I love first person because it feel personal to me, like someone telling me a story. But Third is great too. I can't remember the name, but the sequel to The Alienist (great read) annoyed me and I stopped reading it. The narration was in 2nd and was done by an uneducated assistant to MC doctor. So, he was like an innocent watch the great man the whole time. It seemed like a technique to avoid have to write complex explanations.
The best place to use second person is when you're writing a how-to book. It's invariably awful for fiction.
Yes, it's like a double filter away from the action. You don't get to here what the MC thinks directly, and you don't get the all knowing 3rd voice.
Actually, I compare second person in fiction to the writer snapping on a proctology glove, then working the reader like a ventriloquist dummy. Don't know about you, but the idea makes me squirm uneasily!
Yeah 2nd person doesn't really work well in fiction, I can't say I've ever gotten past the first page of any book written in 2nd person.
I've seen some novel's that are done in first and third. When it's in the view of the main character, it's in 1st. But then if there is a scene change and it shows what another character is doing to affect the story, then it switches to third person. I can't think of a novel at this time that has that. But I write in Third Person Limited, meaning when a scene is written, you see things through that characters eyes that you are doing the scene in. This allows you to easily switch scenes into different POV's and not confuse the reader.
Yes I thought of that too, a majority of James Patterson's books are like that, Maximum Ride series or Sundays at Tiffany's for example. It works quite effectively.
And in regards to fictional books written in the second person, I've never encountered one nor do I wish to.
The only thing I've ever seen in 2nd person that was fiction was those old Choose Your Own Adventures books. You walk into the room and see two doors. Turn to page 3 if you go to the one on the right. Turn to page 6 if you go through the door on the left.
Those horrible books have been replaced by the prescripted computer game, thank god. And the computer games adopt more of a first or third person perspective (depending on whether you see yourself performing, or see through the character's eyes).
I think it should not too painful to pull off if your other character have distinct personalities/traits/speaking styles from your main character. Actually, now that I think about it, it may be something I want to try in the future! This makes me think of the Animorph books. Each book was, of course, written in the POV of one character, except for a few longer ones where they all told the story. Maybe it was my short attention span, but usually I would forget who was talking and have to look back to the beginning of the chapter. At least every chapter started with name and portrait of the person talking. And second person always turns me off.
From what I've gathered, it is best to stick to the passive tense. For the novel I am currently working on, a large portion of the story takes place in the psyche of the main character. Along with this, the style I've used where he is the focus of the chapters is one that I find very fitting. It is mainly composed of the active or present tense, formed from short, bursting sentences. The character, partly based on aspects of my own life, is represented through his thoughts in these chapters. The style is more descriptive of thought, and seems very fitting. My own worry is audience: are you personally turned off by even a small amount of present tense usage? Do you consider it appropriate in some cases. People say to write what you feel, and write how you want, but as someone looking to make it successfully as a writer (not necessarily financially, but critically or at least reach a large audience), I want to do my best to fit the expectations. Opinions?
Shifting tenses can convey immediacy and drama to a scene if competently handled. If they are NOT well handled you might as well stamp the word "amateur" all over your copy in big red letters, right? One thing I've noticed personally is that it's REALLY hard to stay consistent when trying to write in varying tenses. I can write several paragraphs in present tense and have things go along pretty well but then without realizing it I will have shifted back to past tense, which is of course easier to write in and more standard. So then I go through and try to make the tenses consistent, read the thing, and decide it would have all been better in past tense anyway. What you're describing as far as internal dialog/monologue (ex, It's hot in here. I can't feel my legs. I don't remember anything... that's right, there was a cave-in. I'm trapped!) is often very effective; however--again, this is just something I've noticed personally--if I try to stay in present tense when describing any subseqent action, the whole thing starts to suck. That doesn't read very well, does it? That reads a bit better--if it's just my own internal speech, present tense is ok, but once it gets out of my head it's not so ok. Switching from present in internal monolgue to past/passive for scene and action is like the camera panning slowly back--at first the reader only knows what the character knows, and then the scene comes into focus, and you can see the character too, plus still hear what he's thinking. I've seen other writers make good use of changing tenses but it takes a lot of control. In my opinion if you are just starting out, and in particular if you've never had anything accepted for publication (by someone other than your buddies on your personal website!), then it's a better idea to veer away from present tense writing. Good question! I hope this was helpful. yours in Chaos, Scarlett
I definitely appreciate the help. That gives me a better idea for usage. I'm a relatively new writer, but I'm emphasizing the creation of style, and trying to find something that suits me personally. Every bit of advice contributes. Thanks much!
