1st or 3rd Person?
I'm fiddling around with a story. Maybe a novel, if I am ambitious enough. I'm not going to discuss it, but I have two questions for you.
1.) Do you enjoy stories written in 1st person, or do you find them annoying and prefer 3rd? Do you think there are just some tales more suited for 1st rather than 3rd? Do you think it's acceptable to hop between the two?
2.) Do you think it's weird for an author to write in the POV of his or her opposite gender? Meaning, would it be weird if I wrote a story in which a guy was the protagonist? Is it kind of freaky that the stories I like the most are the ones in which I do this? I did this for a story I wrote for my class last quarter and they told me I did it quite well. Hm.
The author needs an androgynous name.;)
I'm fiddling around with a story. Maybe a novel, if I am ambitious enough. I'm not going to discuss it, but I have two questions for you.
1.) Do you enjoy stories written in 1st person, or do you find them annoying and prefer 3rd? Do you think there are just some tales more suited for 1st rather than 3rd? Do you think it's acceptable to hop between the two?
I think it depends on the story.
2.) Do you think it's weird for an author to write in the POV of his or her opposite gender? Meaning, would it be weird if I wrote a story in which a guy was the protagonist? Is it kind of freaky that the stories I like the most are the ones in which I do this? I did this for a story I wrote for my class last quarter and they told me I did it quite well. Hm.
Not wierd at all.
I like both, but in general I prefer third person.
I don't think it is remotely weird for an author to write in the voice of the opposite gender.
I like both, but in general I prefer third person.
I don't think it is remotely weird for an author to write in the voice of the opposite gender.
ditto
It is possible to go back and forth from 1st - 3rd without disrupting flow. It can be useful when changing time-lines or the intensity of the action.
Good point griff.
The two styles each have something different to offer. First person is immediate and direct. It invites the reader to associate directly in to the experience of the character/narrator. But it has limitations: it does not allow the 'God' perspective, which would invite the reader to associate directly into more than one character and see the wider setting.
All depends what you want from your reader really.
As a minor point I'd also say that 1st person is easier to get wrong. Or, rather, it either works completely or it doesn't work at all. 3rd person is slightly more forgiving I think.
My own preference, as a reader, is 3rd person (though I quite like it when something jumps between the two). As a writer, I have an attraction to the first person style, because it has a big impact and forces you to get to grips with your character's internal world. I often find, though, that whilst I might start a story in 1st person, I then find myself wanting to jump to 3rd person because it allows for a greater reach. One of my favourite styles, both to read and to write is the narrator style: a first person perspective on a third person story. So, you have a character from the story telling the reader the story from a future point.
First person tends to narrow the focus of a novel. You only find out what happens when that character is present and conscious. If there is a lot of "off screen" stuff you want your audience to know, it gets very clumsy trying to insert that into your character's head. First person done well is great. Done poorly, you want to hurl the book across the room.
Good first person writer: Andrew Vachss. If you haven't read it, grab a copy of Flood and hold on for the rest of the ride.
Bad first person writer: Stephenie Meyer. At least I think that Twilight crap was first person. I forget, it was that bad. I heard she was rewriting the whole piece of crap from the point of view of the vampire to make another billion dollars.
I prefer 3rd person. Recently, I just finished a biography of Bonnie and Clyde done in the second person. There were times when this usage confused the hell out of me. Use 3rd person, then first, and finally second. Be sure you're story call for the 2nd person if you decide to user it. :headshake
But then if you decide to write 2nd person, you sometimes feel a bit controlling and presumptuous, don't you? :)
Though I guess there are reasons to use it, I find it really unsettling. I read a story for a class last quarter in 2nd person: "Lust", by Susan Minot. It's about a promiscuous young girl talking about all the guys she's had sex with and how it made her feel, and in 2nd person it was SO creepy. As if such stuff she considered normal, something that anyone might do, and it really got me kind of squirmy and feeling shameful about my own late teens/early 20s and when I'd finished I wanted to take a shower with some strong soap. But yeah, I guess that's the point!
2nd person is, however, the POV of choice for marketing copy. :)
go Third Person. definitely
Unless you are convinced that the story itself calls for it, I'd go 3rd person.
Dianna Gabaldon slips in and out of first and third in her Outlander series. I kind of liked it.
LJ, YOU read Outlander?
Seriously?
Actually I think the first book was entirely in 1st person, and IIRC it wasn't till the third she started hopping into other characters' heads.
3rd Person ... best delayed sock puppet action award. (I am presuming).
1st or 3rd person ... is it porn?
