First person or third person?

[Gary Compton]

If you've got a protagonist in your book and a couple of villans and maybe a couple of supporting characters. Now normally (I presume but I dont know) you'd write all their scenes from their POV and in third person.

Is it acceptable to write each scene in first person but with the individual characters voice?

I myself have recently found my protagonists voice (Hooray) and I find it so much easier to write in first person. Your sort of in their shoes and all you've got to do is get into character and away you go (Well it works for me)

I just wondered if I can do all the other scenes that he's not in using the first person narrative as I feel detached from the character when I'm writing in third person.

And what is the difference between third person and close third person? (Eeeek!)

Questions, questions...has anybody got any answers?

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Close third person is pretty much the same thing as limited omniscient -- one POV character at a time -- allowing you more access to the character's thoughts and emotions. You have, however, the opportunity to slip out of the viewpoint occasionally into true omniscient, as, for instance describing the scene of action at the beginning of a chapter -- essentially, taking the wide establishing shot before zooming in on your POV character. With first person, you can never say anything that the character doesn't know or notice. However, if you have more than one first person account going on, then each character can fill in pieces that the others don't know.

So, can you make a serial first person story work? It's been done successfully before. It works best if you don't switch POVs too often -- give each character at least a chapter before moving on to somebody else, if the characters have distinctive voices, and if there isn't too much overlap in their narratives (which can get boring).

In other words, I don't think you could get away with changing first person POVs with every new scene (and by "get" away, I mean do so effectively and with a minimum of confusion), but you can change them.

 

[Gary Compton]

Very helpful, thanks Teresa. I have a chapter per POV. The vast majority involve my Protagonist so it's good to know I can do the villains in first person also.

I don't have much trouble getting into their heads! So I'll look forward to re-writing and expanding their thoughts.

I hope your well and your creative juices flowing

One thing Harebrain suggested that if I did my hero's chapters in 1st person and then allow him to tell the story of the others as if he knew everthing but in third person. Has that ever worked?

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I don't know. It sounds confusing to me. But perhaps Harebrain or somebody else can come up with examples of books where it has worked.

 

[Gary Compton]

To be honest it may work for an experienced author but I think I'll go with first person and see how it goes.

I call it the KISS principle, keep it simple, stupid. That's what I need anyway but this is fun this isn't it?

Thanks for your input

What are you working on at the moment?

 

[J-WO]

Try Debatable Space by Phillip Palmer. It mainly jumps between two main characters--Lena and Flannagan--then occasionally leaps into others after the 'rhythm' is established. All first person.
I found it unusual at first but I greatly enjoyed the novel. I suppose it helped that the plot was fairly explosive and fast paced.

Anyhow, its on the shelf at Waterstones.

 

[HareBrain]

I don't know. It sounds confusing to me. But perhaps Harebrain or somebody else can come up with examples of books where it has worked.

The example I gave to Gary before was a (supposedly) non-fiction book by Andrew Collins about his experience in psychic questing. Most of it had the same style of narrative as fiction. There were three types of chapter - 1) where Andrew took part in the events himself, and tells it in first person; 2) where friends of his took part without him (and later told him what happened) which he writes in third person from the friend's viewpoint, but largely retains his own voice; 3) supposed psychic readings telling events long ago, with a rather looser POV-voice.

It worked fine in that case, but I've never seen it done in fiction. No reason why it shouldn't though, if the narrator is in the same narrative position as Andrew Collins in his book.

As for books with several first-persons, I have read a couple where that's used, and it can work well if you keep in mind Teresa's advice about not overlapping and keeping the voices distinctive.

The problem I might have, though, is one of credibility. Usually with the first-person narrative, one can presume that the narrator is telling the story to someone, or writing his memoirs. But where you have several together, are the hero and villains all writing their memoirs, or what?

 

[ctg]

The problem I might have, though, is one of credibility. Usually with the first-person narrative, one can presume that the narrator is telling the story to someone, or writing his memoirs. But where you have several together, are the hero and villains all writing their memoirs, or what?

Well, a several first person views can easily come across, say, from close encounters (of umpth count), where someone interviews a group, and then later on bridges all of the stories - told individually - together to get one narrative. Does that make some kind of sense?

 

[Laustin]

Well, a several first person views can easily come across, say, from close encounters (of umpth count), where someone interviews a group, and then later on bridges all of the stories - told individually - together to get one narrative. Does that make some kind of sense?

Only by stretching the bounds of credibility a bit, I would say. Using a style like that would be extremely limiting if you were trying to stick within the rules of a kind of 'merged narrative' as you describe it here. And if you go outside of this self-imposed framework, then you immediately call into doubt any other continuity already established in your story.

No, first-person can be a useful storytelling device, but only for certain kinds of work, told in a certain kind of way. An example of effective first-person storytelling is Robin Hobb's 'Farseer' series, where everything is told from the POV of Fitz, who is a complete dunderhead and often knows less then the reader. This is quite a trick when everything is seen from only one POV throughout. Hobb is a master of this technique, but I would suggest it's not for the faint-hearted to try.

Third-person offers the most freedom when telling a story, as you can leap at will from scene to scene, offering multiple viewpoints without causing undue confusion.

 

[HareBrain]

No, first-person can be a useful storytelling device, but only for certain kinds of work, told in a certain kind of way.

You make it sound as though first-person is an exotic technique. It's rare in SFF, true, but it's very common -- maybe even the norm -- in contemporary/literary fiction, and many classics like Dickens. Anyone who wants to know how to handle first-person would do well to widen their reading, but no one should be put off from trying it if they think it might work.

 

[Interference]

If you've got a protagonist in your book and a couple of villans and maybe a couple of supporting characters. Now normally (I presume but I dont know) you'd write all their scenes from their POV and in third person.

