I drove myself crazy trying to decide whether to tell my story first or third person. In fact, I wrote two different versions one in first and one in third before settling on third. I'd like to ask what's your thinking process when faced with that decision. How do you go about deciding?
It depends entirely on what sort of story you want to tell. In my book, Georgia Moonbeams (and the subsequent short story Summer's Dance) I wrote it in first person because I wanted things to be a mystery. I'm writing another short story in the same series that will be in third person because I want to tell the story of several characters all at once.
So it all depends on what narrative I want to tell. For coming of age stories (like mine) I think first person is a better narrative. Other stories, like science fiction or fantasy, it's probably better to go with third person. I say that because the Sci-Fi/Fantasy genres tend to be far more epic so being able to jump from person to person is better.
First person is great for things like the coming of age genre because it allows for lots of surprise and mystery. It allows for your 15 year old female character to cheat on her boyfriend because she thinks he's cheating on her, but she doesn't know that her boyfriend has been taking singing and piano lessons so that he could sing her a song at some big talent show.
Although I will say that, in my opinion, first person is a lot harder to write in.
First person is good for stories where you can commit to following one character and that will be your 'window on the world'.
I don't necessarily agree that it lends itself to more mystery. It can; it can also remove mystery/suspense elements. For instance, in an example someone else posted in another thread, suppose a character is plotting against the main character and plants a bomb in their car. Since the first-person narrator doesn't know there's a bomb, there's little suspense in getting into the car and turning or not turning the key.
First-person lends itself well to stories with lots of inner narrative. It's terrible for stories where there'll be major subplots that don't involve any single character.
Stories where the reader will identify strongly with the protagonist are good first-person stories (coming-of-age often fits this). It's harder to do unreliable narrator stories in third-person - a third-person narrator should be reliable in general. Getting in the head of the narrator and seeing what they're thinking when they make bad decisions can be good.
In general, a strongly plot-driven story is better in third-person, I think. If you have a first-person narrator who's not consistently letting you into their thoughts and decision-making process, and simply reciting events, it can be frustrating for the reader. I'm currently reading a pretty solid first-person story that's much more plot than character driven, and it's frustrating me because I want the main character to explain what he's feeling and thinking and why he's making the decisions he's making. I don't get enough of that. Yet the plot is highly engaging, so I'm having fun. I just think there could be so much more there than there is.
I stopped writing in the first person when I had a story where significant plot issues required the point of view of another character. Yes, there are ways of handling that, and I ended using e new sub-chapter from the other person's p.o.v. In the end I switched to using 3rd person as then I could handle a different person's po.o.v. with a simple scene change.
I stopped writing in the first person when I had a story where significant plot issues required the point of view of another character. Yes, there are ways of handling that, and I ended using e new sub-chapter from the other person's p.o.v. In the end I switched to using 3rd person as then I could handle a different person's po.o.v. with a simple scene change.
Moreover, writing in 1person inherently limits you. As Ernest discovered, if you need to reveal something that someone is doing, you can either play games, or completely rewrite the entire story in 3rd.
Though 3rd has it's limits too, it gives you more latitude to write your story the way that you want.
Moreover, writing in 1person inherently limits you. As Ernest discovered, if you need to reveal something that someone is doing, you can either play games, or completely rewrite the entire story in 3rd.
Though 3rd has it's limits too, it gives you more latitude to write your story the way that you want.
I went a third way myself.
I found I wanted to explore the life of a character that had largely left the main story, so instead started a shorter series as told from her point of view. Which would mesh into the main story, explaining things that had happened in her life between her appearances in the main story, and why she did some of the things she did.
And I found it was a lot of fun, as the way the main narrator and others saw things were actually not the case at all. But writing such in the main story would have been distracting or broken the narration.
One other thing first-person is good for is an unreliable narrator. Who aren't necessarily lying to the reader - just wrong, or clueless, or lying to themselves.
But my biggest decider on POV is how strongly voiced the story is. If the character(s) have unique, compelling voices, I go first, every time. But then, I like the feeling that someone is telling me a story.
One other thing first-person is good for is an unreliable narrator. Who aren't necessarily lying to the reader - just wrong, or clueless, or lying to themselves.
I have used it for that very reason myself.
As an author, I can keep things from the reader because the narrator does not know them. One story in particular, they missed a great many warning signs because they were taking another at face value.
