Talk:Third-person limited omniscient

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Oxymoron

Isn't "limited omniscience" an oxymoron? I always thought "third person limited" and "third person omniscient" were two distinct kinds of narrative POVs.

I suggest this entry be deleted and replaced by an entry for each of the above.

Bds_yahoo

After one has read enough books & articles on writing and listened to enough people talk about possible viewpoints, one begins to realize that there are many levels, shades, and nuances of viewpoint among which it is really hard to draw dividing lines. There's not only your basic point of view (1st, 2nd, 3rd person) but also the level of penetration into the characters' minds (camera view, limited penetration, deep penetration knowing everything the char is thinking) and also the scope of the viewpoint (can see only one char, can see only 2 main chars no matter where they are , can see all the chars, and so on). And an author can obviously choose any combination that suits the material-- can see 3 characters in a room together but can see only one of the char's emotions, another char's shallow thoughts, and camera-view only of the final person. People try to come up with names for the various combinations.

For example, shallow penetration into thoughts and emotions is often called "limited" (no penetration is also sometimes called camera-eye or cinematic, although that term also usually implies omniscient--can *see* all chars no matter where they are--); ability to see more than one character no matter where they are and what they're doing is often called "omniscient"--or ability to see only *some* of the chars but not all is called "limited"--; choice of words (I, you, he) determines whether it's 1st/2nd/3rd person. So a limited omniscient 3rd person viewpoint isn't an unreasonable label. I pulled some books off my shelves; Josip Novakovich in Fiction Writer's Workshop calls it third-person limited omniscient or third-person flexible. Writer's Digest Handbook of Short Story Writing (Vol. II), ed. Jean M. Fredette, calls it limited omniscient. Writer's Digest Guide to Good Writing (ed: Writer's Digest) refrains the term "omniscient", instead referring to it as third-person shifting viewpoint.

This article's phrasing is one that I'm quite familiar with, so I've encountered it other places over the years. It's going to be hard to choose a single set of viewpoints to write articles about; might be best to have one on viewpoint, discuss the variations there, and have redirects for all the other possible or likely viewpoint phrases. Already looks like there needs to be consolidation, as we have point of view and Narrator and Grammatical person already, and I didn't go looking for other possibilities. Elf | Talk 04:06, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Good post, Elf. By the way, I believe the most common term for camera-eye 3rd person is "third person objective."

But you're right. Looks like these terms are in motion all the time. I definitely chafe at the oxymoronic notion of "limited omniscience" (think "flexible" is better) but since the term is in general circulation it deserves a place here. Bds_yahoo

[edit] From VfD

[edit] Third person limited omniscient

I've checked and double-checked, and there is no such thing. "Limited omniscience" is a contradiction in terms. In my opinion, this page ought to be deleted and replaced by pages for Third person limited and Third person omniscient (they are distinct) or else redirected to Narrator, which is a well-written article on the subject.

If interested, see my comments on the talk page for that article. - Bds_yahoo

Inherent oxymoron. Delete. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:56, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. May be an oxymoron, but they taught it to me in high school anyway! moink 19:44, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to have reasonable currency in academic circles.[1] Niteowlneils 20:43, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. My high school english teacher would scalp me if I voted otherwise. Meelar 00:16, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rubbish article perpetuating rubbish, as Bds_yahoo points out below. 206.222.4.146 14:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, a follow-up. Searching the web, most sites that spoke of a "third-person limited omniscient" were clearly taking their info. from this Wikipedia article. However, I found enough independent "witnesses" to convince me that this is a valid term, after all, though it is in none of the standard glossaries of literary terms I own. Looks like another (possibly better) term for this is "third person flexible," and I think that ought to be stated. But I no longer believe deletion is called for. Bds_yahoo

Phrase has been around for a while; lots of alternative names for it, too. No one of them is going to be solely correct. I'll also go over to the talk page. Elf | Talk 03:41, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Irrelevant reasons for deletion. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 12:49, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keep. The fact that the english language is innacurate is no reason to delete a valid article. Megaduck. 13:31 29 Nov 07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.167.170.14 (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Surprise, surprise!

I was in shock to see this link in blue after previewing the Transformation Stories Archive article I was writing. I used this term verbatim as a placeholder until I found the correct term in an existing article, and I fully expected to replace it. Wikipedia truly is a marvelous place! BlueNight 05:14, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Point of view (literature)

All the various points of view can fit neatly into one article. There's no reason for this one to be separate, especially since it is the ugly duckling. Personally, I see no difference between this and third person, limited. Both have access to the senses and thoughts of one character. The POV may always shift from one character to another; this article seems merely to claim to be strict third person, limited POV. Worse, the name creates confusion: is it an omniscient form of 3P, limited? Or a limited form of 3P omniscient. I suspect the term is used only by those who are themselves confused by the names; and WP ought to be clarifying the issue, not compounding it. --Tysto 19:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)