# Perspective



## EmmaSohan (Sep 30, 2017)

1. One one extreme, the reader can "watch" a scene, as if it was a movie. At the other extreme, the reader could imagine being inside the head of one of the characters.

(Are there other choices? What do you like as reader? What do you try to accomplish as writer.)

2. First person present invites the reader to be inside a character. Third person past invites the reader to watch the scene.

(Obviously true?)

3. The reader can accept or decline either invitation.

4. The author can do things that make it easier or harder to imagine being inside the head of the character.

(This is the interesting question -- what can the author do? I want to dump ideas on this, but I know a lot must have been written.)


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Sep 30, 2017)

> 1. One one extreme, the reader can "watch" a scene, as if it was a movie.


Often called Fly on the wall POV. Useful if you don't want the reader to have a strong emotional bond to the characters. The failing is that the reader doesn't have a strong emotional bond with the characters, because it's a predominantly visual approach, in a medium that doesn't support vision.





> First person present invites the reader to be inside a character. Third person past invites the reader to watch the scene.


I have to disagree, because no matter the personal pronouns you use, for your protagonist, as it is in life, it's first person, present tense.

Is there really a difference between:

"Sally reached into her purse to take Jack's picture out and press it to her lips before lying it on the table and walking away."

and

"I reached into my purse to take Jack's picture out and press it to my lips before lying it on the table and walking away."

The same person takes the same picture out of the same purse and puts it on the table. The person you use is, in most cases, an authorial choice. If you make the reader live the story by having a strong viewpoint, that reader identifies as the character, in the moment that character calls, "now" and experiences the story first person present tense, no matter the tense and person the storyteller uses. That's why I'm such a bug on having a strong viewpoint.





> The reader can accept or decline either invitation.


Seems to me that declining is accomplished by closing the cover. Your mileage may differ, of course.





> The author can do things that make it easier or harder to imagine being inside the head of the character.


If you substitute protagonist for character, why would we want to not be in their head? Given that we read fiction to be entertained, which is an emotional reaction, if we are not in their head, all we have is an external observer's report of what's happening in the scene. And since the narrator can't tell is how a given line is spoken, the narration is inherently dispassionate, rendering the prose a report—and explanation of what's happening in a scene.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Sep 30, 2017)

Jay Greenstein said:


> Is there really a difference between:
> 
> "Sally reached into her purse to take Jack's picture out and press it to her lips before lying it on the table and walking away."
> 
> ...



One difference is that the _I_ marks which character the reader is expected to take the perspective of. (I'm not saying that's a big difference.)

Using _I _might make it more difficult to break the rules?

Mary took the picture off the mantle and kissed it, still feeling her pain. Her mother watched from the other room and wondered what would happen to Mary.

But if I change _Mary _to _I_, it's jarring, at least to me.

I took the picture off the mantle and kissed it, still feeling my pain. My mother watched from the other room and wondered what would happen to me.

IMO, Connelly puts me inside the main character's head even though he writes in third person past.

(Jay and I have argued before about past versus present, with no agreement.)


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Sep 30, 2017)

> One difference is that the _I_ marks which character the reader is expected to take the perspective of.


Not true. You're talking about viewpoint. Person is irrelevant. Remember, only the narrator is using the first person, and the narrator is _not_ on the scene. Yes, the narrator is supposed to be the one who once lived the events, at some unknown time before, in a different place. But the narrator and that protagonist live at different times and places, and so cannot appear on stage together.

The goal is to place the reader into the scene, within that tiny slice of time the protagonist calls now. And whoever is acting as narrator is outside that, and can only talk _about it_. So their presence must be kept minimal, and in service of the one living the scene. So who cares if the one guiding us through the events is the character or an external observer? We cannot hear their voice. And as outside observers anything they tell us is an external viewpoint, and so inherently dispassionate. In other words, explaining the events.

But a strong viewpoint can make the reader feel as if they're _living the events in real-time._ The reader, not the narrator. And we live in first person present tense.

One of the most common errors I saw in manuscripts was the idea that "If I tell the story in first person it will make it seem real to the reader." So they presented the same manuscript they would were it in third person, with first person personal pronouns, and no viewpoint but the narrator's in both which changes nothing.

Look at the following example. The first is told in third person, the second in first. Does the reader really treat the protagonist differently between the two:

In this excerpt Sam is in trouble. A snap cold front has pulled in below zero temperatures and rendered her plan for living in the remote cabin useless. If she doesn't solve the problem she will die:



> Stupid to have thought that sleeping in the kitchen with the stove as a heater would substitute for the failed house heater. Its two small burners helped only a little—now not at all. There was too much house and too little flame to make much of a difference.
> _
> Stupid, Samantha, really stupid._
> 
> ...





> Stupid to have thought that sleeping in the kitchen with the stove as a  heater would substitute for the failed house heater. Its two small  burners helped only a little—now not at all. There was too much house  and too little flame to make much of a difference.
> _
> Stupid, Samantha, really stupid._
> 
> ...



Is there really any meaningful change brought on by changing the pronouns? No. What gets the reader involved is knowing her view of the situation from within the scene, not the pronouns the author used when talking about her. Her  introspection on sleeping in the kitchen is in her viewpoint (viewpoint, not point of view, a very different thing), in the moment, as are her thoughts. Her rejection of self-pity is personal, in reaction to deciding that she's made a mistake. In her "now" she decides it's cold enough to kill. Her trying to turn back tears is again, viewpoint, a reaction in the moment to what's going on around her. But _not a bit of that contained a personal pronoun._ Not a word of it came in the voice of the external observer/reporter we call the narrator. So who cares if the narrator is the author or the author wearing a wig and makeup as they pretend to be her? 

And here's the kicker. That excerpt comes from the first novel for which I was offered a contract, Samanta and the Bear. Without checking, can you tell which version is the one that got a yes?