But my biggest decider on POV is how strongly voiced the story is. If the character(s) have unique, compelling voices, I go first, every time. But then, I like the feeling that someone is telling me a story.
I go the other way on that one, as I prefer the classic fireside storyteller model, where the narrator doesn't everything, and can very easily be unreliable themselves, but he's gained the perspective of time, and will know most details simply from speaking with the various characters over the intervening years.
With a 1st-person narrator, the information is always suspect, since you don't inherently know when he's either lying outright or merely shading the truth.
Besides, rather than an utterly unreliable narrator, I prefer having the protagonist suffer from a revelation towards the end of the story, where they reveal their own inner conflict—often in an emotional display—just before pulling themselves together and refocusing on the fight laid out before him/her. That's a more natural narrative form than someone's who's been consciously lying to everyone for the entire story.
So the narrator isn't as much as a saint as everyone portrays him as, who is? But I prefer the more self-reflective public figure to the self-assured one who's easily insulted and goes on the attack every time someone questions his judgments. That, for me, poisons many protagonists in the current Me-too generation.
First person when what happens in the narrator's head is more important than world around them; third person when the word is larger and more complex than your character can explore, convey, or even comprehend.
In first person you have to understand your point of view character, in third person you can write and wonder why they do such strange things, but still be able to report on them.
In first person you can't easily say things the point of view character can't know, in third person you can directly follow a traded, stolen and lost thing instead.
Then, there's the "close third person" in with you tell in third person, still follow most of first person restrictions most of the time, but slipping in an episode of someone spying on them isn't that jarring.
First person when what happens in the narrator's head is more important than world around them; third person when the word is larger and more complex than your character can explore, convey, or even comprehend.
That would be first person when happens in the main character's head is important.
A third person narrator can reveal his or her thoughts.
A third person narrator can reveal his or her thoughts.
This is directed to the group, not DS.
Based on the posts, some people are using "3rd-person" as 3rd-omniscient while others are using it as 3rd-limited. There's a world of difference so I wish people would be clear as to which they are talking about.
A 3rd-person character can reveal their thoughts if it's limited. Not if it's omniscient. If it's omniscient, the omni narrator can tell the reader what the character is thinking (or any other character). Big difference.
An omni narrator cannot be an unreliable narrator. After all, the narrator is all knowing. But a 3rd-limited narrator can be unreliable. Since the scene is from that character's POV, everything is through their eyes. They could be wrong.
3rd-limited is more like 1st-person than it is 3rd-omni.
An omni narrator cannot be an unreliable narrator. After all, the narrator is all knowing.
True, a 3rd omni narrator can not be mistaken.
But would that preclude being deliberately deceptive for some ulterior motive?
But would that preclude being deliberately deceptive for some ulterior motive?
Of course the author can do anything they want, but if they follow the "rules" I don't believe an omni narrator can intentionally mislead the reader. The omni story can present things to the reader which the reader might misinterpret, but that's not the same as the omni narrator lying.
For example, the omni narrator can tell the reader that Char-A is holding a knife over the back of unsuspecting Char-B and that's how the scene ends, with a cliffhanger. Then later the omni narrator tells you other characters find Char-B's stabbed body. So the reader believes Char-A stabbed Char-B to death. But later in the story the omni narrator tells the reader what really happened, that Char-B fought with Char-A and Char-A ran away and then someone else killed Char-B.
But the omni narrator didn't lie. He didn't tell the reader Char-A stabbed Char-B when he didn't.
I guess you can have a deranged omni narrator, maybe the Devil who is a habitual liar, but that's a stretch. And it would be a very "telling" story where the Devil is talking directly to the reader.
But would that preclude being deliberately deceptive for some ulterior motive?
Nope. There are plenty of 3rd omniscient narrators who withhold information for suspense or to misdirect the reader. Sherwood Smith is one current master of this.
There are multiple layers to unreliability. Just as there are gradations between 3rd-limited and 3rd-omniscient.
Just as there are gradations between 3rd-limited and 3rd-omniscient.
What gradations?
When you're talking POV, you're talking about whose perspective the story/scene is being told from.
With omni, it's a single POV who is the omni narrator. Many new authors write in omni because they, the author, is the omni narrator.
But in 3rd-limited, the narrator is a character in the story. It's very much like 1st-person but with different pronouns. It's not a variation of omni.
