posted
I like first person POV, but I haven't seen any stories using that tool well in a long time. I'm wondering, what are the strengths and weaknesses of using first person?
Posts: 329 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strenghts: A very, very deep penetrating point of view and a closeness of character.
Weaknesses: Distance in time...when I read first person, I assume that the person telling the story had this happen to him some time ago and is writing it down. Also, a first person narrator can't write things down if he's dead, so almost always it is a cheat to kill off a first person narrator. (I'm sure you can come up with exceptions.)
Then there are some things that are neither strenghts nor weaknesses, but simle facts that may determine the appropriateness of this voice:
1. Motivatoin: Why is this person writing down this story? 2. Timing: When are they writing it down? Is this a series of diary entries, the first of which is written well before the end? 3. Voice: A first person narrator will have a distinctive voice as he writes which may not be comfortable for a person to read. It is difficult, for example, to write a first person account from the point of view of a child or an illiterat, uneducated adult. It may be difficult to read if the person is someone who likes to curse or who doesn't know proper English.
There are some rare few exceptions, like a good mystery and some sardonic writing, but in general I won't read more than a page of first person anything (don't worry, if you write something in first person for our critique group I will read it, just be ready for the critique ).
I think a lot of first person, not all, is a cop out for sloppy writing. First person is generally easier to write, as you only have to put yourself in one person's head, and you don't have to be as detailed as everything else is just what s/he sees. With third person you have to pay more attention to detail and tenses, but you have more control over the story. Example:
First person:
I was shocked when I saw her angrily draw a derringer from beneath her skirt and dove for cover before she could shoot.
Third person:
Billy was shocked when he saw her angrily draw a derringer from beneath her skirt and dove for cover before she could level off and fire.
The difference is subtle, but there. In 1st you only know that the lady is angry and Billy is heading for cover. Beyond that you can't honestly write any more, as Billy is now ducking for cover and cannot watch the action.
In 3rd you get the exact same effect (angry, gun, cover), but you now know that the lady is not a stranger to guns, where before you could only assume. The narrator in 3rd is telling you that she is taking her time (leveling the gun at the target) and that although she is angry, she is professional enough to aim properly before shooting.
It's not the best example, but in my opinion a well written third person story will always be better than a well written first person.
The biggest drawback with first person is that as soon as the PoV character does something disagreeable. The reader does not want to be part of the story anymore and will walk away emotionally if they don't actually just put the story down.
Third Person Limited Omniscience is actually far more immersive once a story gets going. The reader can feel like the closest companion of the PoV characters without having to actually try to be the PoV character. Readers feel involved without feeling responsible.
First person can often feel like sitting there while someone brags at you. Its a bit off-putting.
posted
I'm afraid I have to respectfully disagree with Jammrock on his take of first person.
It is very easy to write BADE first person. It is very difficult to write GOOD first person. BAD first person is often a cop-out for bad writers. It is also often a tool for eginners who are still daydreaming as if they are the protag in the story.
Sophisticatd first person writers have a heck of a task to set up a believable framework for their story and to keep consistent with voice and person.
By the way, properly done third person limited doesn't give you more than one person's head at a time.
posted
The main advantage of first person is that it allows you to create a document rather than a simple story. In other words, you can pass off a well written first person story as being something that "really" happened. With a third person story, there is the implicit admission that the story isn't being told by an actual witness to the events. The events might have happened, but the writer is not claiming to have seen them personally.
First person is good to the extent that it pulls off the illusion that the document might be genuine, and bad to the extent that it fails in this. Note that there is an important distinction between the document being genuine and the story being true, if we believe that the narrator is choosing to lie about what happened, that doesn't make the document fake. On the other hand, if we don't believe that the narrator is the one telling the story, that doesn't necessarily mean the events didn't happen, but it does mean that the document isn't genuine.
First person narrators are free from the requirement that we feel much empathy for the POV character. We only need to feel interest in what the character has written, we don't need to feel that the character is good in any way. But our interest in the story then becomes totally dependent on our ability to believe that the character is the one writing the narrative. First person narrators are also free to hide information, even to the extent of lying to the reader outright. But again, it is critical that the reader feel that it is the narrator doing it and not the author.
Ultimately, it isn't a question of strength or weakness. It depends on what you're trying to do in your story.
There are things you can only do in first person POV. How about this for an opening:
"You probably think you know this story already. It's become the stuff of common currency, of gossip and legend. But the gossip and the legends are wrong. They're just rumour and hearsay; but I was there. I know what happened."
This clearly flags up that it's a narration, at some later point in life; and what that gives you, as a writer, the chance to do is to allow the narrating character to reflect, not only on the events, but on their own part in those events, to wonder what they might have done differently, to wonder just how things could have turned out, to reflect (according to character) with more or less honesty about their courage or cowardice, their strengths and weaknesses, and so on.
I don't think you can do that with any other POV, though you could go for "story-within-a-story" and have a third person outer narration instead of direct first.
The main limitation of first person POV, however, is this - your narrator must be central to virtually every event in the story. The last thing you want is long bits of dialogue filling the narrator (and thus the reader) in with backstory about something that's been going on elsewhere. It is this which limits the plot, and that may be why there are very few novel-length fantasy works in first person.
You can get around this by using two or more first-person narrators. Colin Greenland did this in "The Hour Of The Thin Ox", but it demonstrated a real risk - that the reader likes one POV character and hates the other, and so ends up skipping chucnks of the story (luckily, in "Hour Of The Thin Ox", this didn't matter much, as IIRC the two stories were almost completely independent - the characters met up at the end, but it didn't seem important to know both backstories).
"Cold Gods", my Norse Myth retelling, will be entirely using first person POV (and present tense for good measure). This choice has been made very deliberately, to try and marry the sense of epic grandeur of the myths with a sense of immediate, real connection. I honestly don't believe the stories would be as involving if told in 3P.
But uiltimately, that's my choice and my opinion. YMMV.
posted
Will, I think that is a beautiful way of putting it. I've seen people try to do the same thing in third person but most of the time it annoys me.
Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Strengths: A very, very deep penetrating point of view and a closeness of character.
I completely disagree. I generally feel closer to a third-person POV character. I write in first person as often as third, and I don't usually have a specific reason except that I can't get the story off the ground in third. I just have a feel for whether the story should be in first or third. If I'm in the wrong one, the story resists being written.
posted
There is a pretty fine definition of "closeness" when referring to tense. It is infinitely arguable and eventually boils down to semantics. ------ In First Person, you are absolutely aware that a story is being told to you. This limits how close you can get to the story. In Third Person, you can suspend disbelief to the point where you can pretend you are watching it yourself.
OR
Third Person never gets close enough to any character enough for me to get truly involved. Only the intimacy of First Person draws me in- even if it is only one person.
posted
I will write in first person for only one reason. There is a point that needs to be made and only this character can make it. Only this particular character will admit it only to himself and therefore the reader. Letters can be used that way. But I wouldn't write in first person for a novel especially.
Posts: 341 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
). 
