What kind of prose to you prefer to read? What is your least favorite?

[vgunn]

I'm am definitely in the camp of third person. I struggle with first person and really dislike first person, present tense (Steve Alten for example).

 

[J-Sun]

I agree to the extent that, in the abstract, I definitely prefer 3rd person (and omniscient or multiple POV) but, if done well and relevant, 1st Person can be good.

I thought this thread was asking more "do you like flowery obfuscated prose" or "shining translucency" in which case put me firmly in the latter "plain and clear" camp. As with everything, there are exceptions, but it's a heck of a hill to climb if the prose is dominating the narrative.

 

[vgunn]

I thought this thread was asking more "do you like flowery obfuscated prose" or "shining translucency" in which case put me firmly in the latter "plain and clear" camp. As with everything, there are exceptions, but it's a heck of a hill to climb if the prose is dominating the narrative.

Sorry for the confusion, probably should have put style instead of prose.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Nope, style isn't the word either. You mean viewpoint. There is another thread somewhere about which viewpoint readers prefer, and still another (more recent) about which one works best for short fiction.

I don't care about the viewpoint, so long as it is interesting. The Name of the Wind, which is quite popular, has a Third Person framing story, and most of the story is told in First Person. I don't think the story really gets going until the First Person part, but that is largely due to how the author handles the framing story.

 

[vgunn]

I appreciate the clarification!

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I thought this thread was asking more "do you like flowery obfuscated prose" or "shining translucency" in which case put me firmly in the latter "plain and clear" camp. As with everything, there are exceptions, but it's a heck of a hill to climb if the prose is dominating the narrative.

I forgot to say that I do absolutely love ornate prose when it is done well. But some of the best and most descriptive prose I have read has a "shining translucency." The words are not many, but they are carefully chosen.

Prose that is simple and clear can also be abominably prosaic and flat.

 

[Luc Valentine]

With first person, it's all about do you like the narrator? Some go further and insist on trusting the narrator as well. Yes, it's possible to like a first person narrator but not trust his information...say, a tormented mental patient who just returned from the future. You want to believe him, but is just another mental patient?

But when you think about it, the third person narrator has the same problem for the reader. Even behind the most impersonal 3rd person narrator, there's an implied narrator...somebody is telling the story...which you might like or trust or whatever, too.

 

[clovis-man]

With first person, it's all about do you like the narrator?

One of the best examples of this, in my view (no pun intended) is Haldeman's The Forever War. Impossible to not like and feel sympathy for the narrator. Another feature of first person is that (usually) the narrator survives the story. Not always the case with third person.

 

[HareBrain]

I've had good and bad reads with first- and third-person, in both past and present tense. One of my favourite books -- David Mitchell's Number9Dream -- is first-person present. The tense and viewpoint is usually a minor factor when liking or disliking a book, in my experience. (Though I can't imagine second-person future working very well.)

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

First person present tense is very, very hard to do well, because it can be so distancing. And yet, in the last year or two, I have read a number of entertaining (and in some cases excellent) YA books that were written in just that way. It makes sense that younger readers, who aren't so set in their ways, would be more willing to read such books. It also makes sense that writers who are able to overcome the inherent difficulties would be the ones who know how to tell an entertaining story and have what it takes to get published.

 

[digs]

I can't say I prefer to read one over the other - I won't choose a book depending on what person it's written in - but lately I have become pretty fond of first person, largely because of Kazuo Ishiguro. I feel like first person allows the author to play a few nice tricks that third person doesn't - but then, the reverse is true as well.

Basically, they're both good for different reasons and I've read incredible books written in first, second (Choose Your Own Adventure, anyone?) and third person.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Basically, they're both good for different reasons and I've read incredible books written in first, second (Choose Your Own Adventure, anyone?) and third person.

For some of us that's one of the problems with a second person viewpoint. It conjures up memories of those CYOA books. Difficult to take a book seriously that does that.

It would take an amazingly good story to overcome those particular associations.

 

[Mouse]

With first person, it's all about do you like the narrator?

Not always. Can't say I liked Nevare in Robin Hobb's Soldier Son books very much, but I enjoyed the books.

 

[Connavar]

It depends on the author,genre which POV i like. Crime,noir is perfect for first person. Also some other books about a certain character,theme might be interesting seeing from his POV only.

Generally a world building based novel,series third person is more effective.

Really i dont care cause if its well done you dont notice too much with viewpoint it is. Its only some a certain fav criminal noir series i notice has third person and inner focalisation so it feels like first person.

 

[digs]

For some of us that's one of the problems with a second person viewpoint. It conjures up memories of those CYOA books. Difficult to take a book seriously that does that.

It would take an amazingly good story to overcome those particular associations.

Yeah, the only serious story I've read that does that is If on a winter's night a traveller... which has 2nd person for every alternate chapter. That's pretty special, though.

And Mouse, I agree - I didn't like Nevarre or Fitz, but I still liked both (in fact, loved the Assassin trilogy).

 

[Kierkegaurdian]

I like first person, "flowery obfuscated prose", and complete sentences. The Quincunx and The Book of the New Sun are two of my all-time favorites.

 

[J-Sun]

I forgot to say that I do absolutely love ornate prose when it is done well. But some of the best and most descriptive prose I have read has a "shining translucency." The words are not many, but they are carefully chosen.

Prose that is simple and clear can also be abominably prosaic and flat.

Yep, no dispute with any of that, but just saying "in the abstract, all things being equal" I'll take the 'clear/concise/direct' over the 'opaque/discursive/oblique'. But I definitely prefer Spinrad's The Void Captain's Tale over the phonebook.

I think that's really an undervalued skill and one reason I like Asimov so much: it's actually quite hard to write prose that is simple and clear and not prosaic and flat. But the result can be like looking at the beautiful creatures and objects in a Caribbean ocean because the water's so clear.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I'll add to what I said before:

My favorite kind of prose is the kind that really takes me there (wherever "there" is) so that I feel like I can envision everything; it is the kind of prose that reveals the most without taking me out of the story.

Sometimes a few perfect details are enough for me (as a reader) to build a whole scene around, and everything comes vividly to life. But I know when the writer has not chosen the right details or not given enough, because the setting is just murky. (Which isn't good even when the characters are in a place that is literally murky.)

But sometimes an author can build detail upon detail in such a way that each one expands my perceptions of what I am supposed to be seeing, or thinking, or feeling, so that even beyond what is said explicitly, there are implications of more and yet more. It is easy for a writer who is trying too hard to impress to do this the wrong way If, for instance, the details themselves are prosaic, or not appropriate (in tone, meaning, or otherwise) to the thing they are describing, or there is simply repetition without adding new shades of meaning — then I don't feel the scene is gaining in clarity. In fact, I may feel there are contradictions that only muddle the impression. (This is apt to happen when the writer is using the Thesaurus too much.)

To me, the style in which a story is told is part of the story. If they don't blend together (seemingly) effortlessly, they will fail to do what I said at the beginning: put me into the scene and keep me there.