Know-It-Alls Telling Stories: Writers on Omniscient Narrators

For this week's writers roundtable, let's look at the Omniscient Narrator. For years, it was the standard, but now it's fallen out of vogue for Third Person Limited. But why? And should we writerly types be ready to re-embrace this ol' standard?

Do you still write in omniscient POV? If not, when was the last time you did? Why do you keep using it or why did you stop?

Rebekah McAuliffe: While with omniscent POV you can get inside the minds of all of your characters, it can be difficult to keep up with because, again, there are so many characters. At least for me, I feel like first person is where it is much easier to "show, don't tell."

Robert Kennedy: I can't think of an instance where I've used omniscient narration. In my own writing I tend to tell the story in the First Person. I generally do the Voice that way. That often leads to "I didn't know that this was happening until later…" interjections to the readers. (The only time the Voice has appeared in the third person is in "Voice to a New Generation" that appeared in the first anthology of The Pulptress.)

Jeff Deischer: I always use omniscient. I want to jump around and make each character personal for the reader.

Ron Fortier: Never used it. Always preferred 3rd person…even the few times I wrote 1st person, I purposely avoided the omniscient factor.

Lance Stahlberg: I'm not sure if I've ever written in true third person omniscient. At least, in my mind, I'm always seeing the story through a particular set of eyes, even if that set of eyes changes.

When a friend read my GI JOE Kindle Worlds story, they commented that they normally hated third person omniscient, but I made it work. I think it's because it was actually third person limited, just with multiple third persons.

When you have an ensemble cast, it's hard to stay focused entirely on one character. Most of the breaks would be obvious (separated by ***) but in some scenes, I might have to shift from one set of paragraphs to the next because a hard break would be too jarring to the flow of the action. I'd never bounce back and forth too much, though. If I was focused on a particular character, and wanted to get the thoughts of another, I'd go with visual cues and expressions, not their actual internal dialogue.

Break Mwango: I write in whatever POV I feel suits the style of the story I'm writing, and which suits the characters too. Like, do I want to be able to expose ALL the characters' thoughts and emotions? Or do I want to limit it to just one character in order to possibly deceive the reader into thinking one thing when it's the other thing?

C.E. Martin: For me, I like to tell the story the same as if I'm doing a screenplay. I follow one person around, but don't limit the description for the reader to just what the character I'm following is aware of. Then, at a chapter break or a time break, I like to switch to another perspective, creating a mini cliffhanger with the first part. I think it works well for building suspense and mystery--just like it did in the film Pulp Fiction.

Robert Krog: This is, again, one of those questions I rarely ponder but intuitively answer regularly.  When I first read it, I had to stop and ask myself what point of view I use anyway.  It’s usually third person, sometimes first, and only once second.  I wrote in second, because I was asked to do so.  I normally gravitate to third but occasionally fall into first without really thinking about it.  Which third person do I use though?  It’s a question I don’t usually ask myself.  Looking over my work, it appears that I write in third limited with rare occasions of omniscient.  Most of my work is short fiction from novelette to short story and follow the actions of just one character.  There is sometimes head hopping (a sort of level in between omniscient and limited).  There is often insight into what the characters think and feel on top of what they say and do.  Sometimes, however, there is no precise insight into any one character’s head or heart.  The reader is witness to a scene and the narrator, if he is there, reveals nothing beyond what is witnessed.  The narrator comes across as a very ignorant tour guide, knowing locations, names, and basic relationships.  After that information, the reader and he are in the same boat, witnessing an event as it happens.  

I’m working on a novel that is written in periodic episodes of third omniscient, but in which the all-seeing narrator is primarily interested in relating the story of one, particular character, and the story comes across often as third limited.  The reader, after all, doesn’t have the time and the patience that an omniscient narrator has.  The narrator could go on forever, revealing all, but frankly the reader would never bear it.  The narrator stays chiefly in the head of the main character, but does visit the experiences of others as the story demands.  Who could read a book that delivered all the available information in a story at once?  Who could read a book that revealed every character’s, individual experience separately?

I keep to a fairly tight and near perspective, the then and there, only straying from that from time to time, leaving foreshadowing out or keeping it very subtle.  The omniscient narrator may know a great deal about the world through which he guides the reader, it’s history and geography, but he does not know its future. The ending seems to be mystery to him as well as to the reader.  He can’t give it away.  Anyway, he isn’t telling his story, but someone else’s.  He stays as true as he is able to the story he has taken upon himself to tell.

