Omniscient Narrator

[SimonDoom]

So here's a thing that's bugging me today:

I have a character who is referred to omnisciently as "Janet."

The character who my third-person narrative follows most often, Lauren, has known her for decades and thinks/speaks of her as "Jan."

This got confusing when the two finally have a scene together in "present time." In the narration setting the scene and describing the two of them interacting from a third-person perspective, it makes sense to continue Janet. But in many paragraphs the narration sticks pretty close to Lauren, such as briefly summarizing her internal reactions, and "Jan" seems right.

It's kind of like (while not at all like) figuring out the segue from past perfect to past tense during a long flashback. Where's the entry/exit?

What do you mean by referring omnisciently to Janet as Janet? Do you delve into her thoughts and feelings?

If so, then refer to her as Janet.

But if the story is told mainly in a third person limited way from Lauren's POV then it might make sense to refer to her as Jan.

 

[TadOverdon]

Up to chapter six her scenes have not been with Lauren, and everyone else calls her Janet including the narrator.

I guess the easy answer would be to tell Lauren to call her Janet as well, damn it. I think "Jan" derives from their closeness.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Up to chapter six her scenes have not been with Lauren, and everyone else calls her Janet including the narrator.

I guess the easy answer would be to tell Lauren to call her Janet as well, damn it. I think "Jan" derives from their closeness.

If your primary pov is Lauren's then Jan makes more sense to me. If your omniscient narrator is getting closer, more intimate, with Lauren and Jan, then Janet would feel like a stranger.

 

[karaline]

I reckon have the narrator call her Janet, and Lauren refer to her as Jan in dialogue.

I have a story where the main character is called Andrea, the love interest calls her Andrea, the narrator calls her Andrea, her mum and all her friends call her Andi.

 

[TadOverdon]

I reckon have the narrator call her Janet, and Lauren refer to her as Jan in dialogue.

I have a story where the main character is called Andrea, the love interest calls her Andrea, the narrator calls her Andrea, her mum and all her friends call her Andi.

Something like that, yeah. Thanks.

It's in Lauren's dialogue and her interior monologue that "Jan" comes up, and the dialogue itself is obviously no problem.

I think I actually get less wrapped up in and in less trouble with backstory than in sorting out various character tics that my people develop.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I think I actually get less wrapped up in and in less trouble with backstory than in sorting out various character tics that my people develop.

Character tics are how you flesh out characters, and names (especially pet names) become important. My male lead is forever using a full name, Amanda, Gabriela, Francesca, Jillian, as part of his old school charm - and I always find a name that has a fluidity off the tongue; and then the girlfriend of the female lead will call her Gabs, Flick, Jills, Jilly, the typical Australian shortening.

Or I go short, Adam, Ruby, Jude, where the name can't be shortened any further.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Up to chapter six her scenes have not been with Lauren, and everyone else calls her Janet including the narrator.

I guess the easy answer would be to tell Lauren to call her Janet as well, damn it. I think "Jan" derives from their closeness.

Leave it in. Trust in your readers to figure out that "Jan" is Lauren's abbreviation for "Janet".

I have a story where the main character is called Andrea, the love interest calls her Andrea, the narrator calls her Andrea, her mum and all her friends call her Andi.

In my latest story the narrator calls her lover "Nadezhda Ilyinichna Kapustina", "Nadja", "Nadka", "Nadjusenka", and "cabbage" at one time and another, because Russian-style names are complicated. Readers seem to have coped.

 

[karaline]

Leave it in. Trust in your readers to figure out that "Jan" is Lauren's abbreviation for "Janet".

I agree!

In my latest story the narrator calls her lover "Nadezhda Ilyinichna Kapustina", "Nadja", "Nadka", "Nadjusenka", and "cabbage" at one time and another, because Russian-style names are complicated. Readers seem to have coped.

I am not even going to attempt to read most of those words!

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Something just struck me.

Would there be any purpose in an 'un-Omniscient Narrator ', one totally clueless? Yes, the characters can be clueless and that indeed can add spice to the story, but the narrator?

"Steve got out of bed and... well, he walked somewhere. When he got back, he had something, not quite sure what, to eat."

 

[Bramblethorn]

Something just struck me.

Would there be any purpose in an 'un-Omniscient Narrator ', one totally clueless? Yes, the characters can be clueless and that indeed can add spice to the story, but the narrator?

"Steve got out of bed and... well, he walked somewhere. When he got back, he had something, not quite sure what, to eat."

Some cultures where storytelling might be considered lying use a kind of non-omniscient narrator device as a legalistic work-around: "Long ago, it is said - but only God knows for sure - ..."

 

[NotWise]

Something just struck me.

Would there be any purpose in an 'un-Omniscient Narrator ', one totally clueless? Yes, the characters can be clueless and that indeed can add spice to the story, but the narrator?

"Steve got out of bed and... well, he walked somewhere. When he got back, he had something, not quite sure what, to eat."

My two "Third Ring" stories have what I think you would call an un-omniscient narrator. They're told by a storyteller who learned them by studying an ancient journal.

 

[SimonDoom]

Something just struck me.

Would there be any purpose in an 'un-Omniscient Narrator ', one totally clueless? Yes, the characters can be clueless and that indeed can add spice to the story, but the narrator?

"Steve got out of bed and... well, he walked somewhere. When he got back, he had something, not quite sure what, to eat."

This has great comedic potential. It would be difficult to do correctly but it could make a very interesting story.

 

[rescatooor]

This has great comedic potential. It would be difficult to do correctly but it could make a very interesting story.

Probably would work for parts of a story, but not for the entire thing. Isn't this more or less exactly how The Name of the Wind begins? Then a more authoritative narrator steps in.

Turn of the Screw would probably be my best guess for a story that has a completely clueless narrator. It's a story he has heard before from someone else, he is clearly biased towards the original narrator. It's assumed that he doesn't tamper with the text, but honestly, no one knows. The Great Gatsby is somewhat similar, but at least Carraway was there to witness the events.

 

[SimonDoom]

Probably would work for parts of a story, but not for the entire thing. Isn't this more or less exactly how The Name of the Wind begins? Then a more authoritative narrator steps in.

Turn of the Screw would probably be my best guess for a story that has a completely clueless narrator. It's a story he has heard before from someone else, he is clearly biased towards the original narrator. It's assumed that he doesn't tamper with the text, but honestly, no one knows. The Great Gatsby is somewhat similar, but at least Carraway was there to witness the events.

The way I could see it working would be to have the narrator/character as an observer of a story, perhaps over the course of a day, and he claims to narrate what people around him are thinking, only he really has no clue, and he's wrong all the time. His presumptuousness about knowing what people are thinking would have a comic effect. Perhaps he witnesses neighbors having an affair, or engaged in bondage or roleplay, and he mistakes what they are doing. I'm not sure it would work for a novel because the style of narrative might wear thin after a while, but it could be an interesting short story.