For why viewpoint contributes so much, and why, you might read my article on it, titled, What in the hell is POV?.

Hope this clarifies.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Oct 1, 2017)

Something that's written in first person is very different than something written in third person. Swapping pronouns is not sufficient.

With first person the reader sees, hears, etc the events from the MC's perspective, thus getting more inside the head of the MC. It is the only time, in my opinion, that feelings can be revealed. And only the feelings of the MC. The MC, and therefore the reader, would not know about anything outside of his/her line of vision, hearing, etc. So "seeing" disapproval on the face of someone behind him/her is not possible. The MC might guess at the disapproval if he/she knew the disapproving person well.

Third person gives more flexibility. Events in another city, even, can be shown. But the feelings can only be displayed, not explicitly stated. So it's less personal. 

The author can make the MC not likeable, and hinder the reader's ability to empathize.

And the reader can decline any and all "invitations" by closing the book and walking away.


----------



## JustRob (Oct 1, 2017)

_I_ am the narrator and _you_ are the reader; that is indisputable. _They_ are characters with whom either of us may associate ourselves, but we cannot both choose the same character because you and I are never the same person. If I write in the first person then I have chosen my character and you must perceive events from some other perspective. If I write in the third person then you are free to associate yourself with any character. Regardless of whether I write in the first or third person I may share with you that character's innermost thoughts as though they were mine or yours but, while sharing those thoughts may bring us closer to that character, that doesn't mean that either of us identifies ourselves with them. 

There is a scale of relationship between a reader and a character which may extend on the positive side from sympathy through empathy to identity. However, I would say that identity is incompatible with a first person character and only empathy makes any sense there. My angel says that she only needs to care about the characters in a story to continue reading but has no need to identify herself with any, so she can happily read a story with only male characters quite unlike herself in it. Equally I have no problem reading a story with a female protagonist regardless of which person is used in the text to write it. Whether a reader chooses to assume the mantle of any character is a combination of their preferences and the precise way that that character is depicted. There is no simple button that a writer can push to make it happen, nor any way to guide the reader towards the writer's preference. A story writer is merely the scriptwriter for a play performed by a company of the reader's choosing in the theatre of their own mind. Writing in the first person is an exclusive guest appearance there though.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Oct 1, 2017)

Jay Greenstein said:


> why would we want to not be in their head?.



Why would the author not want the reader inside a character's head? It's OOC for me to defend that, but . . . I had a scene that simply didn't work first person present from inside any character's head. The way (the first half of) the scene worked best was with the reader watching.

For example, while I wanted the readers to know and understand why the male character was doing what he was doing, I wanted them to also see that he was pathetic and actually cowardly. (He was the only one in the scene at that moment.) Later, a wonderful moment in the scene is ruined by taking any perspective except watching.

So. I really want to talk about the techniques an author could use the put the reader inside a character's head. But I do NOT want to say that's always better.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Oct 1, 2017)

EmmaSohan said:


> Why would the author not want the reader inside a character's head? It's OOC for me to defend that, but . . . I had a scene that simply didn't work first person present from inside any character's head. The way (the first half of) the scene worked best was with the reader watching.
> 
> For example, while I wanted the readers to know and understand why the male character was doing what he was doing, I wanted them to also see that he was pathetic and actually cowardly. (He was the only one in the scene at that moment.) Later, a wonderful moment in the scene is ruined by taking any perspective except watching.
> 
> So. I really want to talk about the techniques an author could use the put the reader inside a character's head. But I do NOT want to say that's always better.



I really dislike it when an author switches from first to third. There are other ways to convey what you want to convey. It may take more effort, but the end result will be much, much better.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Oct 1, 2017)

JustRob said:


> _I_ am the narrator and _you_ are the reader; that is indisputable. _They_ are characters with whom either of us may associate ourselves, but we cannot both choose the same character because you and I are never the same person. If I write in the first person then I have chosen my character and you must perceive events from some other perspective. If I write in the third person then you are free to associate yourself with any character. Regardless of whether I write in the first or third person I may share with you that character's innermost thoughts as though they were mine or yours but, while sharing those thoughts may bring us closer to that character, that doesn't mean that either of us identifies ourselves with them.
> 
> There is a scale of relationship between a reader and a character which may extend on the positive side from sympathy through empathy to identity. However, I would say that identity is incompatible with a first person character and only empathy makes any sense there. My angel says that she only needs to care about the characters in a story to continue reading but has no need to identify herself with any, so she can happily read a story with only male characters quite unlike herself in it. Equally I have no problem reading a story with a female protagonist regardless of which person is used in the text to write it. Whether a reader chooses to assume the mantle of any character is a combination of their preferences and the precise way that that character is depicted. There is no simple button that a writer can push to make it happen, nor any way to guide the reader towards the writer's preference. A story writer is merely the scriptwriter for a play performed by a company of the reader's choosing in the theatre of their own mind. Writing in the first person is an exclusive guest appearance there though.



I think you are describing your experience but assuming it is everyone's? I want to know your experience as you read and write, so thank you.

 I am just now looking at _OCD Love Story_, where the MC is obsessive-compulsive. I think it's useful to just have empathy for this character, but it's even better if readers can temporarily become this character and experience what it is like to be obsessive-compulsive.

That assumes the author is "accurate", and lets me go inside the character. I think she succeeds, and I succeed, and it's a wonderful read for me.

And yes, I want to be inside a 102-year-old woman, a girl with a manic-depressive father, a DACA teenager, a boy who saw his best friend commit suicide,  the teen-ager with macular degeneration, the new immigrant to the US from a Muslim country, etc.

Fiction supposedly increases empathy. We haven't talked about how to actually accomplish that.


----------



## Non Serviam (Oct 1, 2017)

1. One one extreme, the reader can "watch" a scene, as if it was a movie. At the other extreme, the reader could imagine being inside the head of one of the characters.

