This sounds almost entirely like Third Person Limited. It's not bad writing, though. Far from it. For me, 1st Person should be almost completely non-descriptive. And I know a lot of people would disagree with that. But using the thoughts and feelings of a character over the 'visual' observations, makes the storyline seem more authentic. To me, anyway. Otherwise you may as well write in Third Person Limited. As a basic example, I would not go out of my way to describe what a basic object looks like. I would leave that entirely up to the reader. The only thing I would describe, and describe well, are the things important to the 1st Person POV. Everything else is just there, and requires a basic description, or none at all. I leave the rest to the reader, or the Third Person Narrative.
This idea might work if the narrator is in a familiar place where he is not likely to consciously describe his setting. He's in it, so it goes without saying. The description in the example is appropriate if the narrator has never been there before. It is very likely he would describe what seems to be, for him, a strange new world.
I agree, but I still think it works best by not making broad descriptions of the setting/s. Third Person is for that. Indeed, more is needed when in an unfamiliar location, of course, but I would still make sure that I use the thoughts and feelings of that particular character, over describing what something looks like in detail. I always remain in character, and tell the story more like a lengthy dialogue with myself. I am always speaking to myself, even though the words are aimed at the reader. In fact, I very rarely go out of my way to describe what anything looks like. Instead, I state what it is I am looking at, and then use examples or thoughts to get my message across. I do not need to tell myself what a flight of stairs looks like, or a large tree, or even a tall building. I would leave all of that to the reader. (in 1st Person only, of course) That previous example just isn't first person, IMO. The writing has no identity. 1st Person should always stay in-character, and never step out.
It's one thing to make use of thoughts and feelings of the character. And in fact you can do so even in third person, by keeping the POV close enough to report on those senses. You are right, though, that first person feels more natural for introspection. But first person should remain largely descriptive. It's one thing to make use of introspection, and quite another to wallow in it. The inward glances should indeed be glances, not a prolonged immersion. Description of basic objects is no more appropriate in third person than in first.
Ideally, description is influenced by the character whose point of view the story is told. First or Third Limited, doesn't matter. When we are in the head of a pessimistic, bleak character, the world should have a similar feel. As narrative distance increases this becomes less true, of course. But first person is essentially a very limited, biased point of view -- the narrator's eyes are the lenses through which we see the world, and that lens can be cloudy, cracked, or crystal clear. Internal thoughts only get you so far, then it starts to feel like the character is wallowing. Just because we are in the head of the character doesn't mean the description of the world should be nil, but I do think a slightly different approach is necessary. With first person, the descriptions have to be more personal, more rooted in the personality of the character.
Yeah. I agree with pretty much all of that. I think it depends on what you, as a writer, are looking for. I am a firm believer that there are no rules in literature, and as long as the writing is 'good', then that's all that really matters. If the 1st person POV is annoying, tends to wallow, or is actually very exciting, it's still just one character and the world is however he describes it. One a side note, I have found writing in first-person is easier than third. I am better at the dialogue aspect of telling a story, and using thoughts and feelings as to constantly describing what things look like. Some books go too far at describing things. Even brilliant ones like LOTR. It's too much for me, and I don't need to know things in great detail. A sentance here or there is plenty. And I don't need big, long or complicated words to form an image in my head. I'd rather do without.
The example was provided as merely one way to avoid the repeated use of "I" about which the thread-starter requested some suggestions. It was not provided as an inflexible paradigm of how first-person viewpoint should always be written. Obviously first-person POV entails much more than a direct description of what the person saw or sees on any given occasion. Anyone who has read first-person POV short stories and novels should know that it includes introspection, the expression of emotion, flashbacks, internal ruminations involving doubt, schemes, regrets, mirth and the whole gamut of human emotions common to humanity. Of course an example of less than fifty words in order to show one way to avoid the use of "I" focuses on illustrating that point alone. If it did that then it served the purpose for which it was posted. BTW The example was quickly slapped together without any thought as to its excellence or it being scrutinized for excellence. Neither would I write it that way if I were seeking excellence or reader total involvement and interest in a short story or novel. However, the technique used to avoid the constant use of "I" in the first-person POV is legitimate and in no way violates the spirit or requirements of the first-person POV since it's the narrator himself who is describing the events he saw through his own eyes. Anyone who says otherwise is simply not sufficiently knowledgeable about what the first-person viewpoint entails. Should I provide examples of writers who have used the method I described in their first-person POV writings? That would be easy but I thought it unnecessary since I considered the knowledge of that technique as a given on this forum.
