What can 1st person do that 3rd person (subjective) can't?

[therapist]

I'm a little confused by this. Could you not just take a passage written in 1st person and simply switch out the pronouns and leave the rest?

For example, here's a random exert from a Murakimi short story, an author famous for only using 1st person. Translated to 3rd person subjective (by only swapping out pronouns). Is there anything wrong with this?

"Jane almost never drinks. Not that she has a physical incompatibility with alcohol, as her husband does. In fact, She used to drink quite a lot, but after marrying him she simply stopped. Sometimes when she had trouble sleeping she would take a sip of Brandy, but that night Jane felt she wanted a whole glass to quiet her nerves. The only alcohol in the house was a bottle of Remy Martin she kept in the sideboard. It had been a gift. She didn't even remember who gave it to them, it was so long ago.''

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Sometimes I do that, start in first and then change to third. I’m just back editing the one I wrote last year in first present and I’m half tempted to change it to 3rd past but I’m pretty sure the immediacy would change and the sense of realism in the story, that this could actually be happening.

 

[Hex]

As a reader, I think first reads very differently from third person -- like Jo says, first often feels more immediate. My memory of trying to switch between the two is that it doesn't always work as well as your passage above does.

Maybe first gives it more of a conversational feel?

I almost never drink. It's not that I can't, like David. I used to drink all the time, in fact. Just, after I married him, I stopped.

Jane almost never drinks. It's not that she can't, like her husband. She used to drink all the time, in fact, but after she married him, she stopped.

My instinct (which is quite likely to be wrong) is that you're more inside someone's head and vocabulary in first, and once you're speaking in their voice like that, it can be harder to pull it into third in a way that works. Your third person passage is maybe at a stage before that, because Murukami's voice can be a bit formal -- e.g. Jane is thinking of "her husband", which I don't think she would in some of the 'closer' first person. If she's sufficiently distanced to be thinking of "her husband" you might not need to use first present, because you're a little out of her head anyway.

In third, you're not in her head, you're someone else telling the story, so if you're using the kind of language that can work in first, you're putting your personality in -- which begs the question: who is narrating?

Another example of fp (from How Late it was, how late, which is more stream of consciousness):

“Ye wake in a corner and stay there hoping yer body will disappear, the thoughts smothering ye; these thoughts; but ye want to remember and face up to things, just something keeps ye from doing it, why can't ye no do it; the words filling yer head: then the other words; there's something wrong; there's something far far wrong; ye're no a good man, ye're just no a good man. Edging back into awareness, of where ye are: here, slumped in this corner, with these thoughts filling ye. And oh christ his back was sore; stiff, and the head pounding. He shivered and hunched up his shoulders, shut his eyes, rubbed into the corners with his fingertips; seeing all kinds of spots and lights. Where in the name of f*ck...”

 

[therapist]

In third, you're not in her head, you're someone else telling the story, so if you're using the kind of language that can work in first, you're putting your personality in

But isn't the point of 3rd person subjective to colour the descriptions with the character's personality? Similar to what happens in 1st person? eg "Jane awoke to another bright and depressing morning."

When you reading a sentence like "I felt a chill creep down my spine" or "Jane felt a chill creep down her spine" do they not have the same effect? I feel like in both cases I am just putting myself in the protagonist's shoes.

which begs the question: who is narrating?

Is this important? Isn't it like saying about a movie, 'who is filming?' I guess to answer my own question, that isn't the same because films don't have narration. But isn't it enough to say that the narration in 3rd person belongs to the character?

 

[Jo Zebedee]

But isn't the point of 3rd person subjective to colour the descriptions with the character's personality? Similar to what happens in 1st person? eg "Jane awoke to another bright and depressing morning."

When you reading a sentence like "I felt a chill creep down my spine" or "Jane felt a chill creep down her spine" do they not have the same effect? I feel like in both cases I am just putting myself in the protagonist's shoes.