I think I write this way in order to keep the suspense in the story and to enable to the reader to identify with the characters as much as possible to walk in their shoes.  At times, when I think the story on which I’m working requires greater objectivity, I pull back and write from higher up, so that the reader will be able to witness the events from outside rather than as one inside, holding the main character’s hand or riding around in his head.  I use the methods that seem appropriate to the story.  I don’t consider either one more modern or more old-fashioned or outmoded.

Ellie Raine: I’ve tried writing in omniscient, but every time, I unintentionally slipped into 3rd limited. What can I say? I like not knowing anything outside of what the character sees.

Bev Allen: Interesting and I imagine extraordinarily hard to write if you are going to maintain the reader's interest and not burden them with detail.

Lee Houston Jr.: I'm not sure I have ever intentionally written in the omniscient pov. There have been times proofreading when I've discovered that I either foreshadowed too much or revealed too much too soon in the narrative, but those instances were quickly rewritten long before the final manuscript was submitted for publication.

Bobby Nash: Sure. I guess. Is it sad that I don't really think about it before I start writing? I use the narration to set the scene, tell us what is going on, what people look like, how they are dressed. I do try to stick to the POV of one character at a time per chapter or per section of the chapter. I have been known to head hop a few times here and there though. Whatever works best to tell the story or whatever the publisher/editor will allow.

What do you feel are the strengths of the omniscient POV? What are it's weaknesses?


Ron Fortier: It has no strengths. It’s weakness is the temptation to foreshadow an event, which is a cheap trick to play on the writer. Example: "Sam left Irene’s little realizing he would never see her again." Stephen King is notorious for this playing God. I hate it.

Bobby Nash: Strengths -- you can get into the heads of multiple characters and see everything from a big picture standpoint.

Weaknesses -- sometimes I have to rephrase things a certain way that would work better if one of the characters was the narrator.

Lee Houston Jr.: If done right, the Omniscient Narrator can serve as an extra character, so to speak, to tell the story from a viewpoint that none of the other characters in your tale/novel have. Done incorrectly, this "extra character" overshadows the main cast so the reader wonders who the book is actually about.

Bev Allen: I see the possibility of creating a rich texture to the descriptive narrative, and the possibility of including subtle layers of visual experience, but do I, as a reader, really need or want that?

Robert Krog: I suppose the strengths and weaknesses of the differing third person points of view depend on the way in which they are implemented and on other factors as well.  One doesn’t want to reveal the end of a mystery at the beginning, generally, and one doesn’t want the reader to think that the narrator knows but isn’t telling, just because he likes to keep the reader in suspense.  Mind you, many readers do like to be kept in suspense, so there is that to consider.  In fact, the main problems with omniscient may be nothing more than reader expectation and writer execution.  Terry Pratchett wrote primarily in omniscient and is a beloved author still read by many, so I’m not ever sure why some today suggest that the omniscient point of view is out of date.  Readers loved the voice of the narrator and didn’t mind that he knew everything and only revealed what he wanted to in the order that he liked.  They liked the manner and order of his revelations and delighted in them.  Is Pratchett’s work already that out of date?  Perhaps what is passing for conventional wisdom on the subject is what is sadly out of touch.

Another more recent best seller using omniscient is the novel Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell by Susanna Clarke.  Again, I suggest that omniscient not really all that out of vogue anyway.  I think the question with the strength and weaknesses of the omniscient point of view is whether or not the narrator of the story is in and of herself an engaging storyteller telling an engaging story.  This is the question with every other point of view as well.  Are the characters and the story ones that the readers will find engaging?  If the narrator is dull, the story however exciting it should be, will come across as dull as well.  This is why so many people do not read History.  It is not that History is boring, it is that it is told by Historians, and they are, as a lot, not very good storytellers.  Individual Historians do shine through, from time to time.  Thomas Costain comes to mind.  On the other hand, a really good story teller may get away for some time by finding some amusing way of presenting what is essentially a dull event.

Given all that, readers who enjoy the plot most will probably like omniscient better than limited, but no always, whereas readers who enjoy characters more than plot will generally like limited better, since it usually is a more intimate way of telling a story.  These are only strengths and weaknesses depending on reader expectations, and they are not hard and fast rules.  A good, omniscient narrator, who feels for the character whose story is being told will supply the necessary intimacy, I think.  The reader will sympathize with the narrator and therefore with the character in question.

Lance Stahlberg: I am sure there are times when you would want to get in everyone's head at once. This makes me think about a common trope in older comics when you have two characters in the same panel looking at the same thing with opposing thought bubbles over their heads. But this isn't done so much anymore for a reason. It breaks the cardinal rule "show, don't tell".

