# First person narration and narrator knowledge?



## Maunakea (May 27, 2016)

Hello, I'm maunakea! I am currently writing a piece of fiction in first person present tense, myself as the narrator. I'm looking for some advice on narrator knowledge, how to incorporate scenes with characters away from mine, when my character is unconscious or asleep, stuff like that. I have things like this I want to include in the writing, but with my set up I don't know if I should do that when my character doesn't know these things and is narrating. I could always change the set up, but first person present tense just feels right to me for this piece. Any advice is much appreciated. ^-^


----------



## K.S. Crooks (May 27, 2016)

Two things that came to mind for me right away was to 1) If important things happen while your character is away or not awake then you need to either make it obvious to the character that something has occurred, devise ways for the character to discover the information or have them told of the event. 2) Have another character who also has a first person perspective to use to show events away from your primary main character.


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 27, 2016)

First, you normally use first person present because you want to tell the story from the main character's view. So, why do you want to show what's happening when your character is asleep?

But it's no problem to do that. I always do some short and well-marked off-character scenes. (I use almost all dialogue for those.)

Grisham used first person present with a lot of off-character scenes in third person past tense. He doesn't clearly mark the change, and I read almost half the book before I even noticed.

So, if your book should be mostly in first person present, and you want to present off-character scenes, you have a lot of good choices.


----------



## Jigawatt (May 27, 2016)

I use first person in my fishing stories, and for relating personal experiences. If I need to convey information beyond the experience, I'll do something like this:

I paddled my kayak toward the mouth of the canal. The shoreline inside the canal was soaked with a dark chemical smelling of petrol. Brown foam had accumulated on the bank from the frothing of waves lapping on the beach. I could see a flattened area on the bank and deduced that a barge had recently beached here, probably to refuel.

By writing like this, I'm assuming an event for the sake of the experience. It's not perfect, but at least I'm staying in first person.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (May 27, 2016)

One thing to remember is that person and viewpoint are not the same thing. By pretending to be the character at a time after the event you change nothing, because a narrator is a narrator. And in both cases the view of the story is that of an external speaker whose voice cannot be heard. When you read the words you've written, the voice you hear them in is your own, and the emotion in that voice is based on how _you_—someone who knows the story, and what's going on—would tell the story. But that knowledge doesn't make it to the page. So for the reader, it's someone not on the scene talking about things in it, in a voice that contains no emotion. You'll see whay=t I mean if you have your computer read your own words to you.

My point is that if you are in the character's viewpoint, and the reader is privy to what has the protagonist's attention, why, and what resources the character is bringing to bear, they will feel as if they are part of the story, moment-to-moment. But a narrator explaining the situation to the reader through overview, info-dump, and editorial gossip mongering, is every bit as exciting to read as a history book.

The thing to remember is that no matter the person we tell it in, for the protagonist, it's always first person present tense. Is there any difference between the two lines below:

I took a quick look over he wall, trying to see where the bastard was, but I couldn't risk being visible for long. As it was, an instant after I was back under cover a bullet hissed by, where my head had been. _That was close...so now what?_
He took a quick look over he wall, trying to see where the bastard  was, but he couldn't risk being visible for long. As it was, an instant  after he was back under cover a bullet hissed by, where his head had been. _That was close...so now what?_

The person changes, but the action—and the viewpoint don't. And in both cases it's not an external speaker talking about what once happened. It's told in real time, and in the protagonist's viewpoint, including his response after the shot. So person, and even tense, is an author's decision.

There are reasons to use first and third person, for the change in feel. First seems to work well for action heavy things like hard boiled detectives. It also works well for humor. But it comes with restrictions. In traditional first person, if the protagonist doesn't experience or hear about it, the reader doesn't know it. In short, we live it as the protagonist from start to finish. A down side is that if it's the protagonist talking we know they lived through it.

Third person allows us to have scenes not involving the protagonist. But it's a mixed blessing. If we see too much and know things the protagonist doesn't, we won't have the fun of discovering it in parallel with the protagonist.

As an example. In a romance, if we know he wants her, and we know she wants him, why would we bother hanging around till those two idiots figure it out?

Many new writers choose first person because they, wrongly, believe that if the protagonist is seen as telling the story it makes it more personal. But explaining is explaining. And if you're blathering on about where the protagonist went to school, and other things of only historical interest, to a reader who came to you only to be entertained, you just lost the reader.

That there' a lot to writing for the page that's not obvious to those who aren't familiar with the nuts and bolts issues, just as there are in any  field, because, as they say, "art conceals art." So taking a bit of time to research into what the pros take for granted, and publishers expect  (like taking into account the three questions a reader needs answered quickly) is time well spent, because it will not only answer your questions, it will answer those you didn't know you should be asking.


“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
 ~ Mark Twain


----------



## dale (May 28, 2016)

1st person is a paradox. it's total freedom and a total prison. you can say and do anything you like, as long as you're in character.
but YOU ARE IMPRISONED BY THIS CHARACTER. as long as you are in character? there is no right or wrong in this. but i gotta say...
....it is SO trying just being in character for an entire novel. my WIP novel is in 1st person. and my character is insane. and to write
this book is becoming the stunt of all stunts. it gets harder and harder to BECOME him. it's driving me crazy. i DO NOT recommend writing
a novel in 1st person. just my opinion.


----------



## Maunakea (May 28, 2016)

@ K.S. Crooks 
1) Yea i could try that and it would work for most things I had planned, but not all. For instance, my character is injured and falls unconscious. The other characters freak out. My character wakes up. My character doesn't know the others freaked out or what they did, but I want the reader to know how these characters acted. 2) I had thought of a second character, but I'm not too sure how I feel about that. I don't really have any other character that might be considered a secondary main, and I'm not sure how it would fit. It would work perfectly though, for the purposes of telling all the story I want told. Thanks for the suggestions. 
^-^

@ EmmaSohan
I want to show what's happening because it's a part of the experience, it adds to the story. I want to be able to show the other characters reactions to situations that I have written where my character is unconscious or not with them, such as in part 1) of @K.S. Crooks. Currently they just stand as gaps in the story, fitting, but incomplete. 
Those are some really interesting options, I'd like to see examples of them in works. I'll have to find something by Grisham. Any suggestions? And thanks for the tips! 

@ Jigawatt
That's a solid option to keep in mind for staying solely in first person, and would work for most of the situations I think. But again, not all would work. Thanks for the advice! 

@ Jay Greenstien
I get what you mean about the narrations translating from writer to reader. It would be read like that, if I was reading someone else's story. I guess that's kind of what I was going for, it feels right. 
Based on the things you've said I think I'm right to stick with first person. It poses a challenge, but it fits more for the type of stories I am trying to tell. They're pretty action oriented and fast paced. I think in order to add more of the exposition I want maybe I will change the story to past tense, so it feels more like the person is recalling the ordeal. It felt more natural to write in present tense at first, but thinking about it now past tense wouldn't change much at all. It would also give the ability to add things my character wouldn't have known at the time, for instance by saying "Kevin later told me that he had carried me back to the Villa" ect. 
I'm coming to realize that there is a lot more to writing for the page than I had anticipated. I'm not trained in writing, formally or informally. My high school was a joke, the teachers didn't give a crap so neither did we. So although I have extensive written rpg experience, writing your own story is a lot different. You have given me a lot to think about, and I really appreciate it. Thank you. ^_^

@ dale
It is a paradox, and it's harder than I thought it would be!! It adds so many restrictions to what you can write, it really does feel like imprisonment. 
I can't imagine writing a novel in first person, especially in first person of a made up character. The protagonist in the stories I write is me, straight up, and I find it difficult to stay in character sometimes. I don't even want to try that with an original character.. Good luck, that sounds like quite the endeavour!! 


