Question About Narration

i think thats called omniscient narration

Kind of. I always though omniscient was assumed to be in third person, the reader just gets to know what everyone is thinking, but what you're suggesting, if it has a name, is that. I'd say go ahead - I hope you can, because I have a half-formed novel in my head told entirely by a nameless "I", though they'll probably see into only one head. I'm explaining it by saying that the "I" is a close confidante of the main character, but they don't meet until very late in the book, so most of what "I" tells is second-hand, and the rest occurs with "I" in the background, but having no active effect on the plot.

I'm not sure how easy it would be to /never/ explain who your narrator is, though. Could it mention something briefly at the beginning - it can be something serious, like the narrator is God, or the narrator could flippantly claim to be (and evidently not be, but at least then your reader knows that the narrator has thought of this question and refuses to answer it, which to me anyway would be not irritating, whereas if I thought the narrator was dumb or I'd missed it, I would get distracted), or the narrator could say they're someone/something else, whatever makes sense. Just a brief statement that acknowledges the issue, and either fixes or dismisses it, and I'd be willing to go along with the story. If you never say, I think most people will assume it is you, the author, speaking - which might be fine, actually.

Omniscient can be as close (ie inside the head) or as far (observer) as you need it to be. Something to keep in mind is that you can go inside as many heads as you want, but only go inside one person's head per scene-- any more than that and it's called "head hopping" which will cause you to lose readers.

As a reader, what you're planning would drive me batty! It's bad enough when I read stories and never learn the name of the narrator, even one who takes part in the story. Omniscient narrators can have an opinion and hop between minds -- though this distances the reader from the characters. In some stories where an "I" appeared from the storyteller, I assumed the narrator is the actual author, not a character. To learn otherwise near the end would leave me feeling confused.

I wondered about that one once. A first person narrator who's not present in the action. I don't think I've ever seen it done and of course it could fail horribly.

Why not try a couple of short stories as a trial run using this Point of View, to see if you can make it work? Then try them on some test readers, and see if they get it. Of course, one can get away with some experimental things in a short story that at novel length would drive the reader crazy. But it has to be worth a try.

Moving to Writing 101

Interesting question. The big "I" is first-person, but omniscient is inherently third-person.

One solution is to have a first-person narrator who is some sort of god and can see into the other characters. Maybe someone like Hera, queen of the gods, could sit atop Mt. Olympus observing and commenting on your characters--people in whom she has taken special interest. That it is a modern story, or even sci-fi, wouldn't matter. Perhaps the old gods still exist and still watch us. It would explain some of the otherwise inexplicable things that happen.

-
Forgive me if some of this seems a little basic, but I don't know how much of this you know.

First person is normally very tight. One of the characters is is the narrator. And with point-of-view limited to that character, if they cannot see it, smell it, touch it, hear it, or taste it, it cannot exist. Your character does not see the wolf following her through the woods, but she can feel that prickly sensation on the back of her neck when something doesn't seem right, and she can hear the twig snap behind her. And so the reader's experience is the character's experience.

In third-person the narrator is a real person, but as the normal goal of third-person storytelling is to have the narrator vanish from the mind of the reader, this fact is seldom noticed. Usually the reader assumes the narrator is the author. The third-person narrator is almost always omniscient, but how much the narrator chooses to reveal sets the style of third-person storytelling. Objective, limited, and unlimited are the three most common. Besides the narrator there are point-of-view characters--that is characters whose POV we know at that moment, as told to use by the narrator. The omniscience of the narrator allows us to see into the POV character's head.

Common third-person styles:

• Objective: there is no POV character for this scene.
• Limited: there is only one POV character per scene.
• Unlimited: any or all characters in a scene are POV characters.

It's a rare device, but some stories slip between first and third-person where the narrator is the same in both cases. That is you might start in third-person then transition toward the end of the story into first-person and the reader is introduced to your omniscient goddess who has been narrating the tale all along. Obviously, in this case the author is not the narrator.

