Just a little rantlet as I come across yet another story that does this: I really, really don't like stories that mix sections of first-person ("I crossed the room") and third person ("Jane sat down"). It's so jarring. It's like watching a video made by switching back and forth between a movie camera and an early iPhone. The two points of view are such different types of cameras.
It's just, ugh.
Anyone agree? Disagree? Have other POV peeves?
I read a best seller that did it. At first I found it jarring, but I got used to it once I understood it.
But the POV didn't change randomly. The author would begin chapters (don't remember if it was every chapter; don't think so) in 3rd. I wasn't sure if it was omniscient or 3rd-limited, not that it mattered. And then the bulk of the chapter would be in 1st-person from the protagonist's POV.
The 3rd-person part was to let the reader know of other stuff going on in the story. It worked.
Jumping back and forth is jarring. Doing it in a structured way can work.
Only worse thing is multiple first person narrators
Out of curiosity, what about that rubs you the wrong way?
(I rather like it myself, as long the narrators are distinct enough.)
Out of curiosity, what about that rubs you the wrong way?
I think it defeats the purpose of using 1st-person where you want to build the intimacy between the narrator and reader. Plus it's also confusing.
I think it defeats the purpose of using 1st-person where you want to build the intimacy between the narrator and reader.
However, changing the 1st person narrator to another character can show why the other characters agree or disagree with the main character and that adds to the story in my opinion. Of course, the change of POV must be distinct and easily recognizable. I like Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress line about, anything everyone agrees with has to be bad.
However, changing the 1st person narrator to another character can show why the other characters agree or disagree with the main character and that adds to the story in my opinion.
I didn't say it was bad to change the POV character. That's what 3rd-person limited is for.
In my opinion, the purpose of 1st-person is to have an intimacy between the 1st-person narrator and the reader. A much closer intimacy than with 3rd-limited. As if the narrator is speaking directly to the reader in their own words. When multiple characters do that, in my opinion, it weakens that intimacy.
Intimacy with the MC involves getting to know the MC. By changing the 1st person narrator, the reader get to see how the MC reacts to other characters' opinions and beliefs. That can affect the development of the intimacy in a positive or negative manner.
Intimacy with the MC involves getting to know the MC. By changing the 1st person narrator, the reader get to see how the MC reacts to other characters' opinions and beliefs. That can affect the development of the intimacy in a positive or negative manner.
Intimacy isn't knowledge about the narrator. In fact, you don't necessarily want to know what others think about him or the truth about him. Think about Holden Caulfield in "Catcher in the Rye." He's a very unreliable narrator. Everything is from his perspective.
Holden Caulfield in "Catcher in the Rye." He's a very unreliable narrator.
Maybe my memory is off, but couldn't you always rely on his (re)acting like a whiny bitch?
Think about Holden Caulfield in "Catcher in the Rye." He's a very unreliable narrator. Everything is from his perspective.
Which can be a lot of fun. The Joker is also a classic one, but there is a lot for a writer to play with in that concept.
Everything is from his perspective.
That is true of all narrators for they tell us what they think we need to know.
Intimacy is not based of fact or truth. It is based on the perception of fact and truth. The beginning of intimacy is about looking at a person, to include their strengths and weaknesses, and finding that you like the person. People generally don't profess their weaknesses, so another characters input can be important.
Of course, people tend to believe what they want to believe regardless of facts.
Intimacy is not based of fact or truth.
1. You read in a newspaper about a traumatic event that happened to Sam.
2. Sam tells you about a traumatic event that happened to him.
Which one are you more intimate with Sam?
Intimacy is not based of fact or truth. It is based on the perception of fact and truth.
'The most important thing is honesty. Once you can fake that, you've got it made.'
In my opinion, the purpose of 1st-person is to have an intimacy between the 1st-person narrator and the reader. A much closer intimacy than with 3rd-limited. As if the narrator is speaking directly to the reader in their own words. When multiple characters do that, in my opinion, it weakens that intimacy.