I like to watch the scene.  Don't tell me how the character feels when his girlfriend finishes with him ---- show me his lip curling, his fists clenching, the veins standing out in his temples.  Then cut to thirty seconds later when he's trying to press her face against the bacon slicer: at that point you don't need to tell your reader how he's feeling.  Or how she is.  Readers are bright, you can trust them to know what the characters are feeling.

2. First person present invites the reader to be inside a character. Third person past invites the reader to watch the scene.

Disagree, for two reasons.  Although I don't entirely agree with what Jay Greenstein says above, I'm with him when he recommends that first person fiction is at its best when it treats the narrator as a character.  Unreliable narrators are brilliant ---- try Mark Haddon's _The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time_, or virtually anything by Gene Wolfe, for illustrative examples.  When the reader can see what the narrator can't, you've got them thinking about what they're reading, and that's the point when you've really engaged with them.

The other reason is that present tense fiction has its place, and that place is in scripts.  I think that what present tense prose fiction _thinks_ it's trying to achieve ---- a sense of immediacy, suspense, and whatnot ---- is actually a smokescreen for trying to achieve through prose an experience that more closely resembles television. It really doesn't work at all for me.  And I think the attempt is fundamentally misconceived because prose is _not_ television and going for that kind of immediacy is not playing to the strengths of storytelling.  

Personally, I can't enjoy present tense fiction at all: I find the use of the wrong narrative tense way, way too intrusive.  It's actively unpleasant for me.  I got like two pages into Hilary Mantel's _Wolf Hall_ and then hurled it across the room; I've avoided all present tense fiction like the plague ever since.  The natural tense for storytelling is the past. Please use it.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Oct 1, 2017)

Jack of all trades said:


> I really dislike it when an author switches from first to third. There are other ways to convey what you want to convey. It may take more effort, but the end result will be much, much better.



Well, that's kind of the whole issue. Is is possible that a scene works much better watched that from inside a character? I am telling you _yes_. Is it possible that a scene works better from inside a character? I think so.

So, to me, perspective is not a trivial issue.

So the only solution was to switch mid-scene. Switching from third to first worked well for marking the change in perspective clearly, not that readers care that much. Plus I inserted a blank line, which I usually use to mark changes in scene.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Oct 1, 2017)

Merged this in with the reply below.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Oct 1, 2017)

There seems to be an assumption that first person goes hand in hand with present tense. Why is that? I have never read a present tense novel. And I have read some written in first person. James Herriot, Christie's Captain Hastings and Poirot mysteries, just to name a couple. All past tense.




EmmaSohan said:


> Well, that's kind of the whole issue. Is is possible that a scene works much better watched that from inside a character? I am telling you _yes_. Is it possible that a scene works better from inside a character? I think so.
> 
> So, to me, perspective is not a trivial issue.
> 
> So the only solution was to switch mid-scene. Switching from third to first worked well for marking the change in perspective clearly, not that readers care that much. Plus I inserted a blank line, which I usually use to mark changes in scene.



I agree that perspective is not trivial.

You must decide which perspective you are going to use and stick with it. There are ways to deal with helping the reader identify or empathize with a character. Changing perspective is not necessary.

The character can mumble thoughts aloud, journal, talk to an animal, pray, talk to a dead relative, or talk with a friend. These are all options for allowing the reader to have access to a character's thoughts and feelings while staying in third person.

If there are enough moments when you want the reader to know what that character is thinking, then write the whole thing in first person, past tense, from that character's perspective. Or do as J. K. Rowling did, and keep it third person, past tense, but limit it to one character's perspective. Although Rowling did break that and open a few of the books with a chapter from someone else's perspective. Still, there really should not be any switching back and forth from first to third, or past to present.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Oct 2, 2017)

Jack of all trades said:


> Something that's written in first person is very different than something written in third person. Swapping pronouns is not sufficient.
> 
> With first person the reader sees, hears, etc the events from the MC's perspective, thus getting more inside the head of the MC.


Having a narrator, who is not on the scene tell the reader about what happened, and what the protagonist thought at that time is by no stretch of the imagination placing the reader into the character’s head. As an example, a male viewpoint is very different from a female, but changing  he or she to I does nothing to present a different viewpoint between male and female characters. And if it doesn’t handle that, how can it handle the difference between the way a detective views a scene and a thief? Those changes are part of viewpoint, not POV as defined by personal pronoun. And viewpoint, the presentation of it, is what we mean when we talk about telling or showing.

Take five different people and have them wander through a house, looking at whatever they want. Then, when they finish, have them write a report on what they think of the place and the people who must live in such a place.

There is not the slightest chance that a fire marshal and an interior designer will focus on the same things. Nor would a third world visitor notice and react to what you would. That’s viewpoint, and it’s influenced by the sum-total of everything that happened to that person before they entered that house. And story lies in the character’s perception of the scene and their necessities. Assume you write a series of short stories tracking these visitors to the house. What does which personal pronouns the one writing the story have to do with what the person in the house reacts to, and acts on?

The reader isn’t drawn into the story by having a disembodied narrator explain it, be the narrator the author or a later version of the protagonist recalling it. Any externally told story is a history, not a story, because a story isn’t told, explained, or reported. It’s lived moment-by-moment in real-time

What draws a reader in is viewpoint, knowing what has the protagonist’s attention in their moment of now, why it holds their attention, and what they feel must be done. Presenting that calibrates the reader’s perceptions and aligns them to those of the protagonist. It gives the reader an interest in knowing what will happen as a result of the protagonist’s decision to speak or act. And without interest the reader turns away.

We call them motivation/response units. And in our own lives, from the moment of waking till we sleep our lives are an unbroken chain of motivation/reaction units.

A mental alert says it’s lunchtime, so we decide if that fits in with our needs/plans. Perhaps we’re on a diet, or busy. Maybe we’re waiting for someone, or something. So we evaluate the importance of that hunger, and either act on it or defer it. And with that task complete our mind searches for something else that needs attention. Can our protagonist behave any differently and seem real to a reader?

