Its something i've been thinking about lately. I have 2 works of realistic fiction that are 1PPOV. Its written in the way those characters talk and think. For example, one of them is from the POV of a 10year old living in the 1950s rural south. So her way of speaking is a lot different. There are a lot of contractions and "southern grammar" (ex: "whew, chile, that come out y'mouth again an it wont be no go f'you!") My other story is from the POV of an anxious young woman, so there are a lot of run-on ramblings, dashes, and ellipses as she jumps from one thought to the next and trails off on others. I wouldnt normally write any other POVs like that. Im worried that an editor or beta will catch these things and say its wrong (as a writer, yes i know its wrong... But for the character, its RIGHT). Do you hold your 1PPOV characters and writing to a different standard than your other POV stories?
Well first person is basically one continuous monologue in character voice. It's as if the character is telling you about something they experienced, or are writing it in their journal or as a story. So it should be in character voice, with idioms and all intact, rather than objective and neutral. That's for a third person story, where the narrator isn't also the MC. This is why often 1st person stories will have an MC who speaks in an interesting regional dialect, to add flavor to the telling. It just occurred to me last night that the reason it's called first person is because there's no separation between the character and the narrator (and often the author)—it's the most immediate (no mediation going on), hence the first person in the chain, not the second or third one.
I try to apply that principle be it close-third or first person; they are much the same. That said, less is more IMO. If the viewpoint styling is too invasive, too strong, it's going to ultimately detract from the reader's ability to interface with the story. A great example of that is an accent written so strongly the reader has to go over the dialogue a second or third time to parse meaning.
I've heard people say that, and in many ways of course it's true, but there's still a fundamental difference. In 3rd, no matter how close it is, I don't think the narration will be in character voice, nor will the entire telling be a continuous monologue. I'm being careful to say "I don't think" because I'm not as familiar with close 3rd. I should look into it more. It seems the more you understand POV in all its various forms the better your writing becomes (he says in 2nd person, and now speaking about himself in 3rd... )
A couple of brief examples—here's the opening 2 sentences of Charles Portis' True Grit: People do not give it credence that a fourteen-year-old girl could leave home and go off in the wintertime to avenge her father’s blood but it did not seem so strange then, although I will say it did not happen every day. I was just fourteen years of age when a coward going by the name of Tom Chaney shot my father down in Fort Smith, Arkansas, and robbed him of his life and his horse and $150 in cash money plus two California gold pieces that he carried in his trouser band. And here's a bit of Huckleberry Finn, must be the closing sentence. I grabbed it from Catriona's signature: There ain't nothing more to write about and I'm rotten glad of it, because if I'd know'd what trouble it was to make a book, I wouldn't a tackled it. In both cases this is narration, but it sounds like a southern person talking directly to you, so the narration itself reveals character through its style. Which isn't true about narration in 3rd person. Unless the narrator also uses a dialect, and possibly that can reflect on the character in an oblique way. Offhand I'm not aware of any stories like that*, but I'd love to see it. *Possibly Sherlock Holmes, where the narrator is Watson, but I'm not sure how strong his dialect is or how much his character really colors the stories or the reader's perception of Holmes. It probably does, at least in a subtle way. I've read a little, but don't remember there being much character in the narration. But at any rate, this is only true of stories with a character doing the POV narration, not for all close 3rd. In fact come to think of it, the Holmes stories are in 1st, but from Watson's POV. Back to the drawing board.
I've looked at a few articles and videos about third person close (aka 3rd limited or 3rd deep), and so far they all say the narrator should be objective and neutral, and does not share the POV character's voice: Third Person Close Point of View: Definition, Pros, and Cons Third Person Close Point of View: Benefits and Pitfalls @ Youtube I also read a few of the articles I saved as PDFs from Novel Writing Help before that site unfortunately disappeared. Obviously I can't link to those here, but it had some amazing articles. It sounds like they're not even supposed to have a character voice of their own, unless you're writing in what I believe is called Authorial Omniscient, a special type of omniscient where the narrator has strong opinions. I haven't yet determined if it's allowed to use vernacular or a dialect in close 3rd. I suppose that's the next leg of my knowledge-quest. I love these discussions that force me to look into things I've been wanting to study for some time but haven't got around to yet. This is one of the best reasons to hang around on a message board like this—the conversations can push you into new areas of study and learning.
Now I've run across one that says the narrator in deep 3rd shares the character's voice—6 Tips for Writing Deep Third-Person Point of View This seems confusing, but in the video I just watched, in the comments underneath, somebody asked specifically about this and the author said they share a voice but not in the same words. It seems to mean the narrator takes on some of the preconceptions etc of the pov character, but doesn't use his or her actual character voice. So no dialect or vernacular (slang). And in the examples given the narration is still very objective and neutral, not at all in a character voice. I suppose I should post links. I'll go back and add them to my previous entry too. Otherwise this is all pretty vague.
