Poor English of first person narrator

[STING]

What if the English of a first person narrator is supposed to be poor and his poor English is part of the story? Would you let him narrate in poor Enlish? Or would you rather avoid him as a first person narrator and go for third person omniscient?

 

[Evelinn]

That could either go badly or perhaps you’d become famous for the originality. Who knows? Have you written a sample?

 

[STING]

It's a short story of some 2,000 words. Have written in third omniscient, showing his direct speech in bad English. What if I want to convert this into First Person?

 

[alchemist]

In Feersom Endjinn, Iain M Banks has a character whose words are spelled phonetically. It annoyed the hell out of me. I wouldn't recommend using poor English, unless it's only slightly poor.

 

[STING]

A quick search on the net shows that nearly 70 pages of Feersom Endjinn were in first person bad English. (Woak up. Got dresd. Had brekfast...etc) Mine is just a 2000-word short story. Would you still recommend I avoid first person?

 

[goldenapples]

No, go for it. But the challenge is that good characters don’t think in poor English by definition, and no one wants to read poor characters in poor English. Irvine Welch and James Kelman (How Late It Was How Late) show how to write razor-sharp street-wise wit in dialect and 'bad' English, but it’s never poor, just sharp and believable.

 

[The Judge]

I think the answer is try it and see. Write it out in first person in good English and poor English and see which of the three -- including the third person -- is best for telling the story as you want it to be told. Ask someone whose opinion you respect to have a look at them also.

One thing, though. I'd say there was a difference between incorrect English and poor spelling. If the narrator is writing the story then "I woak thatt mourning" may indeed be how he would spell the sentence. If he's narrating it, though -- ie telling the story verbally to someone else -- the mis-spelling doesn't arise, since the person hearing the story has no idea how the narrator may think the word is spelled. In that case you might get over poor English by "I waked that a-morning".

 

[Culhwch]

As this isn't really a writing resource, I've moved the thread into General Writing Discussion.

 

[alchemist]

A quick search on the net shows that nearly 70 pages of Feersom Endjinn were in first person bad English. (Woak up. Got dresd. Had brekfast...etc) Mine is just a 2000-word short story. Would you still recommend I avoid first person?

If the poor English were to the extent of F.E., I wouldn't be keen on reading it. If, as others have said, it's well done, it would be a different story.
If you hang about the site for a bit, you could post some up to let us see in the critiques section, but, WARNING, read the instructions there first.

And welcome to the Chrons.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I think that intentionally poor English is like dialect: almost always it becomes tedious very, very rapidly.

To work, I think that the first person narrator, even if ignorant, has to have a sharp mind, and make entertaining company for the reader.

And then, too, the author has to make it clear from the beginning that the mistakes are those of the character and not the result of clumsy writing, or readers may give up in disgust.

 

[thaddeus6th]

I read the first post slightly differently to others. Poor English needn't be filled with typos, it could be indicated by simple and occasionally childish words.

If I tried writing anything remotely complicated in German, I'd get the tenses and cases wrong, probably, but I wouldn't make that many spelling mistakes.

 

[STING]

No, go for it. But the challenge is that good characters don’t think in poor English by definition, and no one wants to read poor characters in poor English. Irvine Welch and James Kelman (How Late It Was How Late) show how to write razor-sharp street-wise wit in dialect and 'bad' English, but it’s never poor, just sharp and believable.

Thanks, Goldenapples. I am afraid I don't understand what you mean when you say that "the challenge is that good characters don’t think in poor English by definition, and no one wants to read poor characters in poor English."

 

[STING]

I read the first post slightly differently to others. Poor English needn't be filled with typos, it could be indicated by simple and occasionally childish words.

If I tried writing anything remotely complicated in German, I'd get the tenses and cases wrong, probably, but I wouldn't make that many spelling mistakes.

I think the answer is try it and see. Write it out in first person in good English and poor English and see which of the three -- including the third person -- is best for telling the story as you want it to be told. Ask someone whose opinion you respect to have a look at them also.

One thing, though. I'd say there was a difference between incorrect English and poor spelling. If the narrator is writing the story then "I woak thatt mourning" may indeed be how he would spell the sentence. If he's narrating it, though -- ie telling the story verbally to someone else -- the mis-spelling doesn't arise, since the person hearing the story has no idea how the narrator may think the word is spelled. In that case you might get over poor English by "I waked that a-morning".

The character's English is poor in grammar, spelling and vocabulary. The story centres round his poor English and his efforts to learn English which fail.


If it's in first person, I need to deal with his thoughts and speech. His speech has to be in bad English. What about his thoughts? Must his thoughts be in bad English?

I think that intentionally poor English is like dialect: almost always it becomes tedious very, very rapidly.

To work, I think that the first person narrator, even if ignorant, has to have a sharp mind, and make entertaining company for the reader.

And then, too, the author has to make it clear from the beginning that the mistakes are those of the character and not the result of clumsy writing, or readers may give up in disgust.

Thanks, Teresa. (I am a fan of yours, a continent or two away. Wonder how you find time for these posts. Only shows your love for writing.)

No, it isn't a dialect. It's just bad English. I have tried to make this entertaining and humorous.

In my third omniscient version, I have one paragraph like this (just trying to be funny):

This was how he worked it out and his thoughts, translated into English, were:
.......

Now the question is what one must do if the whole story is in first person.

 

[Jake Reynolds]

You might have a look at what it brings to your story, and why the story needs it. Are you writing it that way because it distracts from a poor plot, or because it genuinely effects the plot (filling in forms, reading menus, etc). You'll need a reason for readers to put up with it, and it needs to be one hell of a good one.

 

[J Riff]

Hard to know without reading the story- but wouldn't only the character's actual dialogue be in poor English? The narrator should remain 'good company' as TE states, therefore no mispellings, simply description of the characters' actions and thoughts.

 

[Ursa major]

It seems to me that the narration should be in simplified English with a reduced vocabulary. Thus the rather arch:

My family has a long and ignoble history of neglecting even primary-level education, so that I am always at a great disadvantage when debating with those imbued with academic skills.

can be as easily written as:

My mum and her mum were never ones for book learning. Shame, really, because when it comes to arguing with someone who's been to school, it's as if I'm fighting with both my hands tied behind my back. So I use my head and nut them.

 

[STING]

And welcome to the Chrons.

Thank you!

 

[GreenKidx]

Piggybacking on Ursa's comment... I have seen poor English grammar and pronunciation used to great effect. I would recommend you take a look at Ordinary Scott Card's Alvin Maker Series. Its brilliant. Best fantasy example I can think of.

 

[STING]

It seems to me that the narration should be in simplified English with a reduced vocabulary. Thus the rather arch:

can be as easily written as:

Thanks. This seems like a good option.

(Greenkidx, will take a look. Thanks.)

 

[TheDustyZebra]

progris riport 1 martch 3

Dr Strauss says I shoud rite down what I think and remembir and evrey thing that happins to me from now on. I dont no why but he says its importint so they will see if they can use me. I hope they use me becaus Miss Kinnian says mabye they can make me smart. I want to be smart.

Thus begins Flowers for Algernon.

It can work. In a short story of 2000 words, it shouldn't have time to get too tedious. Like everyone else says above, make sure it's necessary to the character and to the story, and figure out how to not make it annoying. It should be noted that Flowers for Algernon is written entirely as Charlie's written reports, so his spelling is essential -- as TJ says, a person listening to him talk would not know how he spelled the words. In that case, you would want to stick to grammar and word choices to convey the point.

Good luck!