The third person narrator, instead of being omniscient, is like a constantly running surveillance tape.
But if two's company, three's a crowd - and that demands the omniscient point of view.
The main advantage of the omniscient approach is that it's the easiest to handle. That's the major reason so many writers select it.
Omniscient, omnipotent, omnivorous and omnipresent all begin with Om.
When dealing with a subject who is dead, you have this feeling of being God. You know who they're going to marry, when they're going to die. It's strange to feel so omniscient.
God is absolutely holy and wise. His nature, attributes, and power are all holy. He is omnipresent, incorporeal, unborn, immense, omniscient, omnipotent, merciful and just. He is the maker, protector, and destroyer of worlds.
Google is omniscient of what people search for and do. Facebook has over a billion subscribers, meaning Mark Zuckerberg has personal information about one in every seven people on Earth. U.S.A., Brazil, Mexico, India and Indonesia are at the top of that list.
And you cannot have a socialist revolution commandeered from the top, ordered around by some omniscient leader or group of leaders.
The classical theory of omniscient rationality is strikingly simple and beautiful.
If you read novels of the 19th century, they're pretty experimental. They take lots of chances; they seem to break a lot of rules. You've got omniscient narrators lecturing at times to the reader in first person. If you go back to the earliest novels, this is happening to a wild extent, like 'Tristram Shandy' or 'Don Quixote'.