Thanks everyone for all the really great advice, you've given me much to think about! With this, I will get to editing! ^_^ 
Cheers, Maunakea


----------



## Patrick (May 28, 2016)

You have absolutely no flexibility in first person. Saying first person just feels right isn't a good enough reason, I am afraid. First person often feels right because it's so much easier to write in, but it often isn't the right choice. I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it: third-person, past tense is the way to go for 99% of literature. Writers avoid it because they lack craftsmanship.

First person works well for certain stories. The Martian is a good example of something that requires first person. For a standard narrative, however? Third person, third person, third person. First person should be banned for beginners.



dale said:


> 1st person is a paradox. it's total freedom and a total prison. you can say and do anything you like, as long as you're in character.
> but YOU ARE IMPRISONED BY THIS CHARACTER. as long as you are in character? there is no right or wrong in this. but i gotta say...
> ....it is SO trying just being in character for an entire novel. my WIP novel is in 1st person. and my character is insane. and to write
> this book is becoming the stunt of all stunts. it gets harder and harder to BECOME him. it's driving me crazy. i DO NOT recommend writing
> a novel in 1st person. just my opinion.



Do it in third person. The assumption is that first person would be better for very psychological pieces, but it isn't. Third person gives you a bit of distance to actually observe. The paradox is that psychology is best understood when we're looking away from ourselves. Third person gives you that. And you have free indirect style in third person, where you have a dual voice with the protagonist. This is why prose written in third person is always superior.


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 28, 2016)

I read two books by Leah Stewart and loved them. I just started the third, and it's blah so far. The first two books were first person present, the third book is third person past tense. Coincidence? I don't think so. So, the recommendation to avoid first person present seems ill-advised to me. I think it focuses on the problems of first person present and ignores the advantages.

Jay is very good at writing 3rd person past and bringing the reader inside the character. He also uses italics (to show thoughts) more than any other author I can think of. Even then, I find myself wishing that book was written in first person. When I tried to rewrite the start in first person, I had to change almost everything. So to me there's a big difference.

Jay asked: Is there any difference between the two lines below:

I took a quick look over he wall, trying to see where the bastard was, but I couldn't risk being visible for long. As it was, an instant after I was back under cover a bullet hissed by, where my head had been. _That was close...so now what?
_
He took a quick look over he wall, trying to see where the bastard was, but he couldn't risk being visible for long. As it was, an instant after he was back under cover a bullet hissed by, where his head had been. _That was close...so now what?
_
First person doesn't need italics, which are a minor problem. In my first person it's his impression that he couldn't risk being visible for long; in third person, that's a fact. In first person, you would italicize "head". Argh, you did past tense!

I need to know where the bastard is, but I'm afraid to poke my head over the wall. For obvious reasons. But I'm gonna die if I just sit here. I poke my head out, pull it back quick before I see anything useful, and a bullet goes whistling by right were my head was. _Shit_.

Now what?

Is the difference more obvious?


----------



## Sam (May 28, 2016)

Patrick said:


> You have absolutely no flexibility in first person. Saying first person just feels right isn't a good enough reason, I am afraid. First person often feels right because it's so much easier to write in, but it often isn't the right choice. I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it: third-person, past tense is the way to go for 99% of literature. Writers avoid it because they lack craftsmanship.
> 
> First person works well for certain stories. The Martian is a good example of something that requires first person. For a standard narrative, however? Third person, third person, third person. First person should be banned for beginners.
> 
> ...



Beginners think that first is easy by virtue of the fact that it's familiar. If you write any story about yourself, you do it in first. If you tell someone what happened you down the shops, you do it in first. Therefore, it feels easy to segue into first in prose. 

But first person being easier to do than third? I don't believe it is; it just feels that way through familiarity. Once you understand the theory behind each, there is nothing inherently difficult about either of them. Where first person falls down in comparison to third is in its limitations. People say it's more intimate than third, but the reality is that the same intimacy can be replicated in third just as easily as it can in first. The problem is that first person handcuffs the writer to one character and point of view only and therefore can become, as Dale alluded to above, claustrophobic and incarceratory. 

Third doesn't do that. It gives a writer the greatest freedom as a storyteller because it allows for, among other things, greater foreshadowing, suspense, and immediacy. In first, you cannot reveal something that the main character does not hear, see, or know. You're limited by the eyes, ears, and thoughts of that person. In third, you have a much broader scope to play with, resulting in a story that can employ multiple strands and multiple characters in a way that makes for an epic tale that simply cannot be achieved with first. 

But I do agree that beginners should not start with first. The reality is that third has many more benefits than first and is the industry standard. First is rarely seen outside of young-adult and romance novels. And if you're writing an action-oriented story, OP, you need third. Third past is more immediate than first past -- and you need immediacy to write action. You're also a lot more likely to tell in first than you are in third. 

Overall, if you're unsure of which viewpoint to use, and you believe that one would work equally as well as the other, my advice would be to go with third. In my opinion, one of the main reasons why beginning writers discard so many started novels is because they wrote in first and became bored with having to stick to one character for an entire novel. First is largely a niche viewpoint, but you will never stray too far off course with third-person past. If viewpoints were royalty, third-person past would be King.


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 28, 2016)

Michael Connelly does third person past where the reader learns only what the MC experiences. Which is nice, but it gives him the same restriction you say is bad for first person.

Some authors will let the narration be tense for action scenes, and even slur when the main character is drunk. That steals a lot of the power of first person present. But if the narrator is the main character speaking in third person, then there isn't the freedom to make good metaphors that the MC would never think of.

Which is to say, people writing in third person past are nowadays making it more like first person present. Same advantages, same limitations. Michael Connelley never shifts to other people, we follow only the MC. The narration is just the MC's thoughts.

So that makes it difficult to talk about the differences. But I think they are still there.


----------



## Jesse Nissinen (May 29, 2016)

I'm having difficulties with this too mostly because I think about my story as if it was a movie script. In a movie script you write down everything that happens on the screen, and I want to catch those moments too.

For example writing that the main character faints from a blow to his head only to wake up to see his house has burned down. It kills me on the inside not to be able to explain what happened. In my head I have all this black magic and explosions I want to talk about, but the story is from the MC POV so I can't tell anything he can't see.

Anyways, that will be the mystery of the whole story, we as the reader have to figure out with the MC what actually happened.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (May 29, 2016)

Hey, I thought I might want to let you guys know that you can't post a creative piece until you have ten valid posts and then have been promoted to regular member (it might take a few minutes but the system is relatively quick). You'll be able to post it in fiction or the Prose Writers Workshop which will be then open to you. People will be happy to help with what you're struggling with specifically.