Oddly, writing is something I think about intuitively while the rest of my pursuits are generally more organized than that. On the other hand, those articles you mention sound a little arbitrary. Since limited (close) is by definition limited to the POV character, then it can't be neutral or objective. The narrator generally only relates events as the POV sees them. This is true for word and literary tools as well. A farm boy POV isn't going to say the cows masticated in the field and compare their idleness to computer servers. Of course the POV's actual 'voice' isn't used, at least in the oration sense. That really is the point of difference between 1st and close third. In the latter, his explicit voice is limited to thoughts and speech. However 'voice' in the literary sense translates just the same. I'm glad you posted the True Grit example, because that's an easy one to change. Spot the differences: Huckleberry Finn is harder to do that with, because hyper-informal oration is a cornerstone of the book. I think it could be done but a bit more would need to change. In fact, that's a good example of where first person does a better job than close third. Dialect CAN be used in third person limited, but it's definitely not as common. I'm not sure why you think slang wouldn't be used in third person... slang is inescapable.
Breaking News I just found some info in the Novel Writing Help articles that backs up what you've been saying @Not the Territory. Give me some time to read through it and process it, and I'll come back in (probably in the morning) and relate what I learn about it. After all that about 'the narrator in 3rd is distant and objective', there's a section toward the bottom of the page about what he calls third person 'character' viewpoint, and it's pretty much what you've been describing. Sorry I was such a pest about it, I just wanted to find some actual official word on the matter. Hey, I'll tell ya what though—once I learn something this way, I'll never forget it!! "That time I was such a jerk to Not the Territory, and turns out I was just plumb wrong!"
I've decided to look deeper into POV and found what looks like a really good book on it: The Power Of Point Of View: Make Your Story Come To Life Hopefully the author isn't as biased as the author of Novel Writing Help, who apparently strongly favors distant 3rd over close/deep. Or if she is biased, I hope it's the other way, so there's lots of good jucy stuff about close/deep. I feel sort of betrayed, because Novel Writing Help is where I 'learned' all that stuff I was saying above. In many ways I still believe it's an excellent resource (was), and the info about close 3rd is in there, but it's brief and overwhelmed by all the writing about distant. Also, he says he urges writers to use distant instead, as it allows you to shift between an objective/cinematic POV and distant 3rd.
Ironically, I discovered that book on a thread on Writing Forums.com (ours is .org—it's a sister site): Third-Person Characterization: Distant vs. Close @WF.com There are 3 more books listed a few posts below that one. I'll probably get them all and immerse myself (deeply!) in POV for a while.
There are a lot of options when using first person. You can play it straight and use proper grammar and language, or you can mix it up and have some fun with it. You just don't want to go overboard where the slang or dialect use overpowers or distracts from the story. I would be careful with those run-on ramblings. I don't agree with the other poster that first person is a monolog. It's just the window you use to invite readers into the story. And it should be a story, not a rant. I like writing first person, but I'm not going to compromise my skills and abilities as a writer because it might add to character development which I believe can happen when overdone. I did read a novel a few years back that was 100 percent written in slang. At first it was a little weird getting used to, but then it was really good when I got used to it. I can't remember the name of the book or the author at the moment, but it did win a big prize (I think it was The Booker). Consistency is key. I think you should have some fun and play around with different options, but also you want to be aware when it works and when it doesn't which can be tricky as the author. Good luck!
You're right, I was thinking about a particular form of 1st person, like in those examples I posted above. In that kind of writing it remains constantly in indirect (past tense) and doesn't switch back and forth into direct (present) for the inner monologue or the dialogue. The result is the whole thing seems like someone telling you about something that happened to them—a monologue. If you do switch into direct for parts, then it feels more like normal narration. I learned about it on this blog post (especially in the comments below it): Directly and Indirectly Reported Thoughts (inner monologue)
I'm no expert here, so feel free to tell me to zip it. While 1st person narration can aid a lot in terms of character development of the MC, third person can add just as much to the overall book. Take Anne Rice's Interview with a Vampire, for example. So many witty and humorous observations are made in the narration that the reader hooks in with the vibe early on. It sets the tone under which the author wants the book to be read. Adding in a few clever analogies makes it fun to read and less monotonous. Both systems have their advantages.
