I used to write exclusively in third person but lately I've fallen in love with first person. It is so much personal and the "unreliable narrator" does not need to be explained. To overcome the limitations of first person, my last story alternated between characters, with each chapter told from a different character's point of view. Only the final chapter, where I needed to put some distance between the reader and the character, was written in third person.
Territory is happy for you. As for himself, he is stuck in his close-3rd ways and will take them to the grave.
Some of the best stories I've ever read are in 1st person. There're authors who swear by it. I can see why. IMO, 1st is tougher than 3rd. It exaggerates everything, weaknesses and strengths, so you need a confident voice. And you'd better have your act together in the paragraph. As long as your ducks are in a row (what a strange saying) it hits hard.
I had the same thing happen. I wrote exclusively in intimate third person for years, then I started drafting a new story in first person and it stuck. I don't write everything in first person, but that series and a standalone novel are now written in first. Both flow better, I've discovered, and it has made writing them a lot easier. It definitely takes a strong voice, though, and I've found the development of those voices fascinating. I still find third person an excellent way of writing, and definitely plan on writing the great part of my work in it. However, for the depth and mix of emotions brought to life by WWI, I will always prefer first person.
You've apparently never had to whack half a dozen ducks with one bullet before. Neither have I, but the situation might arise.
I only ever wrote in first. It’s the only way I could make sense of proceedings. There’s still a part of me that reads a line such as “John was confused by his wife’s reaction” and thinks, how the hell do you know he was confused?? If you instead write “I was confused by my wife’s reaction” well then there’s no arguing with that.
I agree. There is a certain suspension of disbelief we are asking of our reader when we write the story through the P.O.V. of a third person narrator hovering near the MC who can read the MC's thoughts and knows his feelings.
I think I've also fallen in love with first person. It seems like the majority of what I read is in third person, however last year I read the first 6 books of a Jack Whyte series, which were all written in first person. I got accustomed to it and decided to give it a try for my latest project, and it worked out quite well. It was a little tricky at first, but it didn't take long before the words were flowing easily. I like how it can be more challenging to the reader - the "unreliable narrator" was mentioned earlier. Is the MC accurately depicting the events they observed or were a part of? Or are they exaggerating, emphasizing the things that make them look good, overlooking what might make them look bad? Who is the narrator's audience, what's their motivation for telling their story? It's also nice to have a crutch (though I sure hope I don't need it) where you can blame any inconsistencies or factual errors on the narrator. Hey - that wasn't me - that's what the narrator thought. Off the hook
I believe there is such a thing as objective reality, but I also believe you will never see it in a book. Every story ever told is written from the subjective viewpoint of the author. The most famous example are the four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Each Gospel relates events in a different way, and sometimes there are inconsistencies.
I think it does depend somewhat on the story. You can of course write every story in the exact same person, close 3rd is fairly common as a standard writing method. But I think it's interesting to explore telling different stories in different ways. For example, with my story Parallel; or How I learned the Universe Sucks, it's important to me that it be first-person instead. Because of those elements of intimacy and unreliable narration. It also fits with the tone and sense of humour of the story. Similarly with Tales from the Night, I've decided on a slightly more distant 3rd person than I would normally use, with just a little bit more sense of a third party narrator, subtly. Because it fits with the storytelling theme, the philosophical aspect, and the scale of the saga. So I think it is worth considering whether different projects might warrant different ways of writing, even if you can keep things the same.
I'm the other way around: Used to write Third Person Limited but found that it was too limiting, so I made the effort to switch to Third Person Omniscient. I just like being in control of how much information I can dispense to the readers and I tend to have a very cinematic view of my stories. It's a lot more convenient for me when I can just have the "camera" (narrator) switch focus between characters depending on what the scene requires. Not that I have anything against First Person - an early favorite fantasy series of mine was Roger Zelazny's Chronicles of Amber, and he did make good use of the perspective. It's just that restrictions aren't really my thing. Though, aren't those limitations sort of the point? A variation I thought was rather interesting is the Bartimaeus Sequence by Jonathan Stroud: It switches between first and third person depending on whether the narrator (main character Bartimaeus) is actually present in the scene. Essentially, Bartimaeus is an omniscient narrator who is telling a story about himself. This made the transitions feel surprisingly natural.
