"Thinking to endear every character to the reader, and thus create a stronger connection to the story, omniscient instead creates a powerful psychological distance that the rest of your story will probably not be able to overcome".

Thoughts on the above? What's the consensus on "omniscient"?

I think that's complete bunk.

For a start, since when was an author's purpose assumed to be to endear every character to the reader? That's a real misunderstanding of how fiction works.

All 'omniscient' means is that the narrator has access to more than one character's mental processes: their perspective, point-of-view, opinions... Why should that mean we're distanced from all of them? Or even any of them. It usually implies a third person narration, though first person is still possible.

Call it an 'external' narrator, which is the correct narratological term, and you realise it is just that: a narrator who is not a character, and is therefore capable of telling us about more than one person and their experience. What's to disapprove of? As A S Byatt says, "this kind of fictive narrator can creep closer to the feelings and the inner life of characters - as well as providing a Greek chorsu - than any first-person mimicry... I used this kind of narrator... always to heighten the reader's imaginative entry into the world of the text."

'Omniscient' is such a value-laden term, that's part of the trouble. It's used to imply a certain rising-above-it, an authority which is read as authoritarian, and which moder writers (not readers, who for the most part don't turn a hair) hated because like adolescents they're so often reacting to the authority of the parents of the fiction-writing world. The trouble arises because the term 'omniscient' conflates the simple question of how much a narrator knows and sees, with the different question of whether such a narrator has its own opinions, showing in non-narrative comments.

Emma

<Added>

I would say that it's harder to do well if you haven't been brought up on that kind of writing, and a scary number of teachers/editors/reviewers state or imply that if you're not doing something well, you shouldn't do it. Which is also bunk: what you should do, if a particular narrative technique is the only what of writing what you want to write how you want to write it, is learn to do that technique better.

Emma, this is the link to the article I was reading about this - would be interested to hear what you think.

http://keepmeinsuspense.blogspot.com/2007/05/point-of-view-pov.html

<Added>

I thought what he was saying was correct - in terms of what is "industry standard"

(please don't confuse me anymore and just agree with the article)

Well tshe/he does say that having an external narrator is perfectly legitimate, just hard to do well. But s/he doesn't know that 'third person' isn't a point-of-view, it's a grammatical definition, so I'm not inclined to take much else of the pontificating terribly seriously.

The only industry standard I think is worth worrying about is doing things well. (Plus, perhaps, a broad outline of usual wordcounts.) Everything else is possible, if you do it well. Sorry, I know that's not terribly helpful, but it's true. I can't generalisek, because it's all about particular cases.

Interesting link - thanks. I've commented on it, much along the same lines as I have here, but my last para over there is a new thought:

Either way, an external narrator can be a powerful unifying factor in a novel. It can work far better for the reader to have an overall sense - however non-specific - of someone telling a story, than a badly-done series of single-person PoVs.

EMma

<Added>

Just realised it's a collective blog, offering a door into writing suspense. Interesting how that perhaps changes the complexion of the comments - from everyone's opinion, to asking for help from authority. Given that my comment takes up a fairly opposite opinion to the original piece, I wonder if they'll okay it?

Yes, that's right Emma - he says, stick to third person, until one has a few novels under one's belt. I think perhaps third person POV is more contemporary in that it is a more "realistic" POV than omniscient, as in real life there are certain things we would not know about the other character's thoughts etc. I'm glad that I've started to really think about POV, because I think it's crucial to get it right.

<Added>

I also like the way in his blog, he mentions the "cinematic POV" - I find I slip into this too, and it is obviously the influence of film.

he says, stick to third person, until one has a few novels under one's belt.

Oh dear, oh dear, then TMOL wouldn't qualify...

PoV or as the narratologists call it, focalisation, is absolutely crucial (single or moving) so is which grammatical person you write in (first or third) and so is the question of where the narrator/s stands in relation to the story they're telling (external or character-bound). But these are three different things, which interact in the text.

Emma

<Added>

They still haven't posted my comment. Looks as if they're not up for a proper discussion, only interested in propagating their own views. Not impressed.