posted
First person always bites my backside because I can’t figure out why this person is writing this story down. Sure, you can tell yourself they’re telling you the story right now and just ignore the physical book. But then there’s this over flowery narrative that only a writer would come up with. What I’m trying to say is I like to know why this person is telling me this story.
So, I really think my new story should be told in first person. I was going to do it in first person present, but that’s a little tricky and not always effective. Then I thought maybe a frame story, but this book is literary in nature, and a frame story seems a little immature or like nothing more than an extended flashback.
posted
There's nothing wrong with frame stories. But is it really critical to tell the reader why the story is being told? Normally, readers don't think about it. They presume the story's being told because it's a good story (at least until they learn otherwise). I guess I'm unsure of why you think framing it is critical, but it can certainly be made to work.
Posts: 612 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In First person, as long you avoid the casual, conversational manner, its not important to know why they wrote the story down. They didn't. You did. You just told it from their PoV.
In a casual or conversational tone, the narrator may be telling the story - not writing it. Or they may be journaling it. In either case the reason for the storytelling is because it was an important thing in their life.
First person present. Don't do it unless its the best voice for the story. It probably is not.
Framing, a la 'Princess Bride' or 'How I Met Your Mother' can be interesting but make sure you have a darned good reason for the storytelling or lose the framing. In addition to all the plots/subplots in the main story, you need one in the framing story too.
But, be careful even with First Person past. First person is unimersive. It's much harder to build the rapport with the reader. Some publishers outright will not even look at First Person. First Person is a trap. Its much easier to write than Third Person but far harder to write well.
posted
I've notice a lot of recently published books being published in first person. I pretty much view it as a cop out. From some reason this particular story sort of came to me in first person.
I am think about ditching the frame story, but I'm still interested in everyone's opinion.
posted
Actually WHY a person is telling the story if the narrative is First Person is Critical. One of the reasons most first person stories aren't effective is because the writer doesn't know the answer to that question.
First person POV is the "unreliable" narrator. Everything is colored by the POV's agenda. If there isn't a reason for THIS pov to to be telling THIS story NOW, the story will fall flat.
quoting from Survivor here:
quote: First person is mainly for creating the illusion that the narrator character is a real person, who may or may not be a distinct individual from the author. It only works if the narrator character is the sort of person who would plausibly narrate the story being told.
Also, on one of my stories:
quote: Why does (the MC) care about telling this story? Who's the audience?
quote: First person present. Don't do it unless its the best voice for the story. It probably is not.
As for first person present, I really like what Charlie Huston did in his novel A Dangerous Man. I think it’s very effective, which is odd as it usually never works.
There's a blast of sunshine as someone opens the tinted front door and two drunk couples come stumbling in. They're college kids, the boys in shorts and tank tops, their faces sunburnt except where their eyes have been raccooned white by their sunglasses, the girls in shorts and tube tops, skin tanned cancer brown, harsh bikini lines climbing up out of their stretchy tops and creeping around their necks. All of them are double-fisting plastic cups full of something bright blue and frozen.
I guess it’s the noir feel of the whole thing that makes it work. My novel has some of those elements, but not all, so I’m not sure it’s the best voice.
1. John - write the story, let it sit, then reread it and figure out if you like it in 1st person or not. You can't think abstractly about a story that hasn't been written.
2. The reason why we're seeing more stories written in 1st person is because nowadays personal experience trumps all other forms of knowledge. You see it in religion all the time: People leave on church to go to another because they didn't "experience" God at community A but do "experience" God at community B. When personal experience is the ground for truth, this philosophical notion will eventually make its way into fiction ... indeed, it already has.
posted
First person is great. I don't need to know why the viewpoint narrator is telling the story. In the Chronicles of Amber, I did learned until Book 5 that Corwin was relating the story to his son. And at the end of Book 10, I've no idea why is was related or to whom.