----------



## Patrick (May 29, 2016)

EmmaSohan said:


> Michael Connelly does third person past where the reader learns only what the MC experiences. Which is nice, but it gives him the same restriction you say is bad for first person.
> 
> Some authors will let the narration be tense for action scenes, and even slur when the main character is drunk. That steals a lot of the power of first person present. But if the narrator is the main character speaking in third person, then there isn't the freedom to make good metaphors that the MC would never think of.
> 
> ...



These aren't limitations. These are choices the writer has available to them with third person.

Third person has free indirect style (the dual voice of author and protagonist), which allows the writer to step into and out of the protagonist's thoughts without using tags. I use it a lot in my prose. In fact, you've mentioned my Amarant Flowers elsewhere, and that story owes much to free-indirect style. It doesn't have the same limitations as first person, because it allows me to keep my distance, crucially. Distance is the crucial thing.

First person just doesn't give the writer the control that third person does. And this is why I said it's easier to write in first person, because in first person there is less room to manoeuvre and also less to consider. Third person demands mastery because you must do a number of things well. And as I said before, it's much more effective to come at the psychological from the oblique than from inside the cranium of a character...


----------



## Maunakea (May 29, 2016)

So think I have to clarify a few things. I'm not saying first person is inheintly better, or easier. Quite the contrary, writing in first person is so much more challenging because in order to truly do it well, you have to be able to completly get into the head space of your main character. You must write like them, talk like them, think like them. To have your writing convincingly sound like the inner thoughts of a character and not just a narrator telling the story is a uniquely daunting task. You have to become that character, meld their consciousness into your own.
In addition, as you all have stated, the limitations imposed on a first person story teller are vast and often debilitating. You're stuck with one character, one viewpoint, one consciousness. It is exponentially easier to tell a story in third person, you have many more options available to you. It gives you freedoms galore, where first only gives restrictions. But that doesn't make it intrinsically bad, just difficult. To me, a challenge isn't bad. I feel like some writers use third because they lack the craftsmanship required to pull off a proper first person story. (Not saying I do, but you bet your ass I'll try!)
Saying one is better than the other is a matter of opinion, nothing more. It relies on so many dependent and independent variables, the reader, the writer, the story type, etc. With research you will find many examples of each being done extremely well, and extremely poorly. Third person is definitely more common, but is that always better? 
Now if I was speaking strictly analytically I would have to agree that third is better. It has almost no restrictions or inherent negative aspects, is extremely flexible and malleable, and is simply easier to tell a story with. It has pros where first has cons. But in terms of feeling, it plays a huge role. I'm not writing to tell the best story, I'm writing to evoke a certain feeling, share a certain experience, and let readers in on my reality. It's not about optimization, and when tackling complex psychological problems of your own psyche, the easy route is almost never the best choice. My writing isn't even so much for the reader right now, it's just about sharing what's going on inside my head so I'm not the only one experiencing it. I'm trying to understand my mind, and I find I can't always trust my own point of view. 
On the introductory forum, member Justrob referred me to the following quote in his signature; "Sharing experience creates a reality." That's what I'm trying to do with my writing, share my experiences within my messed up mind, and maybe make some sort of a reality. I know what I'm doing, I know the restrictions I incur limiting myself to a first person viewpoint. I find the extra effort worth it if I can achieve what I'm going for. I'm writing in first person for now, I just wanted to know if there was anything I could do to ease my accepted burden. 
Also it might be worth noting that I am not writing a novel, I'm nowhere near that ambitious. Short stories, maybe 5000-15000 words. They are retelling of these dark, super elaborate and immersive daydreams I create in my mind, for reasons unknown to me as of now. It's a learning process, both in writing and knowing myself. I'm thinking of doing them in the style of the character recalling these events, maybe describing them to a psychiatrist, maybe while committed to an asylum.

Jesse Nissinen, that is exactly the problem I am having! I want to include those moments, even though I know I shouldnt. It would feel more complete. 

I am reposting this now without that little tidbit of my piece, I hope that is okay. I wasn't trying to break any rules, sorry. I did specifically say I wasn't posting it for critique, but to illustrate why I made the choice I made and help people understand what I'm asking for their advice on. I thought quoting a sample would be okay, my bad. Thanks for informing me. I am glad I was able to copy this before it got deleted so I didn't have to write it all again.


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 29, 2016)

Basic questions. For Sam, or anyone.

When I write a book, I want the reader inside the head of my main character. I don't want it like the reader is watching a movie. And when I read, I want to be inside the head of the main character. Does that make sense?

When I write first person, do readers (like judges) put themselves in the head of my main character? Because if they don't do that, then of course first person is just an annoyance to them and a waste of time for me. So that's an important question.

Finally, if you acknowledge that as a worthwhile goal, then do you really think third person can do that as well as (or better than) first person?

For example, three possible book starts:

Zoisa said to Annie, "I'm glad you got home before I left."
I said to Annie, "I'm glad you got home before I left."
Zoisa said to me, "I'm glad you got home before I left."

I see different things. Are they different for you?


----------



## Sam (May 29, 2016)

EmmaSohan said:


> Basic questions. For Sam, or anyone.
> 
> When I write a book, I want the reader inside the head of my main character. I don't want it like the reader is watching a movie. And when I read, I want to be inside the head of the main character. Does that make sense?
> 
> ...



Yes. 

It has, does, and will continue to do so. 

You can get inside the head of a character just as easily in third as you can in first, as I mentioned in my first post in this thread.


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 29, 2016)

Answering Maunakea: Jay mentioned detective novels, where you often get just the detective's point of view. Yes, if you write in third person, you have the freedom to present information the detective doesn't know, like who committed the murder. But usually you want the reader following the detective as she gathers evidence, decides, on suspects, etc. So that's a bad choice.

That's why I wondered about you wanting the reader to know what happened while the MC was unconscious. The usual solution is to show the information later, say as things are explained to your MC. But you can also just write out the scene in whatever person or tense or perspective that you want. Don't writers do that frequently in third person? Your readers probably won't even notice.

I will say, for a book, it's a little odd if you do it only once. If you do it three times, no problem IMO, then it's just your style. For a short story, I don't think once is a problem.


----------



## dale (May 29, 2016)

i think 1st person is better from an "artistic" veiwpoint than 3rd. it really lets the author "splatter the paint on the canvass",
in a personal way. and i love reading 1st person stories. but it takes a lot of stamina and basic "bullheadedness", to sustain
that mindset for very long, as a writer. i mean...could anyone even imagine "the tell-tale heart" by poe written in 3rd person?
no. it wouldn't have worked. some stories are simply made to be told in 1st person. but...once your story starts drifting over 20,000
words? 1st person starts becoming a "mindfuck". i'll tell you that right now.


----------



## afk4life (May 29, 2016)

This is not first person present tense, it's past tense.



> I took a quick look over he wall, trying to see where the bastard was, but I couldn't risk being visible for long. As it was, an instant after I was back under cover a bullet hissed by, where my head had been. That was close...so now what?


First person present would be like



> I take a quick look over the wall and just have to hope he doesn't see me. I duck out for a bit and there's dust in my eyes, I only hear the gunshot after I dive for cover. I look around desperately trying to figure out how to escape.



It's extremely hard to do right because for some reason it's natural to go back to past tense. If you're going to do first person, it's much harder but also gives you a lot of space. You can't know everything, which is a major limitation, but you also can know everything... as the character experiences it themselves. Which can make readers a lot more engaged. It's a lot harder to tell not show in first person. That's the major opportunity in first person is you, and by translation your readers, are experiencing everything your character is as if they were in their body. 

