>>27166150>>27166546I'm not sure whether there's one that isn't omniscient as far as the story is concerned - but that doesn't preclude the narrator having his own perspective, his own characteristics. As an example for what I was thinking of, The Hobbit has a narrator who is a human living far after the events of the book (likely near our time), and Fourth-Wall-breaking enough to the point where his references to stuff like elephants don't seem out of place. This passage from The Hobbit has a lot of the narrator's presence:
This is a story of how a Baggins had an adventure,
and found himself doing and saying things
altogether unexpected. He may have lost the
neighbours’ respect, but he gained—well, you
will see whether he gained anything in the
end.
The mother of our particular hobbit—what is
a hobbit? I suppose hobbits need some
description nowadays, since they have become
rare and shy of the Big People, as they call us.
They are (or were) a little people, about half our
height, and smaller than the bearded Dwarves.
Hobbits have no beards. There is little or no
magic about them, except the ordinary everyday
sort which helps them to disappear
quietly and quickly when large stupid folk like
you and me come blundering along, making a
noise like elephants which they can hear a mile
off.
They are inclined to be fat in the stomach;
they dress in bright colours (chiefly green and
yellow); wear no shoes, because their feet grow
natural leathery soles and thick warm brown
hair like the stuff on their heads (which is curly);
have long clever brown fingers, good-natured
faces, and laugh deep fruity laughs (especially
after dinner, which they have twice a day when
they can get it). Now you know enough to go on
with.