I'm assuming that you mean in the narrative, and not just in dialogue. To start with, you are a writer, not a character. The voice of the work should reflect the viewpoint, but it must also be delivered professionally from a writer because your character isn't a writer. In most cases, your character has problems putting together a decent sentence. Even in dialogue, we have a responsibility to show what that person speaks like, WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY MAKING IT READABLE FOR MOST READERS. That is the magic; to make this thing look professional, but also in a voice (both in the narrative and in dialogue) convincing us that a viewpoint is strongly influencing the overall presentation. Now, before I go a step further, I need to say that the difference, regarding this issue, between 1st person and any limited 3rd person form is often not stark. People constantly say that they do different things in 1st person than 3rd person, and I'm not a believer. I write a lot of limited 3rd work and my narratives are always heavily influenced by the viewpoint actor. I can show you an example of this, from an opening, 3rd person, clearly showing the heavy influence in bias, word choice, attitude, what is being worried over, etc., all hugely pushed by viewpoint, again, in 3rd person: Someone who is good with close limited 3rd comes to understand that there is ZERO difference between close limited 3rd and 1st person. Well, other than an occasional choice in pronouns. The biggest thing here, though, isn't thinking (which is automatically easy to pull off), but in the character of the narrative. Which just doubles down on that observation. To be sure, Patrik coveted no quarrel with Befrum. Bedding the man’s wife had been no more than an act of nature, requiring no further comment or encumbrance. He’d intended to not even speak of it, more or less within earshot of town. In fact, by coming down from his room alone, twenty minutes prior, he’d hoped to speed her departure, mayhaps while not drawing too many eyes upon the crime. Imagine this in-voice narrative in 1st person: To be sure, I coveted no quarrel with Befrum. Bedding the man’s wife had been no more than an act of nature, requiring no further comment or encumbrance. I’d intended to not even speak of it, more or less within earshot of town. In fact, by coming down from my room alone, twenty minutes prior, I’d hoped to speed her departure, mayhaps while not drawing too many eyes upon the crime. The idea that your VOICE will change with VIEWPOINT, in my opinion, is automatically going to happen, if you are a decent writer. In some cases, good writers develop consistent voices, but that's usually because they never much wander from the characterization and worlds they wrote in the last book. If you exist in one place, with one set of people, and very similar (or the same) main view, you're going to be doing the narrative more consistently in one kind of voice. If you are like me, changing characters, changing worlds, changing eras, even changing genres, book to book, you get really used to being a character actor and hypnotically becoming someone else, even in the narration. Just tone it back a notch, because SOMEONE HAS TO ACTUALLY READ IT. That's also the writer's other job.
I think you are forgetting about the unreliable narrator which can only be done in first person. A third person narrator (even in close third) has no stake in the story. The character may have a stake in the story, but in third person the narrator is not actually a character. I approach writing in first person much differently than I write in third person.
Well, I'm not forgetting the unreliable narrator. I didn't mention it, but now that you have, I do agree that it is often better to be 1st person with a truly unreliable narrator. It's one reason why I often choose to write 1st person. Nonetheless, one could do that just as well, limited 3rd. In fact, the bit of narrative I offered in my post above is from a novel with a single limited 3rd viewpoint throughout, and he is definitely a deluded person, which the reader quickly comes to understand in paragraph one onward. It's not like it has to be 1st person. Across any dimension, the action, the dialogue, the internal thoughts, nothing really changes. I think that the reason folks feel that 1st person is better for quirky or unreliable actors is they feel that 1st person means more time in headspace. If in headspace, you can more easily show the difference between what someone is thinking and what we are seeing happen. But, I think the biggest problem with 1st person is too many writers feel they are liberated to abuse headspace. The amount of time in head is not reliant upon 1st or limited 3rd. Both are equally accessible with no real effort. The real issue with headspace is disciplining the writer to not spend so much time there, in most cases, regardless of view.
The 2 times ive used 1PPOV is to add to the mystery of the story. For example, in the story with the 10 year old... Not only is it about her getting to know her mom (who had been in an institution since the MC was born), it also about what happened to her mom. The MC hears what the towns people say about her mom. That colors her interractions with her. In child like fashion, her imagination is running wild with who her mom was and what she'd done to end up institutionalized ("she dont look crazy, but then i saw her talking to her flowers..." And "mamma cats know their babies when they smell 'em. They just know. But my mamma, when she looks at me, nothing comes up on her face like i dont mean anything to her. Not like a mamma should act, so maybe she's not my mamma and im not her baby after all"). She's trying to solve this mystery in her own childlike way, which means snooping, letting her imagination run wild, and taking things out of context. The genre isnt "mystery" but by having this unreliable character, and seeing the world (or at least the adults in it) through one lense, it creates a mystery of what is truly happening in their town. Her way of thinking changes as she changes. Grows mature as she grows mature. I honestly dislike writing In that POV and would rather not if i can help it .... Too much thinking to get into "character".... Like, i dont want this 10 year old to sound too adult (so i had to dig into elementary school vocab words). I also didnt want her to understand adult things the way adults would (pulled out my Childhood and Early Development Psychology notes for terms and definitions about that stage of childhood). But the story just didnt feel right from any other POV but hers. It felt impersonal.
