I have always religiously and fanatically written in limited third-person (multiple viewpoints) but my next novel demands less perspective. I originally chose to write in third person limited (single perspective) especially because in the sci/fan gen it seems increasingly popular. However, the thought struck me like [insert cliche similie here] and I am being wooed by the lusty temptations of the old siren "first person..."
My question therefore is how much of a market is there for first person literature, and basically if you would contrast the "at-the-end-of-the-day" effects of choosing between the two. [1st and 3rd-limited-single]
I've always kind of seen first person literature as red-headed-step-bastard child of fiction writing, not sure why. Do yous hare this view or is it unwarranted?
Would YOU read a sci-fantasy about identity and redemption if it was written in first person? In third? Which is more appealing?
I think I've beaten it enough. That should shomewhat resemble my question by now.
posted
I don't think the average reader would pick a book up and say, "Hey, this is in first person!" And even if they happened to notice, I doubt they'd care. Some of my favorite novels have been in first person, which is why when I began to attempt to write, most of my stuff was first person. Gradaully, I got prodded into third. But my heart will always be with first...
Posts: 1275 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't care which. It's easier to spot flaws in first person than it is in third, but that doesn't stop there from being fantastic stories written in first person POV. From my perspective, the battle between first and third is a matter of personal preference. The only thing I ask for is clarity. If I understand what's going on in a story, I'll usually accept whatever way the author wishes to narrate it.
Posts: 329 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You should read "Characters and Viewpoint" by OSC...because I'm not sure you understand why you might want to use first and why you might want to use third. They can both be fine. I tend to prefer third person, but I do not put a good book down for first person viewpoint. They have their own set of pros/cons and concerns. You end up being distant in time, because there is the perception that a first person narrator is telling the story from some point after the actions happen (even if we're talking about entires in a diary written at the end of each subsequent day). You have to characterize not just the narrator as the events occur, but also the narrator later on. You need a timeline for both times with reasons why he/she might be writing things down.
Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That last point strikes me as overanalysis. Why would a reader care about that? I can't remember a time I've ever thought, "Now, why is the narrator writing this down?" while reading a story written in first-person.
Posts: 453 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I may, The only first person narratives I've liked were VERY well written. In fact the only ones I can think of off-hand were written by OSC (not meaning to sound like a brown-noser, I just haven't read all the many first person stories that I like). It's a lot more difficult, I think to make the story a good one, if it's about "You." HOWEVER, I have no real ego to speak of, so I couldn't possibly imagine anyone being interested in reading about "Me." Posts: 105 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
An author who I feel writes very well in 1st person is Robin Hobb. I loved her two trilogies "The Farseer Trilogy" and "The Tawny Man" series. She wrote 1st person for all 6 of those books, reflective past tense I should add as well.
The average reader out there will just pick up a book, like the title and the blurb on the back and decide whether or not they'll read it. I doubt the average reader will care what perspective the novel is in, as long as its an entertaining story with likeable charactors.
Now, I say "average reader" for one reason, a normal person who can't tell a bad piece of writing from a fantastic piece of writing.
posted
trousercuit: It is NOT overanalysis, it is a reality of the voice. Someone, "I" is telling the story and they are doing so for a reason and from some time in the future. (Just after it endd, a year, ten yeras, a lifetime...)
I recently read a book that I thought was a good example of first person POV until the end...it was "A Hunger in the Soul" by Mike Resnick. The first person narrator spends the entire book describing the reprehensible actions of a popular journalist who the entire galaxy views as a hero but who the narrator knows to be a fraud. ***SPOILER*** I figure he was writing the story to set the record straight and so despite the fact that he went along with a lot of what the reprehensible character did, I thought he would redeem himself in the end. But in the last chapter he destroys all the audio/video evidence of what has happened and then the story is over and I just can't get out of my head, "Wait a minute! But you wrote it all down!" Who was he writing it for? What was the point? ****END SPOILER***
If it was just to have the word "I" appear all over the plac einstead of "he?" Because if that's the only difference between the two, then what's the point? With "I" I can almost never remember the narrator's name so you may as well go with he/name. With limited omniscient viewopint available it's not as if I feel any closer to a first person narrator. In fact, I often feel closer to a well-done third person narrator.