The only similarity between 3rd-person omni and 3rd-person limited is they both use pronouns like "he" rather than "I". But that has nothing to do with it being limited or omni. That has to do with it being 3rd-person. "The Book Thief" is 1st-person omni (Death is a character in the story and is the omni narrator). Death is the all-knowing omni narrator who uses the pronoun "I".
This is easier to explain from the omni side, which itself has many gradations. At the broadest, the omniscient narrator is patently obvious and present in the story—talking directly to the reader, making little asides, and so on. Or the narrator can be more self-effacing, relating events that no character can know but otherwise not revealing themselves. Or the narrator could stick what the reader is told to what the characters know, while freely moving from one head to another. Or narrow it down still more, sticking to one character per scene. Or still narrower, sticking strictly to one character and what they know for the whole story.
That last is a strict 3rd-person limited POV. Somewhere in between is the border between that and omniscient. And I've found that not everyone agrees on where that border is.
This is easier to explain from the omni side, which itself has many gradations. At the broadest, the omniscient narrator is patently obvious and present in the story—talking directly to the reader, making little asides, and so on. Or the narrator can be more self-effacing, relating events that no character can know but otherwise not revealing themselves. Or the narrator could stick what the reader is told to what the characters know, while freely moving from one head to another. Or narrow it down still more, sticking to one character per scene. Or still narrower, sticking strictly to one character and what they know for the whole story.
Good summary.
One of the problems with writing in omniscient is giving the reader too much information
One of the problems with writing in omniscient is giving the reader too much information
That's why I prefer revealing intent through physical observations, as it eliminates the common literary shortcut. It takes more work, and requires developing the proper techniques, but it seems more satisfying.
That is ultimately the very definition of Showing, not Telling. You show how each character physically responds, rather than detailing what their current thoughts are.
I agree - but it's still relative to the style of writing.
In the story I'm reading right now, the lead character takes a lot of action. Going places, doing things. Going other places, doing other things. From that I can infer a great deal of what he is probably thinking.
It's a first-person story, and he has some reasons to take some actions, but others? They're less obvious. And, in a first person story, I'd really love to know why he's made the choices he's made. I'd like to see evidence of him thinking out a choice before just acting. Did he consider alternatives? Which ones?
There are times where I can't tell if he's just on a hair-trigger or if he's thought everything out and knows why he's doing every last thing. And, unless the author lets me more inside his head, I can't know that.
Still a fun story, still enjoyable to read. But it'd be a much better story with a bit less showing and a bit more telling.
"The Lovely Bones" is also first-person omniscient.
The device mentioned earlier ('storyteller') is essentially that. If the narrator is writing the story a long, long time after things happened, they can bring in elements that would otherwise be inaccessible. 'What I didn't know then was ...' is another way of getting at that perspective.
I've toyed with that longer view; there are a few instances of significant (months-out) statements by my first-person narrator indicating that he knows how things will come out from a certain set of events. In context, it seems to have worked. It'd be much too easy to overuse it, though.
If the narrator is writing the story a long, long time after things happened, they can bring in elements that would otherwise be inaccessible. 'What I didn't know then was ...' is another way of getting at that perspective.
My first thought on that would be to open with a scene where narrator is sitting down to tell the story to his grandchildren.
My first thought on that would be to open with a scene where narrator is sitting down to tell the story to his grandchildren.
Or, midway through the story, have the narrator make a snarky comment about one of the protagonists, revealing to the readers that the 'Omniscent' narrator is actually just as biased as the antagonist--though along different lines. It puts a whole new spin on a story, especially if you keep building it, slowly revealing mounting personal observations as the story unfolds.
But, in those events, I prefer keeping the identify of the narrator a secret until the very end, rather than revealing it from the very beginning. After all, if exposing your narrator is the whole story twist, then why announce it in the very first line? An unreliable narrator is only effective is he's perceived as reliable until he proves he isn't.
That said, I mainly use the technique to flavor and personalize the narrator, to ease the story flow rather than to change the essential plot--which is another reason I don't identify who the narrator is. It's an interesting flavor, and like with most recipes, you don't reveal which spices you do when everyone's raving about your literary dish--you just let them think how clever you are rather than spoiling your surprises.
'What I didn't know then was ...' is another way of getting at that perspective.
I dislike that technique. A good author should have the ability to build suspense without resorting to gimmicks.
AJ
@Grey Wolf
'What I didn't know then was ...' is another way of getting at that perspective.
I dislike that technique. A good author should have the ability to build suspense without resorting to gimmicks.
