First Person - Yes or No

[TheEndIsNigh]

So I've just invested (Three of your English Pounds no less) in a book "Starve Better" by Nick Mamata. Not because I aspire to earning a living from my writing, but because I thought/think it might give some insight to getting things (short stories) published and yes, getting some reward.

Now this was originally written some time ago, but in it hes suggests that writing in the first person might be frowned on. He does say not to accept these unwritten rules but...

Is this, in fact the case. Do publishers tend to reject first person fiction out of hand?

I quite like the up front and personal first person, in the characters brain point of view, but am I wasting my time?

Opinions/experiences please.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Nope. It’s an outdated statement. First is just as valid to publishers as anything else

 

[The Judge]

I was just coming to say the same.

YA is chock-full of first person from what I gather, and the last four genre (non-YA) novels I've read have all been first person accounts -- two were published in 2014, one in 2019 and one in 2020, and that's one out-and-out SF, one SF with fantasy elements, and two kind of fantasy-cum-detective-of-sorts.

So, yep, ignore what the How-to book says on that score.

 

[DLCroix]

The first person allows the writer to find a type of narrator with whom the reader can identify, so that when he feels involved he can imagine that he is the one who is living the story; therefore it is a more intimate perspective. As a defect, or rather difficulty, it has the characteristic that he does not know all the aspects of the story (especially the events where he does not participate but that have some importance in his environment). He doesn't know what other characters think; at best the first POV can only imagine this.

But, even in that case, the author can manage so that his narrator, although in the same way he can only suspect the thoughts or feelings of the MC, or also because the MC confessed something to him about it, he can somehow become in an omniscient type of narrator (in disguise, say) when he tells the story in hindsight; that is to say, he is remembering, and the truth about many events in which he was not present he was easily learned later, either from other people's accounts, from the press and even by simple conjecture.
In this type of story the narrator most of the time is the same MC. An exception would be Watson when telling the story of Sherlock Holmes, the doctor in Le Pacte des Loups or Iñigo Balboa in the Alatriste series. In fact, the most moving thing about this story is the reflection that Iñigo makes about that Spanish empire that was going to the devil and that only kept him alive the valor of a few thirds of infantry tired, ill-equipped and condemned to be defeated, but that they fell in battle true to their legend and their glory.
I have all night to keep talking to you about the many benefits of using the POV firts. I mean, in case someone else tries to convince you that that approach is outdated.

Also, since you say that you like to write from that perspective, it is an advantage (decisive, I would say) that will allow you to write with much more strength and passion. And remember that, after all, your first editor will always be yourself, and if he likes what you wrote, surely many more will like it. So write it down with all your desire!

 

[Joshua Jones]

Personally, I dislike 1st person outside of noir (I could see the advantage of 1st in erotica as well, especially where the participants share a pronoun, although I don't read this genre so I have no idea how often it's used.). I know, I'm a heathen, but in my mind, close 3rd has all the advantages of 1st and fewer weaknesses. Then again, I also dislike present tense narration...

That said, the fact that I have an opinion of 1st person at all is dispositive of its publishability. Feel free to ignore what the book says.

Now, I'm gonna hide; I can sense the torches and firewood are already being gathered...

 

[DLCroix]

Not at all, since the omni narrator also has its advantages. Or the variants: Borges used to use the first plural in his stories. He used to say, "We are not sure this happened" or something like that; thus he gave an aura of uncertainty and very effective suspense to his stories.
There is also the 2nd singular or plural.
In addition, for example, the use of the omniscient narrator, apart from the fact that he has more freedom (and he is believed when he narrates in the present tense, because he is not taking things for granted or they were told; he knows what happened), also has other advantages . For example, when an MC is not so MC; I mean, there is the need to tell the version of other characters about the same event, what they felt, their motivations, especially the stories that ran parallel to the main one, etc., in that case the omni narrator is much more appropriate. Example: the Lord of the Rings. Because the story is known to be told by Sam, right? But it is NOT his adventure; it is not a first POV; It is the story of Frodo and all his friends.
But, all that depends, or is a choice made by the author. What I do not share is that a priori the first POV is considered outdated or ineffective.