Is this important? Isn't it like saying about a movie, 'who is filming?' I guess to answer my own question, that isn't the same because films don't have narration. But isn't it enough to say that the narration in 3rd person belongs to the character?

I used to be quite a strong advocate that it didn’t matter and third can be just as close as first, but it does. in third there is more of a tendency to switch between characters and their point of view (one of the reasons to choose it) and, overall, there is a sense of control in third, that someone is reminding us about who we should be focusing on. In first, it is very much in the person’s head. I don’t always think it’s closer - I have one character in first who remains a little distant (Julie, for those who’ve read Into a Blood-Red Sky) but I think that’s just because she’s controlled and careful even to herself, I’ve come to respect that she doesn’t want anyone, even herself, to be close to her thoughts and feelings, that this is where her internal damage sits*) whereas I have characters in third who are as close as it gets.

so, for me it’s not just about closeness but things like narrative structure (you can’t cut away as easily in first, and especially not first present when it feels really false), which suits short time spans, and immediacy of the story. They really are two different beasts.


*i do wonder what the first specialists, like @Hex and @HareBrain (who is familiar with the story) think about that. Can you have a slightly distant first?

 

[Biskit]

For me, the whole point of 1st is that it should be very personal, very intimate - it's me talking to you and letting you in on what happened.

I'm not familiar with the original, but it seems to me that you've probably hit on a passage that doesn't suffer too badly from changing pronouns. I use 1st a lot and one of my pet hates is bad translation done the other way around, going to 1st from 3rd by just changing the pronoun. I've started reading books and put them down in the first page because of the narrator telling me stuff that the narrator couldn't or shouldn't have seen.

I suppose I feel that if you're writing 1st POV, you put yourself in the place of the character and tell the reader your experience. If, instead, you're going to tell the reader what you experienced, padded with things that other actors in the scene might have told you later, then why not 'fess up and just write it 3rd?

I generally avoid quoting my own stuff, but:

Everyone has their demons, but I buy mine wholesale.

I run Moore Magic from the old family shop, down the end of Blunt’s Alley amid the flat conversions – a tasteless emporium of gothic, new-age, wiccan and other accessories. It used to be a hardware store, but that died a slow death at the hands of the big DIY chain on the Lower Barrow retail park. I deal in evil incarnate; they use cut-throat pricing.

I could change that to 3rd, but not by just changing pronouns, and I think it would lose some of the in-your-face quality.

 

[therapist]

I've started reading books and put them down in the first page because of the narrator telling me stuff that the narrator couldn't or shouldn't have seen.

What is something that shouldn't/couldn't be seen in 1st person but is ok in 3rd? I thought if you began describing things the character can't know you move into omniscient narration.

 

[HareBrain]

One thing common in first-past that you can't really have in close-third is digressions. In something like a memoir, the narrator can skip all over the place and go off on a tangent about anything they want without compromising reality. In third, this is only possibly in omniscient narration, and then you're replacing the actual character with a godlike narrator-character.

 

[Hex]

Good lord. That quote from hliwhl isn't fp. What was I thinking?

But, and this is the point I was aiming for, it's hard to turn the rambling thoughts (in second) into third and keep the impact. I think.

@Biskit -- I love that opener. It was what made me buy the book.

 

[Biskit]

What is something that shouldn't/couldn't be seen in 1st person but is ok in 3rd? I thought if you began describing things the character can't know you move into omniscient narration.

I wish I had one of those annoying books to hand... but the first sort of scenario that springs to mind is the narrator opens the door to something challenging and then tells me about all the other challenges gathered outside the door, out of line of sight, because the author knows that they are there, but surely the protagonist is utterly focused on the thing directly in front of him/her. Yes, you might mention those things in some sort of close 3rd, but in 1st that ought to come later, after the narrator has dealt with the immediate threat/surprise guest/unwelcome family visit.

Going the other way, converting a scene like that from 1st to 3rd, I'd perhaps put hints of those other challenges in earlier, so that the reader gets the additional threat of the scene before the protagonist knows what's coming.

