A point of view

[kippurbird]

A matter of view


Recently I was told that I was brave for writing in third person as opposed to first person POV because it was much harder for them to do third person. Most of my work has been in third person limited, with only a few pieces being in first person because I find it harder to write in first person.

For starters the biggest problem I have is that I don't know who the protagonist is speaking to. Obviously they're speaking to someone otherwise they wouldn't be using the "I" pronoun. If they're speaking to someone they know then it's sort of silly all the things they have to explain that the 'reader' doesn't know. It's a sort of "As you know Bob" for me. Especially when they use descriptions to describe people. It can get a bit flowery sometimes. Usually when talking to someone you don't give a full body description of a person you mention.

If I am going to say something about my brother in conversation to someone whose never heard of him I would still say, "My brother, name, did such and such" as opposed to "My brother, name, who though younger than I am, is a good four inches taller causing many people to mistake him for being the elder of us. He's got the tight curly hair that would poof out into an cotton ball as opposed to falling straight if he were to grow it long and gray blue eyes. He did such and such." It just feels awkward to me to write.

Never mind trying to get the protagonist's name into the story in a smooth manner. Again since the protagonist is supposedly talking to someone, the someone should already know their name so they wouldn't introduce themselves. In fact it's entirely possible that the entire story could be told without the reader ever knowing the protagonist's name. Usually, this is rectified by someone else calling them by their name or them talking about their name. But who actually talks about their name in real life? Unless they're a complete egotist.

That's another thing that bothers me about first person povs, it makes the speaker sound rather egotistical in that they are assuming that the listener wants to know every detail about their lives. They're just that interesting.

And then I just realized that I'm rambling on here in first person, using 'I' like they're pennies. But then again, I'm giving an opinion piece. This is all my lovely personal opinion. It's getting filtered though my own personal bias. Which is also true about first person narrators. It gives you an excellent opportunity for unreliable narrators.

But, I don't really like them. If I'm being told a story, I want to be able to trust that it's true otherwise it just feels fake (duh). Almost like a 'it was all a dream' endings. Of course we can't always know that it's an unreliable narrator.

With third person however, it feels more natural to me to add in such things as what a person looks like because it's like telling a story. You're painting pictures. You're giving a report of what is in reality. You're not expecting the reader to know things because they're not part of the world. You're making it up, you're not holding a conversation.



I actually had a lot more to say on this, but my brain went blank in the intervening days since I got back to it.

Comments

[swevene.livejournal.com]

In fact it's entirely possible that the entire story could be told without the reader ever knowing the protagonist's name.

You know what book was awesome? Rebecca was an awesome book.

[anarchicq.livejournal.com]

I have the exact same problem with first person. Who is "I" talking to?! WHY? ARGH!

[ravenswept.livejournal.com]

Two things to start, both stupid:

- "I"s for your thoughts?
- Why is your personal opinion being filtered through your own persoal bias? Is that like double-filtering cheap vodka to make it taste better?

Okay, with that brainspit out of the way; I can't say it's "brave" of you to write so. It's your style, it's what you undestand, and if that's how you prefer to tell your story then...really, who cares otherwise? As long as it's a good story in the end.

The point of view is going to affect the story, in how it's told and what the reader is allowed to know. First-person allows for more opinionated views and a slightly better sense of being right in the action, as well as heavy flavoring of style. It's also limiting in what you can say and not say, because you can't know what's going on with another person. Third-person can give a more complete picture of what's going on, much like watching a movie; a downside is, personal style and preference comes across much more easily and can swing a view in a given direction, which if the viewpoint is not being told from a certain character makes the text itself a bit bias.

I, personally, am a fan of first-person; I like how it allows for stylization and working within the confines of the character. But I also enjoy third-person, because of the larger scene creation it allows.

It all depends on the story; is first or third going to tell the story to the best of your ability? Is that the view you want to give this story? Is so, then so be it and good luck to you.

Damn your blanking brain, I want to hear more of your first-person view on first- and third-person viewpoints!

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

- Why is your personal opinion being filtered through your own persoal bias?

I think I was getting a bit too meta there. oO

I agree, I agree. I agree.


Damn your blanking brain, I want to hear more of your first-person view on first- and third-person viewpoints!

I may do a part two. But I had a suddenly unexpectedly shittastic week. And that just tossed everything out the window. I want to do the other side of the coin of what the pros of writing first and the cons of writing third are.

I'm not even going to touch second.

[ravenswept.livejournal.com]

DO IT! dooooooiiiiiiiiit

Am sorry the week was tastic-ly shit. Hopefully the window wasn't too many stories high. I offer this (first-person) this story (http://ravenswept.livejournal.com/4275.html) as means of thearpy; simply picture yourself as the narrator, and your past week as personifed by the guy in the chair.

Agreed, second-person is like making out with your first-cousin; you know you can do it, and have aways wondered what it would be like, but after actually going through with it, feel really, really dirty.