Which is more unnerving?



> He nervously pushed the steel door open and felt a blast of hot air. Something really stunk, and he knew something bad was about to happen.



Or



> I push open the steel door. My stomach is upside down. The door resists a bit before it opens and a hot gush of air hits me and it smells awful. I know something terrible is about to happen to me.


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 29, 2016)

Sam said:


> You can get inside the head of a character just as easily in third as you can in first, as I mentioned in my first post in this thread.



Thanks. I don't understand _why _you say that. Take this start.



> Eloise Hempel was running late. She was forever running late, addicted to the last-minute arrival, the under-the-wire delivery, the thrill of urgency.



Are you saying that puts the reader inside her head? I tend to see her from above, running late. I don't think those are her thoughts as she is running late, and I don't think that's how she would express those thoughts ever.

It continues



> That morning, unable to find a parking spot less than half a mile away, she'd jogged most of the way to campus in her painful high heels,...



Now the narrator has slipped into past perfect, to make it clear that the narrator is describing something she did in the past. I don't see how that could possibly put me in her head.


----------



## Patrick (May 29, 2016)

Really, the idea that first person is harder than third person is laughable to me. I have written short stories in first person, and they are incredibly easy to write. Writing in first person is always, without fail, like training with the weighted jacket off. Stylistically, third person is for the big boys.

Don't take it personally, you lot, just learn from daddy.


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 29, 2016)

Okay, Sam says that third person is easier than first person, and that's a reason to write in third person.

Patrick says that first person is easier to do than third person, and I think implies that's a reason to write in third person.

They both can't be true.


----------



## dale (May 29, 2016)

Patrick said:


> Really, the idea that first person is harder than third person is laughable to me. I have written short stories in first person, and they are incredibly easy to write. Writing in first person is always, without fail, like training with the weighted jacket off. Stylistically, third person is for the big boys.
> 
> Don't take it personally, you lot, just learn from daddy.



probably because you write in 1st person as 'yourself". now try it with a character totally foreign with your way of thinking. 
imagine writing as "someone else", even a woman....or a schizophenic man. and really having to BECOME that person as you write.
no faking it. you actually have to disembody yourself from who you are and BE someone else. 

sorry. but you don't know shit about it, if you think THAT is easy.


----------



## Patrick (May 29, 2016)

dale said:


> probably because you write in 1st person as 'yourself". now try it with a character totally foreign with your way of thinking.
> imagine writing as "someone else", even a woman....or a schizophenic man. and really having to BECOME that person as you write.
> no faking it. you actually have to disembody yourself from who you are and BE someone else.
> 
> sorry. but you don't know shit about it, if you think THAT is easy.



All writing is autobiographical. I can write first-person narratives from the perspective of a character who is most certainly not me.

And you miss the point that it's the same for any protagonist. I actually have a friend who has schizophrenia, and he's nothing like the stereotype. I deal with characters, not with archetypes. So for me they are all complex, whether you write in third or first person. Stylistically, first person is like shelling peas. That's the distinction I draw.


----------



## Kevin (May 29, 2016)

> Okay, Sam says that third person is easier than first person, and that's a reason to write in third person.
> 
> Patrick says that first person is easier to do than third person, and I think implies that's a reason to write in third person.
> 
> They both can't be true.


 Love it. They should arm-wrestle. No... wet noodles at dawn. Settle it once and for all...


----------



## Patrick (May 29, 2016)

Kevin said:


> Love it. They should arm-wrestle. No... wet noodles at dawn. Settle it once and for all...



Sam and I would team up and take a whip to you all, because we share the inimitable bond of being Manchester United and Jose Mourinho fans.


----------



## dale (May 29, 2016)

Patrick said:


> All writing is autobiographical. I can write first-person narratives from the perspective of a character who is most certainly not me.
> 
> And you miss the point that it's the same for any protagonist. I actually have a friend who has schizophrenia, and he's nothing like the stereotype. I deal with characters, not with archetypes. So for me they are all complex, whether you write in third or first person. Stylistically, first person is like shelling peas. That's the distinction I draw.



well....my point is. i've written 3rd person novellas and a novel. both were published. before, i had only written short stories in 1st person. 
i wanted to do something really challenging and artistic for my 2nd full length novel. i'm doing it in 1st person. and it has become a nightmare. 
it's not "easier', and it sure as hell isn't "amateur". it's a nightmare for me to continue. it's not "shelling peas". i have to BECOME someone else
 in my mind. it's become the hardest thing i've ever attempted. but it MEANS something to me, artistically. i won't be a pussy and convert it to 
3rd person. i'm just bullheaded enough to see this though.


----------



## afk4life (May 29, 2016)

EmmaSohan said:


> Okay, Sam says that third person is easier than first person, and that's a reason to write in third person.
> 
> Patrick says that first person is easier to do than third person, and I think implies that's a reason to write in third person.
> 
> They both can't be true.



You've missed the hidden message. They're telling you to write in second person future tense.


----------



## Sam (May 29, 2016)

EmmaSohan said:


> Okay, Sam says that third person is easier than first person, and that's a reason to write in third person.
> 
> Patrick says that first person is easier to do than third person, and I think implies that's a reason to write in third person.
> 
> They both can't be true.



You have a notorious tendency for putting words into people's mouths, Emma. It's an odious habit. 

I didn't say that third was easier. In point of fact, I said that _neither _is more difficult than the other. Third has many more (numerous) advantages over first. That does not make it easier to write; it makes it less restrictive than first. 

Those are the words I said. In future, please don't quote me as saying something that I have demonstrably not said.


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 29, 2016)

Sam said:


> You have a notorious tendency for putting words into people's mouths, Emma. It's an odious habit.
> 
> I didn't say that third was easier. In point of fact, I said that _neither _is more difficult than the other. Third has many more (numerous) advantages over first. That does not make it easier to write; it makes it less restrictive than first.
> 
> Those are the words I said. In future, please don't quote me as saying something that I have demonstrably not said.



Sorry, right, my mistake. You said "But first person being easier to do than third? I don't believe it is." That is still in disagreement with Patrick. But you had other reasons for recommending third. I will DQ myself for the being careful merit badge. Sorry again.

Anyway, I am still having trouble with your claim that third can get into character's head as well as first.

For example, I could have written: (They are at a dance class and Alex is doing the lifts for an otherwise all-female class.)



> I stand last in line and watch Alex lift the dancers.


That's easily translated into third person with no loss. Right?

But I wrote:



> I stand last in line and watch Alex lift these frail-bodied, thinly-clad teenagers.



So my character choose a particular way of describing the scene, and that said a lot about her. Doesn't the translation to third person lose that?



> Jade stood last in line and watched Alex lift the frail-bodied, thinly-clad teenagers.



We still get the scene, but now it's the narrator's word choice.


----------



## Patrick (May 29, 2016)

dale said:


> well....my point is. i've written 3rd person novellas and a novel. both were published. before, i had only written short stories in 1st person.
> i wanted to do something really challenging and artistic for my 2nd full length novel. i'm doing it in 1st person. and it has become a nightmare.
> it's not "easier', and it sure as hell isn't "amateur". it's a nightmare for me to continue. it's not "shelling peas". i have to BECOME someone else
> in my mind. it's become the hardest thing i've ever attempted. but it MEANS something to me, artistically. i won't be a pussy and convert it to
> 3rd person. i'm just bullheaded enough to see this though.