Stories are lived, not told. And a narrator, because they are not on the scene can only report. Personal pronouns are independent of viewpoint. First person may have an advantage in fiction that tends to have lots of authorial intrusion and commentary, such as comedy, and hard-boiled detective genre. Other than that, it’s an authorial choice.

And that’s not my personal view. M/R units are something you learn about early in any fiction writing course. Do a search on motivation/response units in writing and you’ll find a Google page devoted to that aspect of writing.

Simply put: If first person made the character more real and exciting all books would be written in first person. But they’re not. In fact, most are in third.


----------



## qwertyman (Oct 2, 2017)

Jay Greenstein said:


> I have to disagree, because no matter the personal pronouns you use, for your protagonist, as it is in life, it's first person, present tense.
> 
> Is there really a difference between:
> 
> ...





In present tense, my response would be more intense to the first person example; assuming work had been done to establish empathy with Sally.



			
				 EmmaSohan said:
			
		

> Mary took the picture off the mantle and kissed it, still feeling her pain. Her mother watched from the other room and wondered what would happen to Mary.





			
				 EmmaSohan said:
			
		

> But if I change _Mary to I, it's jarring, at least to me.
> 
> I took the picture off the mantle and kissed it, still feeling my pain. My mother watched from the other room and wondered what would happen to me. _




The point not addressed in both these examples is the change of first to third person requires a sentence tailored to the choice. They are not like for like in style and narrative requirement.

For example, in Emma's first person illustration, the narrator cannot state what the Mother is thinking. However, "My mother watched from the other room.   _and wondered what would happen to me_" , IMO is more poignant in first person.


----------



## bdcharles (Oct 2, 2017)

EmmaSohan said:


> 1. One one extreme, the reader can "watch" a scene, as if it was a movie. At the other extreme, the reader could imagine being inside the head of one of the characters.
> 
> (Are there other choices? What do you like as reader? What do you try to accomplish as writer.)
> 
> ...



Check out Emma Darwin's blog on psychic distance. The other choices are everything in between the two ends of the spectrum you suggest. On the one hand, your reader "watching" the scene is typically third person omnipresent, where the story happens as if perceived by the propverbial "fly on the wall" as someone mentioned. I say "typically third person" because it would be quite challenging to do this in first, because it suggests a degree of omniscience that most people don't have (though if I recall, Alice Sebold does it in _The Lovely Bones_). 

In 3rd person limited, the perspective doesn't give us explicit insight into any characters' internal thoughts and perceptions; we infer what we infer via their words and actions. That seems to be a more old-fashioed style, to me. Then, on the other you have limited first-person or third person (or second, if you are Jay MacInerney), where the reader is the charater, privy to their thoughts and observations, but only those, and where everything is coloured by their voice and personality.

If a writer was to stick rigidly with one or the other, the reader might get fatigued by being relentlessly pinned to the side of a character's head (or stuck up on the wall, watching everything as if from a distance), so many books provide a smooth mixture of both, like a camera, panning high to set the scene before zooming closely in for a personal view. Maybe they will do a little light head hop, providing a one line experience of a character just to set them up (Hilary Mantel is known for this) and then leaving off. They might go deeper to give insights to a character's inner world, or they might go all the way and let readers be the person. It's about subtlety, and degrees of application, and smoothing over the rough edges so everything looks like it's meant to be that way.

I suppose most first-person would be limited viewpoint, though again, there must be exceptions. But third can be equally so. The reader is kept in place by the voice and the perspective, not by the pronouns used. That, in my, ahem, limited viewpoint, is what the author must manage, to keep readers in place, whatever that place may be, tight in or far away. I think an authour would not think of it as "imagining being inside the head of the character" so much as actually create the experience of being there. The imagining happens to the reader as a result of that creation.

Yes the reader can accept or reject the invitation, but if they reject it, then I think the writer has failed in some way. I don't think of it as an invitation. I write as if I want to convince, persuade, manipulate, demand, trick or cajole the reader into my world. I don't want anyone to get away. I don't want "no" to be an answer.  Of course some do - hell, lots probably do - but I approach writing as if that is not an option.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Oct 2, 2017)

First person is a legitimate way to write books. James Herriot could not get his first book published until he switched from third to first.

I am realizing that some folks have erroneous ideas about writing in first that make it problematic -- for those individuals.

I totally disagree with the entire notion that narration is equivalent to a narrator on stage. A stage performance and a book are very different. 

I also think that if a reader gets tired of being on the wall or in a head, that's a sign of a failure on the part of the writer, not a problem with the viewpoint. Changing the viewpoint will not fix a dragging or repetitious story. 


I have yet to read a story written in second person that I have enjoyed. I also do not know of any that have sold millions. Therefore I do not consider second person a viable perspective for the author who wants large sales.


----------



## JustRob (Oct 2, 2017)

My angel was recently beta reading a work written in the first person and she told the writer that her problem was that she had no idea what the first person character looked like, so in fact using the first person actually distanced her from the character and there was no possible way that she could relate to it. I say "it" because the character hadn't even identified what gender it was in the initial portion that she read. That is a fundamental problem with using the first person, that how others see the main character can never be directly told or even succinctly shown. All we get is the character's own perception of themself, if even that, and it may take a long time for any wider reality to become evident. That is fine if the story is actually about a character's misconceptions about themself, but hardly so otherwise. A story in which the narrator is only a narrating participant without being the centre of attention, such as the stories of James Herriott, is a very different matter. Those stories are observations about his life rather than him, so he isn't really a character in them at all except through the reflections of the events around him. 

Question: Is _Moby Dick_ a story about a man called Ishmael?