In third person, I don't ask why the narrator is telling me the story, so why should I care in first person?
[This message has been edited by ChrisOwens (edited April 17, 2007).]
posted
The Dresden Files are written in first person, past tense. I think it really works; the books are mysteries. You have a supernatural sleuth solving crimes, so I think it works for the genre. It would be hard to pull of for most people, though. It also really limits you. Every scene has to be from the POV of the MC. So, you can't have any side scenes, you can't get into the heads of the other characters, and you only know what the MC knows. If you keep it in the traditional third person, then you can go on side stories, expand other characters, and see scenes that will affect the story (foreshadowing) that the MC doesn't know about yet. With everything you do, though, there are benefits and prices.
posted
I've never really wondered why the narrator is telling his/her story.
I also don't agree that 1st person is easier to write. If you're writing about yourself, sure, but it takes a lot more character development and attention to write in first person. I've written in 1st and 3rd and prefer 1st because of its sense of immersion and the availability of its resonance - but I find it a lot more emotionally taxing and daunting to write.
I like being inside someone's head as both the reader and the writer. Lines of strong 1st person narratives continue to linger with me far more often and longer than 3rd person. In any case, I don't see it as a cop-out but rather, when done well, a high achievement. (Case in point: Memoirs of a Geisha)
As to writing in 1st-present, I've seen it done well, but I've seen it hinder plots as well. It's hard to write and even harder to truly pull it off as a whole. BUT if it's the way that this particular story is begging to be told, don't let us naysayers stop you! (But you might spend considerably more time in the edits.)
posted
Recently a lot of novels seem to be trying to get the best of both worlds -- 1st person and 3rd person.
Some chapters are from pov #1 and told in first person and other chapters are from pov #2, 3, 4.... and are all in 3rd person.
One novel did it worse. All the povs were first person. Several different people. One pov per chapter, each in first person. I hated it. I don't like the single first and multiple 3rds either.
posted
I may be a bit thick but what's a frame story? I'm guessing it's something like Wuthering Heights, but I'm not sure so thought I'd double check.
posted
I take it to mean starting a story in a somewhat different setting, sometimes with different characters, who set up things on the order of "I have a story to tell you," then go on and do so, in the main body of the story. This is a grotesque simplification, to be sure.
"The Lord of the Rings" could be said to be a frame story---it starts with a seemingly-scholarly intro describing hobbits and what they are like, recaps the events in "The Hobbit" that are of concern to the upcoming narrative, and speaks briefly of the source material said narrative comes from.
I'm a little stuck for a more vivid example that actually has characters and settings and such in the frame. All I can think of---and I regret I can't remember the name of the story---is the one in the Stephen King collection, the only one not made into a movie (as far as I know), which opens up in a strange kind of men's club, then goes into the story of a woman determined to give birth at all costs. (Great collection, all the stories---pick it up if you can---probably King's best.)
It may be that Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" was a frame story---but I only remember the main story, not the frame around it, if there even was one.
It may be I can't remember the frames that well 'cause I don't like them---certainly I can't recall using one in any story, or at least one less subtle than a "quote" (made up for the story) from a "reference book" (also made up).
posted
WUTHERING HEIGHTS could be considered a frame story.
Basically, the structure is a story within a story. The question or tension presented at the beginning of the frame should be resolved by the telling of the inner story, but there should also be a closing frame, and it's possible to add an extra little "kick" in it. (Sort of along the lines of "and now you know the rest of the story.")
If you saw the TV movie, MERLIN, with Sam Neill, it had a frame with the "kick" being that Merlin was the one telling his own story, and by telling it, he found someone else who had lived the story as well, and that person gave him hope that he might finally have a better ending to his story.
Come to think of it, WUTHERING HEIGHTS has a similar sort of hopeful ending in its closing frame. So a frame could serve the purpose of giving new hope, or at least new meaning or insight or resolution, to an old, and possibly unresolved, story.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