That technique isn't just used for building suspense. It can also be used for background info on minor characters that couldn't have been known to the narrator at the time.
That technique isn't just used for building suspense. It can also be used for background info on minor characters that couldn't have been known to the narrator at the time.
But typically, it's a quick end-run to introduce after-story revelations about the various characters, which is why it's so stereotypical and cliched.
which is why it's so stereotypical and cliched.
Which is a fancy way of saying it's been done a lot and does nothing to make a case that it shouldn't be done.
ETA: Which isn't to say that there is not a case that it shouldn't be done, but calling something cliche doesn't do it.
Which is a fancy way of saying it's been done a lot and does nothing to make a case that it shouldn't be done.
No, it's a fancy way of saying that it's been done poorly in the majority of instances, and should instantly warn readers that you, the author, really have no clue what you're doing, merely borrowing techniques the author doesn't fully understand or utilize well.
It's not that the technique can't be effectively employed, it becomes cliched because so few authors are capable of executing it well.
Once again, there's nothing that says you can't break any storytelling 'rule' you want, but it's always best to understand why the rule exists in the first place, so you're more aware of the various pitfalls associated with it, and can hopefully avoid falling flat on your face when using them.
I dislike that technique. A good author should have the ability to build suspense without resorting to gimmicks.
Here, here—says the man who's just revealed several of his own gimmicks!
Rather, I'd rather the gimmicks that I rely on not to obvious, so they'll catch the reader by surprise.
Here, here—says the man who's just revealed several of his own gimmicks!
I don't have any gimmicks. I just recycle cliches ;-)
AJ
I've toyed with that longer view; there are a few instances of significant (months-out) statements by my first-person narrator indicating that he knows how things will come out from a certain set of events. In context, it seems to have worked. It'd be much too easy to overuse it, though.
It's largely a kludgy technique, most often employed by newbie authors who don't know any better.
I instead prefer to flesh out my 3rd person narrator in advance, even when they're never never identified in the story itself. Principally, that helps in defining your narrator's voice, as you fit their voice to your imaginary character. But if you do define (or at least reference it) in the story, then it becomes much easier to account for different perspectives, or to show the narrator's hidden (i.e. concealed) motivations and biases.
Having started that technique some years ago, I NEVER think of any 3rd-Person narrator as impartial anymore, and am always looking into hidden biases--a useful technique in this Me-Too age of willful blindnesses.
An omni narrator cannot be an unreliable narrator. After all, the narrator is all knowing. But a 3rd-limited narrator can be unreliable. Since the scene is from that character's POV, everything is through their eyes. They could be wrong.
That's really an outdated notion, based on the term used rather than the style of writing. There's nothing that states that a 3rd person Omni narrator is or even is God like, only that they're able to relate details relating to the other characters. The typical phrasing is "as if he's God", but that's hardly a requisite.
Many novel feature flawed or unreliable narrators, and I've never written from a perspective of a all-knowing narrator, as I personally image each of my narrators as specific individuals, with their own narrative voices, presentation, opinions and biases, though those are rarely stated explicitly in the story.
An omni narrator cannot be an unreliable narrator. After all, the narrator is all knowing. But a 3rd-limited narrator can be unreliable.
Sorry, but I fail to distinguish any difference between those two statements. Either the narrator is unreliable or he's not, which is only revealed later in the story. If I recall, a classic flawed narrator is Dexter, from Jeff Lindsey's series, which was written entirely in 3rd person, if I'm not mistaken.
An omni narrator cannot be an unreliable narrator. After all, the narrator is all knowing. But a 3rd-limited narrator can be unreliable.
Sorry, but I fail to distinguish any difference between those two statements. Either the narrator is unreliable or he's not, which is only revealed later in the story. If I recall, a classic flawed narrator is Dexter, from Jeff Lindsey's series, which was written entirely in 3rd person, if I'm not mistaken.
Is it written in 3rd-person limited or 3rd-person omni?
The difference is, the omni narrator is all knowing while in 3rd-limited, the narrator for that scene is the POV character. That character, like a 1st-person character, doesn't know all and can make mistakes, come to invalid conclusions, etc. — unreliable.
I don't write in 3rd-omniscient so for me it's between 3rd-limited and 1st-person.
I assume the story will be written in 3rd-limited, even if it's from a single POV. I prefer telling the story through a camera rather than a 1st-person narrator.