Where did I say it was amateur?

You're focusing on a different thing to me. I am talking about prose style. You have to get into your protagonist's head in first or third person, and this part is not easy. Of course none us can actually become our characters.

I believe third person is superior to first person in terms of creating character in that it gives you distance. Why is distance important? Control. 

There are some instances where first person is favourable, but they're the minority. For most people, concentrating on developing voice in third person, which has access to the greatest range of literary techniques, is going to be the way to go. If you want to write your novel in first person, then you have your own reasons for doing so, and so long as you think you're justified, then who really cares what somebody else's opinion on the matter is? Do your own thing. I am not going to change my opinion that first person is easier stylistically because of how limited it is, however.


----------



## Sam (May 29, 2016)

It's called "third-person narrative voice", Emma. 

When the viewpoint character changes, the narrative voice changes. The narrative voice for a soldier, for instance, will use terms and words that only a soldier would use. The narrative voice for a lawyer would use terms and words that only a lawyer would use. From there, third-person narrative voice (which in this case is subjective rather than objective; the latter is what Michael Connelly uses) can be used to convey the thoughts and feelings of a character in a similar way to how first-person prose can. 

_It had been thirty minutes and still no sign of Bertha, Jason noticed. That was just typical of her. Three times in the last week she'd arrived late, and during the most important time of the year to boot. Jason had a mind to pick up the phone and read her the riot act. The stupid cow was going to be the end of him. McCarthy, the old bastard, would saunter in and demand to know why Jason wasn't taking command of his staff. What did the fogey know about running staff, anyway? He spent the entire day in an office where the blinds remained perpetually shut. One day soon, someone was going to hack the electronics and open them wide! Then people would see that he did nothing but natter on a phone all day. Deputy director, my ass, Jason thought, still incredulous that senior management had chosen McCarthy over him! They wouldn't know talent if it kicked them square in their geriatric butts. 

_That is third-person narrative voice. Those aren't the words and thoughts of the narrator -- they're Jason's words and thoughts, via his narrative viewpoint, and that is one way to convey feelings and thoughts in third-person prose.


----------



## Patrick (May 29, 2016)

EmmaSohan said:


> Sorry, right, my mistake. You said "But first person being easier to do than third? I don't believe it is." That is still in disagreement with Patrick. But you had other reasons for recommending third. I will DQ myself for the being careful merit badge. Sorry again.



Why does it matter so much whether Sam agrees with every point of mine or not? We're allowed to have different opinions on things, but it's a minor point you're highlighting, anyway, because we both agree on far more than we disagree on in relation to this discussion. We recommend third person for many of the same reasons, in fact. Sam has made his point more considerately and better than I have, but we're really not in opposition.


----------



## Sam (May 29, 2016)

I agree with most of what Patrick said because it's accurate. I don't necessarily agree that first is easier than third, but I understand the sentiment. 

Third person can be more difficult than first if one is employing multiple characters, multiple points of view, or multiple plot strands. Then it becomes a matter of mastering viewpoint characters and narrative prose for the amount of characters one wishes to create, which requires greater finesse and technique than mastering one point of view. It's simple mathematics. 

None of that is relevant to what the OP asked, which was "should they start with first or third?" I will always tell people to start with third simply because of what Dale mentioned above about being mind-f***ed after 20,000 words. One of the main reasons why I have never had writer's block is because in the event that I ever become bored, I can introduce a new character, new plot strand, or new point of view -- something that cannot be done when writing in first. That, along with unfettered control of narrative, is the main reason why I write predominately in third-person omniscient and the main reason why I would advise anyone starting off to write in third as well. That, and the fact that third is the industry standard across the board in everything except young-adult and romance.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (May 29, 2016)

> First person doesn't need italics, which are a minor problem.


Of course it does. Italics, in that situation, says it was a thought that the protagonist _is_ having.





> I stand last in line and watch Alex lift these frail-bodied, thinly-clad teenagers.


In third person, and in her POV as against the narrator reporting what was seen:

She stood in line, envy heavy in her thoughts as she watched Alex lifting the skinny, underdressed little bitches.

Now we know what she thinks of them, and how her envy bends her thoughts. And it works in first or third.

What you presented originally, didn’t work. Dancers may be slim, but they are made of leather and whipcord because they’re athletes. And why say in five word as what has more punch—and character development—in four?

Most beginners like first person because it matches how we describe our day, and so feels more personal _to-the-author_. But that's because they don't truly understand how viewpoint differs from point of view.


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 29, 2016)

When I am writing first person present for a high schooler, I can't have good metaphors, I'm stuck with cliches. No elegant writing either. One of the potential advantages of third person is to write elegant narration. Agreed?

But I lose that advantage if I'm writing in third person narrative voice, right?

I keep seeing this -- you can get one of the advantages of first person if you give up one of the freedoms of third person.




Sam said:


> ...One of the main reasons why I have never had writer's block is because in the event that I ever become bored, I can introduce a new character, new plot strand, or new point of view -- something that cannot be done when writing in first.



Okay, I don't see why an author writing in first person present cannot introduce a new character or plot strand.

Just because an author writes one chapter in first person present doesn't mean 100% of the book has to be that way. I don't know what is best for Dale's book, but it would be cruel to say he couldn't change points of view between chapters. There are many first person present books that switch between the two main characters. And anything's possible, right? As long as it's done well.


----------



## Kyle R (May 29, 2016)

Ah, the great Third versus First debate!

I agree with Dale about first being challenging—especially when you're writing from the POV of someone who sees the world very differently than you do. Try writing in the voice of an alien hooker who's addicted to drinking the blood of human children, for example. Then write in the voice of a crime-fighting priest who thinks technology should all be destroyed. Both voice better sound completely different than yours—unless there's something about you that we should know! 

But that's also part of the fun of first person—slipping into a new skin and making the character come to life on the page.

I'd even go as far as saying that, if I'm writing first person with my own natural voice, I'm probably doing it wrong. Really, to write first person well, I believe you should be _destroying_ your own voice and giving birth to a new one.

Third person has its wonders, too. It's flexible. Versatile. The narrative can be distant, or close, or fluctuate at will. It can be tied to a single character or spread out across many. Third-person prose is like a wily octopus—it can bend and twist and change to fit into whatever mold you need it to.

Plus, it devours small fish and soft-shelled crabs like nobody's business.

Ultimately, I think the preference lies in the writer. I don't believe either form is superior, though it does seem that, eventually, most writers develop a preference for one or the other.

Just keep writing and you'll eventually find your preference, too—whether it's third, or first, or a smutty love affair with both (you dirty, cheating bastard!). :encouragement:


----------



## afk4life (May 29, 2016)

Okay, the question is why would you want elegant metaphors for a high-schooler? It doesn't fit with the reality. Rough paragraph:



> I fumble in my jeans for the cigs and I realize I'm like lighting up right in front of her when she walks by. And she gives me a look that I think isn't good and I can't put it out without looking even more stupid. She'll always see me as the kid with unruly hair who dresses weird and I've just made it worse. I look down at my kicks and maybe I totally read her wrong cos she's just sat down beside me and all I can do is sputter my name, and she says "I'm Emma" and smiles at me. How the fuck did I get the cutest girl at school to even notice me much less talk to me? And she steals the pack from me and my lighter and lights one herself. She grabs my hand and I'm so close to puking but I just smile back at her. And she grabs my hand and and pushes closer I'm about to panic. And I can smell her hair and it smells like flowers and maybe she liked me before I even knew it, and I'm like Zack just breathe. I'm just stupid, I offer her my Coke Zero and she smiles and takes a sip.



