Seemed/ looked like etc.

[Hex]

Hmm.

What I was aiming for with the 'everyone' thing was an ongoing context in which the narrator was used to people expecting her to be taller.

My difficulty is that the narrator (and, like springs said, I haven't really ventured beyond first person yet) has a life and expectations that exist before the story begins.

How does one communicate those expectations (e.g. that people will assume she's taller than she is) without apparently headhopping? It's not like a first person narrator is necessarily right. She could wrong, but she doesn't know she is... perhaps it tells you more about her self-perception (that she thinks people are surprised by how short she is) than about the 'truth'... but I don't know if that matters.

I know that writing from first person is often frowned upon -- Bards and Sages Quarterly, for example, rather depressingly say they accept fewer than 1% of the first person stories they receive. The explanatory blog piece brings up a lot of interesting and excellent points but foxed me with the last one: "WHO is the narrator talking to? And, more importantly, how is your narrator narrating?"

I wondered: who asks these questions about third person narratives? What are the assumptions there about how the narrator happens to know what's going on in several people's heads?

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I think and I'm not sure, but if you use a narrator and 3rd person pov it is assumed that the narrator knows the thoughts of the point of view they're relaying at that moment.

The limitation comes in how you let other points of views be known without head hopping. But it does give you the possiblity of using extra points of view and I know I have a tendency which I'm stamping down on firmly of using too many, but I find them useful for letting my main characters been seen in a different way from how they view themselves.

 

[Hex]

But if you need to find a way in first person POV to explain how the person can be narrating or who they're telling the story to, why is a multi-headed narrator who can skip between viewpoints accepted without a blink in third person story telling? It's much more unlikely, really.

 

[Ursa major]

What I was aiming for with the 'everyone' thing was an ongoing context in which the narrator was used to people expecting her to be taller.

My difficulty is that the narrator (and, like springs said, I haven't really ventured beyond first person yet) has a life and expectations that exist before the story begins.

How does one communicate those expectations (e.g. that people will assume she's taller than she is) without apparently headhopping? It's not like a first person narrator is necessarily right. She could wrong, but she doesn't know she is... perhaps it tells you more about her self-perception (that she thinks people are surprised by how short she is) than about the 'truth'... but I don't know if that matters.

Put yourself in the narrator's shoes (not platform ones, presumably):

No doubt he thought her too short, just like everyone else did.
​

As I said in my earlier post, this should be easy. The PoV character is in exactly the same position as we all are, every day of our lives.

What we should be trying to do in close 3rd person PoV, or 1st person, is to stop ourselves writing not as the PoV character but as ourselves (because, as the author, we can see round corners and know what every character thinks).

 

[Jo Zebedee]

yes but it's the old story telling convention. So, the guy comes into town and sits down and tells a story and there's little red hiding hood skipping and she's on her way to see Granma and all excited, but -

- hey there's a wolf and boy is he hungry, he's looking and thinking yum yum granma -

knock at the door, and now granma says come on in.

What I'm trying to say in a weird fashion is that it's the story convention we're used to and so the reader accepts it without questioning. Telling the whole story from Red riding hoods perspective changes it completly. It doesn't mean it's any worse, in fact there might be lovely dramatic tension, but it does change what the story teller can tell the reader and when.

Plays are a good source of looking at what we can see from a present-point of view, because you are only ever going to know what those people on stage know at that given time, unless there's a flashback and even it's still in real time, so useful in terms of asking ourselves how far can we push what any one person can see in the present. And how much can we fit in dialogue, without it seeming very clunky and leading. That's why Waiting for Godot is so clever; the nothing that happens has depth and humour, but the viewpoints we see are entirely limited, so we can get sunk into each in a much more personal manner.

 

[HareBrain]

But if you need to find a way in first person POV to explain how the person can be narrating or who they're telling the story to,

then you have too much free time?

Seriously, Bards and Sages Quarterly aside, I'm pretty sure this question only occurs to a reader if something's already pushed them out of the story. I'm sure that in the past, it could be assumed that the narrator was writing down the events long after they'd happened, but that wasn't and isn't always the case.

If readers were that critical, no first-person present stories would ever get published. They're all unjustifiable rationally.

Having said that, I think it might help you, as the writer, if you can place a first-person narrator in space and time relative to the events.

