If I write in the "first person", do I condamn myself?

[Teresa Edgerton]

Child of the mid-twentieth century that I am, my use of POV is rather like a movie. Particularly at the beginning of a book, I may set a scene with a wide-establishing shot from the omniscent narrator, and then zoom in on a single POV for the remainder of the scene or chapter. I almost never use more than one POV in the same scene, although on very, very rare occasions, when I really feel that something another character is thinking needs to be included I will (with devilish cunning it seems to me -- although, for all I know, readers may immediately recognize what I am doing) sneak in that other viewpoint briefly. I try to disguise it by not doing it on the same page where we've had a prolonged glimpse into another character's thoughts, or by other sleight-of-hand.

There is a way that the omniscent narrator can dip into the thoughts of multiple characters without a scene break, and without the appearance of head-hopping. I've not tried this myself, but I've seen how it's done. It's a technique that can lead to a very detached type of writing, because it doesn't allow that deep and prolonged identification with any one character. Still, in the hands of a very skilled writer, it can at times be very moving, supplying the emotion largely through dialogue and body language rather than through access to the character's thoughts.

Which reminds me of another problem that can come up in first person POV (although the best writers can manage so that you never notice it), and that's the fact that the narrator is not in the best position to observe and describe his or her own body language. (But, as I said, there are ways to get around this. For example, we can't see ourselves blush -- unless we're conveniently looking into a mirror -- but we can feel it.)

* * * * *

But there are also books where the first person viewpoint of several different characters is presented in serial fashion, in alternating chapters, for instance, or in a book divided into several parts. I think for this to work well (especially the alternating chapters) each character has to have a distinctly different personality and voice, or be widely separated by time or space, otherwise it can get a bit confusing.

 

[Gary Compton]

I may set a scene with a wide-establishing shot from the omniscent narrator, and then zoom in on a single POV for the remainder of the scene or chapter.

Thanks for your very interesting and thought provoking reply, I am sorry to sound a little thick but how does the style of the omniscent narrator work. Is that not just plonking information down in the scene without any POV, how is it done??

XXX

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Well, there is omniscient, where (theoretically) nothing is unknown to the narrator -- sort of your basic God's-eye-view. There's limited omniscent -- which may or may not involve a narrator or chronicler describing and dramatizing events from some point in the future, sometimes commenting on the story as he or she goes along -- or may simply mean serial third person viewpoints. There are also various combinations and permutations, depending on who you happen to be talking to.

Honestly, you shouldn't feel thick, because it can take a long time to sort them all out, and then someone will come up with a handful of new subsets.

 

[Gary Compton]

Honestly, you shouldn't feel thick.

You had me laughing their Teresa, you know I run my own business and have done for 25 years and after watching a BBC documentary on Sheila Quigley the writer(Detective stories). I thought to myself 'I coud do that... no problem'.

So with the idea on paper I started, I honestly thought that all I had to do was finish the book send it off, which I did and wait for the contract to come back to me. How naive was that!. I got the Dear John letter a couple of weeks later saying thanks but no thanks... the dummy came out at warp speed and the gold plated pen was launched into outerspace and I did nothing for a couple of months.

But then I started too miss the fun of it and I have since thrown myself back into writing but the deeper I get into it the more I realise what I have to learn so thanks for your help...the cheque will be in the post

xxx

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Actually, I should have mentioned this before, but I am so scatter-brained lately ...

They've been discussing the whole POV question for a while at this site:

DeepGenre

 

[Giovanna Clairval]

The discussion is very interesting, Teresa. And thank you for the link to Deepgenre. I hadn't noticed those posts during my previous visits.

Is the first person more "feminine" or "masculine"? I wouldn't dare fall into hasty generalisations, but it might be true that female readers appreciate FP narrative more than male readers do.

And on the authors' side?

Well, I was looking at the list I posted, and I remarked that there were only two female authors there (others had listed women).

Speaking of the two authors:

The Old Willis Place by Mary Downing Hahn is a ghost story (for children). The author uses two different storytelling devices: the narrator's (Diana) first person narrative and another character's (Lyssa) diary entries.

