Changing from third person to first person same book.

[Dave Carignan]

In my novel I’m writing in third person but have a chapter in which my main character ends up in a real personal position in which he enters is own mind so to say. I already wrote that chapter in third person but though it might make the reader feel a more personal bond if that chapter were in first person through the main characters thoughts and experience within the scene.

it would just change for that specific chapter.

Good or bad idea? Or has this or can it be success without being confusing?

Thanks.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I've seen it done where first and third person view alternated throughout the book with different characters and chapters, and it worked fine. Anything you do just once that is different from the rest might be taken as a mistake: like a chapter you forgot to convert when you changed the POV for the whole.

But it could work. It depends in part on how you write it (readers will accept just about anything if it is written skillfully enough) and how you handle the transition in viewpoint. Will readers see that there is a good reason for the change? Will it really feel more personal to change POV when they have settled into a close third person and are reading it much as though it were already first person, or will the change jolt them out of the story for a bit? You need to write it in order to find out what you need to do and if it is really worth the adjustment you will have to make as the writer and readers will have to make as readers. So long as it is hypothetical there is no saying whether it will work or not, because it could, hypothetically, go either way.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Hi Dave,

Welcome to Chrons!

Mixed third and first novels do exist and they usually do this to accent something important with regards to the character and story. Do they work? Well, I quite like such shenanighans if the author takes care (of course!). However, some other people may get irritated with such PoV changes no matter what. But you will never please everyone with your story, so don't worry about that if you want to go ahead with this.

I can't tell if what you describe will work, but by the very fact you made this decision it must be important to you. Only when you've finished the story and sent it to beta's will you get proper feedback from others that will tell you if it really works the way you think it does.

Personally, purely on what you've written above, having a third person PoV change into a first person PoV for only one chapter, sounds a bit dangerous and could be quite confusing. so I'm not sure I would do it. However I have no idea what is happening that might justify it.

 

[Ursa major]

though it might make the reader feel a more personal bond if that chapter were in first person through the main characters thoughts and experience within the scene

What you seem to be trying to achieve can be written as free indirect speech. This needs neither a change in tense nor a change to first person (both of which one usually sees with dialogue and thoughts reported as thoughts), but a change in how it's written.

In his book, Consciousness and the Novel, " David Lodge explains it thus:

"Is that the clock striking twelve?" Cinderella exclaimed. "Dear me, I shall be late."

This is a combination of direct or quoted speech and a narrator's description.​

​

​

Cinderella enquired if the clock was striking twelve and expressed a fear that she would be late.

is reported or indirect speech, in which the character's voice is surpressed by the narrator's.​

​

​

Was that the clock stricking twelve? She would be late.

is free indirect speech. [...] Grammatically it requires a narrator's tag, such as "she asked herself," "she told herself," but we take this as understood. Hence it is termed "free". The effect is to locate the narrative in Cinderella's head.​

​

​

I would add that a fourth way that this passage could be written would be as reported thoughts (first person, present tense, often with a "thought" tag:

Is that the clock stricking twelve? she thought. If so, I'll be late.

This isn't really suitable for anything but shortish passages, so wouldn't really meet you needs.

One benefit of free indirect speech is that, because there is no change of peron or tense, it can be mixed with first person present tense direct thoughts, which can be used to further emphasise how much we are in the PoV character's head.

 

[Steve Harrison]

Nothing in writing is a bad idea unless it doesn't work. And the only way to find out is to write it the way you want to. It's time consuming if you find it's not the way to go, but it's the best way I've found to explore options - and writing is learning!

Although I'm not a fan of mixing POVs in my own writing (couldn't get it to work when I tried it), but I have seen the method used very well in several novels.

 

[CTRandall]

I second Teresa's warning that using it only once in the book would seem out of place. Rather than drawing the reader closer in, it could actually distance them by taking them out of the story as they try to get their heads around the shift in POV. On it's own, the 1st person chapter might read exactly the way you want it to, which can make it hard for you as the author to judge if the POV switch is or isn't a problem.

I'd almost suggest writing the chapter once in 1st and once in 3rd and test--or, better yet, have beta-readers test--which version works best in situ.

 

[Star-child]

I like how alternation works in Steakley's "Armor", but the one time use actually reminds me of something from film.

In 2001 (and some other films), there is one and only one scene shot with a handheld camera. It is the emotional scene where Dave disconnects HAL. It has a massive effect of drawing the viewer in because of the stark contrast with the way the rest of the film is presented with a static camera. Jumping into first person could serve a similar effect of focusing the reader, and should probably only be used for the climax or some time after because it is essentially going 'all in'.

If you don't want to do something so conspicuous, use the other methods suggested to stay in third.

 

[The Bluestocking]

It works in Jonathan Maberry's JOE LEDGER series. However, it works because of consistency - he alternates chapters between the main protagonist (1st person) and the villain or important supporting characters (3rd person).

If you just have one chapter in 1st person, it will likely stick out like a sore thumb unless you're writing literary fiction and being all experimental and with doing all sorts of odd stylistic choices in the name of being avant garde...