In the story I'm working on now, I get to cheat because the main character is a telepath. Though not knowing exactly what everyone in a scene is thinking is more interesting to read and a fun challenge to write.

Ellie Raine: The strengths are definitely knowing what everyone and everything is doing/seeing/thinking/feeling. But that in itself feels like a weakness to me; there’s no focus.

Jeff Deischer: I don't think it has a weakness, per se. It's a matter of taste. Some stories -- mysteries particularly -- work very well told first person.

Rebekah McAuliffe: I don't think I've ever written in omniscent POV. First person is just easier for me.

Robert Kennedy: Often the viewpoint is generated by the publisher/producer of the end product. Take the TV show Adam-12, for instance. A number of writers, who have more recently been TV producers, apparently did not like Jack Webb's command that they could show "Only What the Cops See!"

When writing in the third person I tend to mostly stick to the protagonist's POV. Or, to the hero and his team's viewpoint. Sometimes, usually near the end of a story, I jump around like crazy when the "Plan is Coming Together."

As a reader (not as a writer this time) do you enjoy reading the omniscient POV? Why or why not?

Rebekah McAuliffe: As long as it is a good story, and is written well, I don't really care whether it is in omniscent or first person or whatever.

Lee Houston Jr.: No. While you need set ups, introductions, etc. that require a narrator; I want to read what happens next, not be told by "someone" not even involved in the tale what happens.

Bobby Nash: I don't mind as long as I'm enjoying the story

Jeff Deischer: I still like reading it, yeah. That was about all there was when I was growing up (I mean readily given to teens). I don't know when I read my first first-person story but it was probably in my twenties. First person is hard to write well for most people.

Ellie Raine: When I read, I like to feel like I’m experiencing the story, not hearing about it. I feel like omniscient POV (at least for me) solidifies that line between fiction and reality to the point where I don’t believe anything that’s happening in omniscient. But that’s me.

Robert Krog: I enjoy a story that is well told, whatever the point of view.  That inevitably includes the omniscient one.  Having read the works of Terry Pratchett and Susanna Clarke, I can point you to current examples I enjoyed.  I suggest you give them a read and see what you think.

Lance Stahlberg: The reader wants someone or something to follow. If the perspective bounced around too much, it could get confusing quickly. A big part of this could be thanks to movies and TV. People are more visual than ever. We've become conditioned to "see" a story play out from a certain perspective.

Robert Kennedy: If somebody writes well in the Omniscient Narrator style, I have no problem with that.

(For publishers only) Does your company solicit or seek stories in the omniscient pov? Why or why not?

Ron Fortier: Nope, save for rare occasions that demand first person such as our Sherlock Holmes or Quatermain tales, we only want third person. A writer should bring his readers along with him or her in the story’s journey and allow for genuine, organic surprises to them both.

Debra Dixon: I don't actively solicit any particular POV. However, deep limited third (multiple deep limited, too) or first person generally deliver the most immediate, emotional reads. Including the feel of the action in a plot dependent upon battles, fights and fisticuffs.

Tommy Hancock: I don't discriminate.

Joe Gentile: We do not ask for specific POVs, however, that being said, sometimes when working with licenses, they will prefer a POV type.

Trends in Writing: To Chase or Not To Chase

There are entire writer's guides based around helping authors chase and predict trends. But how useful are trends in publishing? To find out, we went to the writers themselves.

How much time to you invest as a writer to understand publishing trends and topics that are hot for fiction?

Perry Constantine: It depends on what you mean by trends. Are you talking only hot trends in genres? In that case, I follow them a little bit just to stay current with what's happening. But if you're talking trends in the publishing world as a whole, then I absolutely pay attention to those. The publishing industry is always changing these days and it's important for writers to understand what's going on.

Rebekah McAuliffe: Personally I don't try to write to trends. I write whatever I want however I want. And I believe that being true to yourself is always the best option.

Jesse Baruffi: Not a ton more than simply reading a lot. I suppose it's possible that someone could devise a popular book from marketing research and trend data, but it doesn't sound like the kind of story I would like to tell. Still, I pay at least some attention to what is generally popular.

How can writing to the trends help a writer become more successful?

Jesse Baruffi: I would say that if anything, it can help with timing. If a writer has several irons in the fire, and one of them happens to hit a particular trend, it can make sense to work that in one's favor by bringing it to publishers with those trends in mind. It may also be enjoyable for the reader or their audience to see a trend be acknowledged but subverted in some way.

Perry Constantine: If you're fast enough, you can make a lot of money by writing to trends. Writing something more commercial can also teach you a lot about what works and what doesn't, and those are lessons that could be applied to other areas of your work.