No, first person narrative, done well, is there for a true purpose.
posted
First person is better if you want the reader to really get inside the head of one character. For that, you sacrifice some of the depth of knowledge for your other characters. Also, the viewpoint character must be around for very nearly all the important action. If the character is somewhere else while important plot is happening, it will have to be explained to him, and that's usually less interesting than experiencing it.
Other than that, it's mostly a choice of style. As with most things, you should use the voice that will be best for the story you want to write. If you do it well, there will be a market for it.
posted
If you write in first person you have the danger of people being very confused when the publisher leaves off your last chapter.
Third person is popular in SF/F because there's this anthropological element to it, describing whole cultures and societies. Tolkien is the model for this. Third person stories take place in a world.
First person stories take place in someone's head. They are popular for horror and mystery writers for this reason. The main thing you have to think about in first person is the "unreliable narrator" -- the person telling the story may be crazy, or lying, or just someone who really doesn't get it.
Examples:
Edgar Allan Poe, H.P. Lovecraft -- getting inside the mind of a crazy person! Yay!
Agatha Christie, Murder of Roger Ackroyd -- just read it.
Herman Melville, just about anything, but in particular Moby-Dick & "Bartleby, the Scrivener" -- both have central characters made more mysterious & intriguing by the fact that the narrators really fail to understand them.
posted
As far as having a reason for the narrator to be writing the story, I am not sure if this is necessary. I wrote a short story from first person for a class and had in mind a very clear reason why my character would bare her soul. The prof had me remove every hint of that reason and the story was better for it. I do think me knowing her reasons was important to write it, but I don't think the reader needed to know. The only first person novel I have read where I thought "it would have been better in third person" was one where I really disliked the main character. In his head, he whined the whole time and it got old fast. If the author hadn't shown his thoughts so often, the story would have been interesting.
Posts: 303 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know what you handed in nor what your prof wanted changed, but there is not necessarily a need to tell the reader why your first person narrator wrote a story, there is only a need for you to know and for there to be a plausible reason out there somewhere.
In my example above, when I got to the end I was completely taken out of the story because, in a sense, the AUTHOR turned out to have been the one to write the story, since the CHARACTER calling himself "I" decided never to tell anyone about his experience. I didn't need a dramatic last chapter in which the character explains his reasons for revealing the info to the world (or galaxy, in this case) but what I didn't need was a chapter saying that he never did any such thing because here I was, reading the story he was telling...or was I?
Does that make more sense? You don't have to spell it out necessarily (although I've read very good stories in which it IS spelled out) but neither can you do something to actively negate the impression that someone is telling their own story. It breaks the illusion of closeness and leads to author intrusion.
posted
I have discovered that first person is actually more limiting than third person. First person, in times of high emotion, become unwieldly. Third person allows for a much better, deeper, emotional delve than first person. Generally, first person will be limited to surface thoughts, while third person can reach deeper.
The biggest problem with first person is that it can read like a brag, which become very dull.
There are times when first person works better, but for longer works, the first person has a harder time keeping the immersion with the reader. It's too easy to make the reader feel like they are on the recieving end of a conversation. If the first person gets to that point, the story is lost. (ok, so some authors have made a conversational first person work)
I will use first person for up to about 30,000 words, but I find that third person is a much more engaging voice.
Another observation I've made is that first person immediatly drops the education/sophistication level of an MC. First person is very blue-collar/commoner/peasant. Of course, this can be worked around with language choices.
posted
I appreciate all of your advice. But this is really a big answer to what I am looking for; so thanks!
quote:First person is better if you want the reader to really get inside the head of one character. For that, you sacrifice some of the depth of knowledge for your other characters. Also, the viewpoint character must be around for very nearly all the important action. If the character is somewhere else while important plot is happening, it will have to be explained to him, and that's usually less interesting than experiencing it.
This is good advice and convincing enough for me to explore writing my third novel in first person. ALl the main themes are internal and the true story that is being told isn't the events around but how they affect our main character--and what he thinks about himself. I will write a few shorts in first person and maybe post some fragments-and-feedback.