 

[Joshua Jones]

Yeah, I'm not really trying to get into a debate into the relative merits of Omni, Close 3rd, 1st, or other perspectives, as this is rather off topic from the OP. The point I was trying to make is that, while I don't particularly like the perspective as a matter of personal preference, even I'll admit, in spite of my bias, that many people publish in this perspective, and do well.

If we want to discuss those advantages and disadvantages, I would be happy to find an old thread on the matter or start a new one. But I don't want to hijack TIEN's thread...

 

[Mouse]

I think the vast majority of my recent published short stories are in first person. One of my trad published novels is in first person. It's fine.

 

[tinkerdan]

Ignore what he says; however, keep it in mind so far as making sure you develop a proper way to use first person and avoid a number of pitfalls that exist in that type of writing.

Most Common Writing Mistakes: Overpowering First-Person Narrator

Here are three of the most common pitfalls of the first-person narrator and how you can avoid them on your way to writing a gripping narrative.

www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com

here be a few-look for more.

 

[TheEndIsNigh]

Yeah, I'm not really trying to get into a debate into the relative merits of Omni, Close 3rd, 1st, or other perspectives, as this is rather off topic from the OP. The point I was trying to make is that, while I don't particularly like the perspective as a matter of personal preference, even I'll admit, in spite of my bias, that many people publish in this perspective, and do well.

If we want to discuss those advantages and disadvantages, I would be happy to find an old thread on the matter or start a new one. But I don't want to hijack TIEN's thread...

As far as I'm concerned hijack away - This is a discussion forum.

 

[Joshua Jones]

As far as I'm concerned hijack away - This is a discussion forum.

Ok, well, if you're ok with it...

Not at all, since the omni narrator also has its advantages. Or the variants: Borges used to use the first plural in his stories. He used to say, "We are not sure this happened" or something like that; thus he gave an aura of uncertainty and very effective suspense to his stories.
There is also the 2nd singular or plural.
In addition, for example, the use of the omniscient narrator, apart from the fact that he has more freedom (and he is believed when he narrates in the present tense, because he is not taking things for granted or they were told; he knows what happened), also has other advantages . For example, when an MC is not so MC; I mean, there is the need to tell the version of other characters about the same event, what they felt, their motivations, especially the stories that ran parallel to the main one, etc., in that case the omni narrator is much more appropriate. Example: the Lord of the Rings. Because the story is known to be told by Sam, right? But it is NOT his adventure; it is not a first POV; It is the story of Frodo and all his friends.
But, all that depends, or is a choice made by the author. What I do not share is that a priori the first POV is considered outdated or ineffective.

Omni, of course, has its advantages. In addition to what you mention, one big advantage is the reader being able to know what is unknowable to the protagonist. Hitchcock uses this famously to build tension. In other words, this perspective is useful for being more objective about what's happening, as well as providing information to the reader which the protagonist doesn't have. Well and good.

But Omni is different from Close 3rd. Close 3rd is where the perspective is limited to the protagonist, but it's written using a 3rd person style. You get the closeness and limited perspective sought in 1st person, but don't have to have the character themselves telling the story. In other words, while Omni is a top-down viewpoint, and 1st is a "through the eyes" viewpoint, Close 3rd is an over the shoulder viewpoint.

For me, I have a hard time believing that the character could die if the story is written in 1st person. I mean, are they telling the story from the afterlife or something? But Close 3rd? Anyone's free game (and my protagonists die... often... and rarely get better). Also (and, again, this is probably just me), I have a harder time immersing in the story if it's in first person. When I'm reading 1st person, I feel like I'm sitting in a room with a character, listening to them talk, whereas a Close 3rd makes me feel like I'm an observer of the world along with them. Further, I think it's easier to keep track of multiple protagonists in a Close 3rd, as a perspective shift only requires shifting names and, depending on how you execute it, narrator voice. For 1st, the different protagonists use the same referent, so a perspective shift, while not impossible, is significantly more difficult.

But, again, this is a matter of preference. A great many people use 1st person and sell well. It just isn't my preference for reading or writing. Same with present tense narration; many use it, but for me, it feels a bit disorienting. Again, if I'm visualizing the character sitting across from me on the sofa, telling his/her story, it'd be strange if they told it like it's happening as they tell it.

