It's harder to do multiple first person POV's. The action isn't impossible, but very difficult for a lot of authors, experienced or novice, to handle correctly. I'm not sure how others feel on the subject, but I feel third person is better for multiple POV's then first person. Since I've never written in first person, I'll hand the floor over to those who have more experience.
Multiple first person POVs are a bad idea. The main reason for choosing a first person POV is to commit to sticking to that POV. If you must use a firat person POV and yet need other POVs, make the other ones third person. As a last resort, separate the book into parts, almost like making them separate books, so you keep the first person POV consistent throughout the part.
I agree with Cogito. It's possible... but really hard. To pull it off, you'd have to give each character a distinct voice. You would almost have to change up your writing style to make it work without the reader forgetting which character they're reading. And no matter how well you write it, it will be jarring to the reader. A close 3rd person perspective would be alot easier to pull off. You could relate their thoughts, and emotions, but just do it in 3rd instead of 1st.
Multiple 1st person strikes me as one of those notions that people think they should try just because they can. The very idea of it is forced. I've seen (and even written) one part 1st person, the rest 3rd person, and I wasn't too thrilled with it when I was done. For multiple POVs, I think 3rd person is just cleaner unless you have a specific reason for wanting to have one of them as 1st.
Sounds like a heavy challenge for a creative mind. I wouldn't go so far as to say it can't or shouldn't be done, though. The key would be to make the transition obvious and understandable to the reader. One can easily picture a scenario where a "listener" is hearing a story from two separate "tellers", in succession or alternating. As long as the audience knows who is speaking, does it matter whether it's told as 1st or 3rd? Film and theater have an easier time telling both sides as first person accounts because the audience can see the speaker. However, I would be surprised if there wasn't a literary technique available for achieving the same effect. If I can come up with an example, I'll post it.
Or a pitfall for the unwary. Save the "challenges" until you're a published writer with more experience under your belt. Even the "easy path" is anything but. There's no value in doing everything the hard way without understanding why it's the hard way! A wise man learns from his mistakes, but a wiser man learns from the mistakes of others.
Writing multiple characters in first person POV is something that I've been planning for a while and that I'd love to do some day when I'm a better writer. Even though it probably will be incredibly challenging, I advise you not to give up on it if you really believe it will make your story better. I personally prefer writing in 1st person because I feel like I can get the emotions and the perception across better (I like to take advantage of skewed perception/unreliable narrator) but you should write in a way that you're most comfortable with. Suggestions? Read the Amulet of Samarkand. From what I remember of it in my teenage years, there are two characters, Nathaniel and Bartimaeus. Bart narrates in the 1st person and Nate is observed in the first person. It's a good read so you should enjoy it but it might also give you some ideas with regard to the technical aspect. One thing that the author does is to clearly state at the start of the chapter who's chapter it is (Nate or Bart) so there's no ambiguity when it comes to who our mind is on. That's a very important thing to get across with multiple protagonists, you always want your reader to know who's speaking. Oh and perhaps a few pointers, I'm not sure how valuable they'll be. When it comes to writing from two different characters' first person perspectives, you need to create a large enough distinction in the way those characters think. Remember that a 1st person narrative is from the person's point of view i.e. his or her perception of the events taking place, not necessarily what's really happening (if such an actual reality actually exists ). Perception has a lot to do with thought patterns but also very much to do with language and feeling. It's very important that your characters speak differently, especially inside their own heads. You can also differ the sentence structure and the way they feel about certain events. For example, you might have two characters John and Fred witnessing the same car crash. John might be unphased and think to himself in a cold manner about the tragic and unpredictable nature of life. Fred might be more impulsive and freeze up in horror before becoming overwhelmed with different emotions and running off to the car to see if anyone is still alive, not really forming coherent or complete thoughts as he's a bit shocked. Anyway good luck with it. Hope some of this might have helped.
Thanks to all for the great advice! For those of you that suggested that the two charcters need to think/perceive things differently, I don't really have a problem with that. My two characters are polar opposites of each other. I wrote up a scenario two times, each with the different characters handling it, and I am pretty comfortable writing from both perspectives. I know how both of them think and react to the same situation. Cogito, I believe you are right about saving this challenge for when I am more experienced. I am a novice at this point. I have never written a full novel before, I definitely shouldn't be trying something as confusing as this is. After all, I am still having problems just getting the plot down! Wolfwig, I never thought of using the Two Storytellers Method. That seems like it could work if I do it just right. Only problem with this is that I have to find a way around the timeline for a major plot point regarding the two characters (specifically what one character does to the other). Volcre, I will definitely pick that book up, I need some example of how it's done. Hopefully it will help! As for why I am trying to do this, I never really planned for this to happen. I was creating characters and one of my side characters just seemed REALLY interesting to me. So i kind of built him up more, and he turned into a 2nd protagonist. The two main character's now just compliment each other, opposites attract maybe? So I don't see another way of telling my story now without both of their adventures being told. But like I said, they are opposites. So I guess they are each other's antagonists, but I also have a major antagonist for the entire plot. Am I confusing anyone? It sounds confusing to me...
