Inadvertently switching pov is what I think of initially - but that's something you can do in close third too. Where I think the crux of the matter lay was in distance in time. A first person narrator distances you significantly from the 'when' of the story's events, a third person narrator (despite being past tense) puts you closer to the 'now' of events.

Why is this an issue?
(a) The reader knows (or at least, expects) that the first person narrator has lived through the events on the page, in order to have written them. Thus, it can be harder to create jeopardy for the character's situation given we know they survive, compared to the physically more distant third person.
(b) It is harder to withhold information. The first person narrator clearly knows what happens next and what the import of certain events is. Because a close third person narration is perceived to be closer to the 'now' of the events, readers don't care or notice this type of withholding.

So I think it mainly came down to an issue of bringing the narrative closer to the action in time and space; first person is distant in time, third person omniscient is distant in space, and third person limited is, relatively, close in both.

Still, I'm reasonably sure that opinion on this matter varies. I recently heard a thriller author say she felt first person was the ideal pov for thrillers because they brought you closer to the character's experience. So who knows?

Another peril of first person comes from an impersonal narrator, a neutral objective narrator that doesn't take a stand with regard to a story's theme. First person's strength rises from taking a stand, projecting an attitude, an opinion, or biases regarding a story's theme. In other words, a narrator with a subjective tone. First-person subjective also has perils, probably a more risky one is a tendency to project an unfavorable attitude. Sympathy for the devil is done, but in small doses. In general, readers don't like to feel sympathy for the devil.

One other quality of effective first person is depicting an internal struggle that resolves along with an external struggle. However, an internal struggle is not exclusive to first person, it's also a feature of third person and second person. What distinguishes first person internal struggles from other person struggles is secret anxieties, questionable interpretations of circumstances, and audience resonating subjective attitudes that promote reader immersion.

Otherwise, first person creates reader separation from a ready instinct to question whether a depiction of a story's circumstances is authentic. First person isn't subconsciously as trustworthy as third person. First person immediately challenges suspension of disbelief. Getting around that handicap in an opening is challenging in first person.

Bad 1st Person: I smelled burning wax as I entered the room. Though my eyes stung, I cast my gaze from the open volume on the desk, to the mirror above the hearth and back. I kept my right hand on my sword hilt, in case there was any trouble, and I investigated the scene.

Better, but still flawed: The chamber smelled of burning wax, the smoke so thick it stung my eyes. But there, wide open on the dark mahogany desk, was the Tome of Ancients. I had to see it. A glance or two at the mirror over the hearth showed me I was alone, but I kept a grip on my blade, just in case.

Can you spot the difference? Can you improve it?

The second example is active and descriptive, and therefore much better. But I would hold that the danger of active vs passive is just as alive in 3rd person. Good writing is good regardless of tense.

Example of a narrative voice; First person singular, subjective tone, psychic access limited to one point of view character (superficial to deep penetration), past-present tense.

Passive voice is an object/subject syntax inversion that places an object in superposition from an animacy priority. Passive voice is one of a few legacies of fifth person obviative surviving in English from proto languages. "The subject receives the action of a transitive verb. . . . However . . . passive is useful when the receiver of the action is more important [in animacy] than the doer." [Wikipedia: Passive Voice] Generally considered a writing vice today, passive voice is nonetheless not prohibited, though it can create reader distance. Passive voice is often easily recognized by a form of the verb "to be" used in a transitive verb construction.

Example of passive voice; The ball was thrown at Jimmy.

The "bad" example above places the first person narrator in preeminent place and obviates the true subjects' importances, a self-involved first-person narrator in superior animacy melding fourth and fifth person. Needless to say, an egocentric narrator is a turn off.

Examples;

I saw the ball thrown at Jimmy. You saw the ball thrown at Jimmy. He saw the ball thrown at Jimmy. Isolated from other context, they're in fourth person animacy placing the prounoun subject in an artificially preeminent position and in fifth person obviating the implied doer of the ball-throwing action.

With context that properly places a point of view character in superior position as subject;

"What did you see?" Investigator Martin said.
"I saw the ball thrown at Jimmy."

"You saw the ball thrown at Jimmy?" Mary said.
"No, I just heard about it from Louis.

Although I did this isn't "passive voice" it does tend to tear the reader out of any immersion because it constantly reminds the reader of the narrator. (By the way, the flaw of the second example is that it is in passive voice.)

satate pegged this with:

quote:

---

One of the things that stuck out to me in the bad example was the repetition of I. I did this, I saw that, I touched the other thing.

---

Ben (with OSC's examples), was right, too:

quote:

---

(a) The reader knows (or at least, expects) that the first person narrator has lived through the events on the page, in order to have written them. Thus, it can be harder to create jeopardy for the character's situation given we know they survive, compared to the physically more distant third person.

b) It is harder to withhold information. The first person narrator clearly knows what happens next and what the import of certain events is. Because a close third person narration is perceived to be closer to the 'now' of the events, readers don't care or notice this type of withholding.

---

By the invasive and repetitive "I" it also bring Ben's point (a) into being.

I imagine that such a character would initially be despised by readers, the kind of character readers love to hate. Out of a need for romanticisms' poetic justice, a desire to see a character receive his/her just comeuppance for their vices, reader immersion might be enhanced. Unless he/she had a struggle with the affliction that resolved satisfactorily in the ending, it probably wouldn't be much of a story though. As a reversal of fortune, the character would almost have to grow personally, perhaps from a loathesome, despised, unloved, rejected individual to one accepted and loved.

If it were written in first person, such a story would likely have an unreliable narrator, where the narrator's version of circumstances are not entirely trustworthy, yet still be an authentic depiction of the circumstances that portrays significant personal truths, struggles, and growth regardless of the unreliableness of the narrator.

I'm fascinated by the unreliable narrator phenomena because it controverts reader suspension of disbelief. How curious that one of the principal requirements of a story might instead lead to requiring disbelief in the story's circumstances in order for the story to be fully realized and satisfying.

I imagine it's possible to have an unreliable third-person narrator too, but probably not an objective one. Ive been kicking that around too and not making much headway as of yet.

This post really made me think. Whew.

quote:

---

It's also hard to make a first person narrator's good qualities clear to the reader because usually only a braggart would think about how good he or she is.

---