I don't usually use this POV myself, but I do believe it has its place in the grand scheme of storytelling. I usually write first person for short stories, but use third person limited for longer works. It just seems to flow better, and I like that freedom that comes with that degree of removal from the character. There are two versions of third person POV: third person limited and third person omniscient. Well, actually I think there are more than that, but I'm only going to discuss those two in my posts. So, let's get started with omniscient.
Third Person Omniscient
A lot of "modern" writers decry this POV. They call it head-hopping, lazy, and impossible to follow. But it does have its uses, and many classic authors have used this POV to great effect. Oh, and for all those people who think this POV is no longer relevant to modern storytelling? Every movie you've ever watched is created using third person omniscient---which means the books those screenplays were adapted from had to be converted to third person omniscient before production could begin. Keep that in mind, next time you find yourself haughtily decrying someone else for "head-hopping." Knowing how to do it properly might just help you turn your book into a blockbuster movie.
Third person omniscient works exactly as it sounds - the author, and therefore the reader, know everything that goes on in every character's head, in every instance in the book. Nothing is hidden unless the author wants it to be. Unlike first person, where the POV character must be present to "witness" an event, the author can jump around and tell the reader about events that take place without the main character's knowledge. You can do this with third person limited, too, but it takes a light touch. We'll get into that later. For now, just assume that an author writing in third person omniscient is trying to play god. The reader, by proxy, knows all and sees all. This allows you to set up scenes with zero need for speculation---even if the main characters are unaware of the antagonist's actions or motivations, the reader can be made aware. All of which can lead to some serious tension on the part of the reader, because they will always "know" when the main character is about to make a big mistake.
Example - I'm not good at this type of POV, so I'm not going to provide a personal example. However, you can read one of the Masters of this POV any time you want. Just pick up Raymond E. Feist's Magician series (Riftwar Saga.) Or, if you're looking for a more modern author to emulate, you can pick up Stan Nicholl's Orcs series. Both are written in third person omniscient, and both are spectacular.
The Good - Third person omniscient has fewer "rules" than other POVs. You don't have to restrict your descriptions based on the perception of a single character, which means you can showcase both sides of an argument, including internal motivations, without needing to break up a scene. This helps a lot with epic novel formats, because you can have lots of characters in the same scene and provide in-depth character studies all at the same time. Fight scenes are great in third person omniscient. If you've got a huge army fighting against a terrible foe, you can jump from battle to battle, soldier to soldier, without losing the underlying drama of the overall fight. So, if you're planning a story with a large cast of characters, multiple locations, and sweeping action scenes, third person omniscient might just be the way to go.
The Bad - As mentioned previously, this POV has somewhat gone out of style in recent years. Lots of publishers will refuse any novel that has "head-hopping" in it. It can be seen as too broad for most readers, because it can give away too much information too soon. It can also feel very jerky and forced when scenes jump around between different characters. It's also a lot harder to "surprise" the reader with a third person omniscient story. When the reader knows the emotional state and motivation of every single character in the book, a lot of times so-called plot twists are telegraphed well ahead of the actual event. Which means you end up with a lot of readers saying, "I saw that coming a mile away." So if you're writing a mystery novel, you probably don't want to use third person omniscient. You could give away your bad guy long before the "clues" point him out.
Reasons to Use Third Person Omniscient
This is just my personal opinion, but third person omniscient works great for sci-fi and military novels. With sci-fi, it helps to be able to showcase a lot of information in interesting ways. If you can have more than one character "thinking" at a time, you can go over scientific data and discoveries through multiple perspectives, which can make it feel more realistic. It works for military novels, especially war novels, because you can showcase high-octane battle scenes from a lot of different perspectives without losing the drama. I already said that, but it bears repeating. The worst thing you can do in a huge, multi-level battle scene is to shrink it down to a single perspective. It's much more fun and engaging when you get to see lots of different soldiers and still "feel" what they feel during the fight. It can also work really well for government conspiracy novels, especially if you have a lot of different people involved in the conspiracy. Getting the perspective of several different Senators, Congressmen, White House officials, Army Generals, and reporters can add depth and heft to your story. It can also lead to a lot of yelling on the part of the reader...especially if the reader "knows" the Senator is about to make a huge mistake because the reader already saw the back-room deal that's about to undercut the Senator's plans. Again, all of this can be done with third person limited, too, but for the sake of this argument I'll just say that omniscient allows for a lot more freedom to expand your story's horizons.Reasons NOT to Use Third Person Omniscient
For all the freedom it gives you, this POV can feel pretty restrictive. If you set up a story that requires multitudinous perspectives, you run the risk of "forgetting" to provide a particular angle. For example, if you start out with seven characters and take pains to showcase the "inner workings" of each characters' mind, your reader will expect you to maintain that level of intimacy for all seven characters. So if your story ends up focusing on only three of those characters, the reader can feel overburdened by the extra perspectives. Or, you could suddenly forget to provide the perspective from all seven characters, thereby making the reader feel as if you've "messed up" while telling the story. There's nothing worse than dropping a plot thread, and it's very, very easy to do in third person omniscient. You have to end as you began, which means you better have comprehensive character studies for each and every person in your story. If you forget, or decide to stop showcasing a character in the middle of the story, you run the risk of knocking the reader right out of the book. And, as previously stated, it's a lot harder to surprise your reader when they already know everything there is to know. You better hope your plot twists aren't dependent on naivete or lack of attention, because your reader will be aware of said naivete and lack of attention long before the twist comes to light.Moral of the story: use this POV only if you know you can pull it off. It's not a scapegoat for lazy storytelling. It's supposed to be used for epic, intricate, multi-layered plot purposes. NOT because you just don't feel like restricting your descriptions to the perceptions of a single character at a time.
