Good point. That changes how I think about closeness in narration. Ironically, that convinces me even more that first person works best for my WIP. No other characters can form memories of the protagonist. If you feel like you are there with her, dropping in on her life from scene to scene, observing her, and remembering what happens, then that actually kind of defeats the main theme, which is that she is invisible to society and that she is the only one who can tell her own story. Just one of those examples where the choice of narrative mode is actually significant to the story, not just an aesthetic choice to engage the reader most effectively.
I thought POV was more of a tool than a preference. You use the best tool for a specific situation. Personally, I think third is ultimately more fun to write in. It allows the writer (that's us, guys) to imbue more of his or her own voice. In first person, the POV completely hogs the spot light. Notice that both narrators Humbert Humbert in Lolita and Mr. Kinbote from Pale Fire have very dazzling voices. Writing 1st person from a more normal person might be less fun.
I think First Person POV feels distant because the narrator begs you to believe everything they say and perceive. A close friend will tell you that Jessica is dumb and egotistical, and you take their word for it. But is your close friend reliable in judging Jessica? Your close friend might not tell you something about Jessica thus masking and hiding the truth.
Yes. That's exactly how I feel about this issue. I like first person, don't get me wrong. But I think I prefer third, both for reading and for writing.
First person saved me, and now I hate it. I've only written one novel in third person. It was the first novel I ever wrote - just to see whether I could. Turns out, I could. But not well enough to get it published right off the bat. So I set about on a second novel, with the specific intent of writing something publishable. I knew exactly what it was going to be. A historical novel set in a tuberculosis sanatorium right before antibiotics were invented. I was aiming for a bleak, poetic tearjerker. Only, the words just wouldn't come. I spent hours staring at the one and only paragraph I'd managed to write. My central character, a bloke in a hat (yeah, that's as far as I managed to define him) just wasn't talking to me. Then, one night, I was sitting there supping a wee dram and closing my laptop, when something at the back of my mind finally connected. There, sitting at the table with me, were four people - fully formed and ready to play. I switched to first person and ran off the novel in about five months. Bad-a-bing, bad-a-boom, and straight into print. My first publishing contract. I was over the moon. I've published four novels now, with three publishers (including that first 3rd person one - after a little re-write). Three of those four - everything since that first one - have been in first person. My latest one is by far the very best thing I've ever written, and deservedly attracted the most attention. It could never have been anything but 1st person. However... I wrote a fifth novel in between. Also 1st person. And it shall never see the light of day. My publisher said 'the voice is too similar to that other novel we published.' Balloon = deflated. I'm now on to my sixth novel. It's also multiple 1st person. And, y'know what, I'm actually feeling a little sick of it. The voices are bleeding together, and I realised that 1st person really only makes a lot of sense if those voices are clear and distinct. When I was a kid, it was natural for me to write in third person. I'm not sure why. Perhaps because all the books (mostly Point Horror) I read were in third person. I don't think I remember any English Lit. texts in first person, to be honest. Thinking even further back, all my favourite children's stories and fairy tales were in third person too. Maybe it was something ingrained in me from a very early age. After four novels in 1st person, I started to wonder whether I should try third person again. Number six almost was. Only, at the last minute, I bottled it. I'd forgotten how. I started to question whether it was even possible to write multiple-character well in third person. Then I picked up Game of Thrones and went aha, that's how you do it. I'm determined to write my next novel in thirdy. But I still owe a hell of a lot to first person perspective. When done well, it's a show stealer.
I guess all I can say is write it how you feel it, and feel it as you write it. If you don't feel it then maybe you shouldn't write it, what ever the POV. But I believe both work you just have to make it happen.
I like when a writer knows how to find the strength in a pov. I've seen a lot of authors on a lot of sites picking pov's because they're popular not because they necessarily understand the pov's strengths and weaknesses ( not that I always do ). But I notice first person is used a great deal when the story might be better in third. And it's used to get immediate sympathy and connection for a character when that might not be what the story needs. Don't get me wrong eve reader needs to connect to an mc but sometimes it's more important for the reader to get the mc's connection to another character or situation. And that might not be as easy if the reader has to wade through paragraphs of introspective daily drivel. Take Lolita - a good use of 1st - everything feeds through Humbert Humbert and because of it Lolita becomes as shadowy a figure as Quilty. It actually enhances the book because that's what Lolita is to Humbert a figure, an idea, not necessarily the girl. Humbert doesn't really know her which is probably why he plays with so many names for her. Nabokov not only makes this narrow view work, he turns it into a metaphor. "I knew that I had fallen in love with Lolita forever; but I knew that she would not be forever Lolita." Now, take Flowers in the Attic - a bad use of 1st - everything feeds through Cathy which should be a great pov. She is a young woman trapped in an attic with three siblings and forced to become a type of mom and wife. But the greatest dynamic of the book is that wife role and it's flubbed. Because it's her narrow view the reader can't get a handle on Christopher or his motivations and he remains a very flat character. I think if V.C. would've recognized she needed to make Cathy's observations more specifically detailed the book could've been thought provoking instead of just pulpy. And the interesting thing is they've just released a Flowers in the Attic book from Christopher's pov.