I think the genre plays a large part in those decisions, also the projected audience. I'm involved with a publishing group which concentrates primarily on literary fiction. After the interns have read the slush pile, they send the hopefuls for us to read. There currently seems to be a fashion for male authors writing from a female POV. It almost invariably doesn't work, and as the only female on the board, it's my job to sniff it out. I'm not sure if this something that stands out more to women, though, because when there is a female author portraying a male character badly, mostly the guys don't like the manusript, but can't put their finger on it. So if your audience is male, the trans-gender thing might not matter as much?
Regards the 1st/3rd person and switching... I like third the best in the main. switching and 1st are OK, but IMO much harder to get right.... many manuscripts are rejected because they try these formats and fail so badly that not even a good editor can rescue it.
But in the end, what is right for the story depends on the story. If you have a story to tell, just write it. Don't worry about the 1st/3rd person or the gender issue -switch between them all as the mood takes you. Just write. Then go back for your first rewrite see which gender and which person has the upper hand and correct to that and see it it works....
Strangely, i find it much easier to write from a male character's pov than a female one. I like writing male characters.
Re gender of writer, I only tend to check the author's gender if something really jars. If I find I am reading a female author who has had a female character do/ say/ think something I find unlikely, I shrug it off and go back to the book, suspending my disbelief once again. If I find I am reading a male author, I will be forever on the lookout for more jarring moments.
In serious literature I am happy to acknowledge characters who do/ say/ think very differently than me. I'm more critical of lighter literature because it's supposed to be easily accessible.
Have just read Pride and Prejudice with Zombies. Rollicking good fun. I could swallow the zombies (!) but one thing I couldn't forgive was prior to a zombie attack, the Bennet girls were warned of the approach of a zombie troop by animals fleeing from the woods. Included in the menagerie running across the road were a skunk and a chipmunk. In rural Hertforshire. I don't think so. I won't say it ruined the book for me, but being a pedant it certainly took some of the shine off.
That's about nationality rather than gender, but I think the same applies.
Once you are writing seriously, hand over your drafts to the most pedantic person you know.
I know editors and subs should sort this sort of thing out, but I know I can name countless errors I've come across in published work.
Heh... I have a friend who writes historical fantasy novels, and she does loads of research to make sure every detail is right. She has gone so far as to travel to England just to spend hours in various library archives, thumbing (wearing the special gloves, of course) through the actual written minutes of various society meetings of the 1800s, just for some tiny detail.
She has on more than one occasion fought tooth and nail with her editor--or rather, the historian(s) her editor sent the manuscript to for verification--to prove that she is, in fact, correct about when a certain word first entered the vernacular, etc.
...Have just read Pride and Prejudice with Zombies. Rollicking good fun. I could swallow the zombies (!) but one thing I couldn't forgive was prior to a zombie attack, the Bennet girls were warned of the approach of a zombie troop by animals fleeing from the woods. Included in the menagerie running across the road were a skunk and a chipmunk. In rural Hertforshire. I don't think so. I won't say it ruined the book for me, but being a pedant it certainly took some of the shine off...
How about a spoiler alert SG? Now the book is
totally ruined for me.
:sniff:
;)
LJ, YOU read Outlander?
Seriously?
Actually I think the first book was entirely in 1st person, and IIRC it wasn't till the third she started hopping into other characters' heads.
Yes, I read the whole freaking series. I just read Echo in the Bone...which came out in 09. why are you surprised? is it a chick book or something?
she's a great author, and
Davina Porter is one of my favorite narrators.
[YOUTUBE]jx41EU74tiQ[/YOUTUBE]
i hear her voice and see this lady:
Time travel, the Jacobite wars,The last major stand of at Culloden, the American revolution. What's not to love.
OMG, I love, love, love Gabaldon's books. I also just finished the last one. Are you as pissed off as I am about the ending? Talk about a cliffhanger! We have to wait THREE FRIGGIN' YEARS (or so, on average) to find out what happens to little Jemmy?!
OMG I also love, love, love Emma Thompson.
How about a spoiler alert SG? Now the book is totally ruined for me.
Shit, sorry Foot.
I guess I also shouldn't mention that
Mr Darcy, Vampyre (a follow up to
Pride & Prejudice by a different author) actually contains vampires either...
Despite errors, I actually prefer
Pride & Prejudice & Zombies though. Just goes to show.
3d person, definitely. I think 1st person sounds gimmicky and amateurish, usually. Really great writers can pull it off, but it's better to start out in 3d person in that semi-past tense. Either gender is fine though.
semi spoiler alert for The Echo and the Bone too :(
Oops. But still, really vague, I think. I don't think "what happens to little Jemmy" is giving much away. I mean y'know, something wonky is always happening to the Frasers and the McKenzies.
Shit, sorry Foot.
I guess I also shouldn't mention that Mr Darcy, Vampyre (a follow up to Pride & Prejudice by a different author) actually contains vampires either...
Despite errors, I actually prefer Pride & Prejudice & Zombies though. Just goes to show.
Well, there's always
Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters I guess...