I third person narrator is still not a character and has no stake in the story. Therefore it doesn't make sense that any third person narrator could be an unreliable narrator. A character can be a liar or not tell the truth, but that does not make them an unreliable narrator. The only way to do that is in first. I'm sorry if you see it differently, but it's just how it is.
I just wanted to add something to relate it all to the OP maybe more clearly. Readers expect that a third person narrator is telling the truth. Readers may not have that same expectation with a first person narrator.
Which is why many formal ways of teaching limited 3rd are such utter disasters. In truth, for close limited 3rd, the distance between the narrator and the limited view evaporates entirely. I mean 100% gone. Most people are taught that in limited 3rd the only person who can see, hear, smell, taste or feel is the viewpoint actor. Then they come to realize that the voice of the work is swayed by the viewpoint actor. But wait...what does that mean? Oh yeah, the distance starts to evaporate. Now, in the narrative, we give stage direction. We say this happened and that happened. But that occurs in 1st person, so it's not new. How we say things happen matter, and by the voice we come to defines the distance between the narrator and the view. Good close limited 3rd writers will eventually come to understand that the narrator and the 3rd person view are in effect, the same person. If not, you're really not in voice and really not in view. I should repeat the opening that I posted above. I posted it in both limited 3rd and 1st person, showing that both presentations in narrative were in effect the same narrator. Now, in the flow chart in the formal classroom, the professor says, "If it is 3rd person, we have an external narrator." This is technically true, simply based upon pronouns. After all, someone is using the pronouns, so it must be the narrator. But, smarter people notice that in 1st person we are also using pronouns. I don't think of myself as I or ME or Gary. I simply am, and I move forward with my observations. Thus, the pronouns I, ME and noun Gary are conveniences of the trade, not an external narrator, as can be She, Her, Alice. So, on a practical level, there is no external narrator in truly close limited third. Narrator, close limited 3rd, effectively Patrik: To be sure, Patrik coveted no quarrel with Befrum. Bedding the man’s wife had been no more than an act of nature, requiring no further comment or encumbrance. He’d intended to not even speak of it, more or less within earshot of town. In fact, by coming down from his room alone, twenty minutes prior, he’d hoped to speed her departure, mayhaps while not drawing too many eyes upon the crime. Narrator, 1st person, effectively Patrik: To be sure, I coveted no quarrel with Befrum. Bedding the man’s wife had been no more than an act of nature, requiring no further comment or encumbrance. I’d intended to not even speak of it, more or less within earshot of town. In fact, by coming down from my room alone, twenty minutes prior, I’d hoped to speed her departure, mayhaps while not drawing too many eyes upon the crime. It is truly only academic to suggest that we have a radical shift in narrator, simply because the "narrator" chooses to say I rather than He. It might satisfy a professor in a classroom, but it is suicidal for a writer at a laptop. Writers have to come to the place where they realize how absurd that is, or they are doomed to never achieve close limited third. In fact, many close limited 3rd novels find the rejection pile simply because the external narrator (usually author voice) hits the page. Let me add one more issue with the statement above: The external narrator might not be a character on the page, but one should definitely consider it to be a character, nonetheless. Most great omniscient pieces have a very definite voice to the external narrator, and it's a huge stretch to not call that a character. In fact, one does very well to always consider their external narrator as a real person or real presence with a real, contributing voice. I know that author's voice can be legitimate in loose 3rd person omniscient work, but I personally have zero respect for it. Voice makes everything happen, and if you don't think of your external character as a person, you miss most of the true grit of the work. That also extends to close limited work, where clearly the voice is that of the viewpoint actor, in the best of the work.
I write unreliable close-third narratives. One in particular is a major denial of something she observed that's hinted at by her confusion when other characters mention it. Any narrator can still observe little things that contradict his 'lies.'
You seem very sure of yourself so I'm not going to debate this with you. But I will state that I disagree. And you mention that writing professors also disagree with your thoughts on this. Go ahead and believe that you're smarter than the people who see it the way I do. It doesn't make you right, but that's okay.
If this need to directly state what is unreliable about your character, then you are likely to want to work limited omniscient (you have a strong external narrator who passes the baton down and up to and from the limited view). That's basically what you are saying. You are not saying close limited or even loose limited view, as I see your statement above. On the other hand, if I had this assignment, I'd first consider why I need someone to directly tell me why my viewpoint is unreliable. I mean, I do have readers. They can do that for themselves. We see the actions of the view and those around her, and we hear what they are all saying. We see the results and we get a nice dose of what the unreliable narrator thinks about it. So, as a reader I'm thinking, this lady is full of crap! Bingo. Dialed the reader in. Nothing can possibly beat that. But, sure, you can have an external narrator raise to full voice and take over the baton. It's just as legitimate to tell your reader everything and not put them to work.
