Forum: Author Hangout

You could pull a twist on this. Start with a scene of a the narrator telling the story to someone, only later reviling that the opening scene is God relating the story to a profit.

Unfortunately, that relies on leaving the opening scenes sketchy (and therefore unconvincing, which weakens the entire story). It also doesn't resolve the final transition. The only way I could imagine your scenario is to rewrite the opening scene from someone else's (God's?) perspective to reveal something new, a technique which rarely succeeds, and no readers wants to read the exact same scene over.

It's an intriguing idea, and what I'm going for, but it doesn't help with the implementation.

I guess to be more specific, I'm largely asking for techniques to successfully transition from 3rd Omni to 1st person POV mid-scene.

Is a "scene" really so fixed?
Could you use two scenes instead of attempting a major change "mid-scene"?
Why not?

If I'm saving the final reveal as a climatic surprise to the story, then it needs to 'come in out of the blue'. Dedicating an entire chapter to the new POV character means there's little surprise (at least that something major is afoot, if not who precisely is speaking).

What's more, the narrator only reveals themselves at the moment they speak to the main character (and they realize there's anyone else observing and manipulating them).

But then again, that's why I'm asking, because I can't figure out how to transition between 3rd to 1st. The idea that a specific narrator would describe the action in the story in 3rd person (when they aren't present) in the story is natural, but having them speak up in the 1st would be).

Basically, it seems like an intriguing idea, cut I'm not sure there's any way to implement it.

The way I envision it is the narrator is an unseen character essentially pulling all the strings, who only reveals themselves at the end when they actually speak to the main character (i.e. they actually 'do' something, as opposed to things occurring to the main character who doesn't recognize what's happening).

It sounds like I need to can the entire idea.

God relating the story to a profit

profit - a financial gain, especially the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something

prophet - a person regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God

There's a post on the forum about immersion breakers - this qualifies. Not to say that a prophet might not be out for a profit, but still ... :)

Amateur proof-reader here. Perhaps the party God converses with is a prophet?

Technically, more miracle worker than profit, though he does have a message to convey to the world, so they're pretty similar (basically concerning how the narrators screwed up! The contents of the story reveal how they attempted to set the world right, once again).

As far as the reveal being 'in real time', that doesn't necessarily follow. 1st person stories are often told in the past tense, as it's understood the action occurred in the past, after everyone had time to reflect on the actions.

When I said "current time" I didn't mean the present. I meant the current time in the story. So the 1st-person narrator is telling a story that led up to that time in the story (but it's all in the past).

When it comes to religions, aren't prophet and profit synonymous?

AJ

As for the switch to 1st person, why is it necessary? Can't the disembodied voice just be another character?

I wanted to reveal the person speaking as being the narrator of the story (i.e. the one revealing what happened, since they knew the details better than anyone else). I was also hoping to interject some narrator perspective throughout the story, which when he's revealed, will cause the reader to go 'of course!'.

However, thinking about it some more, hanging the recognition by the reader, on a single pronoun, is problematic, especially since most authors/books have so many pronoun errors. Instead, I'm now considering something more along the lines of:

Bob walked along the street, unconcerned with what was around him.
"Hello Bob."
"Who the hell is this?" he demanded, spinning in a circle, searching for anyone near enough to speak to him.
"Don't worry, it's me," I revealed. "We spoke before, but you assumed it was only a dream since you were asleep at the time. We felt it's time to bring you up to date on what's happening."

While not without difficulties, that's a slightly smoother transition than resting the entire exchange on a single pronoun. By the way, thanks Capt. Zapp for the suggestion.

@Switch

But how will that narrator be a know-it-all? It could be what happens before his surprise entrance happened in the past and he's privy to that information. Of course he wouldn't know what each character's thoughts, only their actions. And then when he makes his presence in the story, it's current time (in the story).

The narrator, in this sense, knows everything that happens because he was there, observing the events as they unfolded, as well as observing the actions of each character. In essence, they're the traditional fireside storyteller, embellishing slightly in the telling to create a better story. Technically, they don't know what everyone thinks, but they could reasonable guess as they went along, especially if they could read everyone's thoughts (and not just the main character's).

That's part of the big reveal, exposing the reach of the narrator, developing their role throughout the story.

As far as the reveal being 'in real time', that doesn't necessarily follow. 1st person stories are often told in the past tense, as it's understood the action occurred in the past, after everyone had time to reflect on the actions.

We felt it's time to bring you up to date on what's happening."

If the narrator is not expressing the view of a group, I believe We should be I.

Personally, the idea of a group forming the views expressed by a 3rd person Omni narrator would be an interesting sub-plot, if you can figure out a way to do that.

If the narrator is not expressing the view of a group, I believe We should be I.

The narrator is expressing the views of a group, though that's one of the story spoilers, so I can't provide any details without ... spoiling the story.