Also I was wondering about this:
quote:If you write in first person you have the danger of people being very confused when the publisher leaves off your last chapter.
I don't understand what you are saying. Why would that happen?
Now I have this question what is the marketing difference between the persons? Are tehre fiction publishers who only publish in third person, etc? Are there statistics that say readers generally buy more third than first?
posted
There are several magazines that will not even look at a manuscript written in first person. Most book publishers will give it the same glance they give any other book submission, but first person will be a harder sell.
Posts: 370 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
First person is for creating the illusion of an actual account. The specifics of how that works differs from genre to genre. The prime necessity (except in "literary" fiction) is that the POV character have both the ability and inclination to write the entire account down. In literary fiction it is assumed that there is no possible bar to writing (death included), but the narrator still needs a plausible motive for everything that gets onto the page.
In other genres, this illusion is usually taken to the point of pretending (at least internally) that the account is non-fiction. During a significant period in the development of western fiction, it was necessary that most publishable works, even the most fantastic, appear to be non-fiction. First person was used extensively, since it is the only way an ordinary writer could have knowledge of important story elements like the internal thoughts and reactions of a primary character.
As the market for fiction evolved to prefer (and be capable of enforcing) a sharp distinction between fiction and non-fiction, first person lost much of its appeal. If you watch the actual development of this, it's rather interesting. During the transition between first and third, you see a lot of third person stories "framed" in a first person story. The Princess Bride is a wonderful modern example. The author doesn't claim to have witnessed the story personally, he's just retelling the story based on a synthsis of existing accounts (Black Hawk Down is a good "real life" example of this, the book is written in modern third person multiple point of view based on the author's research and interviews). Eventually, the greater versitility and "transparency" of third won out for most fiction.
Third person can be used to write about the kind of character who isn't likely to write his own account. It can also be used to reveal things that the character would not necessarily admit in telling his own story. Because you aren't identifying the character with yourself as the writer (and this is what first person does) the reader is free to identify with the character more closely. And it's substantially easier to master than first person.
First person still works very well for characters who could and would writer their own stories, and have an interesting "ethical" perspective on the story. Motive and opportunity are just your basic requirments for writing in first person. The real payoff only comes if the reader is going to be more interested in how that character is distinct from the audience.
If you want the audience to see themselves in the story, then don't use first person (the exception is when the audience is composed of "literary" authors). Do keep in mind that a good text can appeal to multiple audiences, and that you don't really control who ends up reading your story. Maybe you'll end up being taught in EngLit for the rest of all time.
posted
I'm reviving this topic because I just finished a book that uses first person, and I'd like to talk about it (even though I could put this in the Discussing Published Books and Hooks area).
The book in question is THE LIGHTNING THIEF by Rick Riordan and it's another in the YA fantasy sub-genre of "young hero learns that he is not what he thought he was" (see also Harry Potter and anything else that rides on his coattails).
My problem with this book, and the reason I want to talk about it here, is that the first person POV doesn't work for me in this book. I really had a hard time believing that the narrator was truly a twelve-year-old boy.
And I think this is an important aspect of POV that we could discuss here.
Consider all of the YA books out there that are in third person and compare them to those that are in first person.
I submit that if you are going to write something with a main character quite a bit younger than you are, you would be wise to stay in third person unless you really can put yourself back in that mindset.
First person when you can't get into your I character's head just doesn't work.
posted
I was mostly not reading or posting when this thread developed, and I'm glad you revived it, Kathleen.
Has anybody read Eric Garcia's _Anonymous Rex_ or its sequels? Those are first person accounts of a dinosaur detective who is part of an underground dinosaur culture that masquerades as part of human culture. I'm totally different from that -- I hope -- but I had no problem with it being in the first person.
I think I'd actually have an easier time with first person dinosaurs than with first person young adults.
posted
Butler's Parable of the sower is in 1st. The sequel is a first person with alternatw POVs. It's effortless to keep secrets from the reader, if you are so inclined, in 1st. But then, I've also seen many 1sts where the secret is alluded to in the opening and still unfolded throughout the book. The justification is you need everything in order to make sense of it.
