I've just finished writing my first book (working on editing, hoping to get published *crosses fingers*) and it's in first person. And present tense. And it has a different character's eyes to look through each chapter. I love present tense so much more. I'm not a good enough writer to give the feelings and emotions and thoughts of characters in third person, so I've stuck to first person. Originally the work was in third person, but first it better in my opinion. It just depends on your writing styles.
Personally I mix and match but I generally prefer third person, like other people have said it's more flexible in many ways.
We grow up on bedtime stories which are always in 3rd person. Later on when we read the news it's also 3rd person. But when we meet our friends and they tell us about their holiday travel they use 1st person. We get used to both POV in our everyday life and I don't think there is such preference for the 3rd person. One thing is interesting : most of the commenters here speak about how 1st or 3rd is easier or comfortable to write. Very few comments mention the readers. Detective stories work well in 1st person, just as travel adventures. Long and complicated stories with a lot of characters, locations and several subplots can't be written in 1st person (or at least it is very hard). Imagine Game of Thrones with Ned Stark as the POV character
I write exclusively in first person. When I'm writing a story, I want to picture it like I'm the narrator sitting across from someone telling them MY story, not some omniscient being talking about something he/she/it saw.
Personally, I mix, shake and stir: any strict preference seems like an unnecessary limitation. That said, just yesterday I've read a brilliant short story by a friend of mine (published in a respectable magazine). What he did with the narrator's voice is something I haven't seen in a long time, and it's completely wonderful. Basically, he dissected the homodiegetic, first-person narrator who tells most of his story through a collective "We", a first-person plural which analyses a situation, and constantly addresses a "You", a second-person singular which is the passive object of the story. Like, for example: *translation is mine, and is just for illustration. This formal split in the voice (a controlling "We" vs. a passive "You") creates a rhythm which takes a while to get used to, but rewards the reader with a rich depiction of the MC's inner dynamics. But then, in a particularly traumatic situation, a true personality split takes place: a powerful, pathetic, "heroic", action-hero part of the character appears with an "I", a first-person singular voice which tries to take action in his own hands. The hero fails, almost immediately, and is again replaced by the "We", the analyzing plural. In the final part of the story, another voice appears, as a reaction to the inner turmoil caused by the trauma: an observed, superficial "He" from the perspective of a distancing, heterodiegetic narrator which slowly moves away from the story... I hope to have my friend's story translated in near future: I'm quite sure that what I just wrote about it doesn't make that much sense without the source material. But anyway: I was thrilled to read something formally refreshing, and I just wanted to share my impressions
Good points. Writers often forget the importance of framing. However, that does not make third person impossible. It simply makes third person omniscient unrealistic. Telling the story from a limited third person perspective, the perspective of the narrator, a person themselves, is a fine framing device and gives the story a touch of realistic modification in the telling.
To me, third person omniscient almost sounds like a god or some other spiritual being is telling the story simply because they know everything about everything. No character's thoughts are off limits, you know everyone's motivations, and so on. I think that is the main thing I like about writing and reading first person -- you only know what the narrator knows. For example, the coffee shop scene in my current narrative where the MC is talking to her sister about an extremely important life event. We know the MC's thoughts and feelings, but it's up to the reader to decipher her sister's thoughts purely from the way the narrator describes her body language. It leads to some questions in the reader's mind which I think adds a degree of interest to the overall exoerience.
The bold is normally true for limited third person as well. A first-person and third-person-limited sentence where the narrator 'deciphers body language' would mostly just differ in personal pronouns when the narrator is referred to.
Actually, in this case, I was leaning more towards framing the scene in a way that the reader is the one deciphering body language. I know what you mean though. I probably just haven't read the proper types of third person narratives. In my experience it just seems like every time I read a third person the narrator knows everything about everyone everywhere. P.S. I apologize if this post is poorly structured. It's 4 a.m. and I just woke up like ten minutes ago.
I see what you mean, too. I was especially shocked to see POV slip-ups in Stephen King's work and I think there were some in Game of Thrones as well. There are good examples of tight 3rd person, but I can't think of any right now-- mind's on vacation.
Depends on the book, but in most cases third person. Some books pull off first person very well, but when they don't it really sticks out and makes it hard to engage with the story.
I prefer third person. It's really very easy to lose the character you're writing when you're constantly saying "I went to the store" etc. With third person you can go more into detail and switch points of view to things you wouldn't normally get to see in first. That said first person can be wonderfully fun. It's less cumbersome because there's so much less to have to tell the reader and you can really immerse them in a scene by using the character's senses.
It depends on the book. If it's a diary-type book, then first person would be more appropriate. However since you're struggling with first person because it sounds "too much like you", I think the better choice would be to write in third person. This way, you will have a healthy detachment from you character and will be able to think more objectively. By writing in third person, you are also more aware that you're writing a story and, in my own experiences, will be reminded more often to consider the character and the story rather than "how I would feel in this situation".
From the books I've read, it's easier to create a connection between the reader and the character in first person, but easier to show complexity in your story when writing in third person (as the reader is an outsider to the story, seeing it much like god)
I enjoy both. It really depends on subject matter and feel of the piece. Fantasy and SciFi tend to work best in third person for various reasons. More heartfelt works I think are best written in first person. I think it's great for writers to play around with both. I know a lot of people who are only comfortable with one or the other. Whatever works! Writing should be fun. Not fascist! I actually wrote a short story awhile back in second person and it came out very interesting. It was about a stray dog and was based on the early life of a dog my family took when I was a kid. I adored her. I don't think it would work for a longer book but the way I did it was great!
I personally like writing in first person as I can put myself in my character's shoes, therefore describing everything else much more vividly.
I'm new to writing but currently planning a story in first person. My favorite series, the farseer trilogy by Robin Hobb is written in first person and I think it allows me to really connect with the character and to feel his pain.
I'm actually doing both first and third person for my current work. I originally envisioned it as all first person, but as I moved into the second half of the novel, I realized how impractical that was for the story. I reworked it with new POVs in restricted third person while retaining the main protagonists first person narrative. I don't know if many novels do that (I know the Bartemaues Trilogy did) but I feel like its working for the story I'm writing.
I prefer third person, it gives me a lot more freedom when I write. . However, I have read a lot of books written in first person and loved them.
What I'm working on right now will go between first- and third-person. I'll see if it works or not, and rewrite as needed. I like the immediacy of first-person, but it can indeed be limiting.
George R R Martin uses what I call "character POV" chapter titles. I was curious to know is this something any of you guys have used? I have a novel idea and I think this technique would work. But I don't want to copy a technique if that makes sense? Cheers guys
Chapters with different POVs (and titles to mark that) aren't unique to George R R Martin, so you can use them without worrying. Having said that, because his books are so well known, people might think you are 'copying' him in a sense. I am planning on using sections with different POVs in my next project. I found that having a different POV for each chapter in Game of Thrones meant it jumped around too much.
I have three POVs planned, two protags and a transition character between books in the duology. I loved how Kingsolver did it in the Poisonwood Bible. http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/poisonwood/