I was interested, Emma, that you saw my previous remarks as my own experiences rather than a statement about the subject in general. Of course we all write from our own experience even if that experience is gained by consulting others more qualified. The more interesting point is that by writing "_I_ am the narrator" in the first person I didn't persuade you to accept an invitation to see things from my point of view, not that I was actually using the device to achieve that. In fact, had I written about the narrator in the third person you may have seen what I wrote as carrying more authority from a wider perspective than my own experience. As I stated, the writer has little control over how a reader perceives what is written, although you may insist that this is merely my personal experience and a better writer than myself does.

Another thought occurs to me. If writing in the first person invites a reader to identify specifically with that one character, then does that device quickly alienate readers who feel unable to do that? I have always emphasised that one must keep one's target reader in mind, but actually to write a story about them seems remarkably narrow-minded. If a reader were to closely identify with a character, then what would be their reaction when the character behaved differently from the way that they would or felt they ever could in a situation? Would the reader feel that the writer had got something wrong or realise that their own decision had been wrong? Personally I hope that my characters always deviate from the reader's expectations in order to maintain interest in them. That's not my personal experience but my personal intentions though. Writing a character that always does exactly what the reader expects seems pointless to me so equally,_ as a reader_, I never identify closely with any character in a story in the hope that they will surprise me.

P.S.
Reading this post back, it occurred to me that the original _Alice in Wonderland_ story was written with a very specific reader in mind but not written in the first person. Does that mean that she _wasn't_ invited to see it in that way by Lewis Carroll even though he hand wrote just a single copy as a present for her?


----------



## Jack of all trades (Oct 2, 2017)

I disagree with the claim that James Herriot was only describing events around him. He was an active participant in those stories, and relayed his thoughts and feelings as well. Curious, the perceptions involving first person narratives. 

I think describing characters is overrated. Sometimes description is necessary. Other times, however, allowing the reader to imagine a character without specifications frees the reader to add as much diversity as he/she wants to the story. It is the personality traits of the characters that gives them, well, character.


----------



## SueC (Oct 2, 2017)

Jack, I agree with you about James Herriott. And I LOVE you comment about not describing characters physically, unless absolutely necessary. I avoid it as much as possible, for all the reasons you gave. I can't tell you how many books I have stopped reading, once they start in with flawless skin, cascading hair, impeccable physique, and so on. Does anyone ever fall in love with homely people? It took me weeks, to get through Larry McMurtry's _Lonesome Dove_ and by time I finished, I knew exactly who all those lovely cowboys were and what they looked like. And, in my head, the main character was definitely NOT Robert Duvall!  LOL. Anyway, it's hard for me to imagine someone reading a book with no physical descriptions to imagine, and not coming with something. If you can refer to that old time-worn adage about writing, _show, don't tell, _you could say a person combed their long blonde hair, or walked with a limp, or hated their freckles. I would prefer that to a description. Just sayin'


----------



## qwertyman (Oct 2, 2017)

A fundamental writer’s skill is to introduce backstory and character description in such a way the reader is unaware the information is being ‘dropped’. If the writer has information about a character it should be shared with the reader. 
***
The Belljar.
My memory is foggy but I think I am correct in saying, Sylvia Plath waits agood few pages into a very short novel, until her MC looks in a mirror. A clichéd,but often successful device.  Up until this point the reader knows the MC to be from a rural community in Massachusetts and has already joined the dots.  Plath then describes the reflection as a pale Asiatic female! Surprisingly, I read on.  What a boring book. 

If the person, to whom I lent my copy ten years ago, had returned it, I would have checked before posting.


----------



## Terry D (Oct 2, 2017)

Any perspective can be used to good effect. Using first person (regardless of tense) doesn't make psychic proximity a sure thing, nor does a more distant POV eliminate the possibility of getting close to your characters. Great (and popular) books have been written from just about every perspective imaginable, even the dread 2nd person (if you don't think so, look into _Bright Lights - Big City_, by Jay McInerney, _Absalom, Absalom!_, by William Faulkner, or Nathaniel Hawthorne's, The Haunted Mind. There are many more). I've never seen the sense in arguing one against the other. And, in any case, Emma's OP isn't about which is better, it's about what techniques do we use to make the most of our choice of POV and tense (correct me if I'm wrong Emma).

Unfortunately that's a question which is very difficult to answer in a forum post. The easy answer is to say, "Write it well and all will be good." But, what does 'write it well' mean? It certainly doesn't mean just substituting 'I' for 'he' if you want to flip from 1st person to third. I think we are all smart enough to agree on that. What it does mean -- at least in my mind -- is carefully evaluating what you hope to accomplish with your POV choice and making the best decisions possible with that choice in mind. These would be decisions regarding tense, narrative distance, character traits (is your POV character smart? A bit oblivious? Angry? Scared? Young? Old? Male? Female?), even choices as simple seeming as sentence structure and word choice. You know -- all the writerly stuff we do all the time.

For each of us there are many different ways to approach any given story. I know I've started a story using first person, only to switch it out for third and vice-versa. We just need to decide which way is best for the story we are currently writing and then focus our energies on making the best choices to support that direction. I don't give a rat's ass if you jump from first person to third in the same book (James Patterson does it all the time in his Alex Cross novels) as long as you don't yank me out of the story when you do it. If I'm remembering correctly someone mentioned that your reader can't experience a character's emotions in 3rd person -- that is not correct. It's easy to do in 3rd limited, or 3rd omniscient. Nor is it correct to assume that that you can't change from one POV to another in the same scene; that's what 3rd omniscient is all about. You just have to make sure you let your reader know who's head you are in.

There's been a lot of talk in this thread about who the narrator is. In point of fact, if you are reading a book and you are thinking about the narrator at all, the writer has screwed the pooch.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Oct 2, 2017)

JustRob said:


> P.S.
> Reading this post back, it occurred to me that the original _Alice in Wonderland_ story was written with a very specific reader in mind but not written in the first person. Does that mean that she _wasn't_ invited to see it in that way by Lewis Carroll even though he hand wrote just a single copy as a present for her?