How can writing to the trends hurt a writer trying to sell stories consistently?

Rebekah McAuliffe: While writing to trends can help a writer make more money, it can also make a writer feel like they're not telling the stories they want, or they won't be sincere in their writing. Trust me, readers can pick up on that. Readers can spot a faker a mile away. 

Perry Constantine: If you're not fast enough, then you can easily miss a trend that blows right by. Some trends last longer than others, but some only appear in a quick burst and are gone almost as soon as they appeared.

Jesse Baruffi: Trends are by their nature fleeting and transitory. People grow tired of them quickly and move on. If one jumps aboard a trend too late, it can appear to be pandering and be even more harmful.

What are better options than trying to chase or predict trends?

Jesse Baruffi: It's probably cliche to say that an author should just write what they like, although ideally that is true. It can be useful to find a way to write what one likes within a broad, general framework that is popular among readers. This builds their trust for you as an author and will hopefully make them likely to follow you wherever you decide to go later.

Perry Constantine: Instead of following trends, write to market. Meaning find an under-served genre you'd enjoy writing in, study the books that are successful in that genre, and write something you enjoy that also gives that audience what they want.

Online Writing Resources

What are your favorite online resources for writers, and why do you find them effective, inspiring, etc.?

Frank Edler: I always like to run my work through Hemingwayapp.com very helpful at picking out complicated sentences, over use of adverbs and extra wording in general.

James Bojaciuk: The two resources I use the most are on the extreme opposite ends of the sliding scale between "professionally austere" and "likely designed by a teenage girl."

For the professional in all of us, you owe it to yourself to check out Celtx. It's not the most useful thing for the novelist, but if you find yourself hard at work on anything from a script to a comic book to a audio drama, Celtx is invaluable. Thankfully, it's also free.

For the corner of your soul that's in love with Disney sitcoms, there's Written? Kitten! It's like Write or Die, except rewarding you with fluffy balls of purrs instead of deleting your work. The keen thing about this site, though, is that you can immediately edit it to reward you with whatever you'd like. Dinosaurs, explosions, Arnold Schwarzenegger, you name it.

Gordon Dymowski: For writing drafts, I use LibreOffice Writer. (LibreOffice is a free, open source alternative to Word). I like the fact that Writer is a little old-school, no frills, and allows me to concentrate on drafts before performing a final polish. (I do have Microsoft Office, but I tend to use that for freelance work documents, and LibreOffice helps liberate me creatively.

For motivational reading, the blog Write to Done. It's a little bit more professionally-oriented (meaning that it can sound a bit spammy), but contains some great pieces of advice on moving through difficult pieces, focusing on efforts, etc.

Great podcasts on writing include both Perry Constantine's EXPLODING TYPEWRITER and WRITING EXCUSES. The latter can be a bit too dry, and feels much more lecture-oriented, but it's short enough (20 minutes) that it's more of a diversion. Exploding Typewriter' goes into greater depth and contains more "practical" advice on writing.

Rebekah McAuliffe: It really it depends on what kind of writing you're doing. For nonfiction, I definitely recommend Purdue OWL -- Online Writing Lab. It has everything you need from structure to citation. But for fiction, personally I just go with the flow. The resources I use are mainly research based. For example, when researching ALPHA, I used everything from my university's library to YouTube.

Listen to Your Characters... But How?

We hear it all the time. Listen to you characters. Let them tell your story for you. But what does that really mean?

Nancy Hansen: When I get deep enough into a writing project that I can hear the character voices, feel what that individual's reactions would be, and my mind can walk around in their world, that's when the character is telling at least part of the story. I'm still in the driver's seat, because I'm making the decisions, but I'm not afraid to take directions from that unconscious part of my mind that knows better where this thing has to go. I think the idea of letting the character tell her/his own story is just kind of an awkward way of saying, let yourself dig deep and pretend to be someone else for a while. Writers are about the only people in this world who can follow the promptings of the voices in their heads without getting locked up.

Mike Schneider: Avoid excessive narration and exposition. If a piece of information isn't introduced by the characters, then it probably isn't that relevant or necessary to following the story.

Paul Bishop: Saying the characters tell the story is simply a writer's creative flare in expressing the more mundane statement that your subconscious wanting to take the story in another direction...When I'm struggling with a story, it's usually my subconscious (labeled 'my characteristics') letting me know I'm not being true to the characters I've created and I need to back up and find the right direction for the story...

Rebekah McAuliffe: You may feel like the story is heading in one direction, but suddenly, the "wild girls will take you," as my high school English teacher once put it. It's just this feeling in your gut that leads you to where the story is supposed to go.