Kim Harrison's Dead Witch Walking is a supernatural story written in a chick-lit, humorous style, with a female heroine. Chick-lit rests on a female's strong voice.


Before my list-post, SJAB had quoted:

1) Steph Swainston—I read The Year of Our War, and I liked it. I don't know why this author is never discussed on the Chrons, recently, at least. She writes putting herself in the shoes of a male protagonist (a junky who's got wings). Very original stuff.

2) and Justina Robson. I haven't read any of her work, and I'll have to correct this. I understand that the protagonist of Silver Screen, Anjuli, is a woman.

John had quoted Robin Hobb. Concerning this author, it's interesting to notice that Robin Hobb's Farseer excellent three-volume novel is written in the first person, but the narrator/protagonist is a male.



It is rarer to see male authors write a story in the first person from the female's POV. Outside the genre, I remember a classic, Alberto Moravia's first novel Gli Indifferenti, written in the FP (The Time of Indifference, 1929). The first existentialist novel, and an elegant one at that, but the protagonist/narrator could never be a woman, while Swainston and Hobb pull it off much better, this cross-genre first-person writing.



At the end of three interesting articles on first person narrative, Todd James Pierce says that the first person narrative is seen by some as more consistent with a male understanding of narrative…


"The novel, then, at least in its most traditional sense, has an arc: the initial change, being of sufficient magnitude, puts a particular character, grounded in backstory, in a situation where he will pass through a series of scenes, each one both caused by and deepening the tension found in the initial change, until the tension of the initial change is finally satisfied, along with the tension of any subplots, and the character has changed in a significant and irreversible way. I would like to add, in somewhat of a conclusion, that this form, this method of storytelling is a story in its most basic form and seen by some, because of its linear nature, to be more consistent with a male understanding of narrative; writers, everyday, seek to expand, improve and alter its form to fit individual stories and styles."
From: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Nook/9082/first3.html



Discutable?

 

[thaddeus6th]

The Warlord Chronicles by Bernard Cornwell are first person. I know it'a a stretch (historical meets a little bit of myth) to call it fantasy, but they're amongst my favourite books.

First person wouldn't put me off, or entice me.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

At one time there was a great deal of talk about Steph Swainston, here at the Chronicles, Giovanna. But I think some of the people who were doing most of the discussing have either moved on to other websites or other books. You could do a search if you're interested in what people had to say. I seem to remember The Year of Our War had a thread in the Book Club, when we had a Book Club.

When I was much, much younger there was a very popular category of fiction (still being written, but not so visible) called "Romantic Suspense" or "Gothic Romance" (because the plots were often roughly modeled on Jane Eyre, except that the character standing in for Mr. Rochester sometimes turned out to be the villain). I read dozens of these books by authors like Mary Stewart, Victoria Holt, Barbara Michaels, Phyllis Whitney ... the list goes on.

The reason this is relevant to the discussion is that these books were almost invariably related in the first person. (You would think it would take away from the suspense angle, but it actually didn't, because even though you knew the heroine would survive, there were often secondary characters -- frequently children -- in peril, and of course there was the romance, which might not work out the way the heroine and the reader hoped, if the Byronic Mr. Rochester clone turned out to be "mad, bad, and dangerous to know.")

Because of these books, many women like myself, of a certain age, are very comfortable reading stories written in the first person. And it may also explain why this style of writing is associated, by some people, with female writers and female readers.

 

[Giovanna Clairval]

In Careers in Writing by Blythe Camenson (2001), an American editor (a woman) says that she always advises new writers not to choose first person narrative. According to her, FP sounds Gothic... This must remain in a few American editors' subconscious mind, not all of them--happily enough.

But I don't know whether it is the reading of Gothic novels that has conditioned a generation of women, or it is the other way round--those novels were written in the first person because the authors, being women, realised that this would appeal to women. Now "Gothic" has become a negative connotation, but there's been a lit-chick fad with female authors writing in the FP. Chick-lit is over, they say, but we currently have female authors writing about witches. Tous les moyens sont bons (anything does it).

