First Person Narrative is a narrative which is cast as if told by one of the participants in the story being narrated. For example, if I were to tell you about the time that my brother, in a jealous rage at my great physical attractiveness (or physical cuteness, at any rate) removed my right dimple with a spear before casting my bleeding body into a ditch by the roadside, I would probably tell the story in first person, narrating how I and my brother went afield that day, and how we came to be before the ditch where I was cast, and so on and so forth.

That is, I would identify myself, the person telling the story, as being the person that the story was about (or at least as being a person in the story). This is not to say that I would be telling the absolute truth on every point...I could well claim to have another name, have lived in another time, even be of a different species or whatnot. The important thing is that I, the narrator, place myself in the story and tell the story as a person that actually was invovlved in the events of the story.

First Person is used in fiction for one very good reason (which is somewhat complex, involves a number of other reasons, and itself has no real bearing on the current fiction market although many of the subsidiary reasons do still apply). Basically, during a certain period when the modern novel was first evolving, it was considered unfashionable in much of the civilized world to buy or sell "fictions" at all. Therefore, most fiction had to be dressed up as true accounts of actual events.

This being the case, novelists often wrote stories under pseudonyms, and attempted to sell them as actual accounts of fantastic or improbable events. Since the events narrated didn't actually take place, and therefore actual evidence that the events of the story ever happened was hard to come by, the "author" of the story was employed as a sort of, "disposable eyewitness", if you will. The fictional author (i.e., the real author under a pseudonym) claimed to be an eyewitness to the events of the story. To lend interest to the account, and to make it plausible that the putative author would have actually witnessed much of the story, the narrator was usually cast as a fairly important participant in the story, a main character.

As time went on, it became more and more acceptable for people to openly accept fictional narratives...but by that time, the rules of the first person narrative had been largely set. Fortunately, they strongly correlate to the real literary strengths of first person. As Card (and others) has mentioned, when you tell a story, and claim that it actually happened to you, you increase the emotional stakes automatically. If you tell the story well, then the reader is left without any solid reason to believe that your story is impossible. And therefore, they cannot simply discount it.

A First Person narrative must explain how it came into existence. In general, this means that you can rely on the narrator surviving long enough to write down and transmit as much of the story as is in first person. A first person story which recounts the circumstances of the narrator's death is going to be rather unconvincing, unless it explains how the author managed to continue writing after death. It also means that you can count on the narrator character being interested in the events of the story, or explaining why he took the trouble to write about events that held no interest for him. The narrative also has to be written at some point, after the events being narrated occur in the story. All of these factors affect what can and cannot be part of the narrative.

For instance, in the novel Lovelock (and where the heck is the sequel to that?), everything that is part of the text (excluding, I think, the journal entries of the two children) is there because the character--Lovelock--writes it down while trying to work out his feelings and intentions with respect to the entire Mayflower expedition. If he had, say, had a malfunction and part of his memories were deleted, then those events could not plausibly be included in the story he tells. By the same token there is a running explaination of why he includes almost everything important that he includes in the story. Therefore, even with the pheonomenal mental abilities our enhanced narrator has, there are limitations on the story and the way it is told. From the very first lines of the story, we know something about where the story will end up, and this is necessary in order to justify to the reader the existence of the narrative in the first place.

There are two additional drawbacks to first person, both of which may seem slightly paradoxical. The first is that because the narrator is an actual character in the story, with motivations and reasons for the narrative, we cannot fully trust his account. Oh, he claims to be telling the truth, but is he really? Thus, by casting itself as an eyewitness account, the narrative opens itself to charges of inaccuracy (a charge that one can hardly imagine being leveled against most fiction--after all, it never really happened at all--there is no independent reality for the story to be more or less accurate about).

The second drawback is even more paradoxical. Because the story is a first person narrative written by someone else, we know it didn't happen to us. It is possible for me to read another's true third person account of my own actions. It is not possible for me to read someone else's true first person account about myself. Because the narrator, talking to the reader, constantly refers to himself as "I", the reader is constantly reminded that the narrator is a person distinct from himself.

I'm sure that you understand that every rule has an exception, and I'm not trying to nitpick, but I do have a couple of questions.

quote:

---

A First Person narrative must explain how it came into existence.

---

quote:

---

I would identify myself, the person telling the story, as being the person that the story was about (or at least as being a person in the story).

---

Other first person does not. The trick is to start with the I perspective and then sneak in the identification of the I person. That way, as was said, the reader feels like they are right there.