Bill Craig: I put my characters into a situation, and then they kind of take over, reacting and acting on the situation. I have a rough idea of where I want to go, but the journey to get there is largely through the characters and how they deal with not only the initial situation but with the ripples that their actions create and then they have to deal with those and whatever other rocks I drop into the creative pond. I do my best to make my characters as real as possible and have them react in a real and human fashion. Sometimes they stumble and fall, other times they rise and overcome. Not all my endings are happy ones, just like real life. A good example is in Marlow: Mango Run, sure Marlow solves the case, but another character that he is emotionally attached too takes her own life, leaving him devastated when he learns of it. When I had started that particular book, I had no idea that event was going to happen, but her mental and emotional decline began about the middle of the book and just picked up momentum and it turned into a major event that had repercussions not only for Marlow but for several other characters as well. It was totally a character driven moment, but it became a crucial event in that book and for the next two that followed it.

Charles Hearn: I always felt that it means you need to get into each character's head and try to see how they would perceive and handle the situations you've presented them with.
However, if your characters are actually talking to you, then you need to up your meds.

Aaron Smith: A writer's mind never stops working. I write all the time even if my fingers aren't tapping on the keyboard at that moment. We're considering our ideas 24/7, often when we're not even consciously thinking about it. Of course our characters don't write themselves. We, as writers, do all the work, but we're not always intentionally producing the details of a story. Important plot points or bits of dialogue come to us in dreams or seemingly out of nowhere, not just when we're intentionally considering what's going to happen next. They don't write themselves, but it sometimes seems they do.

Rose Streif: I look at it like this: even though my characters are created by me, filtered through me, and on a level even *are* me, I think of them as actual separate people living in a world, persons who are completely different. And so they become their own people, and behave less like toys that are being knocked together, or puppets mouthing my personal beliefs. They take on a life of their own, even though it's illusory. And I let that illusion carry me forward to the end of the tale.

Robert Krog: Because I'm not crazy, like some fiction writers I know, I don't believe that my characters take over and write the book, or have conversations with me, argue with me, or what have you. That being said, I do write them as consistent individuals basing their actions upon their characteristics. I don't find any conflict between a story being plot driven or character driven. If I start out with a specific plot in mind, I write characters who make that plot come true. If I should come to a point at which I find that I have made a character inconsistent, it is no problem to rework the character or throw him out and replace him with one better suited to make the plot work. There have been occasions in which I have found that I liked what the character did to the plot more than I liked the original plot, and that is fine too. I don't marry plots, either. If I start out with a specific character in mind for whom I have to find a story, I throw that character into an interesting situation and extrapolate. Listening to a character, I think, is writing the character with a consistent personality and not having that character, for the sake of the plot, perform actions inconsistent with that personality. Of course, sometimes, the character has to listen to the author and get rewritten to stay consistent. None of these options is a biggie. I write to tell a good story, sometimes one option is better than the other(s). That is all. It is very important to note that one is unlikely to find a story to be good unless it contains good characters, people we might like to meet in real life, or admire, fear, love, love to hate, what have you. Good characters are true to life, exhibiting consistent and believable personalities, making decisions that people we know of the same types might make, growing in ways that are believable as well. They don't suddenly, for the sake of filling a plot hole, develop powers, personality traits, knowledge, that the reader would find improbable. In that regard, I "listen to my characters" and write them in such a way that they stay as real as possible, sometimes that involves writing them out, sometimes it involves changing the plot, and sometimes it involves finding a plot in which to place them.

Grinding the Gears with Rebekah McAuliffe

I met Rebekah McAuliffe at Imaginarium last year. She had perhaps more enthusiasm and energy for writing than any of the rest of us ol' has beens in the room. And that is why you need to meet her.

Tell us a bit about your latest work.

My latest work is Gears of Golgotha, a steampunk/dystopian novel.  In the far future, Earth is united under a one world government, New Pangaea, and society is divided into two strict class systems: Chemists (scientists) and Mages (those who practice magic).  The work of New Pangaea revolves around the Gears, which are large machines that orbit the Earth, powering and protecting the planet.  However, when Erin meets Dr. Makswell Sharpe, the lead Chemist in charge of the Gears (or its government codename: the Golgotha Project), her entire world changes forever. There's romance, intrigue, action, and mystery.

What are the themes and subjects you tend to revisit in your work?

I discussed this during the Writer's Roundtable on theme, so I'll be brief.  I tend to write a lot about those who are oppressed, and sticking up for them, no matter the cost.  As someone who has had first-hand experience (and second-hand, as well) with this topic, it is an issue that is very close to my heart.

