Why (Why Not) First Person?

[Bren G]

Why are most books written in 3rd person?

I've always like 1st person - especially peripheral characters telling the story like in the Great Gatsby. Another is the character of 'Red' in Stephen King's Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption. I wonder though - how does Red have such command of what Andy said and did when Red himself wasn't in every room or situation with him. Presumably he is told about it afterward, but Red tells it with such clarity and confidence, that you think he is there. Funny though, I only cared about this fact since I've become a writer. It never even occurred to me before.

 

[Swank]

It's difficult or contrived to write a story that takes place simultaneously in multiple locations if one character has to explain all of it. You can use multiple characters, but what happens when they are in scene together?

 

[reiver33]

I’ve written mostly in first person and it can be a challenge not to shoehorn information resulting from ‘off camera’ events into exchanges involving the narrator. About the only planning I do in longer stories is to timescale the surrounding events so as to keep track of who shows what, when. In terms of a full explanation of what actually took place, I frequently don’t provide one.

I enjoy the intimacy of first person as it allows for true introspection, as opposed to an external narrator knowing what multiple characters are thinking, which always drags me out of the moment, somewhat.

 

[Biskit]

My default is to write in 1st, and my only problem with reading it is when I come across something which comes across as written in 3rd but with the pronouns changed. I would offer an example, but I tend to hit DNF in the first page or two, so they don't stick in my mind other than as a sense of irritation.

It's difficult or contrived to write a story that takes place simultaneously in multiple locations if one character has to explain all of it. You can use multiple characters, but what happens when they are in scene together?

I used to do big multi-pov stuff that would be a challenge to write in 1st, but not impossible - it's just a matter of recasting the story and deciding which bit(s) of the grand canvas you actually want to tell. I've come to appreciate the focus and power of 1st, and the sense of intimacy, and putting myself in the character's shoes.

Recently I've been writing a multiple 1st, which allows more of the "grand canvas" but which brings it's own challenge of making each "voice" distinct. Some bits of that are working better than others, but at least I then get to be several completely different people.

None of that comes close to answering the actual question - why does 3rd dominate?

From my scientific career, the emphasis was the impersonal, indirect "the sample was placed in the the big sparkly machine" style where the use of the personal pronoun was an absolute no-no.

I do wonder if the preference for 3rd is the way we tend to emulate what we like, or at least what has gone before. We write mostly in 3rd because that's the way it's always been done, and perhaps that is a tradition of relating a story of something that happened far away or long ago. All those classical heroic tales of the Greeks and their gods don't easily start with getting everyone gathered around the fire and launching in with "My name is Zeus and just the other day I was tossing some lightning bolts around..."

 

[reiver33]

3rd does allow the writer a greater control over the narrative flow, and thus a more accurate realisation of their artistic vision.

 

[Biskit]

3rd does allow the writer a greater control over the narrative flow, and thus a more accurate realisation of their artistic vision.

But that depends on the artistic vision. If you look at the story through one set of eyes, then that is the vision.

So, here I am, writing a story set in a war fought across a couple of billion years, but the actual story I'm writing is the experience of four people living their lives, one day at a time (but not necessarily sequentially) against that backdrop. I could re-write it 3rd, but I think it would lose it's edge without the time-travel expert's bubbling internal fury about his crappy life and the careless way people tamper with history, or the re-born terrorist/freedom-fighter struggling to become the extraordinary military commander that s/he has been told is the future.

 

[paranoid marvin]

My default is to write in 1st, and my only problem with reading it is when I come across something which comes across as written in 3rd but with the pronouns changed. I would offer an example, but I tend to hit DNF in the first page or two, so they don't stick in my mind other than as a sense of irritation.



I used to do big multi-pov stuff that would be a challenge to write in 1st, but not impossible - it's just a matter of recasting the story and deciding which bit(s) of the grand canvas you actually want to tell. I've come to appreciate the focus and power of 1st, and the sense of intimacy, and putting myself in the character's shoes.

Recently I've been writing a multiple 1st, which allows more of the "grand canvas" but which brings it's own challenge of making each "voice" distinct. Some bits of that are working better than others, but at least I then get to be several completely different people.

None of that comes close to answering the actual question - why does 3rd dominate?

From my scientific career, the emphasis was the impersonal, indirect "the sample was placed in the the big sparkly machine" style where the use of the personal pronoun was an absolute no-no.

I do wonder if the preference for 3rd is the way we tend to emulate what we like, or at least what has gone before. We write mostly in 3rd because that's the way it's always been done, and perhaps that is a tradition of relating a story of something that happened far away or long ago. All those classical heroic tales of the Greeks and their gods don't easily start with getting everyone gathered around the fire and launching in with "My name is Zeus and just the other day I was tossing some lightning bolts around..."