I'm sure it's a very crude way to view it, but I feel for a 1st POV, you don't tell the reader too much about what's coming, but what is there, right now, whilst 3rd, no matter how "close" has the freedom to set more of the wider scene.

I wrote my space opera in a sort of close third, which was a very different experience from the 1st pov urban fantasy, and allowed me to have scenes with both lead characters present and interacting.

One thing common in first-past that you can't really have in close-third is digressions.

I do like a good digression in 1st pov. I probably get it from my Grandmother who could start talking about something, wander off into a chain of ever more distant digressions, and twenty minutes later slip smoothly back into what she said at the start.

@Biskit -- I love that opener. It was what made me buy the book.

I know. I liked it the moment I wrote it. The Biskitetta loved it. And then I had to face up to the big question - does that opening work or should I re-write it?

 

[autodidact]

One thing common in first-past that you can't really have in close-third is digressions. In something like a memoir, the narrator can skip all over the place and go off on a tangent about anything they want without compromising reality. In third, this is only possibly in omniscient narration, and then you're replacing the actual character with a godlike narrator-character.

I would say that doesn't apply to stream of consciousness. You can have the character digress within that paradigm and still keep the narrative within the context of that character's thought process.

EDIT: Although I'm not sure if stream of consciousness would work well with a memoir.

 

[JS Wiig]

I would say it depends on what type of narrator you’re using for close third. An unreliable narrator is going to be more like first person than a reliable one.

First person is always an unreliable narrator.

 

[therapist]

One thing common in first-past that you can't really have in close-third is digressions.

So something like this? Another passage from a Murakimi short story.

I hear the telephone ring but tell myself, ignore it. Let the spaghetti finish cooking. It's almost done, and besides, Claudio Abbado and the London Symphony Orchestra are coming to a crescendo. Still, on second thought, I figure I might as well turn down the flame and head into the living room, cooking chopsticks in hand, to pick up the receiver. It might be a friend, it occurs to me, possibly with word of a new job.

 

[autodidact]

So something like this? Another passage from a Murakimi short story.

I hear the telephone ring but tell myself, ignore it. Let the spaghetti finish cooking. It's almost done, and besides, Claudio Abbado and the London Symphony Orchestra are coming to a crescendo. Still, on second thought, I figure I might as well turn down the flame and head into the living room, cooking chopsticks in hand, to pick up the receiver. It might be a friend, it occurs to me, possibly with word of a new job.

But it could be written like this:

She heard the telephone ring, but ignored it. The spaghetti could finish cooking. It was nearly done, and besides, Claudio Abbado and the London Symphony Orchestra were coming to a crescendo. Still, on second thought, why not turn down the flame and head into the living room? And so, with chopsticks in hand, she picked up the receiver. Was it a friend? It could be and, with any luck, this call might bring word of a new job.

Whether or not that's acceptable or not? I don't know. I prefer third for everything. But really, it's just down to the reader as to what he or she likes, and the author as to what he or she prefers.

 

[Wayne Mack]

I find that there is no bright dividing line between first person and close third person. First person tends to allow more in depth internal dialogs. Third person tends to clutter these with s/he thought tags or even the introduction of a character to express internal conflict in dialog. I also feel that if I have first person, I can never write a section with another point of view anywhere in the story if the character is present or even nearby.

I am considering a switch in my primary character pov from first to third. During writing (and editing!), I felt using first person helped me avoid revealing anything to the reader that was not observed or known to the character. During the climatic scenes, the main character's motivations are hidden from the reader, leading me to feel that third person may work better.

 

[HareBrain]

o something like this? Another passage from a Murakimi short story.

No, I was thinking more of where, say, a character mentions that his mother was a mountaineering champion, and then the memoirist is reminded (perhaps in the time of writing the memoir rather than at the time of the events) of another mountaineer they knew and tells a five-page story about them.