What would be your dream project? 

Honestly?

I'd love to one day write a screenplay for my upcoming novel, ALPHA, and see it turned into a movie starring Chris Hemsworth as the protagonist, Howard Turner.

If you have any former project to do over to make it better, which one would it be, and what would you do?

When I was younger, I had written a young adult novella called Runaway Fate, about two warrior princesses who must overthrow an evil prince.  The story was very dark, as I wrote the novel back in sixth or seventh grade, to the point where it almost frightened me how dark it was.  To kind of, shall we say, tone down the darkness, I gave Runaway Fate a cop-out ending, in which a warlock grants their wish that none of the events of the story had ever happened.  I'd love to give it a new ending, one that isn't afraid of the darkness of the story.  Alas, I had written the novella on an old Windows 95 desktop which has since broken, so if I ever wanted to work on it again, I would have to start from the beginning.  Luckily, I have a vague outline of how the story goes still in my head, so it shouldn't be as hard.

What inspires you to write?

I write about what I see around me.  I live in the heart of the Bible Belt, but having opposite views as my neighbors can be tough at times.  I want my stories to be a voice for those who don't have one.  Whenever I write, whether it be poetry or novels, it almost always ends up being a statement about what happens around me, whether it be the poverty of the more rural areas of Kentucky, or the oppression of minority groups.

What writers have influenced your style and technique?

Most of the books I have read throughout my lifetime were classics.  The darkness of my stories was heavily influenced by the Bronte sisters, but the style and technique of the writing itself is much more modern, mostly inspired by authors such as J.K. Rowling, John LeCarre (especially in ALPHA) and George Orwell.  To be quite honest, I've never really thought about this question before; I just mostly write whatever comes to mind.  It's like my fingers do the writing, and my brain just kind of follows behind, reading along as the words come up.  For example, whenever I wrote my first death scene ever, I was thinking, "Okay, okay, this is good... wait, wait, what are you doing?... NO, NO STOP THIS IS NOT OKAY..."

Where would you rank writing on the "Is it an art or it is a science continuum?" Why?

I believe that writing as a whole is an art, but the individual parts of the story, such as sentence structure, grammar, spelling, etc., is part of a science.  In a way, the science comes together to create art.  Think about celestial bodies.  The individual parts are all part of science: the formation and life cycles of stars, the collision of galaxies... but when you look at them through a telescope, all of those parts come together to create a beautiful work of art.

Any other upcoming projects you would like to plug?

Well, obviously I want to "plug" Gears of Golgotha. You can find it here.

I also want to bring up ALPHA, which is my newest novel coming soon from Hydra Publications.  Think the Bourne saga meets Manchurian Candidate.  A soldier named Howard Turner comes home from Afghanistan, and is recruited into the notorious MK ULTRA.  Fans of conspiracy theories and spy and political thrillers will thoroughly enjoy it.

Something to Say -- Writers on Theme

You can't tell any kind of a story without having some kind of a theme, something to say between the lines. -- Robert Wise

Obviously we're talking about theme this week. So let's get to it.

Looking over your body of work, does a cohesive theme seem to be present in it? If so what is it?

Stephanie Osborn: I don't know that there is a cohesive theme in my work. I don't set out to put a message in, but to write a good story. There are some books/series that do have loose overarching themes, but in general I guess my thought is that "There is always more going on than meets the eye," or, said a different way, "Things always work out the way they're supposed to."

Rebekah McAuliffe: As I've been looking back at Gears, and even now while I'm writing ALPHA, there's always been this theme of acceptance and sticking up for "the least of these," no matter the cost. This issue is very close to my heart, not only as a woman of faith ("Whatsoever you do for the least of these, you do for me"), but as someone who has witnessed poverty, and the hardships that many people go through, and the crap that they get from other groups of people.

Logan Masterson: I consider theme to be pretty damned important, and I pay it a lot of mind. Sometimes, when I begin a new story, I'm not sure quite what the theme will be. More often, it makes itself known early on in the process. My favorite themes are all very human. Justice, freedom, love, despair. And I do tend toward the darker side of things.

Percival Constantine: I don't think there's really a cohesive theme in my entire body of work. Redemption seems to occur a bit, though. So does escaping the past.

Bill Craig: Sometimes the stories determine the theme, sometimes the theme emerges with the writing of the story.

H. David Blalock: My last series (The Angelkiller Triad) appears to have been the most blatant example, although I can now see it through much of my past work as well. I have to admit, then, there is a great deal of truth in the adage that a writer puts him or herself in their work, whether by attitude or inference. I would like to think that stubbornness and courage my characters show in the face of adversity is a reflection of my own worldview even if I would doubt my own courage in their circumstances.

