maggie–i’m totally with you on frustration with trying to keep the reader at exactly the right POV distance. i also agree that many young writers who’ve never read omni are militant in criticising anything that’s not limited POV. that to me is like the militant persecution of “to be”–writers who know a few rules are actually more destructive than writers who know zero rules and just write.

My problem with *writing* in close 3rd is that I often don’t know how deep into the character’s thoughts and emotions I need to know (I am often accused of presenting distant characters.) Because I dislike reading internal monologues for the most part, I’m prone to presenting brief thoughts. So while I find the limitedness of tight 3rd to be useful, I find the internal aspect of it to be daunting at times.

I’ve read two books recently that were made into current films: “No Country For Old Men” and “Atonement”. I think they are both excellent examples at how films, even though well made and critically acclaimed, fail to capture what a tight PoV literary work does. And now, I’ll shut up!

I was not really maddened at all by the head hopping in Dune. Maybe I was just too young and malleable to notice it. Nobody had explained the POV thing to me, that’s for sure. But I thought, even when we were going over that passage at Odyssey, that it was being done tolerably well, in a jarring, but not confusing manner. I am somewhat maddened by the way it’s done in Princess of Roumania because in certain rare cases I can’t tell where I am. But the argument I’m trying to make is that overall, in cases where the writer has the ambition and the skills to engage with all his characters in the necessary depth without fuddling up the pacing, I prefer the head-hopping to its lack, because it allows this unique depth.

I often watch films or tv shows that have built-in narrative voice-over and wonder how the writers decide when to keep the narrative out of it. An example, off the top of my head, from My Name is Earl. Earl has decided to stop doing good deeds because karma hasn’t done him any favors lately. He then meets a guy who does evil and benefits by it. And for about fifteen seconds, because the writers choose to provide me no voice over, I don’t know what Earl’s reaction to this is. Since this is a TV sitcom I know this is a fairly recurrent plot point which they may or may not choose to prolong over the course of the 30 minutes. But I don’t get to find out what he’s thinking until I see him stepping in to beat the evildoer at his own game. Now, granted, I am not really watching My Name is Earl, just listening to the dialogue over my shoulder while washing dishes or whatever. I probably could have garnered the necessary internal conflict by looking at the expression on Earl’s face. But then, Earl is not particularly deep, and I know he’ll be back to status quo within 30 minutes.

Another example, and then I’ll shut up: there’s a moment in Crime and Punishment where Raskolnikov the murderer shows up at the police station to talk to the detective. And we’re in his head for a long while, worrying, paranoid, guilt-ridden, abject–then the POV shoots across the desk into the detective’s head and we learn that the detective has his own troubles, a certain amount of respect for Raskolnikov and optimism about human nature in the face of adversity. And then, interview over, Raskolnikov gets up and walks out. Had we been seeing this a la a camera–or even if we were confined just to the main character’s head–the plot wouldn’t have been forwarded at all.

I suspect this is why nobody ever tries to adapt Dostoevsky for the screen.

But even if I accept your reasons, that doesn’t mean I like it. Also, I think omni can and is being combined with limited and shifting close PoV.

Nor do you have to like it! You just often seem to be railing against it because it is preferred rather than because of specific characteristics about it. It is preferred for that one huge reason, which isn’t going to change any time soon.

As for “close omni”….

tv/film is all about VISUAL omni, but it does not get into a character’s head and we never get any character’s thoughts. Omni-third does that. That’s why the head-hopping can be so maddening.

Film and TV do get into characters’ heads through expression and gesture.

But the depth of omni is the inherent paradox–it can’t ever get deep inside the characters or then it becomes head-hopping and thereby maddening. The deeper an omni POV tries to go, the more jarring it is when it switches into another character’s head. There’s no way around that, so “close omni” is inherently impossible as a concept. Not that some genius can’t pull it off, but it’s not a panacea or a revolution or a viable alternative for us non-geniuses.

Omni-third is insanely hard to do, and I think in order to attempt, a writer must know everything about his/her world/characters/story from the inside out so that the omni is as natural as breathing. The point is for the reader to not notice it.

And while I see Scott’s point about tv/film doing omni-third better, I’ll disagree: tv/film is all about VISUAL omni, but it does not get into a character’s head and we never get any character’s thoughts. Omni-third does that. That’s why the head-hopping can be so maddening.

Did you read “Atonement” and/or see the movie? That’s an interesting study in transforming tight PoV to the screen. Although the film seems to have won a lot of approval, I thought it failed to carry across the novel’s themes.

I wonder how either of you would react to the POV in _Princess of Roumania_. Erin, I think, has actually tried reading it and given up. Maybe she’ll chime in here and tell me why…

Maggie, I’ve commented before on your chafing at the dominance of limited 3rd. That dominance came about as a direct reaction to the rise of TV and film, since they can do omniscient better than prose, and limited 3rd is the only POV type they can’t do better. Limited 3rd will always be the preferred POV until or unless TV and film fade from the public consciousness, or at least from the reading public’s consciousness, enough to make other POV types feel unique again.