Omniscient versus Limited

Confession: I have to force myself to remember to eat vegetables. I don't dislike them, per se, but I never seek them out.

Reading:

• The Van, by Roddy Doyle

Writing:

• "Ferian Fetlock Cures a Horse"

Revising:

• "Dolly Hobbles"

I have a great dislike for 3rd person omniscient stories. It feels like cheating to me. I have no problem with several different 3rd person limited perspectives, and I actually quite like a good 1st person narrative. But hovering above a story like some kind of ghost, dipping into anyone's head you want... that's just lazy writing, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm sure my non-existent readership could offer dozens of counterexamples in which this technique was done and done well. But fuck them. I don't like it, and it doesn't work for me, and this is my blog. Take your whiny non-existent opinions elsewhere, thank you very much.

It's not the feeling of distance really that gets to me. I have read 3rd person stories in which the narrative wasn't really centered on a given character. In fact, it was centered on none. We were the aloof observer, unable to see the motivations and emotions of the players, but an invisible witness to all.

That shit is cool.

Now, it's the kind of story where we are told every why and wherefore that I hate. I feel like I'm being jerked around in dozens of directions when that happens, and I find myself not relating to anyone in the story at all.

I prefer a restricted approach because that makes it interested. When a composer creates music, he does it within a framework of musical theory. That's not to say that he can't violate the rules at all, but the violations are the exceptions that prove the rule. Creativity forced along unexpected channels can give surprising results.