I can see how it would impact on the reader - character relationship if it is done extensively, but when it's done only a few times so the author can convey to the reader aspects and information not available to the main character it is a highly useful tool, but the author has to be very clear about the change in the person with the point of view. I rarely use that device, but did so in my story Rough Diamond to provide important information without the main character learning it at that time.
https://storiesonline.net/s/59645/rough-diamond
I like Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress line about, anything everyone agrees with has to be bad.
... and of course we all agree with that.
Out of curiosity, what about that rubs you the wrong way?
I generally don't like stories (at least erotica) with female narrators that aren't lesbians. So most of the 'multiple narrator' stories on SOL are gonna have at least portions (and frequently, unfortunately, portions involving sexual activity) narrated in first person by a bi/hetero female. I'll make exceptions for some authors, but really... mostly those types of stories I just end up scrolling though to get to the portions told by the male characters (which is sometimes challenging, and why I gave up on one series).
Yeah. Really don't like that. Only worse thing is multiple first person narrators.
Trust me, sometimes doing that is also tricky.
I generally do not do that at all. But I specifically used it where the main character was a kind of shape shifter. And each form had their own voice and way of talking.
Not to mention two different genders. It was kind of fun, as it really let me play with an interesting concept.
Multiple first person narrators by section with clear demarcations of who's speaking works for me. I can think of a few stories where it's been done to good effect.
Without a really strong indication of narrator shift it would be completely awful.
Without a really strong indication of narrator shift it would be completely awful.
Either by explicit labeling or a truly distinctive change of voice, yeah.
Without a really strong indication of narrator shift it would be completely awful.
Once the reader became aware of this, it became obvious when I had this happen. Most normally, I would throw in the word "change". Which when reading the first chapter most assumed meant changing clothes. But after chapter two, became obvious that meant they were changing bodies.
Plus other things, like Chris wore almost exclusively dresses, and Bohica of course wore jeans. So if the character talks about a bra, it is the female. If they talk about their boots or jeans, it is the male. Or even the embarrassment if she changed and ruined her clothes as she now was over 50% bigger, a man in the remnants of a size 4 dress. Plus they did talk differently from each other, and even act differently.
But it was obvious every time that happened. I would write something like "I went into the back to change, and was soon up on the rooftop heading towards downtown". To any reader, that tells them right away that Chris did not change just clothes. She changed into a big man almost 7 feet tall, who thinks nothing of jumping from rooftop to rooftop.
Anyone agree? Disagree? Have other POV peeves?
I'm thinking this comes down to personal preference. I personally don't like excessive (to me) changes in POV. The next person may well like numerous changes. The same is going to apply to the authors writing style.
Something like this doesn't rise to the level of a peeve to me given the inherent subjectivity. YMMV
I sort of grew into the 'multiple first person' thing. I've been sent a few complaints, but the stats on my stories seem to indicate that it's not a barrier to many readers.
I like the idea of being able to explore events and ideas from the vantage of multiple participants.
I think it gives the reader a chance to develop a deeper empathy with various characters and it gives me as a writer the opportunity to show parts that might have been hidden, overlooked or discounted by one character but of importance to another.
I've tried third person POV. Just doesn't work for me. Perhaps that's why I'm still a hack writer, but I have fun. Readers have fun. It's good.
The all time winner, from a story on Lit.:
'I screamed at the top of his lungs!'
My other peeve, which is also encountered on Lit. is second person POV. Telling me I do something I would never do, or with a body part I do not possess? Just NO!
'I screamed at the top of his lungs!'
Well, there's your problem. If you wanted him to hear you, you should have been screaming at his ears. :)
'I screamed at the top of his lungs!'
Well, there's your problem. If you wanted him to hear you, you should have been screaming at his ears. :)
His ears are not far from the top of his lungs.
His ears are not far from the top of his lungs.
That depends entirely where I put them after cutting them out of his chest.
