Oh, fair enough. I'm not saying I wouldn't like to read one of these ...I just don't think I ever have. However, anything that works is fine in my opinion. More power to the arm, and all that...
I hear you I'm not saying anyone else has to like that sort of thing, it just doesn't bother me personally.
It's individual to the reader. Not a big deal to me. You can apply the same rationale to third-person books. Take Clan of the Cave Bear, for example. How is the narrator telling us the story of events that happened 25,000 years ago? Or, in a futuristic book, how is the narrator telling us about events that haven't happened? In a science fiction book that takes place in a distant galaxy, how did the narrator's chronicle of the events make its way to us here on earth? I don't think you have to answer those questions because the reader is suspending that disbelief and going along with the tale. Some narrators are more intrusive, others almost invisible. Some present the tale in first person, some in third. It's all a fiction, ultimately, so I don't have any more trouble believing one than the other. I've read books where the first-person narrator dies and someone else picks up the narrative. I'm fine with that. I agree that others aren't, because I've seen this come up a few times here
I guess it's because third person means the writer isn't pretending to live the story him/herself, but is telling us what they think might have happened to another person, could happen, or maybe will happen. When the story is told from the first person, though, the implication is that the events DID happen, and that the story is autobiographical—even though we know it's a piece of fiction. There is a story 'truth' in first person that isn't the same kind of truth as you get with third. Therefore, I always become uncomfortable reading stories where the first-person narrator has died—without some explanation of how we are getting to hear their story—or a story from a narrator who couldn't be telling a story in the first place ...ie yon whale. Just me, I reckon. Maybe I take things too literally.
Nah. I think a lot of people read it that way. I just view it more as a fiction / artistic choice, so it doesn't bother me either way (it would if it was non-fiction of course!).
Cool that's how I've always understood it. I was just a little confused by the post that seemed to say that first person had the advantage that "you can also keep important plot points secret as the character doesn't know them." I wondered how that was a particular advantage of first person when you can do precisely the same in third person limited if you want. To be honest I thought you were saying the same thing as the guy above you, though rereading things, now I've noticed the subtle but crucial difference that you're saying the narrator didn't know the twist (not just the character). Which I guess could occasionally make a difference, though I'd have thought you could still do most plot twists in third person. Having had a think about it, one story which wouldn't have worked very well in third person is Fight Club, on the basis of the guy not revealing his name, which is much easier in first person. I've so far mostly written in third person and plan to stick that way. Though I have written in second person, in chose your own adventures, that I used to enjoy writing as a teenager and more recently in my work on computer games.
I haven't felt any radical shift for me when it comes to POV. I've been aware of other POV's besides 3rd but I'm not really familiar with them as much. I've posted somewhere that I tried to read Hunger Games and I couldn't get past the first chapter. But that's just because I wasn't really used to the perspective. I like my 3rd person POV, what can I say? The window's bigger when you look through it that way. I feel that talented authors can do a lot more with 3rd, but my opinion is still growing.
I don't blame you on that. I found the Hunger Games to be like 50 Shades: Dull and boring, combined with bad writing and wooden characters.
Hello all, I'm in the beginning stages of my next work, something I have planned to write for quite a long time. In my mind, it was always done first-person as there are very few characters and I think the subject lends itself to a first-person account. However, after actually sitting down now and starting to write it, I'm having second thoughts. Though I have pretty much the entire story in my head, I'm having a hard time getting it down on paper and what I do write sounds...well, sounds too much like me, if that makes sense. I feel like I'm talking instead of the character and even though I'm only a few pages in, I feel like it's quite muddled and already going off track a little. I've tried to think back on some first-person books I've read, and I can't really think of many that I enjoyed. That's not to say they don't exist, but I seem to gravitate towards third-person works. Is this normal? Do most people prefer to read third-person, or does it entirely depend on the work itself? I'm also wondering if its worth "forcing" myself to write it in first-person. Part of me feels like if I could learn to do it, the end result would be better but I also feel like I could move forward with the story I want in third-person. Any advice?
Most works are written in third person, which is probably why you prefer it over first person. My advice would be to read more good books written in first person. Also, what makes you think writing in first person would make your work better?
I suppose it depends on what books you've read. I've read tons in the first person that I enjoyed very much: Moby Dick, David Copperfield, Jane Eyre, Villette, Wuthering Heights, Huckleberry Finn, Gulliver's Travels, Treasure Island, Robinson Crusoe, Heart of Darkness, The Catcher in the Rye, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Woman in White, The Great Gatsby, North and South (Gaskell), The Book Thief, Raymond Chandler's Phillip Marlowe detective series, all of the Sherlock Holmes mysteries, John D. MacDonald's Travis McGee series, Rex Stout's Nero Wolfe series, Mickey Spillane's Mike Hammer series -- no end of fine novels in the first person.