I've never met a woman who didn't like reading first person (if you are out there, manifest yourselves!), but I know guys who think like Pyan. It's everywhere, on message-boards and online articles: several male readers don't like FP. As we have established that several male authors write in the first person... well.


Going back to techniques, there's an interesting categorisation of first person narrative into 7 types here:


Drama: June 06, 2007 Issue [#1758]

 

[ctg]

Dan Simmons says in his 'Writing Well' blog that:

The strongest reason for not writing your short story or novel in first-person narrative point-of-view is that amateur and beginning writers so very frequently want to and try to, often to disastrous effect. The ratio of amateurs trying first-person p-o-v in their first story and novel attempts to professionals using it is probably about 50-to-1. When I read the overwhelming majority of college student and beginning-amateur stories and novel excerpts with the “I” narratives, I want to make a rule that NO first-person viewpoints will be allowed for the first three years one attempts to write for publication.
The reasons for beginners wanting that point-of-view are fairly obvious: amateurs are used to writing “I” in their journals and letters; they feel it somehow adds more oomph to the narrative, as if it made the fiction “truer”; it feels more immediate and natural to tell the story yourself, using the “I” narrative. Unfortunately, those are exactly the reasons the first-person narratives break down so frequently.
Amateur writers forget that there has to be a character behind that first-person narrative; their narrator may have a different name, but soon becomes just an extension of them. Pretty soon their own opinions and comments begin to leak through the paper-thin facade of character they’ve created (and forgotten) and the “story” becomes just another coffee-shop journal entry.

Dan Simmons - Author's Official Web Site

 

[Giovanna Clairval]

Sooo true, ctg!


This reminds me of Roger Zelazny's Isle of the Dead, written in the first person.
The protagonist goes on ranting about various mundane preoccupations, and especially insurance, while he walks towards the final confrontation with his nemesis. These are clearly the author's personal thoughts, but how does he carry it off, boy! The character exists fully, and the novel wouldn't be the same without that distinctive voice (and the rant).

When the author masters the narrative, first person accounts for powerful writing.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

But I don't know whether it is the reading of Gothic novels that has conditioned a generation of women, or it is the other way round--those novels were written in the first person because the authors, being women, realised that this would appeal to women.

As someone who admits to having read many, many of these books, but also having a taste for Victorian literature, my guess would be that the convention of writing Gothic romances in the first person began because the writers were imitating the 19th century precursors of this type of fiction. It seems to have been a convention of the Victorian era, at least in England and America, that authors (male and female) who had particularly eerie or ghostly or sensational stories to tell would often try to give those tales an air of authenticity by presenting them as first person accounts -- even though, in some cases, the first person narrator was not actually involved in the action, but was an observer, or someone to whom the real protagonist confided his or her story. So, along with the other trappings of the gothic and the mysterious, writers of romantic suspense just naturally adopted the first person narrator.

Of course once the convention was well established, it probably went both ways: women found that sort of narration appealing because they were used to it, and, as you say, writers continued to write that way because it was appealing to their target (female) readers.

This was almost certainly the case when authors like Mary Stewart tossed out the 19th century setting, and much of the attendant paraphernalia, and placed their heroines in (what were then) contemporary settings. Many of these stories now have the flavor of period pieces themselves.

 

[ctg]

Sooo true, ctg!


This reminds me of Roger Zelazny's Isle of the Dead, written in the first person.
The protagonist goes on ranting about various mundane preoccupations, and especially insurance, while he walks towards the final confrontation with his nemesis. These are clearly the author's personal thoughts, but how does he carry it off, boy! The character exists fully, and the novel wouldn't be the same without that distinctive voice (and the rant).

When the author masters the narrative, first person accounts for powerful writing.

I agree, first person narrative has its own place, but since it's Saturday and I'm a bit tipsy. What would you think if Grand Master Tolkien would have written Hobbit in first person perspective? Or Mister Pratchett would have written Tiffany's stories in first person perspective? Would first person POV have made those storylines more powerful?

