posted
As a student I was told to avoid the first person narrative in my writing; it was a dying form. When I thought about it I remembered a lot of bad fiction that I had read as a teen and many of the worst were written in first person. So I took the professor's advice and avoided it.
Lately I have been writing some short experimental pieces using first person POV. I wondered what it was that made me revisit the form. Then I realized something odd; the last six books I read were written in this POV(granted three of them made up a trilogy). I have even played with the idea of switching from a single third person viewpoint in my WIP novel, but I think I'll finish it first then see if it needs the added spice of a narrator.
Has there been a rebirth of the first person POV in popular fiction lately? Or is this pure coincidence? Which POV do you prefer and what do you see as advantages and disadvantages of each?
posted
I do not have much of a preference in which POV that is in a book that I read. I have not really seen much change in terms of first versus third in fiction, but I have not really been keeping up with trends. I writing in third person nearly 100% of the time, because that is just my favorite way to write things.
First person lets you make unbelievable situations so that the character overhears, sees, or somehow finds out about things at the same rate as the reader, but then you are forced to view the world in the terms of the narrator, for better or worse.
I see third maybe as a two edged sword. It is easier to view the world outside the realm of just one character, but the influx of other people's views can be harder to write.
posted
I wouldn't say first person was ever a dying form though it's certainly less popular than it was, say, 100 years ago. I've heard that urban fantasy is commonly first person-present, though I haven't read anything like that.
I've read only a few books where I thought the story required first person. The books that comes to mind is Mary Renault's Theseus books and The Persian Boy, and Robert Harris's Imperium. In each case, the story is not simply about what the MC does or how he or she grows in the story. Rather, it's the depth of character revealed by the telling of the story. It's not just in the voice, but that we come to understand something about the character through his or her narration that she or he might not even be aware. If done masterfully, the experience is even more rewarding than a book in 3rd. I'm trying to write a book in first person, keeping this richness alive. I suppose y'all'll be able to judge that when I post it some day.
To write, I prefer third person generally. Though it's still a challenge for me, it's a little easier since there isn't that added layer of complexity and nuance to worry about. Books written in third are a little more accessible, generally, and it's easier to suspend disbelief and get immersed in the story.
quote:In third person, is it common to stay with a single viewpoint character through a novel length piece of fiction? Would you limit yourself this way?
I think it's just as common to have multiple viewpoints. Esp in epic fantasies. Keep in mind, though, these are usually separated by chapter breaks; at the least, scene breaks. I'm current writing a novel with multiple view points. Ultimately, I would limit myself to one view point character if I thought it better served the story.
[This message has been edited by annepin (edited February 14, 2008).]
posted
That's funny. I read right over y'all'll like it was water. In my humble opinion, this is actually a simple contraction.
That is because, since "y'all" normally functions as a form of the pronoun "you," this is the same as saying "you'll." So, in this case, "y'all'll head on down to the creek, and I'll meet y'all later," is the same as "You'll head down to the creek, and I'll meet you later."
At least, that's my western Kansas, high plains take on English. Other opinions?
[This message has been edited by Igwiz (edited February 14, 2008).]
posted
If y'all start talking about y'all'll, y'all'll be off topic.
OOTC (which stands for obligatory on topic comment): OSC gives a good discussion of the pros and cons for 1st person and for 3rd person points of view in his CHARACTER AND VIEWPOINT.
posted
It's a double contraction. I say we use our influence as writers and make it a legitimate device in English.
"I try to be a good person," she said. "I'mn't like them. Really, I'mn't."
1st person will never die, and neither will 3rd. Both are natural ways that we tell stories in converstaion, so both make sense in written stories. Popularity shifts back and forth between the two, but neither will ever die. Seriously, I can see the future (it's my power).
posted
I almost always write in third person because I almost always have multiple POVs (because I almost always write novels, though even in my short stories I often have a section from a second POV). But even if I'm writing something that clearly has a single POV, I don't use first person without some reason. The most likely reason would be voice.
The best reason I know to avoid first person is that so many newbie stories use it. So editors have to read (or look at, anyway) a lot of really bad first person stories. (The same goes for present tense.)
Still, to say that first-person is a dying form is ridiculous. It sounds like something a Literature professor would say. (I'm not trying to impugn all Literature professors, by the way. Just most of them.)
posted
My biggest critique of first person right now is that it seems to be where new writers start. I consider third person limited pov as the standard for fiction today (this is just my opinion) - so when I read a first person story, I expect the story to be told with some insight offered to the first person, some deeper truth revealed, some REASON for telling the story first person. When that doesn't come (and it often doesn't come) I end up feeling annoyed.
Don't get me started on second person. You don't want to know. You would rather not. You see, you can't possibly know what you're thinking about this. You would go insane.
posted
First person is easy enough to abuse, but when being in first person serves the story, there's no reason not to use it. Good books that use first person include the Claidi Journals by Tanith Lee (though there are some annoying parts about that series . . .), Sorcery and Cecilia by Patricia Wrede and Caroline Stevermer (first person, two characters, in the form of letters), and Crown Duel by Sherwood Smith. Those are good first person books by established authors that I know about. I'm sure there's more.
As for third person stuff that jumps around between characters, some of the best stuff that I've read comes from Diana Wynne Jones, most notably Witch Week, the Magician of Caprona, Dark Lord of Derkholm, and The Year of the Gryphon. She does it quite well, and even interchanges characters between chapters, but the way she does things, it's almost like there's a character in between the story and the reader, sort of gathering everyone's opinions and reporting on everything.