> One hot summer day as Alice sat idly on the river bank by her sister, she got very tired of having nothing to do. Once or twice she peeked into the book her sister was reading....



For going inside a character's mind I don't know if I can list all the ways that goes wrong. In my opinion.

One hot summer say --> setting the scene, telling the story, typical, but who thinks _One hot summer day_?

sat --> instead of sitting? Sitting I can imagine.

she got tired --> same problem as "I drive to the airport", it takes too long to imagine. Maybe I'm I supposed to imagine finally being tired? Then it's just "She was tired".

having nothing to do --> people think _There's nothing to do._

Once or twice --> Is this possible to imagine? No. So there was no intention to have this imagined.




JustRob said:


> Another thought occurs to me. If writing in the first person invites a reader to identify specifically with that one character, then does that device quickly alienate readers who feel unable to do that?



I would guess so. But it's just an invite, the reader might try to take a watching position, or even the perspective of another character.


----------



## JustRob (Oct 3, 2017)

EmmaSohan said:


> For going inside a character's mind I don't know if I can list all the ways that goes wrong. In my opinion.
> 
> One hot summer say --> setting the scene, telling the story, typical, but who thinks _One hot summer day_?
> 
> ...



Perhaps you are applying a twenty-first century perspective to a nineteenth century story. Have you allowed for the temporal linguistic and stylistic shifts? Charles Dodgson was a remarkably adept polymath and his writing had many hidden facets, not the least of which being that he included personal references to Alice Liddell within the text, even an acrostic of her full name in one of his books apparently. In fact not just her but also her two sisters are effectively referred to by name in the original story. It was very much an invitation without any use of the first person. Dodgson was highly skilled in many academic disciplines and no doubt could have impressed you personally as well had you known him. 

To put things into perspective, as the thread title invites, the effectiveness of story writing is a combination of many things and the grammatical structure of the text is only a fraction of it. Readers' minds are highly adaptable and to claim that a story will fail solely because of the linguistic style in which it is written is to do them an injustice. Provided that the language is good enough to be transparent to the readers they will perceive the story behind it as they are meant to and any further optimisation of the text serves no more purpose than the choice of a font in which to print it. The ideal font may make it easier for some readers to read it, but no more than that. 

As I mentioned earlier, Dodgson used no font but wrote the original version of the story that he gave to Alice Liddell by hand and also drew all the illustrations in it himself. It wasn't a publication then but simply a communication between two people written in the third person. Beyond that he was commercially astute enough to know that its publication could work and subsequently adapted the story for a much wider readership, but the original invitation remained. Only a reader adopting a nineteenth century perspective with its literary, social, scientific and political contexts will see the complexity of that invitation clearly though. We only see it through the mist of time now if we don't make that effort.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Oct 3, 2017)

JustRob said:


> and also drew all the illustrations in it himself.



The picture will reveal all. In the book I was looking at, the opening picture was two girls. That's the movie fly-on-the-wall perspective. (Does the old man appear in any of the pictures in _The Old Man and the Sea_?)



JustRob said:


> Perhaps you are applying a twenty-first century perspective to a nineteenth century story.



Absolutely! I wasn't evaluating his book. I said he wasn't even _trying _to present it from inside her mind. I don't even know if they had that goal back then. And this is not just "grammatical" -- you cannot peek at something one or two times. It's either one or two.

One view of writing is that the goal is to present information, and as long as that information is presented, the author has done his job. I don't hear that view very often here nowadays. The more I pay attention to the little details of presenting information, the important I think the details matter.

I know I'm talking about small details here. Really, I got annoyed with an author for "I flew into the Cleveland airport from LaGuardia," partly because that reverses temporal order and partly because it lacks parallel form (naming one airport and not the other).


----------



## Non Serviam (Oct 4, 2017)

Jack of all trades said:


> I have yet to read a story written in second person that I have enjoyed. I also do not know of any that have sold millions. Therefore I do not consider second person a viable perspective for the author who wants large sales.



The Warlock of Firetop Mountain.  It sold so well that it had 59 direct sequels and sold 14 million copies.  In 23 languages.


----------



## qwertyman (Oct 5, 2017)

Non Serviam said:


> The Warlock of Firetop Mountain.  It sold so well that it had 59 direct sequels and sold 14 million copies.  In 23 languages.



It's a comic.


----------



## Kevin (Oct 5, 2017)

I have both experienced a first person narrative _as_ the character, and alternately, as only a witness-of what the character is up to. I can also say that I have at times imagined myself _as the character_ reading a third person perspective. I _see_ what they do, their reaction, or action, and empathize with their motivation even though it is _not explicitly stated._


----------



## Terry D (Oct 5, 2017)

> I have yet to read a story written in second person that I have enjoyed. I also do not know of any that have sold millions. Therefore I do not consider second person a viable perspective for the author who wants large sales.





Non Serviam said:


> The Warlock of Firetop Mountain.  It sold so well that it had 59 direct sequels and sold 14 million copies.  In 23 languages.





qwertyman said:


> It's a comic.



Sticking to novels then, we have _Bright Lights, Big City_ which has been popular -- and still in print -- since 1984; The Hugo and Nebula award winning _Broken Earth_ fantasy series; and _You_ a more recent thriller which will be a TV mini-series next year, as well as the works I mentioned in my previous post. As readers we may not like 2nd person, or first, or third omniscient, or whatever -- do you know there are writers experimenting with what is being called fourth person POV? -- but as writers can we really say any perspective is illegitimate? Each of us needs to make the choices we are comfortable with for our own writing and leave others to their own choices. Who among us is such an expert that we can invalidate another's writing because of a POV choice?


----------



## moderan (Oct 5, 2017)

Jack of all trades said:


> First person is a legitimate way to  write books. James Herriot could not get his first book published until  he switched from third to first.
> 
> I am realizing that some folks have erroneous ideas about writing in first that make it problematic -- for those individuals.
> 
> ...