However, every once in a while there's a compelling 1st-person's voice I want the reader to hear. Those times I write in 1st-person. My short story "Last Kiss" and novel with the same name are written in 1st-person for that reason.
When the story is from multiple POVs, it's always 3rd-limited.
However, every once in a while there's a compelling 1st-person's voice I want the reader to hear. Those times I write in 1st-person. My short story "Last Kiss" and novel with the same name are written in 1st-person for that reason.
I suspect that—given the limitations—1st-person stories are most often used in either short stories, mysteries or adventure novels, which tend to be substantially shorter in length than most novels.
I suspect that—given the limitations—1st-person stories are most often used in either short stories, mysteries or adventure novels, which tend to be substantially shorter in length than most novels.
Why? "Moby Dick" is a full novel in 1st-person. There are many.
Why? "Moby Dick" is a full novel in 1st-person. There are many.
"I suspect" translates as "it's my suspicion" rather than a cold, hard statement of fact. Thus, while it may be true, there are always a lot of variants. But my observation is concerning the limitations of POV, largely for those looking for how they wish to write.
How do you go about deciding?
for me it's simple, I'm crap at writing in 3rd person, so I stick to first person. No dilemma.
So, suppose in a 1st person POV, the narrator, today, wishes to discuss the 1876 election. Is that impossible because the narrator was not there in 1876? Does the narrator have to say I learned this from history books? If the narrator is allowed to discuss the 1876 election, then why couldn;t the narrator also discuss someting that happened yesterday, even if the narrator wasn't there?
If the narrator is allowed to discuss the 1876 election, then why couldn;t the narrator also discuss someting that happened yesterday, even if the narrator wasn't there?
It's not about if the narrator was there or not, but when the narrator learned about it.
Some here have articulated that for first person or third limited pov stories, the narrator should not reveal information at any point in the story that the narrator did not know at that point in the events being told. So then how do you deal with information that the narrator learned years after the conclusion of the events of the story.
To bring in your 1876 election example, suppose the story is set in 1875 and being told in 1895.
Some here have articulated that for first person or third limited pov stories, the narrator should not reveal information at any point in the story that the narrator did not know at that point in the events being told.
This is, for 1st person, a really weird restriction. One of the conscious decisions you have to make when writing 1st person is when the narrator is telling the story: how much time has passed between the events and the telling. That no time has passed is a valid choice, but so is starting to relate things immediately after the end of the story, with the advantage of hindsight, and so is telling it years later, after a chance to reflect on and digest what happened.
Consider the difference between a daily diary entry, a post-summer-vacation report, and a memoir. All valid narrative choices.
The key, though, is it's a choice the author has to make.
This is, for 1st person, a really weird restriction.
The narrator is telling the story to the audience (ie us) as it happened. Jumping around in time is like jumping around in heads - the case for it is iffy and it's rarely done well.
AJ
The narrator is telling the story to the audience (ie us) as it happened. Jumping around in time is like jumping around in heads - the case for it is iffy and it's rarely done well.
It's also been done extremely well, the key is to learn both how to properly use one's tools, and also when (i.e. in which types of stories) the techniques are best employed.
Flashbacks and correspondingly flash forwards are an ideal example, as there are a particular subset of stories where they just seem to naturally fit, but when employed in the majority of stories, they fall flat, seeming unnatural and out of place.
It's taken me a long time to appreciate those differences, but as an 'advanced' technique, it's not to be used willy-nilly!
If the narrator is allowed to discuss the 1876 election, then why couldn;t the narrator also discuss someting that happened yesterday, even if the narrator wasn't there?
Otherwise known as inter-character dialogue.
As othrs have said, the story -- not the author -- determines the person.
That said, when I'm not thinking, Itend to go with what I call "First-third." That's third-person limited, where you could tell almost the same story by a global-replace of John by I.
Almost all second-person stories are sickening ego trips: "How YOU discover what a wonderful lover I am." Despite that, decent second-person stories can be written; you just have to exercise judgment.
The "Watson" POV (First-person who is not the main character) has many advantages for detective stories. It has almost as many containdications for sex or romance stories, but I've done them. See Wriggles.
I'm reading a story that is in 1st-person, but from 2 different characters. When the POV changes, the name of the character precedes it. So it's:
Joe
I did this and I did that. Blah, blah.
Sue
I did this and that. Blah, blah.
Joe
Blah, blah.