Yes. And on top of that, Humbert Humbert is an unreliable narrator, and that fact adds to the book. For your typical third-person work, where there is no overt narrator to speak of, this would be more difficult to achieve.
But those writers are masters. I don't inherently dislike first person, but I think that it's harder to do well. It's a riskier choice.
First person all the way. Personally, it is so much easier to express thoughts and opinions of a character when I write in first person. Most of my pieces have been in first person.
Well it happened again. Typing away and stopped to read what I had written. The natrual flow from 1st person to 2nd. Here is a slice from one of the scenes. The supervisor is asking three of them to tell the group what they have found from their investigation; OK Phil, "Bring us up to speed on what uncovered" “What I’m going to tell you now raised the hair on the back of my neck, Phil Said, Wednesday afternoon Patty was sitting in her rocking chair knitting, and trying to recover from a cold . Around six Patty watched a four-door sedan pull up and park in front of Shelby’s apartment.... Phil's brief goes on for another three paragraphs in 1st perosn. In the last paragraph Phil passes on the physical description of two men. This from Cam, not one of the three; Cam said, "unless they had twins those to were passengers on my flight into Ingalls Landing last night. "...
I personally only write and read in first person. Yes, it's weird, but first person narrations makes it personable and I relate to the characters and story more. I naturally write in the first person, but I do sometimes struggle with the differentiation from my own personal voice and trying to channel my voice through a character. The thing is, I only really have this problem if I don't really know what I'm writing. If I have a focused idea and fully-formed character, then the first person narration comes naturally.
I strictly write third-person. I never had an interest in first-person, whether I'm reader or writing it. Just not my thing, dog.
Depends on the story. Although it might be interesting to thy to write the same story for different povs
Jonsey said, as he stood watching his friends Billy and Joe squared off to fight. "Hey you two knock it off!" Billy said, "Stay out of this Jonsey, it's none of your business." Joe said, "Yes it is. Ain't that right Jonsey?" (Addressed Billy, then referenced Jonsey who answered Billy's direct question). "You bet it is Joe." (Replied 1st person to Billy because there is no doubt who Jonsey is talking to.) "Like hell," Billy said, as he punched Joe square on the nose. (back to 3rd person) OK folks, chew on this one. I'm seeing 3rd and 1st person here wihtout a problem .
1st, 2nd, and 3rd person POV refer to narration, not dialogue. (I couldn't find any 2nd person in your previous example, either). When you write dialogue, you write what the characters say, verbatim. If the character says "you", the author writes "you", regardless of POV. Your little scene is in 3rd person. In first person, it would start: "..." I said as I stood watching my friends Billy and Joe square off to fight. "Hey, you two, knock it off!" In second person, it would start: "..." you said as you stood watching your friends Billy and Joe square off to fight. "Hey, you two, knock it off!" And in third person, it's the way you wrote it. POV changes affect narration, not dialogue.
KenA BayView you both talk about grammatical 1st and 3rd person. Narrative modes are way, way more than simple "I" versus "he/she/it". I would strongly recommend a thorough exploration of narrative voice and focalization, two most important aspects of the narrator (yes, more important than what pronoun is actually used!) This might be a good start: http://www2.anglistik.uni-freiburg.de/intranet/englishbasics/NarrativeSituation01.htm
I have a side project distracting me that I like to call a sci-phi story. It touches all sorts of arguments ranging from the origin of the universe, free will, the existence of God, a self aware universe, multiverse, etc. I've been told the story is a good one and I believe I can write it well. My problem is this: The story has to have a conclusion or lead to the point where the reader can decide the most likely outcome on their own. However, I do not want the book to convey a message of my beliefs or lack thereof; I simply want to bring the topics up and make people form there own quetions. Does this make the book weak? Does an author need to take a side if they are going to write a story with such arguments?
It's weak if the author forces a conclusion down the readers' throats. The strongest work I've ever seen in any art is work that demands the audience make up their own minds.
I don't plan on forcing a conclusion, but in order for there to be any sort of conflict, the protag has to be on one side of the action, and I want that being to be skeptical as well. What I want to avoid is somebody reading my book and saying, "Well Garball obviously believes in bananas." I also feel that because it is a work of fiction that it needs to follow the normal story arc. It has to have a resolution. You can't write a 50,000 word question, can you?