Agreed. However even worse is someone writing in SECOND hand. I can't remember an example, but it was very disconcerting.
phil phantom setup a choose your own adventure like that. It was pretty clever
If you wanted certain thing to happen you switch to another chapter. If you wanted a different thing to happen you switch to the other chapter
Everyone got fucked thoroughly no matter what chapter you switch to
It would be pretty cool to introduce adult choose your own adventure books
Yeah, I hear you. I tend to be kind of old school in my writing. I usually write 1st Person (past tense) or 3rd Person Omniscient. This way, you keep away from head-hopping or having to change narrators every chapter.
I know in first-person narration, it is useful for readers to know what other characters (other than the narrator) in the story are thinking, but it is wonderful for an author to use action and dialogue to allow us to get into another character's head, rather than just switching narrators.
You can get a good idea of what other characters are thinking based upon their actions and words (even if a character is lying, an author can tip that off to the reader by a descriptive observation from the narrator).
but it is wonderful for an author to use action and dialogue to allow us to get into another character's head, rather than just switching narrators.
Yes, and that opens up so many opportunities. For example, the POV character can misunderstand the thoughts driving the other character's emotions. This drives the plot of many a romance story. Or, the POV character can ask what the other character is thinking, then have to gauge both honesty and depth of self-understanding. Or, the other character can report a superficial thought that doesn't match the strength or type of the emotion, leaving the POV character (and maybe the other character) confused by the exchange, wondering what deeper thoughts or beliefs drove the characters emotions and reactions. Ah! The complexities of human interaction!
Yes, and that opens up so many opportunities. For example, the POV character can misunderstand the thoughts driving the other character's emotions.
But it also closes off many other opportunities. For example, you can not show events that happen outside the awareness of the POV character. "Meanwhile, across town..."
However...
If I had only known back then what I learned later, that at the same time across town...
Or I'll never forgive Jimmy for not letting me know what happened across town at pretty much the same time...
There are ways. Remember, a narrator is recounting events that took place at some time previous. He can legitimately (if he provides some kind of explanation he's doing so) introduce information learned between the time it occured and the time he started recounting events.
However, if he's a douchebag running live color commentary to his life while livestreaming, this is no longer possible unless he's actually omnipresent or omniscient.
If I had only known back then what I learned later, that at the same time across town...
Or I'll never forgive Jimmy for not letting me know what happened across town at pretty much the same time...
There are ways. Remember, a narrator is recounting events that took place at some time previous. He can legitimately (if he provides some kind of explanation he's doing so) introduce information learned between the time it occured and the time he started recounting events.
True, but either you are simply telling what happened rather than showing the events, or you are breaking 1st person narration. The MC can't narrate first person events he did not personally witness.
you are breaking 1st person narration. The MC can't narrate first person events he did not personally witness.
Stephen King does it in "The Green Mile." The narrator says something like:
"I learned later after reading the report that…"
Stephen King does it in "The Green Mile." The narrator says something like:
"I learned later after reading the report that…"
And if it goes to showing the events rather than just telling what happened, it would have to switch to third person narration since the narrator didn't witness the events personally.
If I had only known back then what I learned later, that at the same time across town...
I dislike that technique intensely, and when editing the work of others I always recommend changing/deleting it.
One reason for writing in the first person is to get readers to empathise with the character, and that is best achieved when the readers make discoveries the same way the narrator does. Slipping in 'if only I'd known' is irritating and distances the readers.
AJ
One reason for writing in the first person is to get readers to empathise with the character, and that is best achieved when the readers make discoveries the same way the narrator does.
That's why I write in 3rd-person limited. The author has much more flexibility.
Let's take suspense. A car bomb will go off when the MC turns the ignition key (okay, they used to turn the key). He tightens his fingers on the key to turn it and then stops while he thinks of something. He's about to do it again when someone knocks on the car window to talk to him. A lot of suspense.