Thankfully, they don't repeat the scene. One starts where the other leaves off. But it's awful to read. Probably because the two voices are the same. There's no reason this should have been written in 1st-person.
I'm reading a story that is in 1st-person, but from 2 different characters. When the POV changes, the name of the character precedes it.
It's much more elegant simply keeping character changes to individual chapters, as even section breaks are disconcerting when the character switches. And rather than annoying "Joe is talking now", simply having Joe start with the first line of dialogue is a better transition.
If an elderly narrator is writing about his/her life, why should they not include things they learned about much later than when the events happened, but before the writing began?
Say there's a narrator born in 2001 and writes the story in 2081, using the word "I" throughout, why shouldn't they write about stuff that did not happen to them personally, but that they learned about later. That "rule" seems unnecessarily restrictive. I don't care if it is labeled as 1st person - call it what you will.
Say there's a narrator born in 2001 and writes the story in 2081, using the word "I" throughout, why shouldn't they write about stuff that did not happen to them personally, but that they learned about later. That "rule" seems unnecessarily restrictive. I don't care if it is labeled as 1st person - call it what you will.
Because it's breaking the 'third wall', tearing down the role between reader and author, where the main character makes a snide comment directly to the audience letting them know he's aware of just how insipid the entire plot it. It essentially undermines the entire story.
There's a time and a place for dramatic revelations, but dropping them every time you write yourself into a corner is NOT an effective literary technique! Instead, you carefully plan out your more sophisticated techniques, and only employ then when they're the most dramatic, rather than overusing them to the point of rendering them utterly useless.
I wrote a whole series of stories in both 1st person and 3rd person simultaneously. One chapter would be the hero's POV (1st POV) and then the bad guys were in 3rd POV. This was because I didn't want to let the readers get used to being in the bad guys' mind and learning all the things they were planning. So I could just tell what they did, not what they thought.
I realized I was trying to be Tom Clancy, telling 6 stories in one opus. I, obviously, could not do that successfully. That's the danger of reading widely. LOL
So I rewrote most of it, and wound up with some very short chapters for the bad guys.
But sometimes I get stuck. I'm writing a 1st POV story, where the heroine is out of the room, but something happens to the other characters that HAS to be told. So I cheated. I had her say to herself, "Of course I couldn't see that ..." It's only one line. I promise. Next time, I'm going to re-write, but I was too lazy.
in both 1st person and 3rd person simultaneously
I read a thriller where most of it was in 1st-person from the MC's POV, but many (most? all?) chapters began in 3rd-person without the MC being there so the reader knows what else is going on. At first I found it disturbing, but then I got used to it and it worked.
It's only one line. I promise. Next time, I'm going to re-write, but I was too lazy.
That's why I'm a big believer in writing out the complete first draft, so you know where the story is going. You then double back, to adjust the story to properly prepare the reader for any of those surprise moments with plenty of foreshadowing and a few red herrings, so you don't give away where you're going ahead of time.
You need third person for threesomes. First person probably for masturbation. And second person for couples. Harems require a lot of people.
3rd-omniscient
So would you write "God's Diary" in first person? Or must it be 3rd-omniscient?
:)
Harems require a lot of people.
Or … that's why harem stories are best told by schizophrenics? ;)
Only if the personalities include a childhood best friend, a hyperactive martial arts student, a tsundere, and a shy wallflower.
Only if the personalities include a childhood best friend, a hyperactive martial arts student, a tsundere, and a shy wallflower.
What about a shy martial arts student and a hyperactive wallflower?
The person I was responding to said you need to use first person for the narrator to reveal the narrator's thoughts.
The person I was responding to said you need to use first person for the narrator to reveal the narrator's thoughts.
An, that explains it, as I probably responded to the wrong post (i.e. click the wrong button).
that explains it, as I probably responded to the wrong post (i.e. click the wrong button).
You might have had DS's comment highlighted but then replied to a different post without realizing it. I've done that.
The person I was responding to said you need to use first person for the narrator to reveal the narrator's thoughts.
That's not what I said. I suggested first person if what happens in narrator's head is more important than what happens in the world around them.
In other words, if the entire story is narrator's thoughts, with outside events -- if there's at all any -- only serving as stimuli for that thought process, first person narrative could probably be more appropriate or convenient.
I didn't imply, at least didn't intend to, that you can't reveal someone's thoughts in third person. Of course you can. Only if there's hardly anything else, it may, probably potentially become a little awkward.
