Hello Big Brother? It's me, God.
Omniscient Point of View in Pachinko
All books are political. Even if they’re not necessarily about a political conflict, books are political. So is reading and writing them. Glad we got that out of the way.
Who has been represented in literature, and how, is also indicative of what values societies hold. Who gets a point of view? Who gets to tell their own story? One of the big literary revolutions of the 20th century was using ‘I’ more frequently in prose. Instead of a distant, God like narrator recounting the days of our lives, individual characters themselves claimed their own narration and guided us through their stories.
Now, before I go any further, I’d like to offer a couple of definitions. We’re talking about point of view - who tells the story - and the following are both considered 3rd person narration:
Omniscient Narration/point of view. The narration is controlled by a God-like figure that can see anything, knowing anything, be in anyone’s minds. This narrator can hop forwards and backwards in time, into different character’s consciousnesses, among other feats. Usually the Omniscient Narrator’s reach is established up front. This is great for knowing everything about what’s going on in the world of a novel. Many of the very famous 18th and 19th century English language literature works (cough cough Dickens etc) were written this way. This specific style of narration isn’t as popular now, though recent examples include:
All the Light We Cannot See, published in 2014 by Anthony Doerr and won the Pulitzer Prize and
Pachinko, published in 2017 by Min Jin Lee, my current read and the subject of today’s newsletter.
Limited Omniscience/point of view. Has some of the above characteristics, but in a limited fashion. For example, the narrator can hop into different characters heads, but it’s limited to say, 3 or 4. The narrator probably can’t go forwards and backwards in time, and dip into the psyches of animals. This is a style I prefer, and it tends to get used a lot in modern science fiction and fantasy. I wrote my whole Master’s Thesis on it, actually. Limited Omniscience helps you to get a wider view of the world you’re in, without being overwhelmed.
Now, obviously exceptions exist throughout the history of literature and I’m not denying that. That’s not my point here. My point is that while reading Pachinko, I noticed how crucial the Omniscient Narrator was to the entire narrative. While we may focus primarily on Sunja, the book relies on us being able to hop into other character’s minds, even if for only a couple of sentences at a time. Otherwise, our understanding of the world of early to mid 19th century Japan - for Korean immigrants, no less - is incomplete.
I don’t think it’s any mistake that both Pachinko and All the Light We Cannot See, the most famous modern novels using Omniscient Point of view, also are about World War II. There was a lot going on at the time, even within localized environments - Pachinko takes place mostly in Japan with earlier chapters in Korea, and All the Light We Cannot See takes place in France and Germany. Both include time jumps, this being more crucial to the plot of Pachinko overall than All the Light We Cannot See. Being stuck in one character’s mind, even as captivating as our main characters are, would not give us the breadth of understanding what’s at stake here. Having a main character to ground us is great, but especially given information deficits during wartime, that leads to a lot of speculation without having answers.
So as a writer, how do you solve for this? One answer is indeed Omniscience. In Pachinko, we get to see inside the heads of Sunja’s children, her husband, brother in law, sister in law, parents and even side characters. All of this gives us the ability to form a greater picture of how the central conflict (being Korean in Japan) plays out. We hear from both Korean and Japanese characters, and most are welcome additions. Except Hansu. He’s still the worst.
For someone who isn’t as familiar with history in this part of the world, I really appreciated that I got a variety of perspectives. I studied French, so I had a pretty clear idea of what was going on historically in All the Light We Cannot See, but I’m not as familiar with Asian history, and especially the Pacific theater of the war.
While mind reading wasn’t one of the X-Men powers I wanted as a kid, I did see its utility. People often act in bizarre and inexplicable manners to us, outsiders, but in their own experiences are perfectly logical. When I was younger, I thought that understanding why people acted they way they did, or why they believed the things they did, would make me less anxious. I have a perennially anxious brain, and constantly wondering if everyone was mad at me was tiresome work. I think it’s part of the reason that makes memoirs so popular: it’s a place for someone to put their story out into the world, a way for them to explain themselves when it’s not always possible in every day life. For Sunja, she is Korean is a native Korean speaker. She does learn to speak Japanese, but cannot read and write it, so for her, the ability to communicate is crucial, and the omniscient narrator is all the better to understanding the distance between what Sunja thinks and how she can verbalize herself in day to day life.
I have a pet theory that the use of omniscient narrators declined as technological advancements increased. After all, our phones are basically Big Brother now. While it was impossible to conceive of someone knowing our innermost thoughts beforehand, that’s a lot of what algorithms and data tracking do now. What goes on between our ears is safe from surveillance, but given how rapidly Big Tech is making inroads into our privacy, does it matter? I don’t say that to be alarmist - it’s the truth about how accurate algorithms can be about our behaviors. Whether you’re thinking of Big Brother or God, the idea of an all powerful being watching over you at all times, aware of what you’re doing, sounds more ominous as a fact of reality than a function of fiction. Whether its intended to be sinister or not, an omniscient narrator does sound a bit more fraught than back in the 18th and 19th centuries. It’ll be interesting to see as technology advances whether or not omniscience is fully abandoned in literature or not. I think it’s a useful tool, but like any form of writing craft - it’s a tool and generally has a specific set of circumstances where it works well. It also requires a lot of work.
