd person POV. Mostly she focuses on 1 MC and that MC's thoughts, emotions, etc., however in plenty of cases she also is able to comment on the thoughts and backstory with other characters. It's interesting, it's pretty seamless, and might be a place to look for ideas.
I find that when I'm trying to work out a detailed writing craft thing that I have to look at examples of where it's been done to really get it into my head, and therefore have it work on paper for me.
Posted by lehollis (Member # 2883) on :
It can be done, and I think the "cost" for that is rather low. At the end of the chapter/prologue/section it would be clear that you intentionally broke POV to tell the reader something important. I don't think anyone would find fault in this.
However, you should be sure that no other character knows "they were never seen again." If so, can you cover that bit of knowledge form another character's thoughts? For example, having the mom sometime later still worried about what happened to her two boys or something like that.
I've heard of authors using omniscient that turns limited and then back to omniscient style before. I don't think it's wrong. I think OSC even mentioned it in Characters and Viewpoint once, maybe. (I'd have to check.) I just think it would require a deft hand.
Posted by Lord Darkstorm (Member # 1610) on :
quote:OK I have a first "part" of my WIP that feels very much like a prologue, but it is rigidly in third limited of a single character, up until the end of the scene at which point I break free from third limited and jump suddenly to omniscient because I have to explain how the after effect of the situation kind of like "they were never seen again," but though I want to be consistent in pov, that seems to dictate that I must be omniscient the whole time.
First, let me mention...this is a very long sentence. To the point. Why? Why must it be explained up front and from an omnipotent viewpoint? I read a book called "Polaris" a while ago, and it started with a scene on a ship called the Polaris. That was the only scene from any of the characters on the ship pov. After that there was the mystery of what happened to the ship. There are many tricks that can be used to engage the reader, and not all of them require telling them everything. Sometimes it is more rewarding to figure it out along the way. And if the opening scene has little to do with the story, then is it really needed?
Posted by kings_falcon (Member # 3261) on :
You can POV shift if it is not jarring. My WIP is Full Omni but most readers were stumbling over a specific "POV shift" between the MC and the Queen. I rewrote it to smooth the transition.
We (and editors and agents) make more of POV shift than the average reader because of what we do. We notice it. As long as the shift isn't glaring and has a line break before it, it should work.
Posted by JeanneT (Member # 5709) on :
PoV shifts are perfectly acceptable. You don't want to do it midscene or midparagraph obviously. That would be jarring. But at a logical breaking point, PoV shifts are something people are quite used to.
First let me mention that there is a big risk in judging what an editor will accept by what one accepted 25 or 30 years ago. Tastes, including those of editors, have changed. It isn't impossible to get a novel that is the omniscient point of view published. But I have seen a several articles and interviews where editors of major publishing houses mentioned disliking it. It seems to be quite out of fashion at the moment. Well, I must admit I rather dislike omniscient myself, having become so used to close third person.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't use it if it is right for what you are doing. But it is good to know that there may be editors out there who might object. If it were, me I'd try to find a way around using it. Just a thought.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited July 11, 2007).]
Posted by Zero (Member # 3619) on :
That's good to hear. In actuality the first two pages, which resemble an unofficial prologue, are disjointed from the main story by a five year gap. This quasi-"prologue"begins in omniscient, moves into 3rd limited to get inside the head of a significant character, and then finishes in omniscient to explain, briefly, what happened to that character. After that the "story" begins in 3rd limited and stays that way throughout the rest of the novel. As I understand it, this shouldn't put off any readers, or very few. But I'm concerned about what kind of first impression this might give a potential publisher.
Posted by GalaxyGal (Member # 4755) on :
You broke a cardinal rule? I guess I don't know the cardinal rules.
Are you referring to the fact you have a prologue or the fact that you switched POV?
I'm just asking because I've broken both rules and I'm still unpublished. Hmmm . . .
Posted by Zero (Member # 3619) on :
I claimed it to be a cardinal rule, but that doesn't mean it actually is one. Mostly I just wanted a catchy title. Marketable writing is one part plot and nine parts salesmanship afterall
[This message has been edited by Zero (edited July 15, 2007).]