[swevene.livejournal.com]

And okay, speaking as someone who generally writes in first person...

It's easier for me to get into a character's head. And if that means not describing people or a bit of awkwardness about names... well, it happens. Sometimes people like to describe people. Sometimes people notice little details at separate times about people.

I usually just assume first person is getting recorded in a journal or written later as a book.

[christinaathena.livejournal.com]

Indeed, The Handmaid's Tale is a good example of just that. The framing device was that it was her diary.

[lordoflorien.livejournal.com]

"My brother, name, who though younger than I am, is a good four inches taller causing many people to mistake him for being the elder of us. He's got the tight curly hair that would poof out into an cotton ball as opposed to falling straight if he were to grow it long and gray blue eyes. He did such and such." It just feels awkward to me to write.


But how much fun would it be if we all spoke like that for a day? Just think of it. "Oh, hello Emily, who has been my closest friend going on eight years now, though our personalities are quite opposite, and our manner of keeping in touch not wholly disciplined; how have you been?"

It would be epic.

[ravenswept.livejournal.com]

Sounds like a plot device to an episode of Friends.

I have some theories about that, actually

[dove-cg.livejournal.com]

I don't consider it brave but then I've used both in the past. I feel it depends on the piece as to which would work best. I love third person limited because it is both distant enough to give details (as you noted) and personal enough to flavor the story towards the main character, since you're only ever introduced to their thoughts directly. I also consider it possible to make the narrator unreliable because it's still only what they are noticing about the world around them, it's simply set in a less direct tone.

I think the thing with first person, when it isn't a journal or something similar, is really the person thinking to themselves. After all, we think of ourselves as I, right? And I think to myself a lot because I'm a bit of a loner.

We also notice details at the time we see them. When it's something related to our past, we know the history and we DO think of that history but without seriously thinking about it. It's like understanding a language fluently. You know the words and what they mean but when you're fluent, you understand them as they are, to the extent of your knowledge, not as a dictionary term that was memorized. You recognize the word, what it entails, the inflections and distinctions, and probably some slang that go with it without really thinking about it. But for someone who doesn't know the word, it has to be explained more directly. The reader is the person who doesn't know the word but the character is fluent in the language it came from and is having to translate for them because that's the only way to get it across to the reader. That's the only reason it seems weird.

I hope that made sense. :)

If I am going to say something about my brother in conversation to someone whose never heard of him I would still say, "My brother, name, did such and such" as opposed to "My brother, name, who though younger than I am, is a good four inches taller causing many people to mistake him for being the elder of us. He's got the tight curly hair that would poof out into an cotton ball as opposed to falling straight if he were to grow it long and gray blue eyes. He did such and such." It just feels awkward to me to write.

That's the thing. I view first person PoV as being more of a dialog. If the person isn't there, you still might describe them and what they've done but possibly with less detail. That's the other thing. You can get out of a lot of detail with first person PoV. Anything the reader doesn't need to know can easily be ignored. It's good for keeping things light. Naturally, if you prefer to wax poetic about description it's not as natural unless the character is that kind of person. Perhaps they're dramatic. It really depends. And then there's also dialog that the person can have with other characters. It's easy to slip that in.

"Hey, that's my brother at the bar. Hey Ben!"

"Wait, the guy with the poofy hair? But you said you were the oldest kid in your family!"

"I am. It's the height that throws people. Hey, Ben, what're you doin' here? Last I heard, you were in the navy."

But, I don't really like them. If I'm being told a story, I want to be able to trust that it's true otherwise it just feels fake (duh).

I love unreliable narrators/first person PoV. It's more realistic to make mistakes and to get things wrong. I don't care for them lying to me, unless they're clearly also lying to themselves (which people often do), but narrator being wrong about something they sincerely believed or simply confused about what's going on is more believable than a narrator who always knows exactly what's going on.

I do the exact same thing with third person limited so why shouldn't I do that with a first person POV? The first person POV is talking directly to themselves and, in doing so, they are speaking to you. The third person limited is also going about their daily life and the style is more in-keeping with literature conventions but ultimately they're doing the same thing. :)

additional theories

[dove-cg.livejournal.com]

Oh, and I forgot to say, if it's not the first person POV character thinking to themselves through their daily life, it could still be the character talking directly to the reader. It's kind of like those old RPGs but in reverse. Instead of NPCs talking and the hero technically never saying anything (but the NPCs act as if the hero has) it's the reader never talking and the first person POV character talking to them and acting as if they have said something. It's not hard to guess what they might ask about, if they could ask, so the character simply answers them as if they were asking.

If the author doesn't have an ear for what might need answers, that can be awkward, but that should rarely be the case if you know what the reader needs to know. It doesn't end up being an "as you know, Bob" situation because you know the reader can't know and needs an answer.