But if the MC is the 1st-person story narrator and doesn't know the bomb is there, there is no suspense. That's why some thrillers shift from 1st-person to 3rd (I believe omniscient).
Btw, suspense vs surprise. Alfred Hitchcock said if a bomb is planted under a table and will go off at noon and you're watching the clock, that's suspense. If the bomb is planted under the table, the character sits down, and the bomb goes off, that's surprise.
A lot of suspense.
Some would argue that. If the MC dies, then it's no longer the MC's story.
And a series of unlikely events to thwart the key turn is cheap, Baldacci-like contrivance.
AJ
Some would argue that. If the MC dies, then it's no longer the MC's story.
No.
Could be a ghost story. Did that once. (Narrated in first-person omniscient (unreliable, of course) where the MC was murdered by the murderer he was (allegedly) trying to catch.)
"Lovely Bones" is 1st-person told by the murdered girl.
Not a ghost story in the normal sense, but the MC dies at the start of R.I.P.D..
The MC and 1st-person narrator of 'Warm Bodies' is 'dead' for most of the story. However dead zombies are, anyway.
One more time:
ya got yer dead
ya got yer not-dead
ya got yer undead
Three distinct possibilities. Although there's always those that are on one of the spectrums between those 'pure' types.
Zombies are somewhere on the not-dead/undead line, what with not needing to die before they 'turn'. Ghouls (the more hungry zombielikes, with the rotting flesh falling off their bones) are more on the dead/undead line. Vampires, obviously straight up undead, while a lich is kinda at a spot between the center of the triangle and the undead/dead line.
I think I remembered that correctly.
Could be a ghost story. Did that once. (Narrated in first-person omniscient (unreliable, of course) where the MC was murdered by the murderer he was (allegedly) trying to catch.)
How much suspense was there before the bomb blew up?
AJ
Let's take suspense. A car bomb will go off when the MC turns the ignition key (okay, they used to turn the key). He tightens his fingers on the key to turn it and then stops while he thinks of something. He's about to do it again when someone knocks on the car window to talk to him. A lot of suspense.
That reminds me of the greatest car related sight gag I've ever seen. It's in the South African film 'Panic Mechanic.' Character by the name of Jack is on his way to work, he's seated in his car and he meets a lot of people who stand by the car and say to him, "Hi, Jack," and holds out their hand which he slaps, kind of like a horizontal 'high five' action. After a few such meetings he's at an intersection and looking at the traffic to his left when a man walks up beside the car with a gun in his hand and says, "Hijack," to which Jack automatically, without looking at the man, reaches out and slaps the gunman's hand just as he has done with all of the others, resulting in the gun being forced down and the gunman shoots himself in the foot. jack blithely drives off while the gunman hops around on one foot while swearing about his shot foot.
edit to add: found a longer version with an extra clip I've not seen before:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsfIxkjIxEk
But it also closes off many other opportunities. For example, you can not show events that happen outside the awareness of the POV character. "Meanwhile, across town..."
Which is why you write from multiple POVs as in 3rd-limited, or you write in omniscient where the omni narrator knows all.
Or, and I wouldn't have offered this a few years ago, you consciously break the rules. The trick is to seamlessly shift POV without it being jarring.
Which is why you write from multiple POVs as in 3rd-limited, or you write in omniscient where the omni narrator knows all.
I remember a dead-tree series, ensemble piece, all but one book written in third-limited... last one was first person, and was told by the character picked by the others to record their history. Later books jumped from first to third depending on who the action foccussed on.
That would be the advantage of the Onnicient voice, but the limitation of 3rd person. Still, if something happens across town that somehow affects a 1st person narrator/character, why is it essential to see it? Is it worth screwing up the continuity of your story by cutting away from your narrator just to reveal something that can be learned later?
Call me "old school," but I'd rather find out at the same time as the character or have the author reveal something to me through the character's observations, even before the character is aware of what happened. That takes real writing skill, but can be accomplished with a little effort.