There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but I say, as long as you keep in mind why you're using a particular device, and how it serves the story, it's all good.
(As for second-person, I tried doing that once, and it came out as a dramatic monologue. One character speaking to You, another character about something. It really only works for short works, such as the Tell-Tale Heart and such.)
posted
Second person is good if you write make-your-own adventure books. While I have never written one of those, I used to read those a lot when I was younger.
Posts: 80 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of various POV questions got me thinking, is there a separate terminology for a POV that is really neither 3rd nor 1st person. The kind, usually used in academia, that says something like: "We find that the results of the experiment shows blah blah blah. If we presume that ..."
What POV is "we" as opposed to "he," "I" or "you?"
1st person plural? Or, more specifically, 1st person plural, present tense?
And are any novels written in this fasion... like... ever? I suppose it would require some kind of symbiotic life form POV to have a 1st person plural tense. How else could an entire story be written from a "we" POV?
Grammatically, it's first person plural, but in meaning it could be either singular or plural. Generally, if used by an editor, it would be first person singular, but in the case of a scientific article written by several people, it would be first person plural.
It's grammatically identical to "the royal 'we' " (and to "the nurse's 'we' ", as well, though this last, in meaning, is second person).
[This message has been edited by rickfisher (edited February 19, 2008).]
Having rotating third-person narrative with the MC in first person is really strange. I've seen it (or something similar) and have always been thrown out of the story by it. The only time I can think of it working was in Agatha Christie's The ABC Murders, and there it worked because Hastings, the first person narrator (I should clarify: NOT the main character, but the main POV character), told us at the beginning that he was going to write some scenes where he wasn't present. In other words, we know those scenes were still written by Hastings, based on information he got later, even though he wasn't present at the time.
Rotating first person can work, however, although even there it's dicey.
Yeah, I'm having trouble deciding how I feel about that myself. I think that if there's a lot of periphery scheming/events going on outside of your MC's knowledge, but you still want the MC to tell their parts of the story with their own voice because it's distinct, that swapping might be a decent way to achieve this. I hesitate though because the switching from mid-brain of MC to camera-eye view of other characters' actions might jar some, though I'm not sure to what degree.
I usually tend to dislike rotating first person, because then every narrative you get is biased, and it can be frustrating to sort through too many layers of unreliability. And if you wind up disliking a character, reading their voice is going to be infinitely more annoying than simply reading about their actions.
posted
One of the tricks to doing first person with more than one character's POV is making the POVs even more distinct than when switching POVs in third person limited. Even descriptive word choice needs to differ.
I think it's also hard to do firs person with more than two or three characters and have the voices remain unique enought to support the style.
Oh, and I'm not certain who posted it above, but yes, first person is much more common in Urban Fantasy. There are other authors who use it a lot in other genres, though. Robin Hobb (in Fantasy) and S L Viehl (in Science Fiction) both come to mind as immediate examples... and the Amber series by Roger Zelazny was first person.
I can understand about the voice. But you CAN use voice in 3rd person as well. Note that you would never have a four year old walk into a room and notice the crenellations on the wainscoting. Or rather, the kid might notice them, but not in those words. It's pretty common to limit vocabulary this way, but it's also possible to use voice whenever doing deep penetration. Something like (this is made up on the spot, so forgive its inadequacies)(and the deep penetration doesn't start until the last paragraph):
quote:To Mathilda, the stranger said, "I'd like you to meet my parents."
Beside him two shapes shimmered into visibility. The couple that appeared looked around in wonder, then turned as one to look at the whining buzz saw. The man stretched out his hand.
Without hesitation, Mathilda barreled into him, knocking him off his feet. What was wrong with these people? Why, her own Ma and Pa was never as dumb as to do a thing like that. Though, in truth they wasn't overly bright, neither. But trying to pet a buzz saw, like it was some hound, or maybe a nervous colt that needed quieting . . . well that just about blowed her brains. She hadn't never seen nothing like it before.
You don't maintain the voice throughout a section like this, only in deep penetration. If you back off a bit, you keep the vocabulary but not the diction. And if you back off completely (which you might do when you're describing what's happening around the POV, but it isn't something they're thinking about or reacting to--just information coming in) then you use whatever words are appropriate to the description rather than to the POV.
Posts: 932 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not sure I agree... I'm thinking of Hitchhiker's Guide and the Another Fine Myth series (can't remember if the latter was 3rd person pov, but I think it is).
Posts: 2185 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not saying humor only works in 1st pov, but that it is easier to write in 1st. Just my experience. Was wondering if anyone else had the same.
Posts: 1580 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's probably true, because the voice itself can add a lot of humor. And even though you can use voice in third person, it's not pervasive.
Of course, if the POV character doesn't have a voice that adds to the humor, then it won't help much.
posted
I like "y'all'll". Totally makes sense, and I've used it more than once, I'm sure.
quote:It's a double contraction. I say we use our influence as writers and make it a legitimate device in English. "I try to be a good person," she said. "I'mn't like them. Really, I'mn't."
That's funny, but you could probably consider "ain't" the real double contraction that "I'mn't" parodies. It just doesn't use two apostrophes.
quote:1st person will never die, and neither will 3rd. Both are natural ways that we tell stories in converstaion, so both make sense in written stories.
And neither will second, strangely enough, although for more limited purposes. "So, here's how it happens: you go down into Jimmy's basement and the first thing you see is two monkeys swinging from trapezes. No, I'mn't kidding you. And then, because you're looking up at them, you don't notice that little kid sneaking up behind you to punch you in the stomach. Happens every time."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