Is it acceptable to write each scene in first person but with the individual characters voice?

Yes.

There are many examples in literature of different people's views on the same story, usually taking alternating chapters to make it clear who's talking as the book progresses (you don't want to keep saying who's talking when the action is heating up, so if you know you've just been in one person's head, it's good for the reader to know who is always next).

I'm not widely enough read to cite examples, but I'm aware of the practice as I tried it once and it was pointed out to me where I'd been lazy and confusing.

 

[Laustin]

You make it sound as though first-person is an exotic technique. It's rare in SFF, true, but it's very common -- maybe even the norm -- in contemporary/literary fiction, and many classics like Dickens. Anyone who wants to know how to handle first-person would do well to widen their reading, but no one should be put off from trying it if they think it might work.

True. This 1st/3rd person question is something of an interest of mine. I didn't mean to come across as elitist. And first-person is relatively rare in SFF, as you say, and for very good reason IMO - because it's inherently limiting, which goes against what SFF should stand for. Good first-person does indeed exist, both in our genre and elsewhere too, but I'm not really a fan of it. I don't like writing in it, because I don't like being constrained. But by all means, everyone should give it a try if they want to. Don't let my prejudices influence your own working habits!

 

[HareBrain]

True. This 1st/3rd person question is something of an interest of mine. I didn't mean to come across as elitist. And first-person is relatively rare in SFF, as you say, and for very good reason IMO - because it's inherently limiting, which goes against what SFF should stand for. Good first-person does indeed exist, both in our genre and elsewhere too, but I'm not really a fan of it. I don't like writing in it, because I don't like being constrained. But by all means, everyone should give it a try if they want to. Don't let my prejudices influence your own working habits!

It constrains breadth -- which, you're right, is a hindrance if you've built a whole world and you want to explore it -- but it can add depth. Not necessarily, though, since you can get as much depth and even, sometimes, more reader identification with third-person intimate. I guess first person really works best when the narrator has a unique voice -- which is pretty much what you said about the Robin Hobb example.

Russell Hoban's Riddley Walker, for example, would be pointless in third person.

I agree with your general point, though. I've written a novel in third-person intimate with only one POV character, and another one in first-person (with two narrators, the first in present tense -- urk!) and I'm now working in third-p with multiple viewpoints and wondering why it took me so long to get there!

 

[Ursa major]

There are some sub-genres within SF that really benefit from a first person approach, the SF detective mystery, for one. It is much easier to keep the essental secrets hidden until you want to reveal them if your protagonist can only be in one place at a time** and only has limited access to places and people.

Doing this in 1st person should be easier than in limited 3rd person, if only because you can't (shouldn't) sometimes offer an omniscient view as well as that of the POV character/narrator.

Altered Carbon, by Richard Morgan, is a good example of the strengths of this approach.


By the way, Ken MacLeod mixes 1st and 3rd person (and present and past tense) in some of his books, so this technique can work and be published.


** - I'm assuming here that the protagonist is not a software application that can have more than one instance at any given time.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

The only trouble with third person omniscient is, it can get very confusing, especially within only on scene. I ALWAYS use third person limited no matter whether I have one character, two characters, or two hundred million. (Which I actually don't with that last one, just an example.) Sure, third person limited does just as it says-it limits-but, it is generally considered by many to be the best POV by way of being able to see ANY character's true thoughts and feelings and see their interpretation. It is also the closest to any kind of realistic POV because we can only see through our own eyes and none of us are mindreaders-or able to be more than one person.

 

[Interference]

"Omniscient" works better, I believe, in film than in print, which is where, unfortunately, a lot of modern writers are getting their inspirations (films and television, I mean).

What some sometimes miss is that scenes within the film mostly pull focus to one character at a time and while we may be allowed to see the villain tweak an eyebrow that the hero could not possibly see or know the significance of (a definite no-no in most other dramatic or narrative forms), the hero still is our main concern.

 

[Laustin]

"...another one in first-person (with two narrators, the first in present tense -- urk!)"

Crikey, you're brave Harebrain. First person present tense? "I go..." instead of "I went..." Sounds fascinating actually, though that particular form doesn't always work. I've just finished the rather excellent 'Soon I Will Be Invincible' by Austin Grossman, which is written in first person present tense, and from two different viewpoints, and though I enjoyed the conceit of a superheroic comicbook world written in a very prosaic style I found the POV to be jarring and a little unpalatable. I suppose we're all just used to the traditional 1st/3rd person thing we're talking about here. Could there be a market for present tense stuff? Answers on a postcode please...

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

Hahaha, Laustin. I swear the only thing harder than first person present would be first person future.


"I will go to the store today to purchase some milk. I will meet a woman there that I will fall in love with and marry. I will have three kids with this woman and live out west."



Makes me want to rip my hair out at the roots. I hate first person view as it is, but to pile on present or future tense?


That certainly IS a bold move, HB.

 

[Laustin]

Actually first person future might work, but only in SF. Your mini-plot there Manarion sounds very Sci-Fi, doesn't it? Sort of like seeing into the future. If only I'd had that kind of precognition before I met my now ex-wife. I never would have bought that milk...

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

A book that is very popular at the moment is The Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss. The story alternates third person and third, but that is because there is a framing story where one character comes in and asks the protagonist to relate the story of his life, which he proceeds to do. The book is immensely popular (ask Boneman, he's a fan), so this technique obviously works for many, many readers. On the other hand, there are also many readers who think the story only becomes interesting when the first person narrative, which is the bulk of the story, begins.

But there are only two POVs (third person narrator, and Kvothe's story-within- a-story third person) and it doesn't switch often enough to be a problem.