I would disagree vehemently with this statement, although I'm not sure you are using the right term for what you mean. Passive voice relegates the actor to the role of a passive object. In an extreme example: As opposed to an active voice: I'm using essentially the same nouns and verbs, but the second sentence makes John the one in the driver's seat, so to speak. That's probably why you're more likely to see the passive version in a report to the insurance company, though - it all happened to John, he didn't DO anything. I suspect, however, that you meant past tense, not passive. In that, I will agree. Past tense is a more natural narrative voice than present tense, and the writer has complete control over how far in the past is represented; anywhere from microseconds to eons, depending on context. A past tense voice on the order of seconds is emotionally nearly equivalent to a present tense voice, but with more flexibility to vary the time distance. In your example, by the way, the present tense is all contained in internal dialogue, which is literal thoughts by the character. It is correct to write internal dialogue without quote marks, as you have done, but you should not italicize it (even though you may see it that way in some published books - it's a publication choice, but you should never rely on typesetting choices to convey meaning). However, don't confuse the narrative voice with the grammatical tense in individual sentences. A past tense narrative voice will predominantly use past tense verbs in the individual sentences, but there will be exceptions: The narrative voice here is past tense, but there are present tense verbs (Jack is, I am certain) and even a future tense verb (he will be institutionalized). I do discuss this somewhat in this blog: What's Your Point (of View)?
My novel takes place primarily during the 1960s. I start some scenes with a description of historic events, told in "an unknown universal author" Point Of View. Then, I shift the point of view to the MC - "Rob." I like the way the this technique seems to 'anchor' the scene in a certain time. I also like how it moves from a broad perspective down to the MC's perspective. However, I've been told that you can't shift the Point Of View in this way. Is it okay to do this? Can anyone think of other authors who have tried this technique. FOR EXAMPLE: 1966 Throughout the world, life progressed. The American Football League and the National Football League agreed to merge into one football organization. A couple of astronauts circled the earth in another Gemini capsule. Another Civil Rights leader, James Meredith, was wounded by a sniper in Jackson, Mississippi. Some crazy guy murdered eight nurses in Chicago. Another one killed thirteen students from a tower on the University of Texas campus. Rob's friend, Larry, went away for the summer to stay with an Uncle in Chicago, returning just before school started in August. When he came back, Rob noticed immediately that Larry had changed. He grew his hair longer, for one thing. Rob had never seen a black person with long hair, and Larry's made his head look like he was wearing a helmet of some sort. He said everyone in Chicago wore their hair that way, and called it an "afro." What do you think? Thank you for your help.
You've been told? By whom? You can't? Why? Write how you want to. No one can forbid you to switch POVs.
A professional editor is working with me to prepare the novel to send to publishers. She has cautioned me against this practice. With the exception of John Grisham (maybe), I haven't found another writer who uses this technique. Thoughts?
I don't see why this is bad. I recently read The Idiot for lit class and the POV started out in third person omniscient and gradually shifts to third person limited. So, there is nothing wrong with using a POV shift.
I don't think the technique itself is bad, (it's not really a 'technique,' as you're merely talking about two different things in two different paragraphs) but your delivery is a little blunt, in much the same manner as a baseball bat to the soft spot of an infants head. "A crazy guy murdered some people in Chicago. . . OH, YEAH, did I mention that Rob's friend did such and such?" And I feel like you just connected two completely unrelated things.
Your opening paragraph lacks focus. The reader doesn't see, much less feel a part of, a scene. That is a weak opening. Of course, you CAN do it. You did, after all. The real question is whether you should. There is no absolute standard, but some constructs are stronger than others. The problem is not that you ae shifting your point of view, so much as that you are starting with a very murky, ill-defined point of view. Openings are crucial. Get the reader INTO the scene from the very start, not flaoting in limbo. No one wants to begin reading with a history lesson.
I also have been using this "omniscient" third person POV then moving in to a limited third with my MC. Other writers who have read certain chapters are split as to embracing this style. Personally, I like it..hmm. I don't employ this in every chapter, but I do it at least twice. It's as if I'm making the location a character by focusing on setting before introducing the character into the scene/chapter. One comment from a short story writer was that they felt disoriented b/c I took too long to establish whose head the reader was in...whose POV. It does, in agreement with Cogito (written elsewhere), force the reader to float almost aimlessly until the character's POV is established. Of this I'm guilty. In both cases when used the characters are experiencing a sense of disorientation in the scenes. I'm just wondering if this approach works; or if it can be made to work effectively for the novel form versus the short story form?
An afro (and maybe bell-bottoms) would be enough for me to anchor the scene without the first paragraph. And hopefully the fact that it's set in the 1960s is not the sole 'hook'. But Rob could be watching marches on TV when his friend Larry, almost unrecognisable in his new trendy 'gear', knocks on his door. This way you've established POV from the start.