 

[Hex]

It just puzzles me that people get all analytical about first person POV and yet seem to let all the logical issues in third person POV stories go without question. It seems strange that they never seem to ask those questions of third person narratives, convention or not (and I wonder how much the convention was due to belief in something 'outside' that could understand what each individual was thinking -- but now fewer people believe in such things, the storytelling conventions haven't really absorbed the changes).

@ Ursa -- but do I always need to make it so self-referential? The narrator in your example sounds a little self-pitying, I think. Wouldn't that sort of context be assumed if it wasn't for the dread accusation of headhopping?

@HB -- As a reader, I deeply dislike those first person narratives that pretend to be diaries or people sitting by a campfire (with the exception of Boneman's favourite author, because although the conceit existed it was just used as a frame and didn't intrude throughout the story). Perhaps it's that by making it too obvious, it pulls me out of the story. So, as you say, it's the story what counts.

Just not fair, that's all...

 

[HareBrain]

It seems strange that they never seem to ask those questions of third person narratives, convention or not (and I wonder how much the convention was due to belief in something 'outside' that could understand what each individual was thinking -- but now fewer people believe in such things, the storytelling conventions haven't really absorbed the changes).

Eh? In third person, the narrator is the writer -- the person whose name is on the cover. No one else. There doesn't need to be any justification. The convention is that the writer knows what all his characters are thinking, all the time, because he's made them up.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

As a reader, I find first person exhausting. I tend to blast through books when I read and I just find that I can't do that with 1st person. Which says more about me as a reader than anything else. But I just find it's harder for me to come out of the story, take a break, and reflect on what's happened. Whereas a switch to a different voice, a different scene, can give me that chance.

 

[Hex]

Eh? In third person, the narrator is the writer -- the person whose name is on the cover. No one else. There doesn't need to be any justification.

But if in a first person story you need to justify how you can write the story, in a third person story is the assumption that none of it is real? Why don't you need to justify all the stuff you know to write the story? One person doesn't really know what a whole group of other people are thinking.

So if a third person POV assumes that the narrator made all his characters up, then why can't a first person POV have the same latitude? Why can't the first person POV allow the assumption that it's all made up as well?

 

[Ursa major]

It just puzzles me that people get all analytical about first person POV and yet seem to let all the logical issues in third person POV stories go without question. It seems strange that they never seem to ask those questions of third person narratives, convention or not (and I wonder how much the convention was due to belief in something 'outside' that could understand what each individual was thinking -- but now fewer people believe in such things, the storytelling conventions haven't really absorbed the changes).

Sorry, but if you write in close third person, you are held to the same standards as first person, i.e. the text can only know what the PoV character knows, and be aware of stuff about which they are aware. (The only exceptions are at the beginning or ends of scenes where a certain amount of omniscience is allowed, but probably for no more than a paragraph in each case. Strict close 3rd person PoV wouldn't even allow this.)

Where an author is using 3rd person omniscient, i.e. the narrator is not one of the characters in the story, one is permitted to know more than any single character (or even all of them). However, omniscient third person does not usually spend much time examining the detailed thoughts of the characters. It's also not a particualrly favoured style of narration.

@ Ursa -- but do I always need to make it so self-referential? The narrator in your example sounds a little self-pitying, I think. Wouldn't that sort of context be assumed if it wasn't for the dread accusation of headhopping?

That was just an example. I was trying to work out why the PoV character would mention this guessed-at belief about another character's thoughts. If there's another reason, you would base the text on that. If there's no reason at all, why mention it?

 

[HareBrain]

But if in a first person story you need to justify how you can write the story, in a third person story is the assumption that none of it is real? Why don't you need to justify all the stuff you know to write the story? One person doesn't really know what a whole group of other people are thinking.

In first person, the narrator is a character, and her behaviour, and knowledge, should be justifiable based on the constraints the author places on her. The narrator of a third-person story is not (or very rarely ever) a character within that story. And yes, the assumption in 3rdP is that to the writer, as well as the reader, it's all made up, a fiction, untrue, LIES!!! In first-person, it's untrue to the reader, but not the narrator.

Even in close-third, the narrator is not the character, like in first-person; he just chooses to filter the writing through what that character would know and think.

 

[Hex]

Maybe I'm being unduly influenced by the Bards and Sages but they want you to explain how a first person narrator would be telling the story -- there isn't that demand for a third person narration because, like HB said, the assumption is that third person is all made up.