 

[Star-child]

If you just have one chapter in 1st person, it will likely stick out like a sore thumb unless you're writing literary fiction and being all experimental and with doing all sorts of odd stylistic choices in the name of being avant garde...

Doing one unique and unexpected thing to serve the story doesn't necessarily mean you're off in literary land. Somebody was the first to alternate 1st and 3rd, and despite a probable similar reaction at the time, it is now mainstream. There are many otherwise straight fiction stories that "broke the rules" and aren't mistaken for being artsy.

Either this will work and be effective, or it won't. It is worth trying without fear that someone will call it avante garde.

 

[-K2-]

I second Teresa's warning that using it only once in the book would seem out of place. Rather than drawing the reader closer in, it could actually distance them by taking them out of the story as they try to get their heads around the shift in POV. On it's own, the 1st person chapter might read exactly the way you want it to, which can make it hard for you as the author to judge if the POV switch is or isn't a problem.

I'd almost suggest writing the chapter once in 1st and once in 3rd and test--or, better yet, have beta-readers test--which version works best in situ.

@CTRandall And @Teresa Edgerton Though out of my range to speak on, as a question, wouldn't a big part of it working or not depend upon how the shift was introduced, either at the end of the previous chapter or at the beginning of the 1stPoV? Naturally, that also means a lead in to the subsequent chapter, to get it back to the 3rdP as well.

K2

 

[Venusian Broon]

Either this will work and be effective, or it won't. It is worth trying without fear that someone will call it avante garde.

Totally agree that we can only have a real opinion on this until we see it in reality.

And yes I wouldn't call it avante garde, but as writers we must be aware that a certain proportion of the universe of readers will be put off by such artifice. For example, I'm surprised at the number of booktubers that I've come across that state they can't stand first person (never mind mixing!). Then there are those that just want straight-forward stories with no 'tricks'. Such readers I can see interpret such a PoV shift as 'artsy'.

 

[HareBrain]

I stuck a four-page section in second person into an otherwise third-person novel. I was nervous about it, but didn't get a single negative comment either from beta readers or the publisher. I'm now 100% happy with the decision. If it feels right, try it.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

@CTRandall And @Teresa Edgerton Though out of my range to speak on, as a question, wouldn't a big part of it working or not depend upon how the shift was introduced, either at the end of the previous chapter or at the beginning of the 1stPoV? Naturally, that also means a lead in to the subsequent chapter, to get it back to the 3rdP as well.

K2

That is one way it might work. Or it could be something as simple as putting that section in italics. It could be any one of a hundred (conservative estimate) different subtle things in the way that section is executed.

The only way to find out if it works (and is worth any extra effort that may be required) is to write it and see. And write it in third person like the rest of the book, and compare the two to see whether anything is gained by the change.

 

[Kharn]

In Prospero Burns by Dan Abnett, the story is told in third person until the end, where the main character who is taken in as an oral historian recounts the Battle of Prospero. He leads up to it with the character mentioning that it is his story as much as anyone else's.

This approach might work for you, it might not. Try it and see

 

[Star-child]

In Prospero Burns by Dan Abnett, the story is told in third person until the end, where the main character who is taken in as an oral historian recounts the Battle of Prospero. He leads up to it with the character mentioning that it is his story as much as anyone else's.

This approach might work for you, it might not. Try it and see

So it has been done before!

 

[Toby Frost]

The trouble about any query like this (no offence meant to the OP) is that I'd usually give the same basic answer: "if it's done well, it should be fine". However, Venusian Broon makes a fair point: some people may not like it and, more importantly and worryingly, may not make enough distinction between "I didn't really warm to this" and "it's bad". I don't know what should or could be done about that, and I wouldn't like to end up with a situation where people deliberately play it "safe" (especially if the "wrong" thing is unexceptional a decision like writing in first person rather than third). Ultimately, I think the answer is to try it and see.

 

[Star-child]

I don't know if most readers would be conscious of the mechanism of change, just the effect.

 

[sknox]

Step 1: try it. Actually write it the way you think you want to, or even just in the way you want to experiment with.
Step 2: Make sure you like it. You have to satisfy yourself as author first. If you don't like it, abandon it.
Step 3: See if others like it. Beta reader, editor, whatever. IMO one needs at least three sources of feedback. If a particular method is of particular interest to you, make sure you ask your reader to take note of that specifically. Unless, of course, it's something where you wonder whether or not the reader will notice, in which case lay low.
Step 4: there is no step four. Publish the story and take your lumps. It's possible that you have three beta readers who love it and a general readership who hates it. If you have a general readership, you're already well ahead of most of us!

 

[tinkerdan]

I did this in my novels--not just that but in present tense for both(not particularly easy).
It's a gamble.
However Charles Stross does exactly what I did in his Laundery Files series.[Something I only just recently found.]

Of course you need to write it well, but hey, even then not everyone will like it and you will have to endure some bit of scorn along the way.

 

[Dave Carignan]

Thank you everyone for your input and suggestions. I think the best thing to do following the majority is just write that part of the chapter in first person and see how it feels and if it fits.