Italics mine.

Gene  Wolfe. The Fifth Head of Cerberus. If it hasn't sold a million, it's  close. That is, if you don't like Bright Lights, Big City, which  certainly has sold millions, and is very successful artistically.  Charles Stross' Halting State is probably a million-seller, as well.  Italo Calvino has written one. NK Jemisin? Check (mentioned upthread)
Tom Robbins? Yeah, him  too. Haruki Murikami? MmmHmm. How about John Scalzi?

_Lawdy lawdy_. 



> Terry D sez...if you are reading a book and you are thinking about the narrator at all, the writer has screwed the pooch.



That's about the size of it. Find the tense that best supports or presents your story. Nobody has all the answers.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Oct 6, 2017)

Even the NY Times reviewer of Bright Lights, Big City agrees with me : 



> Although the reader quickly becomes irritated with Mr. McInerney's attempt to tell the entire story in second person -all the ''you's'' pile up into a jangled heap of grammatical contortions -this novella attests to the author's comic gifts, his ear for street-smart dialogue, his instinctive feel for the rhythms of New York City. Unfortunately, the book's heavily autobiographical flavor and its refusal to plumb the shiny surfaces of its characters' lives add up to a tale that's peculiarly slight. A clever, breezy -and in the end, facile -documentary, ''Bright Lights, Big City'' never quite lives up to its author's considerable talents.



But naturally everyone is free to make their own choices.


----------



## Terry D (Oct 6, 2017)

Jack of all trades said:


> Even the NY Times reviewer of Bright Lights, Big City agrees with me :
> 
> 
> 
> But naturally everyone is free to make their own choices.



Whether or not any one individual would like any given book wasn't the point. The point was if a second person POV is valid, and if there had ever been any with large sales; Bright Lights, Big City and all the others mentioned certainly prove that 2nd person is valid, and that books written from that POV have achieved significant sales numbers.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Oct 6, 2017)

Terry D said:


> And, in any case, Emma's OP isn't about which is better, it's about what techniques do we use to make the most of our choice of POV and tense (correct me if I'm wrong Emma).





> [FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]"SorryI'm a little late, babe," he said after kissing me on the cheek.[/FONT]



[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]Time-twisting.[/FONT]


[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]Yes,we talk about tense and person like they are important decisions --or not. But what about the perspective the reader takes? If I as reader amtrying to be inside the character's head, time-twisting is wrong. Buteven if I am just watching, I still don't want time-twisting. Right?

Is there some Reader Perspective that allows time twisting?[/FONT]


----------



## Sebald (Oct 6, 2017)

Yes; the first person narrator using past tense is telling the story from the future. Although they 'relive' it moment by moment to give immediacy and drama and all the other good things, they do know what happens. So, they can foreshadow at any point ('Later, I would realise what a terrible mistake I'd made').

I avoid it myself. But that's partly because my narrator is a reliable one.


----------



## qwertyman (Oct 7, 2017)

It seems to me  second person narration empowers the writer in a way I find overbearing, _You do this, you do that._  It wouldn't sustain my interest.
***
I prefer first person. My aim is for the reader to make the journey with my MC.  Sometimes I want to surprise the reader. Sometimes, I hope the reader will see approaching conflict or danger before the MC. In other words I like to empower the reader.




			
				sebald said:
			
		

> Yes; the first person narrator using past tense is telling the story from the future. Although they 'relive' it moment by moment to give immediacy and drama and all the other good things, they do know what happens.



It's possible to ask another character (x) what happened and for x to relate in past tense. The problem with writing in first person past is you know the MC survives to tell the tale (I assume all narrators are reliable.  Unreliable narrators use cheap tricks to further empower the author and manipulate the reader without using imagination)



			
				emma said:
			
		

> But what about the perspective the reader takes? If I as reader am trying to be inside the character's head, time-twisting is wrong. But even if I am just watching, I still don't want time-twisting. Right?



Right... Inventing new worlds/weapons/names with no vowels, is not difficult. Writing about the real world? Now, that's difficult.


----------



## moderan (Oct 7, 2017)

Terry D said:


> Whether or not any one individual would like any given book wasn't the point. The point was if a second person POV is valid, and if there had ever been any with large sales; Bright Lights, Big City and all the others mentioned certainly prove that 2nd person is valid, and that books written from that POV have achieved significant sales numbers.


Wait, what? No, the point was to move the goalposts in order to be right, right?

I just wonder sometimes, why I bother. It's difficult to convey information without spin. And first person can be so limiting.
You use whatever perspective you think makes the story pop. Stylistic tricks don't make the narrative. A memorable character, or character voice, does.
Joe Blow over here, in his infinite wisdom, advocates using first person omniscient. But he doesn't know very much, and that defeats the purpose, and also annoys those of us who know everything (  ) 
Therefore I advise him to peer into the looking-glass and use 20/20 hindsight, since that's the port from which he views the world.
You may differ with this assessment. That is your right.
But if you're gonna teach, it behooves one to maintain control of one's faculties. Ba-dum-tsss!

_These preachments in three perspectives and bad jokes are brought to you by local merchants. We now return you to your regularly-scheduled commercial._


----------



## JustRob (Oct 7, 2017)

Possibly prompted by this thread I conceived a short story which starts by referring to a character in the third person but, once the reader has been drawn in, switches to referring to the same character in the second person. It quickly changes again though as the reader, aware of what the writer is implying, implicitly retaliates and uses the first person to take control of the story and turn the tables on the writer. Having sorted out all the details to my satisfaction I didn't actually write it as I didn't want to write anything at the time. Unlike some of my stories this one didn't haunt me and I have completely forgotten what it was about now. No doubt my fictional target reader has it stuck in his head instead, which serves him right, the interfering *******. If he wants to write it himself he can just go ahead.