I like Limited Omniscience because it gives me some flexibility with boundaries. I can choose a few point of view characters, and hope that the different perspectives they bring will help build a larger world. Because, honestly, it sounds exhausting to have to think up thoughts and interior lives for literally every character in your book. I am imaginative, but not that imaginative. Limited Omniscience still preserves the character’s interiority, too, which is part of the reason books have lasted so long as a form of media. No other art form can quite capture the ability of written stories to explain what’s going on inside someone’s head. We need an actual person to do that.
Omniscience is generally seen as a positive in literature. You get to know more information, therefore deepening your understanding of the characters and their motives, right? In literature, this is helpful. In life, I’m finding it’s not. More and more, I’m finding I don’t want to know everyone’s interior thoughts. With the rise of social media, we now know too much about each other. There’s even a meme about it. Sometimes, this can be helpful. Most of the time, it’s information overload and does nothing but make us depressed. And this, unfortunately, brings me to the election.
Author’s Note: The below was written in the immediate aftermath of the election last week, and while my emotions have calmed and my anger has changed, my opinions have not. I’m keeping this here to be transparent about my own feelings and processing. You’re welcome to disagree with me, but please know you’re not going to change my mind. Thanks.
I don’t want to write about the election, but I guess I’m writing about the election. While I believe in omniscient point of view in literature, I don’t care about it in real life anymore. I was able to grieve quietly on Wednesday, and I will not be reading any think piece about why this happened. I don’t care. I don’t care why it happened because I already know enough: whoever voted for a rapist, a convicted felon and his cabal of cronies wanted this. They. Wanted. This. The lies, the fascism, all of it. They looked at themselves as women, or at the women in the their lives, and the threat to their lives and bodily autonomy, and didn’t care. That’s all I need to know. I don’t need to understand hearts and minds. For half of this country, I’m a second class citizen who doesn’t deserve control over her own body. Fine. Message received, loud and clear. I don’t have to care about their opinions anymore. I know what they are. I can ignore them now.
You don’t have to agree with me and that’s fine. I don’t owe anyone an explanation on why I view the election through this particular lens. The clarity that came from last Tuesday night’s results was startling. I can no longer hope that this country will behave decently or take care of its citizens. What little hope I had is gone. Understanding the psyches of those who created Project 2025 won’t bring that back.
What would that do for me? For any of us? Unlike in literature where understanding a character’s motivations can better expand my worldview of them or society, that won’t help here. There’s nothing else left to understand. I don’t need more evidence of my supposed inferiority or why I should beg for my own subjugation. No think piece will convince me otherwise. The end result is still the same: this country hates women, doesn’t care about their lives and deaths and rights to their own bodies, and I will be no exception. To think otherwise is the actual delusion. That’s to say nothing about LGBTQ+ folks, immigrants, BIPOC people, climate change, and the myriad other groups that will suffer under another Trump administration.
I’m aware that Kamala wasn’t a perfect candidate. I’m aware that other groups will be impacted much more deeply than I, a cis-presenting white woman, will be. It doesn’t negate my feelings, and if I try to grieve for all of the pain that I know will come, I will break. And trust me, it will be bad. That isn’t me being hyperbolic - this is based on the evidence of many, many political scientists.
As Maya Angelou once said, when people show you who they are, believe them.1 So I’m not going to ignore what’s happening. I can’t. But I will be saving myself. I hope you will, too.
No New Books™️ Challenge
I don’t have much snark in me this week, but I didn’t buy any books after hearing about the election. I instead bought a whole bunch of bookish goodies (including mugs) from Owlcrate’s Morally Gray Friday sale, and used a huge store credit to buy some new dresses. Because one has to be ~fashionable~ for the fall of democracy. There, there’s the only joke I can muster.
Streak to Beat: 50 days (January 1st - February 19th)
Last streak: 37 days (September 18th - October 24th)
Current streak: 11 days (November 2nd - Present)
Mug Moment of the Week
Another Starbucks Been There mug for you this week, and a Star Wars themed one to boot, because I’d literally rather be anywhere else than here right now.
This one is from Disney World. If you’re not already aware, there is a Starbucks in both Disney World and Disneyland. The Mouse just won out on marketing/branding, so there’s no big Starbucks sign. But it’s there. There were other Star Wars options, but I liked this one the best. There was something whimsical to me about getting a mug for a place I had never been to, especially given that I only allow myself to buy these Been There mugs unless I’ve spent significant time in a place.
I’m off on my big bookish field trip later this week, so my next few posts will be dedicated to that. In the meantime, take care of yourselves.
I tried real hard guys, but I could not find a convincing citation for this quote. I fully believe she said it, but I’d have liked to actually corroborate that with evidence.
Do you have lots of the Been There mugs? We collect the Yoy are Here range in this house, it started with New York and now we have approaching 90. We can only get one if one of the family had been there!!
Wow, good one. On all. POV has always mystified me. I loved All the Light and until now, didn't consider that it was written w/ Omniscient POV! I'm looking forward to reading Pachinko. Re #1 footnote--it could well be Maya Angelou. And also, re saving yourself. What's that adage, if you can't save yourself, you'll never be able to save anyone else? I'm all in.