Rose Streif: The most obvious theme is that of being an outsider, often in a hostile world.  The outsider status is often bestowed by birth or by fate, and it is up to that character (or those characters) to survive when their very existence unnerves or even causes a violent reaction in those around them. It is also up to them to (somewhat paraphrasing Nietzsche) not become monsters themselves, however monstrous they may feel, or however monstrous the world perceives them to be.

Desmond Reddick: There are a few that crop up. Coping with legacy is a big one, and so is kicking against the pricks, usually apocalyptic circumstances in that aspect. 

Do you write with a theme in mind, or do you just have a worldview that writes itself into your work through you? Or do work hard to keep anything that "meta" out of your work? How so?

Stephanie Osborn: I'm a licensed Christian minister, so I do have a worldview that I try to ensure that the good guys don't violate, or at least realize as a mistake when they do. Bad guys by definition are gonna violate that, and I'm not going to pull punches in my writing to soft-pedal that. Drama is all about conflict, and the conflict between good and evil is about is dramatic as it gets. But the story always comes first.

Of all the books, I think my Displaced Detective series comes closest to "writing with a theme in mind," but that theme is one of parallelism. The books come from the concept of multiple universes, and if I am actively writing about these alternate realities, as I did in the first 4 books in the series, I keep in mind that concept of parallelism -- as for instance Skye Chadwick is her universe's Sherlock Holmes, etc.

Rebekah McAuliffe: Sometimes I may start with a theme, but then as I write the story, the theme will shift on its own. For instance, Gears of Golgotha was originally meant to be a commentary on the science vs. religion debate (get it? science (Chemists) and religion (Mages?)). That was even where the name came from: Gears for science, Golgotha for religion. But then as I kept writing, it evolved into something greater.

Logan Masterson: Themes can become too heavy, but I find that focusing on the characters and plot when actually laying down the words keeps me from getting preachy. I hope that's true, anyway.

Percival Constantine: I don't write with a theme in mind. I focus on the characters and the story and through that, a theme will kind of develop by the time I'm done with the first draft.

Bill Craig: I deal with certain themes in different series because I seem them as real world problems that need to be kept in front of the public eye, human trafficking being one. I dealt with it in the Jack Riley title the Child Stealers, dealt with it again in Decker P.I. A cold and Lonely Death, And in Marlow: Mango Run, and touched on it slightly in Chandler: Circle City Shakedown.
     
H. David Blalock: Looking back at my work over the years, there does seem to be something of a theme. I would call it "Resist the inevitable". Refuse to give in, no matter the odds. Stand up for yourself and others even when it seems futile. I can't say I've used this theme deliberately. It does seem, however, to be the driving force.

Rose Streif: I do write with themes in the back of my mind, and inevitably my worldview and interests are going to color what I write.  I try to blend them in as seamlessly as possible, and I try to be understanding when people just don't "get it".  Sometimes subtlety works against you, and you always run the risk of running into that person who is so wrapped up in their own worldview that they can't possibly see yours, even when they think they do.

John Morgan Neal: I don't have a conscious theme. Mostly my stuff is born from the stuff 12-year-old John Neal really liked and wanted to see more of. 

Desmond Reddick: No, absolutely not. The themes are common, but they spring up on their own. 

When writing, have you ever had so strong a sense of theme occur in the work that you felt it overpowered the story? How did you remedy that?

Stephanie Osborn: No, never have had that happen. Like I said, the Displaced Detective series has the strongest ongoing theme of any of my books, and I think the parallelism theme only makes the whole thing stronger, personally. I think that you have to be so involved with theme that you become fixated on it, for it to become overpowering of the story. And if that's the case, you need to back off and lay down the theme and gain some fresh perspective before you try to write on it again.

Rebekah McAuliffe: The original ending to Gears. I'll admit, that first ending was complete s**t. I edited it, and the new rereleased version will have the new and improved ending.

Logan L. Masterson: As an author of genre fiction, I never want theme to be the focus of the readers' experience. I want them wrapped up in thrilling events and captivating people. A good theme is like air, ephemeral and ubiquitous.

Percival Constantine: Yeah, but it wasn't when I was writing the story, it was after I had finished it. Years after, in fact, I felt that I was far too heavy-handed with the theme of my first book. After that, I decided I'd focus more on the story and the characters and worry less about the theme in future works.