I agree with Cog one thousand percent. To attempt to do so at the start of a career can lead the picking up some really bad habits, which once learned, are very hard to break. It's never a good habit to try something that's near the high end of the difficulty ladder whenever starting a new skill, whether it be sports, writing, a job, and the list goes on. Doing so tends to set a person up for failure, and discouragement will trail right along behind that failure. Once that happens, most people then feel like they can't accomplish the goal and either keep trying, and continuing the bad habits, at it or give up. I'd recommend backing down a bit and settling on one or the other POV. First and Third Person don't mix very well, and I can name one novel "Bitter Angels" by C.S. Anderson, which did that and it made for a jarring read even for me-and my reading comprehension level's through the roof. If it felt that way for an advanced reader like myself, how did the average ordinary joe reader feel? I'm willing to bet several of them put the book back down and never finished it. just my .02
As a reader, changing povs (first to third) and multiple first person povs are my pet peeves. I prefer one constant pov and one first person pov all throughout. If writer wants to present the different povs of all his characters, I would like to read it in 3rd person limited. The main objective is clarity; how you deliver your story to your readers in a way it could be understood.
RM1, Place your difficulties on the back burner if you must, but let them continue to simmer. Mr. Ergo Sum likes his blacks and whites, but effective writing requires the ability to work deftly with all the gray matter - even before moving on to color. Who's to say the spirit won't move you in surprising ways, leapfrogging the rest of us? At the very least, understand what you're up against, so you'll be prepared to receive the awaited inspiration when it eventually comes. Personally, I prefer learning through challenges and falling into pits - perhaps I'm a bit masochistic. Anyway, becoming a wise "man" - however you go about it - is a definite plus.
Ergh sorry, I meant in my post that in the Amulet of Samarkand, Nate is observed in the 3rd person. So it alternates between 1st person and 3rd person. Still, it will definitely help
The comments that 1rst person POV changes are harder is very true. In third person you can switch from Omniscient to Limited and swap limiteds with each. 1rst person you will need to rely on scene change. Now if you do as Cogito says you can jump to 3rd and inject narrative voice--done poorly will jar the reader--done well can be great. Safest bet would be to stick with one characters perspective--break scene--come back with different characters perspective.
It's not just a matter that multiple 1st person POVs are harder, it's that there isn't really a compelling reason why one would have to do it. You would want to write in a way that will make it easier for the reader to understand, I would think.
I don't think multiple first person is a bad idea in general, it's just that you need to be very clear whose perspective you're portraying. One author who did multiple first person well is KA Applegate, in the Megamorphs books (part of the Animorphs series with a different format). The things she did were: a) changed between chapters, never within chapters (every chapter break meant a perspective switch) b) had a heading each time clearly indicating whose perspective it was c) had perspective characters who each had clearly distinct voices To me, first person has a different feel than third person. You can technically use either, but some stories just feel better as a first or third person story. I find in first person you tend to feel closer to the perspective character. I really recommend against portraying one character in first person and others in third person. I find that really confusing, because you also portray non-perspective characters in third person when your first person character is narrating. It gives me the feeling that the first person character is there but being very still and quiet, and I have to repeatedly remind myself that they're not present. Multiple first person is way better than mixing first and third. Opposites is not the same as antagonists. An antagonist is someone who works against the protagonist. The protagonist and antagonist can have any combination of personalities - in fact making the protagonist and antagonist very similar can serve a valuable purpose in some stories, either by helping them fight on equal footing or by hinting that one could've easily become the other. Two characters opposite in personality but on the same side are not antagonists to each other, they're just allies with different personalities.