Has anyone here ever written a first draft in third person POV, and then revised it so most or all was changed to first person POV?

I wrote several chapters in 1st and then re-wrote them in 3rd. It's relatively easy, but there are some gotchas you catch when editing.

The reason I say it's rather easy for me is because my 3rd is a close 3rd-limited.

I wrote several chapters in 1st and then re-wrote them in 3rd.

I've been down that road too. A rather boring, mechanical process but I think the story was improved as a result.

AJ

No, I went in the same direction as SB because 1st turned out to be too restrictive for the story.

I would guess it's a lot harder going in the other direction if you're going to be meticulous about reporting only what the protagonist experiences.

Do you have a story which needs to be changed from 3rd to 1st? I'd be interested in taking a look to see if I can spot any pitfalls.

AJ

I would guess it's a lot harder going in the other direction if you're going to be meticulous about reporting only what the protagonist experiences.

I do that in 3rd-limited anyway so that's not what's hard. I think the hardest thing switching between 1st and 3rd is the voice of the narrator.

In 1st, the narrator's voice is the character's voice. Imagine Huck Finn written in 3rd. The dialogue wouldn't change, but the narrative sure would.

advice to any author who is not sure they know what they are doing is to write their first drafts in 3POV omni, and only make decisions to revise that to a closer POV after verifying it is possible

That would be a mistake.

Going from 1st to 3rd-limited or vise versa is relatively easy (unless the story is told from multiple POVs). Going from omni to 1st or 3rd-limited is very, very hard (sorry Mark Twain, but this is when "very" IS needed).

(sorry Mark Twain, but this is when "very" IS needed)

Excuse me, but shouldn't that be "excruciatingly difficult", or "as difficult as scaling the icy walls of Martha's religious superiority".

Maybe I can try an experiment of rewriting Pride and Prejudice in 1POV. I somehow doubt readers would feel any more involved with the fate of Elizabeth Bennett. :-) That is essentially the reason for my suspicion that the accepted wisdom about 1POV has become like the sirens of Greek mythology.

I would think you'd choose first (as many do) because you want to fully explore the character, by expanding them into the narrative, where they'd potentially have a greater vocal range (making snide comments about others).

Some authors would be good at this, but if you're not good at capturing a character's particular voice (how they express themselves in a way which reveals how they're feeling at any given time), it wouldn't add much by switching to 1st. On the other hand, for those who can capture those character elements, they wouldn't want to write in anything but first (hence the continual admonitions from many authors about only using 1st).

Note: Written by someone not particularly good at capturing accents and varying characters' voices.

Except you really only get better definition of the POV character. You actually lose some ability to define other characters to the same depth.

Except, the argument most 1st Person authors claim is that it makes the story 'more personal'. It does that, supposedly, by allowing the reader to identify fully with the main character, while at the same time not being distracted my minor secondary characters.

3rd gives more details of everyone, while decreasing the intimacy of the MC.

That potential is essentially being able to show the opinions of the MC about the actions of other characters.

You can do that in 3rd-limited. It doesn't have to be in 1st. Since the scene is from the POV character's perspective, everything that goes on is the way he views it.

For example, in the novel I recently finished, the girlfriend's mother is introduced as a stuck-up rich woman. Because that's how the protagonist sees her. Then there's more interaction between them and the reader and the protagonist learn that she's not what he originally thought. It happens to be written in 1st-person with the protagonist narrating, but it would be the same in 3rd-limited.

If the plot takes them to unexpected places (they find a need for chapters where the MC is not present)

If you're writing in 1st and that happens, you're stuck. If you write in 3rd-limited, then it's no problem. You can switch POV characters at a scene change (that's not omni, each scene is 3rd-limited from a different character's POV). That's how most novels today are written.

btw, new writers think 1st-person is easier because it seems more natural. But it's not. For example, how do you describe the 1st-person narrator? (Please don't say he sees himself in the mirror.)

If you're writing in 1st and that happens, you're stuck.

That's handled by have a new narrator for that chapter. I do that in Rough Diamond.

That's handled by have a new narrator for that chapter. I do that in Rough Diamond.

It could also be handled by the alien pod which takes over the MC's personality. ;D

Woof woof ;)

AJ

Penny for your thoughts ;)

With a Penny, you only get boring thoughts ;)

AJ

That's handled by have a new narrator for that chapter.

That's very difficult to do well. The voice would have to be different. That's hard enough to do in dialogue, but in the narrative too... Very hard.

Also, for me, it defeats the main purpose of writing in 1st-person.

For example, how do you describe the 1st-person narrator? (Please don't say he sees himself in the mirror.)

"I'm God's literal gift to women (and a few men), as I'm generous, confident, intelligent and unbearably witty. I pity everyone else in the world!"