Not if the object isn't basic to the protagonist who might have never seen it. In that case he might think or express himself about its common parts in a detailed, awed, and fascinated way. For example, an alien who has never seen a horse might go into great detail about it. Or a person who grew up in the jungles of Brazil might describe an airplane or some other machine that baffles or terrorizes him that way. The late Robert A. Heinlem in his novel "Stranger In a Strange Land" has his protagonist, a chap who had been born and raised on a Martian colony, reacting in an astonished way at common objects. In fact, even a live common human female is extremely exotic from his viewpoint.
No offense, but you sound offended. That was not my intention. I simply disagree with your approach to the first-person (not fully, because I would need to see a much larger example, and would be happy to do so if you oblige) I just think from under that particular paragraph, there is no reason to use the first person. Third works just the same. You have stated that you were merely providing an example to remove the 'I' from the writing. Point taken, if that was your only objective. I found your closing comment to be quite petty, in fact. Pompous, almost.
Not so much offended as baffled by your expressed incomprehension of such a simple concept my friend. Why would I provide a larger example when that example works just fine for the purpose that it was written? If indeed it doesn't work, then you need to demonstrate why it doesn't work as an example of how to avoid the constant use of the "I" pronoun in the first-person POV. Anything else in reference to it is totally irrelevant. Of course not. But then it would be totally irrelevant to the request that the thread-starter made wouldn't it? What other objective are you presuming or assuming I had? After all, its objective is clearly stated and should be easily understood from the context of the thread. So I am baffled by your supposed confusion. Really? Well, I found yours totally irrational and annoyingly irrelevant to the purpose of my post. As for my closing comment, it is merely a statement of fact. Whether it or the manner that I prefer to write it is perceived as pompous or petty is entirely up to the reader.
Thanks for the help, everyone. I've got a lot of things I can use now. I'll be going through my story trying to make the necessary changes, although it looks harder than it seems. If anyone wants to take a pass at the story to tell me how it's shaping up, let me know. Maybe one or two takers.
As I see it, you don't want to "look in", you want to _be_ in. You want to be your first-person narrator, looking out. Imagine that you're telling a story. Would you say: "When I got home, I saw that the kitchen light was on. I went in the kitchen and looked in the refrigerator and saw that all my beer was gone. I knew Joe had taken it because I remembered that Joe was the only one with a key to my apartment. I was furious. I called Joe, and my voice was very loud when I shouted at him. I feel that Joe is a very bad friend, and that he takes advantage of me. I decided that for my own security, I had to change the locks. I found that even more upsetting." Or would you say: "When I got home, the kitchen light was on, and every last can of beer was gone from the refrigerator. I called Joe and tore him a new one - you remember, I gave him that key last month? He took it, of course he took it, there's nobody else. That cheap bleepin' user. And he claims that he 'lost' the key and he can't give it back. I'm having the locksmith in Tuesday and one way or another, Joe is _going_ to pay for it." You don't tie all of your observations and actions and feelings to yourself, because that doesn't need saying - you're the one telling the story. The same should be true, IMO, of first person narration. In the above example, you're not interested in observing your own anger - you're interested in _communicating_ that anger, but the person that you're observing is Joe. (I realize that my two examples are hampered by the fact that the first one sounds like it was written by a fourth grader, but do you see what I mean?) ChickenFreak