First person. And you're getting all the things the MC feels.  I don't think you could even come close to getting that across in third person.


----------



## Kevin (May 29, 2016)

> When I am writing first person present for a high schooler, I can't have good metaphors, I'm stuck with cliches. No elegant writing either. One of the potential advantages of third person is to write elegant narration. Agreed?
> 
> But I lose that advantage if I'm writing in third person narrative voice, right?


Interesting points... Yes, unless your character happens to be elegant. Narrative voice is limiting; it's limited by your character. They can only speak as well as they would. 'Out of character' is really easy. In-articulation is contrary, don't you think, not without sounding cliché.


----------



## Kevin (May 29, 2016)

> I don't think you could even come close to getting that across in third person.


What if you could, though? Now, that's the challenge... That is Patrick's point I believe.


----------



## afk4life (May 29, 2016)

Challenge accepted...it really isn't much different, I just think first person works better



> He fumbles in his jeans for the cigs and he realizes he's like lighting up right in front of her when she walks by. And she gives him a look that makes his heart sink but he can't put it out without looking even more stupid. He's just some weird kid with unruly hair that wears too much black. He looks down at his kicks and he's shocked when she sits down beside him and all he can do is sputter his name. She says "I'm Emma" and smiles at him. And all that's going through his mind is, how the fuck did I get the cutest girl at school to even notice me much less talk to me? And she steals the pack from him and his lighter and lights one herself. She grabs his hand and and he's turning green. And she pushes closer. He wants to puke and all he can do is offer her his Coke Zero up, which is like the most awkward thing he could do


.


----------



## Sam (May 30, 2016)

EmmaSohan said:


> Okay, I don't see why an author writing in first person present cannot introduce a new character or plot strand.



A new character or plot strand in first person would have to be filtered through the main character, meaning that the writer can only introduce a character that the MC is aware of. Likewise, plot can only be filtered through the MC. You can't have another plot without the MC in it, because it goes against the laws and conventions of first-person prose. 

In third person, I can have as many plots as I want. My MC can know as little or as much about them as I want him to. I can have a separate strand that concentrates on the movements and actions of the antagonist, but my MC is not privy to this. I can have numerous characters doing their own things, none of which my MC is aware of. That simply cannot be achieved in first person. 



> Just because an author writes one chapter in first person present doesn't mean 100% of the book has to be that way. I don't know what is best for Dale's book, but it would be cruel to say he couldn't change points of view between chapters. There are many first person present books that switch between the two main characters. And anything's possible, right? As long as it's done well.



How can he change POV between chapters if he's writing a first-person narrative? The narrator is the main character. The story is being told through their eyes. I can't write a story about what happened to you yesterday -- because I didn't witness it. So how can a first-person narrator tell the POV of someone else outside of the main character? They can't. They _are _the main character. They can only narrate what the main character knows, sees, or is aware of. 

What you're talking about is a first-person serial novel, in which you can write a story through the eyes of two or more characters. But first-person serial novels are rarer than gold dust. And novels that use both first and third in different chapters are almost as rare.


----------



## dale (May 30, 2016)

EmmaSohan said:


> When I am writing first person present for a high schooler, I can't have good metaphors, I'm stuck with cliches. No elegant writing either. One of the potential advantages of third person is to write elegant narration. Agreed?
> 
> But I lose that advantage if I'm writing in third person narrative voice, right?
> 
> ...



my WIP does just that. it has alternating 1st person narratives. part 1 is narrated by a very weird male character, part 2 is
narrated by his "soul-mate", a more elegant speaking female character, part 3 goes back to him...part 3 is as far as i've gotten. 
i might end up tossing a 3rd character in there to narrate before it's done. i never know exactly how things will end up when i write.


----------



## Patrick (May 30, 2016)

Alternating first-person narratives don't remove the limitations of first person, however. At any one time, you are still locked into a certain character's perspective, and so you can never do the classical thing and step back to show the bigger picture. And as a reader I will ask, why on earth is this in first person when it could have been done so much better in third person?

The reason third person is right for beginners is because it allows one to do that and to create a unique voice. The creation of mood, foreshadowing with metaphor, amongst other things, is only possible and authentic in third person. You're not learning the craft by writing through the voice of one very specific character.


----------



## dale (May 30, 2016)

Patrick said:


> You're not learning the craft by writing through the voice of one very specific character.



why not? i mean...to be honest, i'm not writing to "learn the craft". i never have wrote to learn how to write.
but i don't understand what you mean. lol. you seem to have it in your mind that 1st person writing is some
kind of a "cheat" or "swindle". like it's the easy way out. it's fucking not. my novella is in 3rd person. my novel is
in 3rd person. a 1/2 dozen or so short stories i have in 3rd person. this 1st person novel i'm writing now is more
difficult than all of them.


----------



## Patrick (May 30, 2016)

dale said:


> why not? i mean...to be honest, i'm not writing to "learn the craft". i never have wrote to learn how to write.
> but i don't understand what you mean. lol. you seem to have it in your mind that 1st person writing is some
> kind of a "cheat" or "swindle". like it's the easy way out. it's fucking not. my novella is in 3rd person. my novel is
> in 3rd person. a 1/2 dozen or so short stories i have in 3rd person. this 1st person novel i'm writing now is more
> difficult than all of them.



Because there are aspects of the craft that first person doesn't have access to. So when I say you aren't learning the craft, I mean the whole thing. You only have bits of the craft with first person.

The difficulty of what you attempt to write often goes up with experience regardless of whether it's in first or third person, but because third person has access to more of the craft, it's reasonable to say it has the greatest scope for difficulty. That shouldn't be controversial to anybody who isn't writing to learn the craft.


----------



## dale (May 30, 2016)

Patrick said:


> Because there are aspects of the craft that first person doesn't have access to. So when I say you aren't learning the craft, I mean the whole thing. You only have bits of the craft with first person.
> 
> The difficulty of what you attempt to write often goes up with experience regardless of whether it's in first or third person, but because third person has access to more of the craft, it's reasonable to say it has the greatest scope for difficulty. That shouldn't be controversial to anybody who isn't writing to learn the craft.



i think it also depends a lot on genre and who your influences are. poe and lovecraft are probably my main influences.
these men wrote great 1st person stories. i couldn't imagine their 1st person stories being written any other way. why?
because the afflicted minds of the narrators are what DROVE the intensity of the tales. without that style of narration?
those stories wouldn't have worked at all.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (May 30, 2016)

> When I am writing first person present for a high schooler, I can't have  good metaphors, I'm stuck with cliches. No elegant writing either. One  of the potential advantages of third person is to write elegant  narration. Agreed?