So, in order of preference for me: Close 3rd, Omni, 1st person past, 1st person present. Unless it's noir, where I actually like the 1st person past tense. But, again, this is merely my preference.

Can't say I've ever read anything in second person, though... I'm rather curious.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Re close 3rd and 1st - I believed for ages they were mostly similar with close 3rd having benefits over 1st and there being no need to write 1st as it delivered nothing more than 3rd close. Having worked at a first person novel for 18 months now, I couldn’t disagree more. They are different entirely, in their presentation, focus and readability.

 

[Joshua Jones]

Re close 3rd and 1st - I believed for ages they were mostly similar with close 3rd having benefits over 1st and there being no need to write 1st as it delivered nothing more than 3rd close. Having worked at a first person novel for 18 months now, I couldn’t disagree more. They are different entirely, in their presentation, focus and readability.

Interesting. Would you mind elaborating? I haven't written in 1st so I'm curious what differences you see.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Interesting. Would you mind elaborating? I haven't written in 1st so I'm curious what differences you see.

The immediacy is different but also the storytelling approach changes drastically. You can’t cut away and leave cliffhangers in the same way because you mostly cut back to the character (I cheated with 2 povs but I’ve had books where I cut between about 10). The feel is different. Fresher in many ways.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

If the readability of all stories depended on keeping up suspense about whether the main character lives or dies that would certainly limit the kinds of stories available to be told. (But it would not make a first person narrator out of the question, since they could, for instance, be sitting in a cell writing their life-story while awaiting their execution. In the last paragraph, the cell door opens and the gaoler says gruffly, "It's time. There's a crowd outside eager for your blood. Come on now; you don't want to disappoint them.")

There are so many ways to keep readers reading. You can keep them wondering whether the characters will succeed or fail at some vital task. You can keep them wondering if secondary characters will survive. Or set up some intriguing central question about a character's past history that readers will be breathlessly eager to see answered. Maybe the main character (whether they survive or not) stands to lose everything and everyone they care about. Maybe the characters and their world will just be so alive and fascinating that readers will want to spend every available minute reading about them. The possibilities are endless. Some of those stories might be enhanced by a first person narrative. Some of them would do better with omni, or a single close third person, or a serial close third. It depends on the story. All choices have their advantages and disadvantages. Publishers just want a great story, well told.

 

[sknox]

You said you're looking not merely to publish short stories but to sell them. That really simplifies things.

Make a list of paying magazines in your genre. It will be a short list.

Now invest a considerable number of hours reading back issues. Go at least six months back for each. You want to do this in part to see what sort of stories each editor likes and, by inference, does not like. You also want to make a list of all uses of first person, third person, and any other person who happens to wander by. Short stories are sometimes more, er, experimental than novels.

Once you've done all that, you can ask yourself two questions. One, can I write these kinds of stories? Two, do I want to write these kinds of stories?

At which point, the POV will become very much a secondary issue. It will be just one more tool you use in crafting a story that sells.

 

[Joshua Jones]

The immediacy is different but also the storytelling approach changes drastically. You can’t cut away and leave cliffhangers in the same way because you mostly cut back to the character (I cheated with 2 povs but I’ve had books where I cut between about 10). The feel is different. Fresher in many ways.

I could see that. Ok, you've convinced me to give writing 1st person a fair shot. Maybe I can play around with it during the next 300 or write a short story as an experiment. I'm also really curious how you made it clear you were switching perspectives without clubbing the reader over the head... I feel like this is where I would be most prone to err in 1st person.

If the readability of all stories depended on keeping up suspense about whether the main character lives or dies that would certainly limit the kinds of stories available to be told. (But it would not make a first person narrator out of the question, since they could, for instance, be sitting in a cell writing their life-story while awaiting their execution. In the last paragraph, the cell door opens and the gaoler says gruffly, "It's time. There's a crowd outside eager for your blood. Come on now; you don't want to disappoint them.")

There are so many ways to keep readers reading. You can keep them wondering whether the characters will succeed or fail at some vital task. You can keep them wondering if secondary characters will survive. Or set up some intriguing central question about a character's past history that readers will be breathlessly eager to see answered. Maybe the main character (whether they survive or not) stands to lose everything and everyone they care about. Maybe the characters and their world will just be so alive and fascinating that readers will want to spend every available minute reading about them. The possibilities are endless. Some of those stories might be enhanced by a first person narrative. Some of them would do better with omni, or a single close third person, or a serial close third. It depends on the story. All choices have their advantages and disadvantages. Publishers just want a great story, well told.