I have a little 6-page essay I wrote about the basics of point-of-view. I've been whipping my old essays into shape and so I dusted this one off, converted it to PDF format, and uploaded it to a website. See: A Primer on Point of View. The most obvious fault is its tone, it is a little too absolute in stating that "this is right" or "this is wrong", but it's an old essay and I'm too lazy to rewrite it at the moment. I'd be interested feedback so I can improve it.

-
Holly Lisle has a really good essay titled Time and First Person. Well worth reading for the typical first-person narrative.

-
LittleMissZilla, when you say your narrator has insights into the thoughts of every character in the story, do you mean to reveal the thoughts of multiple characters within the same scene? That is, do you feel you want to write in omniscient unlimited?

Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice is an awesome story, but I found reading it to be something of a chore because she wrote it in third-person omniscient unlimited (or if you prefer, third-person unlimited). It was hard to know who to focus on as all characters in each scene seemed to be equally important. That is, she head hopped. But the book was published in 1813 and that was the literary style back then.

Ian McEwan's Atonement, unlike the typical Literary novel, also contains an awesome story, but trying to find the story is like wading through quicksand--slow going. Not only do we live inside the heads of every character at every moment, but we see every scene in minute detail. I vaguely remember the last section of the book being in first-person, at least it was far easier to read. I used to mock the Literary genre, but I've since changed my mind. If the reason readers read is for an emotional experience, and some people get a rush when they read beautiful sentences, then their needs are well served by Literary.

So write omniscient unlimited if you're writing Regency romances, or Literary, and hold your head up. You're in good company.

On the other hand if you're writing in another genre consider that omniscient unlimited bleeds off tension, and it's tension that drives the story forward. I was going to point you to an essay by Peter Gelfan of The Editorial Department, but I couldn't find it on their website (they did a site redesign and I guess they misplaced it). The title of the essay is The Role of Mystery in Fiction. I'll quote the first paragraph:

That said their are times when you need to break the strict third-person omniscient limited rule--or get out of first-person, which is the most limited of all. But when you do, do it because the scene demands it, not because you can.

Good luck with your story.

Scotty

I could swear I read a book where something like that that happened once. I don't recall minding it...

It is possible to have a first person narrator tell a story that includes the thoughts of multiple characters - it is essentially a giant flashback with the narrator making assumptions about the thoughts OR say a grandparent recounting a "cultural myth" *where the general motives and thoughts of the characters are 'known' but each story teller is free to interpret extrapolate as they wish.

Both of these have the "unreliable narrator" as a factor for the author/reader to grapple with - how much does / should the reader trust the interpretations that are being given to them by the narrator.

While that type of POV can be done , in general it is often considered sloppy writing, and yes, readers will often rebel.

*by "cultural myth" I am not just talking about "why the gods did something", it could be "how the famous Hollywood leading man lead a hidden gay life before it was exposed in a media scandal" or "tell me again why mommy is in jail?" any story that is a part of the fabric of some group.

Readers will all respond differently so follow the viewpoint approach that makes sense to you. One of the approaches I'm using now is similar to what you're asking. I have a narrator who is third person but sometimes uses the pronoun "we", not the royal "we" but in a self-reference that includes the reader. It feeds the immediacy by including the reader in the "creation" of the story - what the reader is reading is happening at that moment. In this way the narrator is sometimes allowed to ask questions about the scene or make a comment or two, as long as all the focus is on the character and the scene. It can be overdone, but used like a spice it adds some depth and empathic mystery that wasn't there.

And no, that narrative voice never explains itself, enters the action or takes sides. It is simply the storyteller and the story is happening as it's being told.

I guess it might be a little like a journalist including themselves in the reporting but not making themselves part of the story. Again, some readers will be really annoyed with it and throw it away. Others will stick to it if the characters and the story are interesting enough.

Have at it ...

You could also have a friend or family member in Heaven as the "I" character.

Trollop managed to get away with omniscient and use an occasional I. Just because an idea is new it's not doomed to failure, it's how one uses it. You just need the skill to do it well and know about narration very well.

Anyway, you aren't the first. Trollop's writing isn't that stellar though... Well, to me.