Can't agree. As authors, we're not talking _about _the protagonist as an outside observor, we're trying to get the reader to _feel_ the emotion the protagonist experiences in the moment. Perhaps in the literary genre, where the narrator is expected to be poetic and verbose you might have a point, but in most genres our goal is to entertain the reader with what's happening in that fleeting moment the protagonist calls now. And that can't happen if the author interjects themself as an active participant in the scene, as if the reader and the narrator were both watching the same film and the narrator has seen it before.





> Okay, I don't see why an author writing in first person present cannot introduce a new character or plot strand.


They can. as it impinges on the protagonist when they encounter it in some way. Intermixing first and third person is iffy, because it kills the illusion that we are the protagonist, as against their being our avatar.





> Just because an author writes one chapter in first person present doesn't mean 100% of the book has to be that way.


No, it doesn't mean it _has_ to. Anyone is free to write in any way they care to. Selling it to the reader, on the other hand, means catering to their desires and expectations. They are the customer, after all. Perhaps one day it may become the expected norm, but at the moment, the number of successful intermixes like that is a small fraction of the number published. And as new writers we have the deck stacked against us. We don't have a fan base. No one recognizes our name on the cover, and we probably don't write with the skill of a seasoned pro. So we need all the advantages we can get. Choosing a style that isn't popular might not be one.

If we present a reader with something they're not used to seeing, like an unusual mix of viewpoint presentation styles, that reader will have to adapt to the unexpected. So for a while, each time it hits them they will stop and have to adjust expectations. And if so, we have to compensate them in some way for that inconvenience, with better than expected enjoyment. But will we? Sometimes the unusual pays off, and starts a trend. But why bet on sometimes?

My view is that unless we have a situation where the existing tools aren't sufficient, why burden the reader with having to learn a new skill?





> There are many first person present books that switch between the two main characters.


Among the books on the best seller lists? Among the new offerings from real publishers? As a percentage of the whole I'm not certain that "many" applies. But perhaps we don't read the same genre.


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 30, 2016)

Sam: If I want to add a subplot, I just add one that the main character knows about. Like her mother is going to sell their house. I can add another character in the same way.

afk4life: I _like _thinking of fresh metaphors. Also . . . Meg Cabot IMO does a brilliant job of writing like a 15-year-old. That includes putting dialogue tags before the dialogue, which sounds amateurish. No one talks about what a good writer she is (except me, that I know of). As a judge, it's not easy to give a high score to someone writing like a 12-year-old.

Jay: Typically, first person restricts itself to one person. But this week I was reading one that flopped between two characters. And that's typical enough that I don't keep track of how many times I've seen it. Third person restricted does the same thing, right?

To be a really good writer in first person present, you have to be able to describe someone in third person in a way that the person comes alive. Because . . . that's how the other characters in your book are described.

everyone: One of the skills of writing 3rd person is knowing how and when to switch into first person present.


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 30, 2016)

Jay Greenstein said:


> She stood in line, envy heavy in her thoughts as she watched Alex lifting the skinny, underdressed little bitches.
> 
> Now we know what she thinks of them, and how her envy bends her thoughts. And it works in first or third.



I stand in line, envy heavy in my thoughts, as I watch Alex lift ...

This loses "narratative voice", because people don't talk like that.

It also isn't the thoughts of the MC, because people don't think like that. Actually, when someone is envious of someone rich, they probably just think "I wish I was that rich."

To me, Grisham does first person present as if the MC is narrating to the reader. So is this. That turns out almost impossible to avoid completely, but first person present is usually trying to be the person's thoughts.

This version is more likely to let the reader know the MC's feelings than my perhaps-too-subtle show. With that information, the reader can be the character, but that's a lot of work if the next sentence is going to be like this one and pull the reader out of the character.

Jay, your tag line says, "The goal isn't to tell the reader that the protagonist is terrified..." But isn't that what ths is doing?

For the sake of reading, I tried to leave out all the ways I am uncertain about what I am saying.

How do you write this in third person? It's in first person present.



> "What do you think really happened?"
> 
> 
> "Dunno. Strange case." Damn strange.


----------



## Kyle R (May 30, 2016)

A skilled author can write the hell out of any POV or tense. :encouragement:


----------



## Sam (May 30, 2016)

EmmaSohan said:


> Sam: If I want to add a subplot, I just add one that the main character knows about. Like her mother is going to sell their house. I can add another character in the same way.
> 
> afk4life: I _like _thinking of fresh metaphors. Also . . . Meg Cabot IMO does a brilliant job of writing like a 15-year-old. That includes putting dialogue tags before the dialogue, which sounds amateurish. No one talks about what a good writer she is (except me, that I know of). As a judge, it's not easy to give a high score to someone writing like a 12-year-old.
> 
> ...



So I'm writing a story about myself in first person. Can I write about what you had for breakfast yesterday? 

No, I cannot. I don't know what you had for breakfast yesterday. I don't know what you did yesterday. I can only write about what I can see, hear, or know to be true from experience. So if I bumped into your best friend down the street, and she told me what you had for breakfast, _then _I could write about what you had for breakfast. 

You may know that your mother is selling her house, but you cannot know what happens during the sale unless you are present; therefore, you cannot write that plot without the main character (you) being physically present at the scene. If you want to write a plot arc about the real-estate agent trying to swindle your mother, you cannot write it. _You weren't there. _Yes, you can write about it after the fact, if your mother rings you and tells you what happened, but you cannot have that plot arc in real time because you aren't there. 



> everyone: One of the skills of writing 3rd person is knowing how and when to switch into first person present.



Bollocks it is. 

Writers who use third person do not use first person in the same book for 99% of trade-published novels. What are you talking about? To have third past and first past in the same book is rare by itself. First person present is an even more niche viewpoint than any other. 

Please, Emma. You're talking rubbish now.


----------



## midnightpoet (May 30, 2016)

The only reason I did my first novel in first person? I was trying to channel Raymond Chandler.  Bad idea, but it taught me a lot.  Later, after several rejections I re-wrote it in third person.  I continued with third, but my published short stories are in first - including one where my protagonist was female.  My second novel was third, with differing viewpoints. So was my third.  Haven't published a novel yet but still trying after 30 years. I agree with Patrick and Sam about 3rd person, but experimenting with different viewpoints can teach you a lot.  The contests here are very good for that, I recommend them.


----------



## oenanthe (May 30, 2016)

I've paid the rent with 1st person short stories, and here's the thing - 1st person only looks like it's easier. I'm not going to say that it's harder than 3rd, just that they are different, and they're useful tools, and advancing your craft means familiarizing yourself with the tools. 

so go ahead and write a short story in 1st person. Go on, give it a try. 

but then set that down and write that same short story in 3rd person. Just for laughs. 

Now get feedback from someone who isn't going to butter your butt, and spend some time looking at what's different. Why it's different. And how. That's how you start learning what perspectives and what tenses to use, what they evoke, what assumptions they lay down. That's a very productive way to learn.

and if you're thinking, "I would like to try this but I don't have an idea for a short story," you can rewrite one in the public domain. Like a fairy tale, or a classic short. Rewrite _Hills Like White Elephants_ in first person from the girl's point of view, for example. notice what you do with it in order to make the perspective appropriate.

Personally, I like first person narration. But it's easy to screw up.


----------



## Aquilo (May 30, 2016)

Wow... strong debate.