In my current project, I am writing the narrative in the first person. I know that some regulars here are not enamored of first person in general, but in my judgment it's what is best suited for this particular piece. Here's the situation. A (the narrator) and B (the focal character) are adolescents. They have a falling out, and B is deeply hurt. A asks forgiveness and B hesitates. C has a conversation with B that helps to influence her to reconsider. I want to impart to the reader the conversation, but to simply report it (or a narrative of it) in 3rd person seems very awkward to me. I mean, how would A know unless someone told him? I see five possibilities: 1. Present the conversation in third person and don't worry about it. 2. Present the conversation in third person, then have B make reference to it in a later scene with A (not recounting it word for word, which would be tedious, just something like "C pointed out to me that..."). 3. Have the conversation take place in A's presence. 4. Don't present the conversation itself, but have B describe it. 5. Forget the whole idea of C's influence on B. My own thinking is that 2 is probably best, because it gives a plausible reason for A knowing what took place without putting him in the middle of it. 4 would work, I suppose, but my sense is that it would make it seem that B only decided what she did because of C, which is definitely not the case. I really dislike the idea of 3, because it seems to me like it would be demeaning to both A and B. I don't think 5 works because what C tells B is not something that would have occurred to someone at that age, although A and B are both mature for their age (owing to each one's family circumstances). And, as I said, my only concern with 1 is that it leaves the reader wondering how A would have known. Any suggestions are very much appreciated.
I think if you went with 1, it would work. If you're writing A in first person, but switch to third for that part I think most readers would understand that it was not from his point of view anymore, and that there was an unnamed narrator telling that part. Another thing that you could do, and I know that I'm gonna get a lot of hate for suggesting this, but you could switch the first person perspective to B for the duration of the conversation. Or just make it a close 3rd person to B. When I saw close I mean that the narration would be from her perspective, her thoughts, and her emotions, but written in 3rd. Hope this helps!
Check out The Time Travelers Wife by Audrey Niffenegger. It's a successful debut told from two first-person points of view.
Hi guys, long time reader of the forum and have finally signed up hoping that someone can clarify something for me. Mid-way through my novel I want to include a flashback to how three characters first got to know each other- it's going to be a whole chapter. However, my question is how to transition from the previous chapter into the flashback. For instance, I was thinking of ending the chapter with something like 'Fred couldn't help but remember that things had been very different in the past, and his mind wandered to a specific day six years ago.' Obviously that sentence needs to be polished up, but my overall question is whether a similar sentence is an acceptable way to end a chapter, and whether you can then start the next chapter with 'SIX YEARS EARLIER' and write from that point of view. It seems like quite a tricky transition to me, but it's not really possible to convey the information with just a throwaway comment from a character in the present day. Any advice would be welcome!
The series I am writing right now uses flashbacks extensively, and I always write "six years earlier" or such to indicate to the reader that we're making a time shift. Though, I do make sentences connecting to the flashbacks, whether before or after, such as... The flashback ends with the character as a kid, laughing with his friends. In the next scene, back to real time, the opening line is, "He heard that laughter, somewhere in the recesses of his mind, but he paid it only passing attention." As long as you are clear in the flashback itself who's flashback it is, and when it is, then you shouldn't have much trouble.
It is a tricky one, as many people prefer many different ways in which to do a flashback, so really you have to experiment with what works fo you. Some people think that instead of long flashbacks like yours, they use little snippets and small sentences to give the reader a chance to work out what is happening in the present. Others would do as you do, and have a whole chapter as a flashback, with 'six years earlier' at the beginning of it. Personally I would use italics and not use 'six years earlier' at all, instead giving the reader clues to make them work out the particular chapter is a flashback. In short, see what works for you. That's why there are so many different types of book out there: because there are many different types of writer. Try both having a whole flashback chapter AND interspersing the past with the present in one scene. Hope I helped.
Writing to see how it feels isn't a bad idea, I recommend trying it, but I still feel the need to add a bit of response to this subject. For me, as a reader and a writer, I prefer to make the flashbacks clean. In other words, I like knowing that I am reading about a flashback and that the story didn't just shift in some direction that I have no clue what's going on. I find that reading books like that easily confuse the readers and makes it harder for them to stay focused on the story. There was this one book I read that constantly switched from present to past without warning, it confused the hell out of me, and I was unable to finish the book. So yes, I do prefer books that say little things like "Six Years Earlier", or direct your attention to a flashback by the thoughts/dialect of a character. Just be sure to let us readers know when we're switching between present and past, so we don't get lost on the way.
So many techniques are used by various authors to for flashbacks. Some use dreams, some use italics, some simply put it 3 months ago, and others mixes everything together. You'll need to test out the methods, see which one goes with the flow of your writing and your characters. I think that sometimes authors create flashback scenes with a method that is out of character for the hero and that's when I feel the transition is jilted – if that makes sense to you.