Rose Streif: I maintain an awareness at all times, and I try not to let the theme take over the story, to preach and pander, because that yanks the reader out of the flow of things and puts them at the mercy of a person on a soapbox.  We get enough of that in real life.  In any case, if you want to get a point across, it's best to put the reader in the shoes of a sympathetic character and show them by example what it is to live that character's life.

Desmond Reddick: That's interesting. No. But I'm not sure how I would resolve that situation. If I felt it was getting "preachy" (ie: a lesson versus a theme) I'd have to change it.

Don't Suck. Okay, Well Can You Be More Specific?

As I mentioned here not so long ago, some awesome advice I got from a friend way back when was this: "Don't suck." That's all well and good, because I knew what Frank was saying to me when he said that.

But what does that advice mean to you? 

If a writing mentor were to tell you "don't suck," what would you understand that to mean?

Ralph L Angelo Jr: I'd have to think that means make sure you write something engaging and interesting. Something that presses all the right buttons with your audience, but also is true to yourself and not just a cookie cutter book or project. In other words, don't just go through the motions, but actually write something you would want to read and of course something you are proud to put your name on at the end.

Mark Koch: While producing something you are proud of, ensure that you consider how it will appear to the reader. Write only for yourself, and you will likely be the only one who appreciates your writing.

Mark Bousquet: To me, this means, "Don't be lazy." We all have those moments in a story when you know you need to do something you don't want to do because it's time consuming - maybe it's trying to find out the right handgun a Norwegian soldier should be using in World War 2, or going back through your story to provide infrastructure for a new subplot you introduced at the end of a draft. If you know something needs to be done, do it. Now or later is fine, but before publication.

Peter Welmerink: I believe if a writing mentor told me to DON'T SUCK, he'd be saying to make sure, when I am all done with letting my writing SUCK on that FIRST DRAFT, by simply writing without abandon or caring about if sentence structure, grammar, the rest, was all good and just GETTING THAT FIRST DRAFT DONE, by telling me to DON'T SUCK, he/she would be saying to go through that SECOND DRAFT with care and conscience and polish it to perfection.

Van Allen Plexico: Do your best work. Don't settle for less. Don't put something out for public consumption that reflects badly on you. Drink from the glass or cup; don't use a straw. You're a grown up.

Marian Allen: Be technically competent and respect your readers.

Violet Patterson: Tell an unforgettable story.


Ray Dean: In one of my writing communities a member complained that one of the first reviews she had on a self-published novel stated that she needed some editing for basic grammar and sentence structure. She lamented that she didn't have the money to pay someone to edit. We offered her ideas on how to get some help with editing or resources for her to help and edit her own work. Later that day she replied to the thread saying... "That's okay, I like my novel... my MOM likes my novel... haters gonna hate!" I'm not saying that her mother isn't able to identify good work when she sees it, but discounting that review as merely a hater probably isn't the best thing to do. We can always get better... learn more about plotting, grammar, characterization, etc. We can always improve and we should... to me "Don't Suck" means if you can make something better... do it. Don't get lazy.

Selah Janel: Don't write to a formula or what you think you should be writing about. Do what hasn't been done or try a different take on things. Don't write with the mindset to try to advance plan what the next new thing or big bestselling idea will be. Write what you know and be true to the writer you are. Definitely edit and pay attention to spelling, grammar, and formatting. If you're writing to a specific call or magazine, then write what the guidelines ask for. Stretch your wings and be original, but the editors definitely are asking for certain things for a reason. Keep going, keep reading, keep writing, keep pushing yourself to get better.

Lee Houston Jr.: "Don't Suck" to me means I make sure that everything I submit for publication is the best I can humanly create. The reader deserves no less.

Shelby Vick: It boils down to:  Don't cheat the reader. That applies to Western, SciFi, mysteries, etc.

Rebekah McAuliffe: Don't be afraid to bend the rules. Technique and methods should be important, but don't let them overshadow the actual writing of the story.

Tony Acree: Make sure you run spelling and grammar check at least once. Hmm. Twice. And never, ever, start your story with "It was a dark and stormy night."

Terri Smiles: Work at it, revise, revise revise, until it becomes what I intended. For me it was advice to blow deadlines if I needed to in order to create a product I was proud to have my name on.

H. David Blalock: Know your limitations, then push harder. Get outside your comfort zone and take the reader with you. Readers get bored with the same storyline over and over again. Show them something they, and you, have never seen before. Most importantly, don't leave them hanging.

TammyJo Eckhart: Don't be afraid to push the edges of what a genre should include or should be about. While you'll have a harder time selling your work, you'll be more satisfied with it and those readers and publishers who find you will appreciate that you aren't mundane.