. I suggested first person if what happens in narrator's head is more important than what happens in the world around them.
Only with first person is the narrator and the main character the same entity.
In other words, if the entire story is narrator's thoughts, with outside events -- if there's at all any -- only serving as stimuli for that thought process, first person narrative could probably be more appropriate or convenient.
Sorry, this statement only makes sense the way you seem to mean it if you are presuming first person pov in the first instance.
If the story is in third person POV, the narrator and the main character are necessarily different entities. However if you switch to first person, the main character becomes the narrator. Unless your MC is omniscient, by switching from third to first pov you necessarily lose the thoughts of the original third person narrator.
Only with first person is the narrator and the main character the same entity.
The 1st-person narrator does not have to be the main character. Examples: "Moby Dick," "The Great Gatsby," "Sherlock Holmes."
But your comment that "only with first person is the narrator and main character the same entity" is not true. In 3rd-limited, especially a close 3rd-limited, the "narrator" is the POV character, the character the story is being told through. It petty much follows the same rules as 1st-person. You can be in that character's direct thoughts.
In 3rd-limited, especially a close 3rd-limited, the "narrator" is the POV character, the character the story is being told through.
yes, the narrator is the POV character, but that isn't the main character/protagonist or it would necessarily be first person not third.
yes, the narrator is the POV character, but that isn't the main character/protagonist or it would necessarily be first person not third.
The novel I'm currently writing is 3rd-limited and only told from the main character's (protagonist) POV. It could have been written in 1st-person, but as I said earlier, unless I have a specific need for that I write it in 3rd-limited.
The novel I'm currently writing is 3rd-limited and only told from the main character's (protagonist) POV. It could have been written in 1st-person, but as I said earlier, unless I have a specific need for that I write it in 3rd-limited.
If you write science-fiction you could always introduce 23rd dimensional POV. 1st through 3rd is fairly limiting. Or, in a psychological drama where the main character is schizophrenic, you could have multiple unreliable narrators who keep contradicting one another, all told in 1st person POV.
Only with first person is the narrator and the main character the same entity.
Third person limited can come so close there's no difference, and those cases living in someone one's head are more than likely that. Yes, I will admit my statement would probably be clear and more universal if I had used "point of view character's head" instead of "narrator's head," but it's hair splitting.
by switching from third to first pov you necessarily lose the thoughts of the original third person narrator.
Obviously, if you do have such an intrusive narrator you would likely have many more reasons not to dive into single character's first person. However if you end up with every second sentence or more being "he thought..." "he fell..." and similar, some kind of refactoring is probably worth to consider. Alternatively, if the story is indeed being dominated by the personal commentary of this anonymous narrator, maybe it's worth bringing him in as a fully fledged character instead (well, of course his omniscience may then be a potential problem, if it can't be limited).
And actually, this is far more about intent than anything. So, the correct formulation might be: if a possible story seems to mostly happen inside someone's head, it's likely them who should be telling that story.
There's no hard rules of course, just necessarily flawed musings.
by switching from third to first pov you necessarily lose the thoughts of the original third person narrator.
The narrator isn't determined by the authors using "I" or "he", instead it's who's providing the descriptions. If it's "I saw the ivy covering the dorms" it's 1st. However, if it's:
The sunlight glistening across the part highlighted the beautiful spring day as John approached Rose.
"Let's talk," I said, and she nodded."
is 3rd person, however you cut it.
The sunlight glistening across the part highlighted the beautiful spring day as John approached Rose.
"Let's talk," I said, and she nodded."
That's 1st-person ("I said").
Now if the "I" is John, that's a problem — switching from 3rd to 1st.
The comment system ate my comment.
In terms of just that excerpt, I'd say it's bad writing, however you cut it. But there might be context that would make it just fine.
If it's third-person, it's just plain bad writing. Third-person shouldn't have an 'I' in it (unless the author is showing the story they're writing in first-person, or some such).
If it's first-person, and 'John' is 'I', it's bad unless the first-person narrator has a habit of referring to themselves by name.
If it's first-person and the narrator is not John, there's all sorts of options here. Perhaps neither John nor Rose are 'I' and 'she'; they're watching the other two. Maybe 'she' is 'Mary', who's been suspecting John (her husband) and Rose of having an affair. Who know? Perhaps John and Rose are both dogs.
But, if it's third-person, it's bad writing.
