I'm working on a historical fiction novel set in the early 1700s, America. I'm gravitating towards writing it in first person, as the intimate connection to the character is really important. I don't plan on writing it in perfect period-accurate dialogue, but "colonial" enough for the reader to clearly get that it's not the modern day. However since the whole story will be told in the MC's voice, I'm worried about having too many "thy's", "Thee's", "thou's", etc. If I wrote in third person, technically only the dialogue would have to be period-accented, whereas first person requires absolutely everything to be period-filtered. What are your guys' thoughts on the subject? Are there pros and cons to either in historical fiction? Would I have better luck with one POV over the other?
Well, my main comment is that you can have just as intimate a connection in close third person. So I don't see a need to take on the extra effort of first person.
I would highly advise you read Voyageurs, by Margaret Elphinstone. Hers is set later than yours, but not by much. It's also written in first person. (And a really good book as well.) It never feels 'modern' and yet the antiquity doesn't hit you between the eyes either. I would highly recommend it, to get the flavour of what you're looking for. Don't be put off by the fact that the narrator isn't born in the USA/Canada—or that the story is set at the beginning of the 1800s. The language hadn't really evolved from the English spoken back in Britain, and most of the people who were settlers then had either come directly from Britain themselves, or their parents had. I can't think of a better book to illustrate this kind of POV and speech pattern. ......... edited: Don't be put off by the use of 'thee,' etc in the book's letters and in some of the dialogue. It's not because of antiquated speech, but rather because the main characters are Quakers. The other characters in the story don't use 'thee' and 'thou.'
I think thee's and thou's had dropped out of use by 1700. You might also want to read some period literature to get a feel for the rhythm of the language. Here's a link: https://public.wsu.edu/~campbelld/amlit/1701.htm Good luck!
Yee Gods! That a hard task you've set yourself. I would suggest rethinking first person. Read things from the period. Ben Franklin, and he funny as hell.
Perhaps they did! I am still in the research stage, so I could very well be wrong. Thank you for the heads up and for the link! That is a great resource, I'll be sure to use it. And you're definitely right, admittedly I don't read much historical fiction, but I plan to before I get to writing. I just need to find the right books! Thanks for your comment.
That sounds a lot like what I'd like to write. Thank you very much for the suggestion! I planned on reading more historical fiction to get in the mindset, but I had no clue what books to choose. Thanks again.
I guess I'd have to read the right book. All third person books I've read just feel a bit more distanced compared to first person. I'll look into close third person though, and see what I find. Thank you for commenting!
Can you name any? Not that you have to, I'm frankly just curious. I've never understood the idea that first person is closer than third person, and I want to know what books result in that idea.
I'd say the most prominent example that comes to mind is the Hunger Games, by Suzanne Collins. And maybe it's more of a personal preference in reading? Others may not notice a difference, but for me, the storytelling feels more immediate when told by the character themselves.
I don't see why you shouldn't. There was no more "thee", "thou", or "forsooth" in the 18th century, but sentences could be long and complicated. I read these books when I was a kid - The Lady Grace Mysteries, if you're curious - which were set in the Elizabethan period but narrated by Grace, and they were written in a largely modern way, but with period-accurate vocabulary, so that they were accessible but appropriate. I'm intending to do the same thing with one of my own books.
Though it may just be that we have wildly different ways of connecting to fiction, because I find Hunger Games to be terribly distant--I can't connect to the character at all. I was never able to finish it, so I can't claim to have a really informed opinion, but it does feel very distant to me.
That's alright, I should've asked which one you meant, I wasn't quite sure. The Help by Kathryn Stockett and The Mysterious Benedict Society by Trenton Lee Stewart, are two of my absolute favorite third person books. The latter is more of a children's book and feels more-so distant. But I feel like the Help could've been a bit more personal with the first person POV. But once again, it really comes down to preference, I adore both books immensely. And truthfully, first person may not be a good fit for them anyway.
I think The Help is first person? I read and liked The Mysterious Benedict Society, but I agree that it's not a really close third person. Really, I suppose my point is that narrative distance and point of view don't necessarily travel together. A book in third can be closer than a book in first.
I think the 'intimacy' factor arises not because a book is in first person rather than third, but because we can identify with how the character thinks and feels. An "I" character who just drones on about what he's doing or what's happening and doesn't give much insight into how he feels about it will create distance, not intimacy. And we've all encountered people in real life who want to talk about themselves non-stop—and we just want to get away ASAP. The fact that they keep saying I, me, mine doesn't bridge any particular gap. It's thoughts and feelings and a sense of empathy that will make us feel close to a character. Of course you can give us those with first person, but creating that kind of intimacy can also be done with third person. I have been moved to tears, reading books written in third person as well as those written in first.
That's because Hunger Games uses first person present tense. The present tense makes it feel more immediate and intense without need for any sort of technique. @ChickenFreak First person POV is more intimate than 3rd because the character is talking directly to the reader whereas in 3rd, even if you get to see the character's thoughts and feelings, an invisible narrator is talking to you.
I recommend the Outlander series by Diane Gabaldon, set initially in Scotland but the last books of the series move to Revolutionary America. Also written in first person, though the protagonist is from the 20th Century. Neat trick how that happened! And I will give myself a shameless plug, though it is neither first person nor 18th century: "The Eagle and the Dragon, a Novel of Rome and China" by yours truly.
I know how the mechanics work, but that doesn't assure more intimacy. From what I've read of Hunger Games; I read it as very distant, dry and controlled. First person present tense doesn't change that. Now, maybe the voice utterly changes at some point in the book--like I said, I didn't finish it; it didn't hold my interest, in part because I did feel so distant from the character. It's possible that the distance and limited personality in Hunger Games is deliberate--it may be a device for making it easier for the reader to insert themselves into Katniss's mind. And if I had finished it, that might have finally worked for me. But that's not the same kind of intimacy. @Andrew Rosemel , I'm trying to think of an example book or books to suggest for close or deep third person, but I rarely read books that strike me as likely to interest male readers. Possibly Josephine Tey's Brat Farrar, but I can't seem to lay my hands on my copy to see if I would really call it intimate, or if it's just engaging for other reasons. Looking at the Amazon preview, it's not what I'd call really deep third person--if it were, we wouldn't need "...Bee was thinking..." Rumer Godden's An Episode of Sparrows is the book that I keep using for examples of various things, but it's primarily about a little girl. (Now I realize that it's also about some adults; when I read it as a child the adults were just sort of voices overhead, like the adults in Charlie Brown.) Edited to add: Oh! Hey! The Golden Compass? Of course, the only reason I'm pushing not-first-person is because the language is likely to weigh the reader down in first person. You could, instead, just drastically dilute the authenticity of the language. If you don't feel comfortable just doing that without an explanation, there's always the classic "I found this fascinating old manuscript and edited it for modern eyes" wrapper. Though that sort of assumes that the character survives to tell the story.