But you omitted the fact that you are self-righteous bastard

Would a self-righteous person describe themselves as a bastard?

Besides, being God's gift to humanity, the narrator is doing his bit for humanity by propagating his superior genes, making something good come from the wanton daughters of his work-shy employees. It's his moral duty!

AJ

BTW, are you capable of seeing we are both being ultra-pedantic arseholes? ;)

But, can you both recognize that you're both ultra-pedantic and arseholes? You may have to pick one or the other.

That is what HE thinks

Well yes, HE is the 1st person narrator.

AJ

It's his moral duty!

Or in the case of self-righteous bastards, is that "moral duty" or "moral doodey"? ;)

That is not you CW!

The point is, most people like to see themselves as the dashing hero. Certainly not as the evil villain. Thus they'll paint themselves as larger than life (ex: "I'm HUGE and everybody LOVES me!!!").

If you want to steal the line for your story, I'd start with a self-aggrandizing piece, then a counter point by someone telling him off, followed by a self-reflective reassessment of his actual reputation among most people. That provides a nice immersion into the character, showing how they perceive themselves, how others see them and their inner conflicts over the two. A great start (in a short space) for any story.

If the plot takes them to unexpected places (they find a need for chapters where the MC is not present) they continue on and the story ends up being effectively 3rd-omni.
If all goes well, and they've been able to use 3rd-limited all the way through, they can then attempt a conversion to 1st.

Or more traditionally, if writing the story in 3rd doesn't work, they scratch the entire story and rewrite the entire thing in 1st. If neither works, they then write it from the POV of the tentacle monster!

It happens to be written in 1st-person with the protagonist narrating, but it would be the same in 3rd-limited.

Except, while 3rd-limited can reveal the MC's thoughts occasionally, 1st allows those thoughts to take a predominant role (via the narrative). In 3rd-limited, the narrative is still largely impartial.

Except, while 3rd-limited can reveal the MC's thoughts occasionally, 1st allows those thoughts to take a predominant role (via the narrative). In 3rd-limited, the narrative is still largely impartial.

Not true in 3rd-limited.

3rd-limited is basically the same as 1st except for the pronouns. Most of the time the POV character's thoughts are actually in the narrative, not internal dialogue (italics). For example (John is the POV character):

John opened the door to the empty room. Where was everyone?

"Where was everyone?" is what John is thinking, but it's in the narrative. The reader knows it's John's thoughts because the scene is from his POV.

The story is written in past tense so "was" is used. If it was internal dialogue, it would be:

Where is everyone? John thought.

Not true in 3rd-limited.

3rd-limited is basically the same as 1st except for the pronouns. Most of the time the POV character's thoughts are actually in the narrative, not internal dialogue (italics).

"largely impartial" implies that, while 3rd limited is more direct than 3rd, the narrative isn't as expressive as the character would be in 1st. The past tense and 3rd person provides distance between the character and the reader.

However, 3rd limited isn't as widely used.

However, 3rd limited isn't as widely used.

It's the most widely used POV in genre fiction today.

"largely impartial" implies that, while 3rd limited is more direct than 3rd, the narrative isn't as expressive as the character would be in 1st.

The narrative is the same. The voice is different in the narrative. The voice in the narrative in 3rd-limited is more formal. In 1st it's more conversational.

The past tense and 3rd person provides distance between the character and the reader.

I don't know about the "past tense" part, but 3rd does provide distance between the character and reader.

I don't know about the "past tense" part, but 3rd does provide distance between the character and reader.

Both 3rd (any form) and past tend to provide distance from the story, though in 3rd, this is considered beneficial as the reader can identify with many characters, rather than just the one. The only thing is, the connection to many isn't as intense as the connection to the one.

I still contend that 1st limited is a middle ground between 1st and 3rd and between constant present and past tense stories.

@Awnlee

With a Penny, you only get boring thoughts ;)

Or broken, disjointed thoughts.

@Awnlee

With a Penny, you only get boring thoughts ;)
Or broken, disjointed thoughts.

Apologies, Ross and I were having a little in-joke, for which one of my stories is required. I won't name it because it sends people into a headspin ;)

AJ

I now think that is unwise. The result of a conversion to 1POV would certainly be inferior to one with the first draft written in 1POV.

Expressing what the MC thinks of everyone else will likely affect how the MC and other characters respond to each other, necessarily changing the way the story unfolds (ex. the assholes must be punished eventually, one way or another).

Most writers start with what they know and their first stories are frequently a combination of autobiographical detail and Mary Sue, easiest to write in 1POV.

The current trend for experienced authors seems to be 3POV limited, and that's the direction Creative Writing courses seem to be encouraging authors to take.

AJ

We are past tents, we live in bungalows now.

No truer words have ever been spoken by an author. :)

In my case, I think I'm past waxing about past (and present) tents.