I didn't mean to suggest mortal peril is the only stake which could keep a reader's interest, which, of course, is patently false. Swaths of readers would prefer, for example, emotional stakes over mortal ones, which is one of the reasons the romance genre is so popular. And, of course, the stakes aren't the only thing that maintains the reader's interest, and you provide some exceptional examples of other story elements which do exactly that.

For my current WiP's, however, mortal stakes are certainly on the table, as well as other types of stakes. My SF WiP, for example, has multiple members of various militaries in active warfare featured to varying lengths. And it's on the grimdark spectrum, so... yeah, death happens.

I think, though, your point about the perspective matching the story is key. There absolutely are some stories where omni is better than a limited perspective, and I'll grant that there probably are more stories where 1st is preferable over close 3rd than I currently perceive (which is mainly a testament to how much I respect you, Jo, and TEIN as writers!). So, I'm going to give it a fair try, and perhaps my appreciation for 1st person will improve.

BTW, I love your solution for protagonist death in 1st person!

 

[DLCroix]

For me, I have a hard time believing that the character could die if the story is written in 1st person.

I don't think it's that strange. Look, for example, in The Lovely Bones: the protagonist begins the story by saying that she is dead.

Same with present tense narration; many use it, but for me, it feels a bit disorienting.

For me the sensation of writing in the past is more nostalgic, of evocation; especially when you refer to a time that has been lost. Writing in the present tense, on the other hand, increases the reader's feeling of uncertainty. Let's take a battle, for example: using past tense allows your narrator (regardless of whether it's first POV or omni) to explain a lot of things that the characters couldn't understand at the time, like what caused their defeat or something like that. But in that same fight, using the present tense creates the feeling that the events are happening now; then the feeling of immediacy and anxiety is much stronger. In fact, I use the past tense when I refer to the prequel to my saga, to reinforce the sense of inevitability, of something that was destined to happen, and I use the present tense only from the sixth or seventh book.
Also, the present tense makes things much easier in translation.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

We tend to be uneasy and distracted with stories that use a style or a point-of-view that we are not familiar with. If we avoid reading those stories, that only reenforces that discomfort. Reading more stories of that sort may either prove that we just don't happen to like that sort of thing, really and truly (in which case writing such a story oneself might be a bad choice) or it may familiarize us with that kind of viewpoint to the point where we hardly notice the difference from the other stories we are more accustomed to reading.

For instance, I used to hate, I mean really hate, almost any story written in the present tense. I thought it was awkward and pretentious, unless it was written by a master story teller, someone like Angela Carter. And, to be fair, almost all of the examples that I saw were written by writers who seemed to be experimenting with the form, badly, in order to impress. (I did write a single short story years ago, experimenting with present tense. I believe in fact, that I had just read a collection of stories by Angela Carter and was still under the influence. It was a story that was supposed to make people uneasy, and my idea was that if the style contributed to that then so much the better. I am not sure if it worked out that way or not. Anyway, I have not since then felt the urge to repeat the experiment.)

But I read a lot of YA, where as we all know, first person present tense is quite popular. The first such novel I read, the author had not yet worked out all the kinks, figured out all the pitfalls to be avoided. But despite feeling initially distracted a bit by the use of present tense, it was also sufficiently compelling otherwise, I stayed with it to the end, and was glad I did.

I have now read enough books written in that viewpoint and tense, it doesn't bother me at all; it feels quite natural. I don't quite see myself ever writing anything in first person present, unless it might be something in one of the challenges, but I feel quite comfortable reading it. But I never had a problem with the first person aspect anyway. I grew up haunting libraries and bringing home enough older books in which it was commonly used, that it never felt unnatural to me, so I didn't have to get over two aversions at once; only the one.

 

[JNG01]

Really good discussion here.

I believe that first person can provide a slight--very slight--edge in sustaining a sense of immediacy and urgency in pacing.

At least one of Lee Child's Jack Reacher books are in first person, iirc. In Child's hands, the POV all but disappears, leaving you focused straight in on the relentless plot.