In the case of an actual "as you know, Bob" scene, the author is assuming too much about what their reader doesn't know or they don't realize how silly and annoying an "as you know, Bob" can be. Or they know what the reader thinks they know and are explaining how it really is. This would then be "Bob, I know you believe this but let me tell you how it really is" which is much better.

Anyhow, this means that the first person POV can be viewed as a dialog (regardless of how the story frames this dialog) with the reader and the assumption can then be presented that the reader is a friend, acquaintance, or (if the character's tone is hostile or otherwise indifferent/annoyed) even an enemy. If it's written well, we can ignore the nagging question of who the character is talking to because we know they are talking to us.

I find this even easier to buy now a days since, as you noticed, a blog/online journal takes the same route, sort of. o.o

You're not expecting the reader to know things because they're not part of the world. You're making it up, you're not holding a conversation.

Now, as to why the reader doesn't know these things... they simply don't. Why should they? Being a part of the world means nothing. You can speak to someone in another country, who speaks the same language as you, and there is no reason to assume that person knows anything about your country beyond what is widely known (and even that is assumptions.)

For that matter, how many people know that much about their own country? Immigrants who want to move to the US are asked questions that even we Americans don't necessarily know or remember, even though it is our country. I know this because some of the people I work with have told me some of the questions on the test (you apparently have to know all of them because you'll be asked a random ten or so chosen from the list) and I had no idea what some of them were. They don't choose the easiest stuff but it's also not the hardest either. I was a little embarrassed, actually, for not knowing. I knew so little about them that I don't even recall some of the example questions I was told. O_o

And for that matter, how many of us know what grad school is like, in detail, without going? Or what it's like to live in a small town or a large city? Or what it's like to live in a cabin in the woods or to live in a desert? How many know what it's like to live in New York or Burbank? How many people have never flown in an airplane? How many have been born in one country and moved to another? How many people have those people met who had never had that same experience?

I therefore find it perfectly believable for the reader to not know what the character is talking about and needing a few things explained to them, even if they are actually a fictional character woven into the true framework of the story universe.

[gjohnsonkoehn.livejournal.com]

Recently I was told that I was brave for writing in third person as opposed to first person POV

This is just so weird to me. I mean, yes, there's a bit I didn't quote about it being a reflection of someone else's personal tastes, but brave? I have a moderately extensive library, five bookshelves or so worth, and I can only think of a tiny handful of books I own that're in first person. There's nothing 'brave' about writing in third person, because it's what everyone does, anyway.

Now, second person. That's brave!

As for who a first-person narrator is talking to, isn't it obvious? They're talking to the reader. First person stories are all about the POV character recounting some experience directly to the person holding the book in their hand.

[dove-cg.livejournal.com]

Now, second person. That's brave!

I agree. XD

[jessaj.livejournal.com]

I prefer 3rd as well, I've tried writing in 1st, to get a better hold on my character, but it just didn't feel right to me.
I really don't know why, I just prefer writing 3rd.

[(Anonymous)]

I prefer reading 3rd person, but I prefer writing 1st person. It lets me drop descriptions and exposition that would just slow the story down and get straight to whatever the character wants to do.

[hekateras.livejournal.com]

Reading in first person tends to be rather immersion-breaking for me. Funnily enough, I think I prefer getting into a person's head and empathizing with them the old-fashioned way - by observing their actions and drawing conclusions, as in real life, in third person. Reading in first person creates a completely different experience, a bit like that empathy is being forced on me.

Now that I'm thinking about it, I think I know what precisely bothers me about first person. The protagonist often feels rather... shapeless. You see, in third person, a character's first appearance usually includes some general physical and characteristical descriptions - painting them in broad strokes, so to say - and as you read on you learn more things about them and your image of them gets refined. But it's there from the start, and they're a legitimate, vital part of the setting and the whole story.

But in third person, the narrator may stay some shapeless blob because I may read for pages without even learning their name, much less their appearance - and when I do learn of the latter, it's usually in incomplete chunks, such as someone making an offhand comment about the narrator's fitness or something. The other possibility is the narrator actively stopping to describe themselves, which, yeah, is pace and immersion-breaking. So the narrator ends up some colourless substitute, a chance for the reader to self-insert.

Of course, those are not disadvantages by themselves. It just depends on what you're trying to do with them. In some forms and genres, making the narrator a stand-in for the reader can be desireable.
It's really the differene between a movie with footage from a hand-held camera and a full cinematic work.


I wrote a story in first person once, in present tense - a sort of sequence of images. There, not knowing who or what the narrator is was crucial for the impact. By offhand clues, the reader soon realised the narrator was actually an evil black dragon that returned to her home cave to torment a prisoner. My goal was to make the reader sympathise with a completely evil monster, get into their head. It was fascinating to write. XD

But really, what you need is *strong* characterisation. I just finished reading Kidnapped, by Stevenson. It's in first person, but the personality, principles and manner of speaking are painted so vividly that the narrator always feels like their own person and an active part of the setting.