Nonsense. There is absolutely nothing preventing 3rd person omniscient from producing writing that is just as emotional and just as lyrical as any other POV. I would argue you can get even better results depending on what you’re doing with it – 3rd person omni allows you to describe sweeping events, move from character to character, pop into a minor one scene character’s head if the spirit moves you (and if it helps the story). 1st person places a screen over the reader where every action, event, and character motivation is filtered through the perception of the narrator.
Oh, that can’t be denied – but sometimes that’s exactly what you need it for. Well, emotional distance between the reader and the protagonist. There are cases where you might want that.
For example, I’m working on a novella with a largely unsympathetic protagonist and some dark stuff. I don’t want the reader to empathise with my protag, or rather, it’d be counterproductive to work towards that at the beginning. Some distance gives the reader permission to look down on the protagonist while still being interested in what they’re trying to do and who they are. Omniscient is also much more malleable than limited when it comes to voice, so I can craft a slightly whimsical one to offset the darker moments and avoid melodrama/mono-emotive scenes.
Besides, omniscient can be pulled in as tightly as third limited when called upon, and there are sweet omniscient-only bonuses like dramatic irony to play around with for an added dimension.
It’s challenging, certainly, especially over long form but it has its uses like any good tool.
actually that’s not 3rd person omni or limited. It has a long convoluted name…
(I had to go get my book to get it straight…)
Third person free indirect discourse.
Why ya gotta put labels on this thing, man.
Yeah but free indirect discourse can be used with either third omniscient or limited. Heck, Tolkien used it in omni… with a POV that was a fox.
Here’s a new question: Which version of English do you write in? The Queen’s English or American?
I used both depending who was speaking.
Reading levels. Most reading for entertainment is provided at Seventh or Eighth grade Kincaid levels, Not because (or solely because) people cant read, but because that level reads effortlessly and smoothly, while still allowing a rich field of detail and shading to be used. Figuring out, by context or look up, what a particular word means isn’t the biggest issue. Its consistent speed of print absorption. My least concern is producing a novel for people who are challenged by literacy issues. Such folk are not lining up to buy novels to begin with. They find reading challenging generally, and seldom therefore read for pleasure or entertainment. Television, radio, and film fill this need for those. I generally write to the recommended levels as a matter of training and adhering to the standards for the novel format. For some, this level may well be the best they can accomplish, but for most others, it is a skill learned.
I write for the English speaking community, using largely American spelling , punctuation, and syntax. Substituting a British spell checker and punctuation guide could easily convert that, but as British, ,Australian, Et Al, flavors are not primary to the audience I address, or native to me, I don"t generally bother. The main important differences are not of grammar anyway. The biggest differences are in the memes and colloquial referents unique to each culture.
Well said and I agree. Compared to my North American influences, the southern planet’s versions are fascinating and probability as humorous to them as ours are to them. Billa Bong - Winnipeg?
While Children’s books are largely provided for reading skill practice and to keep the interest of easily distracted youngsters as long as possible, other sectional divisions, like YA, NA, etc, seem more divided up by presumed audience interest than reading level. It’s assumed the school yard, and teen aged protagonists are needed. Its assumed current colloquial byplay is required (even though this out dates so quickly among the school aged as to often become outdated even in the year of release), so forth. “Normal” novels are writ with less of that, and some eye to writing a work that will be still read 50 years down the road. Many “colloquialisms” in these are created, for the context of the book itself, and don’t depend on soup-of-the-day street patter current when writ. There will always be some of that, of course. English remains a living language with a changing lexicography.
UK English for my own work, US English for my freelance writing since the agency I go through is based in Canada. Do you mean you change even in conversation?
I’m from Canada as well. I was taught the Queen’s English was what we should use. But that was a while ago and the Americanized version of English has taken over North America.
I laughed at a Microsoft Recruiter here in Winnipeg when he told me I had spelling mistakes on my resume. I asked which spellchecker he was using as the Queen’s English is the formal version for Canada.
In my stories yes. I have Americans and various other Nations responding in English. Depending who is speaking I switch versions.
I’m also Canadian, and you say what you like about the presence of 'u’s in words like honour and colour (personally I switch between spellings based on aesthetic), but nevre in the history of evre will the British + co. be right about ‘re’ vs ‘er’.
It’s a center, not a centre.
I’m honoured by your answer.
I hope it hit its mark and coloured your day with a bit of humour.
(Although centre really is a hideous spelling.)
Centres are for closers.
Did you know we switched to metric so we didn’t have use the words ‘Hectare’ and ‘Acre’ any more?
I know that’s a reference, but I don’t know what it’s from