I agree that historically stories have been about what someone else has done rather than the narrator themselves, so it's going to be hard to break from that tradition. The most important thing in 3rd and 1st person is to keep an aura of believability. If I remember rightly Morgan Freeman narrates the movie version of The Shawshank Redemption. Now how can he do this if he is a participant and narrates things that he cannot possibly know? It's only now that I think of it that it doesn't make sense. But then again, if we really think hard and long about most works of fiction - movies and books - we can see the holes appear. We have a way of turning a blind eye to wobbly scenery when the story is good.

 

[Swank]

I do wonder if the preference for 3rd is the way we tend to emulate what we like, or at least what has gone before. We write mostly in 3rd because that's the way it's always been done, and perhaps that is a tradition of relating a story of something that happened far away or long ago. All those classical heroic tales of the Greeks and their gods don't easily start with getting everyone gathered around the fire and launching in with "My name is Zeus and just the other day I was tossing some lightning bolts around..."

What's interesting here is that the old Greeks probably told this stuff in 1st, because the narrator/orator would comment about their connection/perspective on the characters. Which is a reminder that 1st person isn't all 1st person - it is one character speaking in 1st about themselves and 3rd about everyone else.

3rd person just eliminates the one oddball that gets their own POV that the other's do not.

 

[Wayne Mack]

I have always been a fan of the first person stories by Alistair Maclean. Though there may not be rules, I feel that there are certain tendencies that separate first person and third person.

First person seems to work best for a loner-type protagonist in a mystery. Many scenes may involve only the PoV. The reader sees a great deal of the PoV's internal thoughts without requiring a secondary character being present (and having thoughts revealed through dialog). The reader is discovering details along with the protagonist, but may have some thoughts and analysis hidden (unreliable narrator). Thus reader knows slightly less than the protagonist.

Third person seems to work best for ensemble-type stories. Most scenes require at least two characters. Though the reader will occasionally hear a PoV's internal thoughts, much of the main protagonist's biases and analysis are revealed through dialog with another character. Often times, the reader will know more about what is happening than the primary character and this builds tension as the reader waits for the character to learn something.

I am not sure there is a reason that third person seems more common than first person. Each can result in very enjoyable tales.

 

[The Big Peat]

One advantage with third person is it's a lot easier to hide thoughts when they need hidden.

I wonder if the rise of first person is linked to the way Shakespeare, and therefore theatre, has dominated talk of the English literary tradition. In a way, why would you bother to tell a story pretending to be someone else rather than just the storyteller unless you see a lot of plays in which people pretend to be someone else?

 

[The Storyteller]

I typically prefer third person for both writing and reading, but I think it all depends on what kind of story you're trying to tell. For the trilogy I'm currently working on, I actually switched from third person in the original draft to first person. The main character suffers from anxiety, fear, and self-doubt, and I found it was much more effective to put the reader directly in her head. Third person created too much distance from her struggles, and made her feel whiny instead of relatable. I do, however, introduce a third person POV in the epilogue of the first book and throughout the next two books!

 

[reiver33]

I had a 4 part WIP with the first 3 in 1st person, the reveal at the end of 3 being they are duplicates, subject to false memory implants. As 1 and 2 end up being hosted by 3, and all ‘conscious’ in a form of multiple personality, I’d planned to write part 4 in 3rd person. Maybe one day...

 

[tinkerdan]

First off; all my novels at amazon--that I've written--are in first person.
It is difficult to sustain first person and try to get everything in; however not really that much different from third person close which should have the same problem. What happens in third person close is that when the author cheats it might be just a bit less obvious to some readers whereas the first person POV is glaring when something is described that the character could not possibly know or see or have experienced.

What I did to alleviate the problem was to intersperse third person from other characters in alternating chapters and that allowed me to shoe-horn the stuff that my main POV couldn't know or see at the time.

However the real problem with first person--what can make it worse--is using present tense because a lot of readers don't like present tense; or at least a large number of those who are vocal about my books. Of course, I was rather new in writing and that might have something to do with it; though through discussion I don't think it's that.

Problems with present tense vary:
Too immediate--they think that it is meant to make action scenes more immediate and when sustained too long in the writing it's like running a race from the first page to the last. (I think the real problem for those who expect immediacy is that they can deal with the mundane parts that seem to drag on while their mind is looking for the immediate-action.)

Not natural--how can someone possibly be telling the story as it is happening when it is obviously in a book that is there in their hand after the fact and they're confused by it.

Those are the two most valid I've heard and there are more, but I should get back to the first Person POV.

For some reason, some people seem to equate First Person POV with young adult novels.
Some have complained that they it makes them read it as though it's supposed to be about them--I did this that and the other thing.
One thing that a writer needs to control is how many times they use I in a sentence and in a paragraph.
If every sentence in a paragraph has at least one I and some have more than that, then the writer is doing something wrong.