What puzzles me is why stronger standards of explanation seem to be needed for first person POV.

@HB -- That makes sense. I still refuse to start any story 'As I sit here at my desk, knowing years have passed since the events that I describe took place...'

 

[Ursa major]

In most modern third person narration, the narrator is one of the characters in the story.

When I read, say, a Tyrion chapter in A Game of Thrones, I'm seeing the world as Tyrion experiences it. The same is true of all the chapters. There is no separate, omniscient, narrator in that book and its sequels.

What puzzles me is why stronger standards of explanation seem to be needed for first person POV.

But they are not, not for the type of third person PoV, close third person, that most of us write. We are no more allowed to head hop than you are. We can't describe anything not known to the PoV character.

Stuff written years ago, or written as if it was, is not the same: that's omniscient third person, which is completely different.

 

[Hex]

But the overall narrator is omniscient really because how else do all these disparate narratives get brought together into a book?

(except, you know, by pretending to be Tyrion and having made them all up)

Edit: @Ursa but no one asks how the character managed to tell the story when it's third person. You can happily kill off a character in close third person and no one asks: how did the story get written?

 

[HareBrain]

In most modern third person narration, the narrator is one of the characters in the story.

When I read, say, a Tyrion chapter in A Game of Thrones, I'm seeing the world as Tyrion experiences it. The same is true of all the chapters. There is no separate, omniscient, narrator in that book and its sequels.

I disagree. Tyrion is not the narrator; if he was, it would be in first-person.

Don't know if you saw my edit to my above post:

Even in close-third, the narrator is not the character, like in first-person; he just chooses to filter the writing through what that character would know and think.

Edit @ Hex, who said

What puzzles me is why stronger standards of explanation seem to be needed for first person POV.

I don't think readers seek strong standards of explanation for first-p unless the writer does something to draw attention to the device, eg kill off the main character (so it has to be narrated from the afterlife) or using a device of letters, each of which goes on for several pages in detail no one would ever use when writing to someone else, etc. If nothing truly clumsy is done, or no framing device is used at all, it's likely no one will even think of asking the question.

 

[Ursa major]

Sorry, but for all intents and purposes, Tyrion is the narrator, at least as far as the restrictions placed on the narration are concerned. Here's the start of a paragraph in his first chapter:

His own remote ancestor, King Loren of the rock, had tried to....

The pronoun, His, means Tyrion's, not some disembodied 'narrator's'. The only context required to know who the 'His' refers to is the chapter title (which is 'Tyrion'). That (part) sentence could have opened the chapter and we would know who the His referred to.

(Of course, most authors do not name their chapters after the PoV character for that chapter, so they would have to give the name.)


There are many reasons for not going the 1st person route; one is where there are a number of PoV characters: it might be rather confusing if they all were narrated as 'I did this' and 'I did that'. EDIT: However, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with 1st person: if it helps to bring a story alive, go with it.

 

[Hex]

There are many reasons for not going the 1st person route; one is where there are a number of PoV characters: it might be rather confusing if they all were narrated as 'I did this' and 'I did that'.

But otherwise it's 'he did this' etc.

There are some books out there with multiple first person POVs -- I find them a struggle since, like springs said, one of the characteristics of first person is how immersed you get in the narrative. I love that and I find changing POVs disorientating. For the same reason, I find multiple POV third person stories a bit of a struggle.

 

[HareBrain]

Ursa, I agree with the point you're making, and quibbling over the technical definition of "narrator" seems a bit pointless. (But I'm still right about that)

Just to add, the worst first-person justification I've ever read was in a Barbara Vine book, which was otherwise pretty good. She'd chosen to have three first-person narrators, each telling their stories in documents of some kind. The third narrator had only a single letter in which to wrap up the case, and this letter he wrote, in exhaustive detail, to his wife, whilst on the train home to her! He even says this! He actually ends his letter "I write this on the train home to you"! Is this how they communicate all the time? Coming right at the end of the book, this killed the whole thing for me.

 

[Ursa major]

But otherwise it's 'he did this' etc.

Sometimes; when it's clear to the reader who 'he' is.



By the way, a few years back, I foolishly** sent my work off to an agent. Amongst the comments I received was this:

Incidentally, the norm is that every page of every scene is shown from the point-of-view of a specific character, rather than told from the outside....

I write in close third person, not first person.



** - The book was nowhere near the required standard.