 

[msstice]

Jane felt a chill creep down her spine

This falls under the keyword "filter words" at least on the internet. There are many good discussions on how this creates unnecessary distance between the reader and the character and should be avoided.

A chill crept down her spine.

I find that better. Also, one can deftly slip into implied first person in the heat of the moment. So the original sample could be rewritten

Jane almost never drinks. It isn't a physical incompatibility with alcohol, like it is for her husband. It's just that the heavy drinking simply stopped after marriage. Sometimes there was trouble sleeping, and a sip of brandy would fix that. That night, however, called for a whole glass. The only alcohol in the house was a bottle of Remy Martin she kept in the sideboard. It had been a gift. Who gave it to them? It was so long ago.

It needs more polish, but this is what I try with my close third.

 

[Thiswriterinme]

There are plenty of masterful works written in both first and third person. I think one of the pitfalls of first person, and why it isn't as "respected" as third person (that seems to be the general consensus on writing blogs anyway), is that it is incredibly easy to fall into the trap of telling and not showing. Within the mind and POV of a specific character, statements like "I did this" or "I felt that" can become commonplace without any added description of gesture, facial expression, etc.

Within the realm of first person, readers often see the step by step actions and thoughts, but they don't get the chance to experience them. That's not to say third person writing can't fall into this trap as well, it is just more common with first person writing. I also think that first person writing has lost some credibility due to the influx of writing sites and fanfiction sites on the internet. I personally have nothing wrong with any writer of any experience level expressing themselves and writing what feels right to them. However, a lot of what is out there now reads like teenage, high school fantasies, and the majority is written in first person. Then it takes on the tone of reading the author's diary of high school traumas/experiences, just with some supernatural or fantasy elements thrown in (or not). Some people enjoy that kind of story, others find it superficial and shallow, which I think is then extended to first person writing.

A lot of what it comes down to is execution as well as writing and reading preference. While internal monologues are more common in first person, and third person can be riddled with "she thoughts," or "they wondered," it doesn't have to be in order to convey personal thoughts of the character whose POV is being represented. There are different kinds of narrators in third person as well, which I think can give a story a lot more depth and intrigue than having the single "in your head" POV of first person.

Then there is the headhopping debate. Some third person writers say you can only tell the story from one character's POV at a time, and the change has to be made with a clear shift in a scene, like with a break in the page, or at the end of a chapter. Other writers will constantly headhop from one POV to another throughout each scene and chapter.

While it is possible for first person stories to be told from the POV of multiple characters from chapter to chapter (although it is less likely), Headhopping throughout a scene can't really be accomplished in first person without it being incredibly confusing or unreadable. For writers who like headhopping, third person is really the only way they can write.

 

[therapist]

A chill crept down her spine.

I find that better

Yea, you are right, so much better, good catch. I literally just read about that yesterday in a writing craft book, and even made a note. Must not have sunken in yet... Hopefully it has now though.

Whether or not that's acceptable or not? I don't know. I prefer third for everything. But really, it's just down to the reader as to what he or she likes, and the author as to what he or she prefers.

It read well to me. I feel the same way about third, When I bought the book of short stories by Murakumi I was disappointed they were all in first. But I think part of that is because I am just used to third person so find the different style jarring. I'm guessing I would enjoy it more if I became more familiar with it. I will find out by the end of the book anyway.

 

[sknox]

I can't tell what's trying to be decided here. That there is some universal way, reliably applicable, for choosing one narrative style over another? Or even to state unequivocally that this is one style while that is another? Trying to draw such lines--especially in a room full of writers <g>--just doesn't seem especially helpful. Now, take a room full of literary critics and you have another animal altogether.

More useful, it seems to me, is to ask the question of a story one is currently writing. What would happen if I switched to first person, or third, or omniscient? Most times, for myself, it hasn't been a careful, rational choice. One feels right. The others don't. I write in what feels appropriate and let that room full of literary critics put it into categories. They like that sort of thing.