Hatrack River Writers Workshop: First Person POV

This is topic First Person POV - A Good Example in forum Open Discussions About Writing at Hatrack River Writers Workshop.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/writers/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=003035

Posted by Jammrock (Member # 3293) on :

Long story short ... as many of you know, I typically despise first person stories. I have, at long last, found one that is amazing to the core. It helps if you like old Chinese stories and cheesy Hong Kong action movies, but it's a very good story none-the-less. It's called Bridge of Birds by Barry Hughart. And you can read the original draft here (i.e. not the published version of the story):

http://www.massmedia.com/~mikeb/hughart/bobdraft/chapter1.html

This draft is legitimate and posted with the author's permission. See here (10 Sept 2003 and 19 December 1999):

http://www.massmedia.com/~mikeb/hughart/news.htm

Though this story is slightly comical and involves mystery, my two exceptions for using first person, it is a Chinese fairy tale to the core. It is a fantastic read and a great example of how a first person POV story should, or could, be written.

Now, if only I could find a copy of Master Li and Number Ten Ox to see what the final product is like.

Jammrock

PS - Sadly, Mr. Hughart stopped writing after three Master Li books, because he got fed up with his publishers and the industry in general

Posted by pooka (Member # 1738) on :

Moby Dick is largely first person, though the narrator is not the MC. Life Expectancy by Koontz is first person. Catcher in the Rye is first person. I have found the rule against first person to have too many exceptions to really be a rule anymore.

Posted by pjp (Member # 3211) on :

I don't think it's a rule, merely a suggestion for the aspiring author. Using the appropriate tool for the job is key, along with having the ability to properly use the tool. Of course, if it's a goal to publish in that form, practice makes perfect (or at least publishable).

Posted by Silver3 (Member # 2174) on :

The finished product is still called "Bridge of Birds", and it's changed quite a lot (the first chapters posted on the site are definitely not the ones I know). But it's very very good, and had me laughing out loud.

I haven't managed to track down the sequels (they seem out of print and real hard to find). But I did find a used copy of "Bridge of Birds" in an English Bookshop, and it has place of pride on my shelves.

Posted by Beth (Member # 2192) on :

Bridge of Birds is terrific. I didn't like the second quite as much.

Posted by Silver3 (Member # 2174) on :

Seems there's a third as well.
The second is out of print, and the third is available only in hardcover.

Posted by luapc (Member # 2878) on :

I think the main reason people with experience say to avoid first person is that it is more difficult to write a good story using it. From my experience, many new and inexperienced authors try to write stories using first person because they are trying to 'live their story' so to speak as they write. They see themselves as the main character. It just hasn't quite clicked yet to tell a story as an outsider would see it because they're too close to it, and for that you need something other than first person.

I know when I first started writing, I tended to write in first person, but later realized that for most stories, it was better to show more points of view. There's nothing wrong with a first person story, as many of these examples show, but I would bet that there is a higher percentage of bad ones that never get published or read by many people because they are in first person, especially from beginning authors.

I think in general, most stories are better with more points of view, but some very good first person stories have been written, and will be in the future. We as authors just need to write our stories the way we see them, and not let ourselves be influenced by outside opinion. If we think a story requires first person and we want the reader to really identify with that point of view, it can definitely work, but it's all part of the learning process of becoming better writers to be able to distance yourself and show multiple points of view.

Posted by Jammrock (Member # 3293) on :

There was a limited print called The Chronicles of Master Li and Number Ten Ox that has all three books in it. I've seen some online at Amazon, but they run $50+ per copy (one signed by the author and artist was $350). The publisher of the chronicles I think has gone out of business.

The most surprising thing was that Hughart was able to do the action very well in 1st person. That is one of my major complaints with 1st person is action sequences. I think one of the reasons why this worked for me so much was that he told the story in retrospect, as a story teller, not a character in the story (despite being the MC). Dunno, I'll have to think about it more ... maybe read it again.

pooka, pjp had the right of it. I never said it was a rule, I just said I usually don't like 1st person stories unless they are comedies or mysteries. Thus it is my rule, and not a writer's rule.

Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :

Almost all fiction in the old days was written in first person, because it was being presented as reportage, and reportage needs a reporter.

The use of first person in modern literature is more complex. A lot more complex. But I'll say that one of the main uses is to create an "unreliable" narrative, one in which we only know what the narrator character is willing to divulge.

Various techniques available to the modern writer impact the reliability of the narrator in different ways. The problem comes about when a novice writer, somehow unaware of the principles of reliability in narrative, uses first person carelessly and creates a narrative with an undesireable level of "unreliability".

If you don't have a firm understanding of unreliable narrators, or you don't want one in your story, then you shouldn't use first person. It's that simple.

Posted by Spaceman (Member # 9240) on :

quote:
If you don't have a firm understanding of unreliable narrators, or you don't want one in your story, then you shouldn't use first person. It's that simple.

I completely disagree. An unreliable narrator is not a prerequisite for first person. David Gerrold is a good example of a writer who uses mostly first person with a reliable narrator. It's just more difficult to pull off deep penetration in first person. It's useful if you want a told tale.

Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :

I'm not saying that a first person narrator can't be reliable. But if you don't understand unreliable narrators, then you won't have control over how reliable the narrator of your story is.

I didn't just say "if you don't want an unreliable narrator," I said "if you don't have a firm understanding of unreliable narrators, or don't want one".

Posted by rcorporon (Member # 2879) on :

I love Whyte's "Dream of Eagles" series, which was done entirely in first person.

It was so excellent, that I think the next novel I tackle will be done in first person.