ecneicsinmO

I've been trying not to think too hard about this lately. Omniscient narration and how it's so difficult to write it. A narrator who knows all seems excessive. Too much information is at my disposal.

An omniscient narrator knows not everything; an omniscient narrator knows from the onset what is not necessary to the narrative. That helps no one, I know. But my approach lately has been to abandon things I don't need for a given story. This is old advice: "Any one setting out to dispute anything ought always to begin by saying what he does not dispute. Beyond stating what he proposes to prove he should always state what he does not propose to prove." (G.K. Chesterton)

In a way I'm working backward. I find it helpful to work backward. Narrative in reverse cannot move without going forward at the same time, otherwise it makes no sense. (See Martin Amis's novel Time's Arrow.) So I begin with an idea for a story, a vague idea that I imagine will move forward in X, Y, or Z manner. At the same time I establish what the story does not need, and the story now cannot move forward in Y or Z manner. The omniscient narrator knows now of something that the story does not need. I feel as though I'm running in a circle with this. Goddammit, I'll make it clear one of these days. It's a bit humbling to lay out my thought process for anyone to read. Oh well. I can see every possible beginning from the single end.