I don't usually like working in first person because it limits the style I can use - I have to adopt the style of the character, and he might be more limited than I am in terms of vocabulary, sentence structure, etc. (Most of my characters aren't Humbert Humberts.) Also, I can't move outside the character's head to talk about what might be happening in another location. I also see little advantage in writing in first person unless the voice of the character is very distinctive and important to the impact of the story - think of Huckleberry Finn or Alex from A Clockwork Orange. Obviously, in cases like those, first person is a must. But I stick to third person for the most part, and am happy doing so.
I feel that third person gives you far more flexibility, and that many of the advantages claimed for first person can be achieved in third person. So unless there's a specific clear reason to go with first person, I'd say go with third. First person can be done well, but I think that it's harder to do than third person done well.
Also, do not forget the first person/third person in present time, which is good for scripts and for epic sort of writings. Also, there is a second person ("you are") that I saw in stories like Bradberry's "Thunder"...
Is this normal? ...yes... Do most people prefer to read third-person, ...yes... or does it entirely depend on the work itself? ...also yes... but comparatively few adult narket novels are written in first... ...i can't think of any good reason why you'd have to 'force yourself' to learn how to write in first, unless you want to write a 'noir' genre mystery a la chandler and hammett, in which first can work well...
I can write either, and which one is one of the key decisions I make before beginning to write. Both first and third can be equally intimate. Both allow you to dwell in the head of the main character, not that that is necessarily a good thing. Technically, you can switch POVs from character to character in first person, but it's more intrusive when you do than in third person. So essentially, first person is more restricted. If you truly embrace first person, you completely limit the reader's awareness to what the first person narrator knows at that point in time. And that is the immersive experience you might choose first person for. It's a tempting choice, but don't overlook the limitations that first person imposes to offer that experience. In truth, even that experience can be produced in third person, but there's a subtle psychological enhancement to using first person for that purpose. But it only really works if you stick to the rules, and don't step out of character. As for the dangers of first person, chief among those, at least for new writers, is to focus on the narrator and his or her thoughts and perceptions. YA fiction is particularly villified for yielding to that temptation. The solution is to "write outward, not inward." Avoid "I saw" or "I noticed," and keep a tight rein on the emoting. Instead, describe what the narrator perceives, not the fact that he or she perceives it. We already know who perceived it BECAUSE it is first person. Example, instead of: write: No need to mention the feeling. The fact that the narrator even noticed it enough to write it is sufficient. And noticed how the "I"s disappeared! My recommendation, therefore, is to stick to third person unless you fully understand what you are up against in first person.
I find myself using either or depending on the story. I don't lock myself into a certain pov or tense. When I think of an idea, I think most of how I'd like to tell it. For the sci-fi contest I wanted to tell a story about an abused robot but from his pov so I used 1st instead of 3rd. Like Cogito said ( and with good examples ) 1st has a lot of filter words that can go unnoticed by a writer. They create a wedge however between the reader and the character. It jars the reader out of the skin of the character. No longer seeing what the character sees but suddenly seeing only the character seeing.
Hello all. In my current WIP, I have 2 timelines and 2 types of POV. The current present, which is always seen from 3rd person. Usually the main character, And flashbacks, which are always seen in first person, from one character's perspective. My question is this. Would you mix perspectives in this way? I chose to do this so that the flashbacks would have a sense of immediacy about them. I wanted to stress the reality of that world. So first person provides a more 'happening now' regardless of the fact that it is a hundred years ago. Does anyone mix perspectives in this way? Thanks..
i might, if the story called for it... and i'm sure you'll find successful novelists who have... if something can be done, you can be sure it's been done... the hard part is doing it well enough that it works...
I remember trying to do that with my first attempt at a novel years ago, it's a lot of fun and can help translate how the character feels and their motivations. I remember getting the idea from a novel (series of novels?) I'd read earlier although in that case it was 1st person perspective for many characters, not just one.
My works are written in first person. Staying "in character" while writing was a challenge at first, primarily because I have authored my works in a pirate vernacular. I enjoy how writing a line such as "Me hearties went a'sea at dawn" opposed to "My hearties set sail at dawn" lends an intimacy to the soul and mindset of the narrator. I agree with those here who mentioned the limitations of what the storyteller sees. In my case the narrator is at the forefront of the action which provides a seamless read.