I think first person is great for creating a narrator voice.
Look at what Mark Twain did with his novels; for some great examples.

 

[msstice]

It is easy to find comparisons of the three points of view (and their variations) on the internet. The answers usually boil down to: first person offers more immersion and third person is more flexible.

When the writing is skillful and well paced I think I lose track of first person, second person, third person. I experience it myself, all in first person.

Technically first person limits your view point, but you can write different parts of the book from different view points. Tricky things happen if a first person character dies or becomes unconscious. Even then, you can get around it (Look he's a ghost! Or I was semi-conscious).

Writing, I am realizing, is anything goes. There ain't no rules. You writes and then you reads and you sees if it works.

 

[LordOfWizards]

"Call me Ishmael" comes to mind. If it draws the reader in, well done. I have no real experience writing in first, so far. Not inspired as such yet.
I always write in third. Oh well.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I switch between the two - a lot of my short stuff, and my last novel, were in first, but my other novels have been in third.

In first, I love that you can play with perception, that what the character sees is open to interpretation and may not be accurate. I also love the rawness you can put into it.
In third, I like that it can be used to create cliffhangers and keep multiple storylines moving forwards. I'd also argue that close third can be very close to the emotions etc of first - it's just the storytelling perspective that's a little different.

I mostly see which one the story settles into logically, as opposed to deciding this is exactly what this book should be.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

In first, I love that you can play with perception, that what the character sees is open to interpretation and may not be accurate.

Yes, I like this too. Success by Martin Amis is a wonderful example.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

"Call me Ishmael" comes to mind.

Interesting example. The novel is perfect for first person; the tale of an ill-fated whaling voyage told through the eyes of a single crew member. I could also cite Heart of Darkness. Adding multiple POVs would detract from the impact of a personal journey/observation/experience. In HoD, though, the story is told by an unnamed narrator and the words and thoughts of the protagonist are placed within speech marks. Still, I would think of it as a first person story.

 

[Biskit]

First person seems to work best for a loner-type protagonist in a mystery. Many scenes may involve only the PoV. The reader sees a great deal of the PoV's internal thoughts without requiring a secondary character being present (and having thoughts revealed through dialog). The reader is discovering details along with the protagonist, but may have some thoughts and analysis hidden (unreliable narrator). Thus reader knows slightly less than the protagonist.

Both reading and writing 1st, I've noticed that whilst you can do whole scenes, or chapters, purely in the narrator's head, that can get a bit monotonous after a while. It really helps to have a second character to pull the narrator up short and point out their errors.

However the real problem with first person--what can make it worse--is using present tense because a lot of readers don't like present tense; or at least a large number of those who are vocal about my books. Of course, I was rather new in writing and that might have something to do with it; though through discussion I don't think it's that.

1st-present... hate it, hate it, hate... oops, bugger, I went and used it myself. It really is peculiar, and perhaps just a learned response courtesy of all that formal education stuff when I was a kid, but 1st-present just feels wrong, or it did right up until the moment I wanted to write a really, really annoying character and it felt exactly right.
OK, there's my prejudices out in the open - give them a bit of time to dry and fill out their wings for flight.

Technically first person limits your view point, but you can write different parts of the book from different view points. Tricky things happen if a first person character dies or becomes unconscious. Even then, you can get around it (Look he's a ghost! Or I was semi-conscious).

But when you're writing urban fantasy, "He stabbed me through the heart and I died... just give me a moment and I'll be fine..." is OK, right?
Or the silly thing I was playing around with over the summer when I was too exhausted to work on my actual WIP, and it starts with "I never kept a diary in my life, so I thought I would start now that I am dead."

In first, I love that you can play with perception, that what the character sees is open to interpretation and may not be accurate. I also love the rawness you can put into it.

Oh. Yes.

 

[JunkMonkey]

I have always been a fan of the first person stories by Alistair Maclean. Though there may not be rules, I feel that there are certain tendencies that separate first person and third person.

First person seems to work best for a loner-type protagonist in a mystery. Many scenes may involve only the PoV. The reader sees a great deal of the PoV's internal thoughts without requiring a secondary character being present (and having thoughts revealed through dialog). The reader is discovering details along with the protagonist, but may have some thoughts and analysis hidden (unreliable narrator). Thus reader knows slightly less than the protagonist.

Third person seems to work best for ensemble-type stories. Most scenes require at least two characters. Though the reader will occasionally hear a PoV's internal thoughts, much of the main protagonist's biases and analysis are revealed through dialog with another character. Often times, the reader will know more about what is happening than the primary character and this builds tension as the reader waits for the character to learn something.

I am not sure there is a reason that third person seems more common than first person. Each can result in very enjoyable tales.

Or you you could have the best of both worlds, and do the two simultaneously; where the first person narrator is merely (or mostly) an observer of the events described. I'm thinking of Doctor Watson in the Sherlock Holmes stories.