This post is part of class requirements for a “Readings in the Genre” (RIG) course I’m taking toward my MFA from Seton Hill University. This RIG is subtitled “The Haunted,” taught by Scott A. Johnson, MFA. This term, I’m expanding my knowledge and practice of POV, especially omniscient. So, as long as my assignments include books written in omniscient, I’ll blog about it here.
Richard Matheson’s 1971 novel, Hell House, is a nasty little haunted house story. It’s a harrowing, action-filled tale stuffed with debauchery and sex about “the Mt. Everest of haunted houses” (Matheson Hell House 17).
Like Shirley Jackson’s The Haunting of Hill House, Hell House is written in third person omniscient. Unlike Jackson’s book, which is limited third omniscient, focusing on protagonist Eleanor Vance, Matheson encompasses all the characters with third person omniscient.
The subjective omniscient narrator
The primary difference between omniscient and other POVs (first or close/intimate third) has to do with the narrator.
Every story has a narrator, but with first and close third, the narrator is one of the characters in the story. With omniscient, the “narrator is not a character within the story but is positioned as an all-knowing… external narrative voice that provides a ‘god-like’ or ‘birds eye view’ perspective of the events within the story” (Cabal How to Write in Third Person Omniscient PoV, emphasis mine).
An objective omniscient narrator reports only what characters do but never what they think or feel. A subjective omniscient narrator can report both what characters think and feel, as well as what they do. Matheson’s omniscient narrator is subjective; we get the thoughts and feelings of all the characters.
Reading to discover POV
How an author handles POV isn’t always readily apparent. Sometimes, you must read a few chapters to fully discover the approach and techniques the author is using.
In the opening scene of Hell House, Matheson’s first line could belong to several POVs: “It had been raining hard since five o’clock that morning” (9). The second sentence provides the first real POV clue: “Brontean weather, Dr. Barrett thought” (9). In omniscient, character thoughts are usually presented indirectly, with a tag. (“Filtering” is acceptable in omniscient and actually necessary from an external viewpoint.) But we can’t be certain of the POV until we read further.
By the end of the first page, Matheson reveals another hint: “[Barrett] was a tall, slightly overweight man in his middle fifties, his thinning blond hair unchanged in color…” (9). We know the author is writing in third person. However, this outsider’s description of the doctor indicates that the narrator is telling the story from an external perspective.
Another clue on page 12 tells us, “Barrett looked appalled.” A close-third character/internal narrator would not describe himself in these ways. After a few scenes, the writing confirms that Barrett’s actions, thoughts, and feelings are reported externally.
As we read through the chapter dated December 20, 1970, we find Florence Tanner introduced in third person (20). Edith Barrett is introduced next with third person that seems closer than the previous two characters’ POVs. Fischer follows with another third person POV (23). By now, we’re able to determine that Matheson’s use of POV is subjective third person omniscient, which he applies to multiple characters.
Techniques belonging to omniscient POV
Omniscient is confirmed on page 27 with a description of multiple character action: “All of them gazed at the hill-ringed valley lying ahead…” (emphasis mine). This is direct reporting from an external narrator. On 29: “The cold was numbing, a clammy chill that seemed to dew itself around their bones (emphasis mine).”
In the December 21 chapter, the scene headed “2:21 p.m.,” the internal thoughts of Fischer (43) and Barrett show up in the same scene (44). At this scene’s end, Edith reads a list of psychic phenomena observed in the house, and the narrator expresses her thoughts (46). Here, we have the POVs of three characters shared in the same scene. This can only be done with subjective omniscient.
“Head-hopping,” as it’s called in literary circles, continues in many scenes (81). (And, contrary to popular belief, there’s nothing wrong with head-hopping—if it’s done right.) Matheson pulls it off skillfully. He even enters three heads in the same short paragraph: “Barrett… had not been aware… Florence sat stricken… Edith felt a rush of pity for her” (228).
Florence tells Fischer “the secret of Hell House”: “Controlled, multiple haunting” (174). Perhaps this is why Matheson used controlled third person omniscient POV to tell this ghostly tale…
I’ll be looking for more contemporary novels to study omniscient POV. I’ve included a short list at the end of this post.