Posts: 334 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a set of twenty stories written first person because the most important element is the viewpoint of that person. In this case, it's a boy observing the world around him. His own take on circumstances, if you will. The setting is 1930's, Depression era. From a 3rd POV, it's just the Depression, things are bad, and so on. From the boy's POV, it's a different story entirely. What, why, how he observes this era is the important concept.
Everything else I write is 3rd POV limited. This also allows me to switch to a different POV for brief periods, to provide information not available to the MC.
So, each style has its place. My Depression era stories would read like a history book (boring!), but from an 11-year old POV, it's a personal and intimate view of the time period.
quote:First person is better if you want the reader to really get inside the head of one character.
I would say that if you really want to get into the head of a character, third person is better. You can go as deep as you want. In first person, the narrator is present, telling you what happened. In 3PL, the narrator turns relatively invisible, and there's no looking back; essentially, this is what's happening now (past tense or not).
I use 1st when I want a particular voice. I'm not sure that's the best reason.
posted
3PL does not necessarily mean "no looking back". viz: John opened the door. There were three of them at the table, just like the time they told him Barney was dead. They'd asked him to come inside and to sit. They'd asked him if he'd like a drink. They'd let him get comfortable. Then bang! They hit him with it. Very sensitive. It had taken him weeks to get over that, far longer than just saying "John, your dog died." He stepped through the door. "Hi, John," said Betty. "Come inside and sit down." "Would you like a drink of water?"
Posts: 92 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some genres also lend themselves better to first person. The PI/noir story is most often in first person, with no justification except "that's the way we've always done it" (ok, I lie, it also allows the narrator's cynical voice to come up). But there's no "looking back on the events", or at least not in the previous books I read.
I tend to write my mysteries in first person for that reason.
posted
This is true about genres. In SF you don't see 1P so much (not to say there aren't brilliant ones out there). But in the 30s, 40s, 50s, esp in short stories, it was very common. I think it's more common in SF short stories than novels (but I haven't actually stopped to count).
Posts: 92 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
With 1st person, you know the MC is looking back and telling you something he lived and survived. So you lose the sense of time or immediacy....with 3PL or 3PDeep, your MC is telling it in the past tense, but it seems to be in the "now." You gain time, or immediacy; it seems to be happening now...so there are tradeoffs. You gain distance in the 1st person, but lose the immediacy, and vice versa in the 3PL....
Posts: 29 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Plus if you do it right, you can kill off the viewpoint character (or set it up so you know he's about to die) in 3P. Won't help your sales if you're targetting Disney.
Posts: 92 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
On writing in first person singluar...somehow a few lines from the old sitcom "Barney Miller," more-or-less as I remember them, seem appropriate.
[Detective Harris is writing a book. Detective Chano reads over his shoulder.]
CHANO: You've got some nerve. "Me," "myself," "I," "me."
HARRIS: Hey, it's first person singular. It's literary licence. Everybody uses it.
CHANO: Okay, how would you like to be cornering some suspect in a dark alley, and suddenly find yourself both first person and singular?
posted
With 1st person POV, and alternating viewpoints, one or more of the POV characters CAN die.
Just don't try it unless you're K. A. Applegate. Actually, even if you ARE KAA, don't. You've already used up every possible method, and proved it can be done, if you set the stage up well enough.
The thing with first person is that it often is told from a time in the future, whether it be days or years after the events take place, but that's not always the case. Just because you can say, "later, I would realize what a terrible mistake that was," doesn't mean you should.
And there are times when an immediate past (relaying the story as it happens) is a good idea, particularly if you're going to be using a lot of dialogue. Who remembers every word of a long discussion that took place ten years ago?
posted
Well, I don't think some of P. G. Wodehouse's "Jeeves and Wooster" stories would work if they weren't first-person Bertie Wooster. Though there's a certain element of "how is this perfect idiot telling a story so brilliantly?" it seems to me the stories would be less effective without the "getting inside his head" and "seeing it from his viewpoint" feel that this use of first person brings to the story.
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