Some ways to do that are, and I have used some of these:

I handed her my business card with a smile. She looked at it and read out loud, “John Killem, Private Eye.” After which she puked on my shoe.

I hate standing in line at the record’s office. Smelly old men, and crying babies. For Pete’s sake why couldn’t women hire a baby sitter? Finally my turn at the window. The woman behind the counter asked in a board tone, “Name?”

I answered with a smug smile, “John Killem, Private Eye.” Before the clerk could answer I heard a noise behind me, an awful choking noise. I turned around and the woman behind me puked on my shoe.

Just a few ideas. First person seems restrictive, but in a lot of ways it gives you the freedom to fully explore one character and to create a strong sense of oneness with that character for your reader. I enjoy writing in all forms of POV as each presents its own set of challenges. One is not better than another, it is a matter of preference.

I haven't read Glen Cook, but I would guess that there is no real reason for him to be writing in first person at all if he makes no effort to follow the rules. The POV is still First Person, just poorly written, probably written in First Person because the author has erroneous ideas about what First Person is supposed to accomplish and how to use it.

Plays are never written in first person--as I pointed out elsewhere, they are always written in Third Person Objective (a written play is always a description of the lines that are to be spoken and the actions that are to take place on the stage--rather than a work meant to be read directly by the audience, it is a series of instructions to a group of artists as to what must be included in the presentation of the play). Of course, there can be a Narrator character in a play, but it is very rare indeed for the Narrator to claim to have actually written the play being performed (including his own lines), even this would not make the written work first person (unless the author wrote the play as a story rather than a play, the written play itself would still be in Third Person Objective). None of Shakespear's plays use that conceit (although I can see how it might work for certain subject matters...particularly some modern ones).

I'm not sure what the meaning of srhowen's post is. Not only some, but all first person narrators must identify themselves and their role in the story being told, 'tis a necessary part of explaining why they wrote the story. The first example is more correct, the others are less so (it is true that these methods may be used to create more immediacy, but immediacy is not the purpose of using First Person).

I could do a series, but the fact of the matter is that First Person is the only narrative POV (aside from Third Person Objective, which I don't really care for or about) that has such specific rules and functions. The function of a first person narrative is to act as a document that purports to be an actual account written by an actual witness to those events. There is no other reason for using such a difficult and inherently limited voice. The rules directly contribute to the efficacy of the narrative in producing this effect, and any deviation from the essential rules lessens the ability of the document to convincingly present itself as a "true" narrative.

In this sort of first person the reader sees the story through that character's eyes as the story plays out not after the fact in the document of what has already happened.

For instance, if you're writing

"Paul headed for the exits. He had nothing to do with administration. Why Amy singled him out was curious. But she gave him a lot of interesting information.",

insert "I" for "Paul" and "he," and "me" for "him." Does that make sense? This may not be the best example, but I find if I do this when I'm unsure, it seems to help.

Just another way to "use" first person?

Honestly, write in whatever POV you wish to. First person is not easy, despite some who think otherwise, but then again it may be easy for them and another POV hard. I find first to be easy, but hard to do well. It is not a scape goat POV. Many think it is and try to do it because it seems easy to writ eform the I POV.

Ever read some junk where the word I is used so much you could cry? It is hard to do well. Things like description are hard to intwine into the text. After all why would so and so "i" describe the car they drive every day, their house or even themselves? Yes, you can use the document type thing, I am so and so and am 6 ft tall with----but I find that boring and out of date--and taking the easy way out.

Read Sue Grafton, she does a very good job with first person.

And if you ask me, and I have been told, that I do as well.

quote:

---

Not only some, but all first person narrators must identify themselves and their role in the story being told, 'tis a necessary part of explaining why they wrote the story.

---

quote:

---

But it does have to reveal who the person is and what role they play in the story.

---

I will agree that it does have to tell you who the person is, in some form or another---but it does not have to tell you the role they paly in the story andymore than limited third has to tell you that. You as a writer should be able to get the role across to the reader without you I character stating it.

In many first person stories, esp. if you go to some of the older ones, the "I" character introduced themselves. I am so and so and this is my story. They told you their role in the story.

More modern works use first person as a very limited kind of limited third, a more personal version of the limited third. So there is no need for that main character to hit the reader in the head with their role anymore. It can be done the same as limited third, in a subtle way, that lets the reader discover that role for themselves.

Shawn

I have a picture up at the below link to prove my gender.

www.xanga.com/WildChildEditors

No where did I say it was inferior to limited third. In fact, it can be better than limited third in that you get the tight view of just that character and the reader can get right into their head and the story as if they were the "I" character.