I've written 1st, I've written 3rd. I've written a series in 1st and written the last novel in that series in 3rd. I've also seen novels start off in 3RD, then move into 1st in the next chapter. It is rare, but it does happen. SM Johnson's _Above the Dungeon_ comes to mind here. It covers one main mc in 3rd, another in 1st. It's a stylistic choice. 

Is 1st inferior? In all honesty, only your sales are going to tell you there. Mine says no. My 1st pov psych thriller outsells my 3rd pov dark paranormal. There are other factors in that too, e.g., audience: most of mine are thriller readers, who favour contemporary over paranormal. 

I honestly don't care which pov, so long as it's a good story. You can screw up in both.

Re italics in 1st pov. There not needed, no. Although the decision can remain with the publisher. E.g.,

I got up in his face, pushing hard enough to break nose, to share breath. Come on, push it. Fuckin' dare ya, mate.

There's a definite shift from monologue to direct thought. Italics aren't really needed other than to repeat the point: hey, this is thought here. If I wanted a more subtle transition that isn't so noticeable, I'll run with no italics in 1st pov.

That's just my personal choice, and publishers can say we need italics. But to be honest, if you've written it well enough, the publisher won't interfere with author style.


----------



## Terry D (May 30, 2016)

Sam said:


> And novels that use both first and third in different chapters are almost as rare.



The only writer I know who does this with regularity is James Patterson in his Alex Cross novels. Any chapter with Cross on-stage is written in first person from Cross' POV, while all other chapters are written in third person.


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 30, 2016)

Hi Sam! Authors writing in 3rd person will use italics to show what a character is thinking. And that gets written in first person present. Clancy, right? Basically, one of the tools in 3rd person is being able to slip into that. That's what I meant when I said that's a skill in writing in third person.

Actually, I can switch out of my first person and move to a different character and present that scene. It's a lot like doing a flashback, except easier for the reader to pick up on because of the names. So I can present anything I want in my book. The idea that the reader will be upset relies on them noticing that the book was written in first person present, which is unlikely. 

akf4ever: In your third person rewrite, you have "He's just some weird kid with unruly hair that wears too much black." Did you mean this to be something true, spoken by the narrator, which the MC might not be aware of? Or did you mean it as something the MC believes, even if it might not be true, and probably something the MC was thinking at that moment?


----------



## ppsage (May 30, 2016)

That fantasy series by an English woman that has a compass on the covers and the name of a direction in each title mixes first and third effectively. The first are all internal dialogue and in italics, is what I remember. --------- My favorite first person present body of work is detective fiction especially of course noire stuff. ---------- I think for first person, you have to give up the revealing of the story to the character: what would they do and what would that let them find out? The writer's job is to follow them accurately and within the logical parameters of the milieu in which they swim, while making sure there are some points of interest on the path.


----------



## dale (May 30, 2016)

Kyle R said:


> A skilled author can write the hell out of any POV or tense. :encouragement:



yeah. but you have to admit...people who write in 1st person are total jackwads.


----------



## afk4life (May 30, 2016)

EmmaSohan said:


> akf4ever: In your third person rewrite, you have "He's just some weird kid with unruly hair that wears too much black." Did you mean this to be something true, spoken by the narrator, which the MC might not be aware of? Or did you mean it as something the MC believes, even if it might not be true, and probably something the MC was thinking at that moment?



That's somewhat open to interpretation. Since this is third person omniscient, it could be what he thinks of himself. Or it could be what she thinks of him. Or both. In my style, it would tend to me more a what he thinks of himself. When you read the rest of it it's all him thinking these things to himself.


----------



## TheWonderingNovice (May 31, 2016)

Hey, remember when this thread was about giving advise to a member and not a debate on what tense is better? Ha, yeah, I remember that. Now if we could only get back to that. Wouldn't it be nice?


----------



## Maunakea (May 31, 2016)

TheWonderingNovice said:


> Hey, remember when this thread was about giving advise to a member and not a debate on what tense is better? Ha, yeah, I remember that. Now if we could only get back to that. Wouldn't it be nice?



Lmao I know right! I think I remember that. 
I never meant to start a debate, I just wanted some advice on first person, honest. Lol but apparently I have rekindled an age old argument,  a clash of literary titans. Lol! 
Oops.
It's been an interesting read though.


----------



## afk4life (May 31, 2016)

Well I agree, I'm just not sure the original question can be answered by anyone other than the OP. I see a good bit of overthinking going on and the idea of one tense being better somehow never made sense to me. There's just as many ways to get around first person present as there are third person if it actually limits the story. The better question is how or if it limits the story. My only point was to (apparently badly) attempt to illustrate that. There's too much focus on tense or syntax when what it comes down to is, tell a story you want to tell. Just write it. I've written plenty of stories when I suddenly realized the tense I chose wasn't optimal for what *I* wanted the story to be. It all comes down to, tell your story first. Because in the end that's what we are all trying to do is tell a story and the story we create, and the way we do that matters, but the actual story matters more. There is not really a right and wrong. You can blow grammar to hell and back if you're good at that, you can switch tense if you can make it work, and that stuff is mostly technical. If there's a story you want to tell, tell it, I don't think there were grammar or tense checkers on hand for Chaucer.


----------



## TheWonderingNovice (May 31, 2016)

Maunakea said:


> Lmao I know right! I think I remember that.
> I never meant to start a debate, I just wanted some advice on first person, honest. Lol but apparently I have rekindled an age old argument,  a clash of literary titans. Lol!
> Oops?
> It's been an interesting read though.


If anything, you can write your story and post it here, get some feedback and then decide whether or not you like it in that tense. 

I apologize, it seems you got caught in the cross fire. I do hope you can come away with something useful.


----------



## dale (May 31, 2016)

ok. from now on? i say we give all our advice on the matter in 3rd person, though. it seems our advice written in 1st person just isn't cutting the mustard.


----------



## Maunakea (May 31, 2016)

TheWonderingNovice said:


> If anything, you can write your story and post it here, get some feedback and then decide whether or not you like it in that tense.
> 
> I apologize, it seems you got caught in the cross fire. I do hope you can come away with something useful.



Yea once I'm able to I'll post my first draft and see what people think. 

Oh, just a little bit, but I did come away with something useful, the first couple pages had some useful advice on the topic. And reading people's opinions on first and third have given me a lot to think about. I'm definitely going to stick with first for my first piece, see how that turns out and then maybe reevaluate. 
It's been interesting to see people's passion as they defend their preferred writing style, and I've learned a bit about each style as I read. Like I never really considered third person narrative voice, although it still seems like that could just be interpreted as the MCs voice or the authors from reader to reader. And I've been given some useful references in writing for each style that can teach me more. It's been good.


----------



## Patrick (May 31, 2016)

dale said:


> ok. from now on? i say we give all our advice on the matter in 3rd person, though. it seems our advice written in 1st person just isn't cutting the mustard.



Patrick is glad you came round.


----------



## Tettsuo (May 31, 2016)

I love writing in 1st present!  I love being forced to communicate the feelings of characters, other than the main, without the luxury to being able to read their minds, and doing so with solely their words and behaviors.  I love creating worlds where the main character doesn't have all of the answers and the all of the information is not provided to the readers.  I feel it creates the illusion of a world that larger than the main character where they must be both affected by and be an active participant in.

Both of my novels were written in 1st person present and I love them.


----------