Reason for this is, that although well written first person perspective can enhance the story more then third person perspective, it also limits the way of how one can tell the story. It is not as flexible - and forgiving - for telling complex stories as third person perspective.

However, if you read Miss Rowling's writings, you can clearly see how she progress on getting more profound on telling the story from third person perspective, although she could had chosen to write Harry's story in first person perspective. Throughout her books, there is no point where she choose to 'pop-in' someone else head, and giving those insights. It was her choice to do so (and I so wish I could had been able to pop in Professor Snape's or 'Archmage' Dumbledore's head, and see where they went in a meantime.)

Then again, I can say the same thing from Raistlin Majere storyline. Miss Hickman made the right choice of telling his, and his brother story from third person perspective, and it was right for her to do so. Raistlin wasn't her own character, it was one of the players character that she chose to carry throughout the Dragonlance saga ... and beyond.

However, if you look Simon R. Green - Nightside saga. You can find out that Mister Green does do the first person perspective very well, and I personally believe there could have been no other way to tell the story.

 

[Giovanna Clairval]

However, if you look Simon R. Green - Nightside saga. You can find out that Mister Green does do the first person perspective very well, and I personally believe there could have been no other way to tell the story.

Exactly. It depends on the story. I wasn't saying that FP is more powerful than third person in the absolute.

Rowling wrote in third limited. I think it was a good choice. The reader knows only what Harry knows, and this works very well to build suspense as the story unfolds. Not knowing what goes on in Snipe's head keeps you hooked.

And I already said, FP is limiting, plot-wise. John already said that it's a tour de force to write an epic novel in the FP, and pull it off.

Usually, first person works well for mysteries and character-driven stories.

But I have read The Concrete Jungle, a novelette by Charles Stross, written in the first person and packed with fast-paced action. It was smashing. So, as always, it depends on the execution.

You can find Stross's The Concrete Jungle free ebook here:
[SIZE=-1]


The Concrete Jungle by Charles Stross




[/SIZE]

 

[Nick P]

I want to quote the wonderful Patricia J Delois reviewing a piece:

I want to say that you’ve done well to sustain the tone throughout, but you’ve done more than that—you’ve captured the voice of your character, and nothing is more powerful than that. It’s the key to a first person narrative, and it’s one of the most difficult things to pull off, which is why so many people tell you not to do it. It takes nerve, but when you get it right, the payoff is huge.

Or put it another way, 1st person is very hard to do well. But if you do it well....

well.

 

[Giovanna Clairval]

Hi, Nick P,

Was this critique done on youwriteon?

 

[Nick P]

Yes. But don't hold that against it! I think the point about 1st person applies generally.

 

[Gary Compton]

First person = I rode on the train and thought about how to kill my aunt.
Third person = John rode on the train and thought about how to kill his aunt.

So if you are writing a book and its all POV characters can you occasionally populate it with the first or third person style?

Also Teresa mentionedd the "omniscent narrator", how does that work. Is that a narrative spoken from outside your characters heads?

 

[ctg]

So if you are writing a book and its all POV characters can you occasionally populate it with the first or third person style?

Also Teresa mentionedd the "omniscent narrator", how does that work. Is that a narrative spoken from outside your characters heads?

Omniscent is the God perspective, or it is the perspective that you see on how things are going ... and what the little people are doing. So you are right on thinking it is the narrative spoken outside the characters head. Think about using it on more grander scales, where you need narrator to move masses.

 

[ctg]

And I already said, FP is limiting, plot-wise. John already said that it's a tour de force to write an epic novel in the FP, and pull it off.

Usually, first person works well for mysteries and character-driven stories.

I disagree. First person perspective doesn't limit the plot, it limits on how you can reveal the plot, very much same way as the third person limited. First person also acts very well on fast-paced action plots and memorandums. Although I recently read a biography made by an Identity Thief, called Identity Theft Inc. First person POV worked very well in there, and there was no need for him to tell his true story in any other way.