A word on Matheson’s portrayal of Spiritualism
Not many know this, but I studied Spiritualism intensively for five years, achieving the equivalent of a masters-level education through completing a year’s study with the Morris Pratt Institute, the educational branch of the National Spiritualist Association of Churches. I also attended a two-year ministerial program at Fellowships of the Spirit in Lily Dale, New York, what many consider to be the Spiritualist capital of the Western world. I practiced mediumship for several years. (Here’s a video I made about developing clairvoyance.)
As I read Hell House, I was impressed with Matheson’s knowledge of parapsychology and Spiritualism. His mention and portrayal of mental and physical mediumship; the use of a cabinet (an enclosed space to keep light out and energy in); Florence’s devotion, beliefs, and practices; and Fischer’s description of his boyhood abilities all rang true to my studies.
Other practices Matheson accurately mentioned include: psychometry with Daniel Belasco’s ring (130), Florence’s funeral prayer (129), her mention of guides and spirit doctors (131–132), the renowned physical mediums Daniel Dunglas Home and Eusapia Palladino (136), physical phenomena such as ectoplasmic masking (162ff), the difference between mental and physical mediums, and, sadly, Florence’s channeling of Red Cloud (64ff).
Matheson’s research on Spiritualism and the afterlife in Hell House was probably a carryover from his 1978 novel, What Dreams May Come, which I recommend for a Spiritualist portrayal of “life on the other side.”
Cabal, Alex. “How to Write in Third Person Omniscient PoV.” Scribophile, Scribophile, 9 Nov. 2021, https://www.scribophile.com/academy/using-third-person-omniscient-pov.
Matheson, Richard. Hell House. Tor, 1999.
Contemporary books written in omniscient:
Omniscient POV isn’t just for the Victorian age. Here are some recent popular books written in omniscient:
- Good Omens, Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman
- Beartown, Fredrik Backman
- A Game of Thrones, George R.R. Martin
- Station Eleven, Emily St. John Mandel
- Crazy Rich Asians, Kevin Kwan
8 replies on “Third Person Subjective Omniscient POV in Hell House”
Excellent analysis, as always. What I found interesting about this book, and the reason I chose to put it in where I did, was that Matheson actually wrote this as a response to Jackson’s “The Haunting,” as he wanted a “more manly” approach to haunted houses.
Then your prompt in the discussion makes sense. I do agree with the statement. And although I like slow-burns, I really enjoyed this fast-paced, action-oriented story.
You studied in Lily Dale and practiced mediumship. Lee, you have to tell me more about this!
The head-hopping POV in Hell House worked well. It added to the dizzying, confusing chaos of the haunting to move from person to person and out to a wider lens view.
Yes, Katie. I live about 25 minutes from Lily Dale. Any time you’d like to chat or correspond about it, I’m available!
I agree: the narratorial abilities of omniscient lend themselves well to creating a dizzying effect, kind of like a ghost floating around from room to room, character to character.
Fascinating blog post. I learned some finer points about POV that I hadn’t really considered before. I realized that this was an omniscient POV, but didn’t really think about it more deeply than that other than to note that Matheson was extremely skilled at the technique.
I am most fascinated in your analysis of his portrayal of Spiritualism. I’m embarrassed to admit I knew of the practice but thought it had largely disappeared from American culture after the World Wars. Clearly I was wrong and need to do some more research. Thank you!
Hi, Jennifer. Thanks for your comment. I’ve enjoyed stories written in omniscient, too, but never understood it enough to be able to write in omniscient. Now that I’ve been studying it, I love it and am trying to incorporate it in my thesis novel.
Spiritualism was all the rage the last half of the 1800s and had a resurgence after each World War. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle practiced mediumship and wrote several instructive texts. Spiritualism isn’t as popular a religion now, but the practice of mediumship and psychism continues.
You really flushed out another element of Hell House with your expert analysis of spiritualism. It’s good to know that the information in the novel is accurate. I think it’s so important in the enjoyment of a novel especially if you have depth of knowledge in the subject.
I agree, Michelle. Sometimes author research comes off as a caricature of reality. But Matheson did an accurate job or portrayal.