Oh, I disagree rather strongly. I think third person limited is easier for a new writer to learn, because it's cinematic. You can jump from viewpoint to viewpoint, so it's more forgiving of sloppy plotting. But first person is tough to master, because it gives a character a constant authorial voice outside dialogue. (You can force third person to give you that, in fits and starts, but first person does it much more elegantly.) It also empowers you to use the unreliable narrator conventions--read the material as by Lemony Snicket to see that used brilliantly in 21st century fiction. I choose to write much of my stuff in third person simply because I think third person is marginally preferable for most readers. But I definitely appreciate first person material and I certainly don't see it as some kind of soft option for learner writers.
The unreliable narrator has a very similar counterpart in third person writing, where the narrator is able to manipulate tone to such a degree where even in places when the perspective role is distraught or angry, the writing, interpretation, and reading is not so. The third person narrative is essentially another sheet between the action and the reader, which can be of varying depths, and can, under the right handling can, be virtually non-existent. The important thing to understand about the third person narrative is that it does not mean that the events are not passing through a lens, identically to a first person narrative. The only thing that cannot be used to define character in a third person narrative are the tools direct: the diction and flow. Other than that, anything that works in first person will work in third, under the experienced and gifted hand. It would be useless for us to post various reasons why one type is hard, because writing well in general is difficult, and writing poorly is easy. Therefore, a bad writer could write in either style easily, and likewise, a good writer could write in either effectively. I did not mean to suggest that it is only appropriate for learner writers, but that often, it is more appealing to learning writers because it appears to be easier, when in fact, it is still difficult. Writers who effectively utilize the first person narrative are no less deserving of respect and appreciation than those who use any other form.
This can be done in first person as well, sometimes extremely effectively (though more often than not, disasterously). I would agree that first person is somewhat more difficult to write than third person, though mostly because the amount of emotion and psychological interpretation required for first person is rarely tapped into when writing solely for third person (it can be done, but I've only ever seen a couple good examples of it), and because of that, I would say it's significantly mroe dangerous to write in first person if you're a bad writer to begin with. Going back to the show and tell bit, first person is a lot more of telling the reader what you (the speaker) think...but now that I'm considering it...how many people think to themselves, "I'm angry"? I suppose someone does at some point, but more often than not, he or she focuses on the source of the anger, to the idea of the anger, instead of the anger itself. So maybe it's not so hard to show instead of tell. It just takes a little more introspection...and it, naturally, dependent on the author and the narrator.
Both are equally hard to write. Both has its pros and cons. With first person, the author has an easier time of creating mood and empathy toward his narrator--because he is the narrator. While, in third person point of view, a less author intruism writes for a smoother flow. You have to allow your characters to speak for you, not the other way around.
I think that if you write in first person (I write exclusivly in first person) that you have to tell more... unless your pratagenist has no idea what is going on (which is oftan the case in my stories) In third person I think it is better to tell not show. P.S. Sorry for spelling errors.
You believe that, because of the kind of books you read. That's what makes me hate H.P. Lovecraft. The man cannot write crisp sentences or smooth dialouge. The same can be said about Lynch, I suppose. They ramble.
^ I didn't know me posting my opinion on the topic of 'Show don't tell' could turn into an attack on the writer and the film maker I like.
Just ignore the guy/girl. He/she probably didn't mean it in that way. However rude it was of them to say that. I will say that a handful of people here like handing out artistic maxims as if they're free soup in the homeless shelter. It's extremely egotistical, and it comes off as "feeding the fish". Everyone has their own way of doing things, true, and putting yourself into another's work in an attempt to critique is good practice. But it's a whole different thing altogether when you call the other person "wrong" because of their tastes. Personal tastes do account for your own creative output, but all that means is that there's a different way of seeing things. David Lynch, by the way, kicks ass. I'd have to say that Eraserhead is in my All Time Top 5.
I think showing sometimes comes down to a writers ability with words also. Speaking for myself having delved into a descriptive scene or one that I try to rely on images for, it's hard to find the words to 'show' and not actually 'tell'. I'm more of a simple writer than anything, in my view. So I think in some instances like that, it might be better to tell as well rather than risk the wrong meaning. Until you find a way to put it into the correct words or get better. I've only wrote one piece in first person, which was present tense. No-one found any qualms with the actual writing which I was pleased about but the short story wasn't up to par in the plot sense.