No, I evidently still don't think the writer has that much control over how a reader perceives and reacts to what is written.


----------



## Terry D (Oct 7, 2017)

*"Sorry I'm a little late, babe," he said after kissing me on the cheek.*

I guess I don't understand what you, mean by "time twisting", Emma. The quoted line could be from a story told in either present or past tense.

*Yes,we talk about tense and person like they are important decisions --or not. But what about the perspective the reader takes? If I as reader amtrying to be inside the character's head, time-twisting is wrong. Buteven if I am just watching, I still don't want time-twisting. Right?

Is there some Reader Perspective that allows time twisting?
*
Tense and POV are very important, but they are not difficult. The author chooses the best of each for the story she wants to tell and then does the best job she can with that choice. The reader takes the perspective given by the author, they don't get to choose. The reader can either enjoy the perspective the writer chooses, or they can dislike it, but they can't morph it into something that's not there. So, no, there's no "reader's perspective", and I don't think there's any such thing as 'time twisting' either.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Oct 7, 2017)

Terry D said:


> *"Sorry I'm a little late, babe," he said after kissing me on the cheek.*
> 
> I guess I don't understand what you, mean by "time twisting", Emma. The quoted line could be from a story told in either present or past tense.
> 
> ...



Oddly enough, you seem to be discussing what is called Narrative Perspective. Person. Tense. Am I missing something? It's interesting, but I thought you and I were trying to transcend that. You moved me off of that topic.

Time twisting is when the author presents two events in the wrong order. It's rare, but author's sometimes do it. As my quote showed. It can happen in any Narrative Perspective. It has to make it difficult to imagine the story as happening.

I was talking to someone who reads biographies as if he is inside the person. I don't. Do you deny that too? I have read third person past that draws me into the character and first person present that doesn't.


----------



## Sebald (Oct 7, 2017)

POV and tenses are definitely an opportunity to silently communicate to the reader extra information about the kind of story they're in, and the person who's telling it.


----------



## moderan (Oct 8, 2017)

JustRob said:


> Possibly prompted by this thread I conceived a short story...If he wants to write it himself he can just go ahead.
> 
> No, I evidently still don't think the writer has that much control over how a reader perceives and reacts to what is written.



Heh. Heh heh. I have one like that. Starts in third past, goes to second present for a dream sequence, finishes in first future. It is also simultaneously a Lovecraftian pastiche, a Christmas story, and a satire. It just came out like that in the first draft and I liked it enough to keep it that way.


----------



## Sebald (Oct 8, 2017)

As long as it suits the content, that's all that matters.

Has anyone mentioned Joshua Ferris' 'Then We Came to the End'? He uses first person plural. Tells the whole thing as 'we'. It works brilliantly, partly because he's a master stylist, and partly because he's describing a group of office colleagues, and commenting on things like the deadening  corporate mentality of the workplace (in this case, an advertising agency).

That's perspective and subject perfectly aligned.


----------



## Terry D (Oct 9, 2017)

EmmaSohan said:


> Oddly enough, you seem to be discussing what is called Narrative Perspective. Person. Tense. Am I missing something? It's interesting, but I thought you and I were trying to transcend that. You moved me off of that topic.
> 
> Time twisting is when the author presents two events in the wrong order. It's rare, but author's sometimes do it. As my quote showed. It can happen in any Narrative Perspective. It has to make it difficult to imagine the story as happening.
> 
> I was talking to someone who reads biographies as if he is inside the person. I don't. Do you deny that too? I have read third person past that draws me into the character and first person present that doesn't.




'Narrative Perspective' is simply another way of saying Point-of-View. I thought that was the topic of this thread. Sorry if I'm wrong. 

In the quote you posted, "... he said after kissing me on the cheek" is completely past tense. So the order of those two events -- the kiss and quote -- doesn't make one whit of difference. No reader with half a brain is going to get confused by that line. This is a common writing technique used to keep every sentence from being structured just the same and getting boring for the reader. It's not 'twisting time' and isn't going to keep a reader from identifying with the character.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Oct 15, 2017)

Terry D said:


> Readers can accept or reject the reality created by the author, but they have no part in creating it.



Wrong. I want the reader to see the story as occurring inside the reader's mind, and view the events from that perspective. I can write consistently with that; I can try to show the reader that's what I want. But, I can't force the reader to do that.

The reader could see my first person character as telling a story to the reader. Ugh, I don't want that. The reader could view the world from a watching perspective, with my main character as just one of the people in the story. Ouch. Really, the reader could view the world as fiction, the characters as imaginary, and that nothing really matters.

There's another issue. In _Revival_, King presumably wants me to live in the world and treat it as real, while I want to live in the world and treat it as real. So King and I are sympacito except about every 50 pages he reminds me that it is just a narrated story. It's annoying; it takes me pages to get back to how I want to be reading the book.


----------



## VonBradstein (Oct 30, 2017)

Sebald said:


> As long as it suits the content, that's all that matters.
> 
> Has anyone mentioned Joshua Ferris' 'Then We Came to the End'? He uses first person plural. Tells the whole thing as 'we'. It works brilliantly, partly because he's a master stylist, and partly because he's describing a group of office colleagues, and commenting on things like the deadening  corporate mentality of the workplace (in this case, an advertising agency).
> 
> That's perspective and subject perfectly aligned.



Wow, I recall studying that exact book while studying perspectives - which leads me to believe there must be very few examples of FPP in the published sphere!

From what I remember of it - not much - it is excellently done, but I think it's largely because the story itself is quite different and unusual. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't groupthink/corporate culture very much part of the motif in that case?

Also, and again correct me if I am wrong, its fair to say the book isn't STRICTLY all in FPP. The core narrative is but there are frequent segways into "so-and-so asked if they could..." particularly in the dialogue, which would be third person.

Not sure if it's something I would advocate to anybody to try to emulate, and certainly not anybody who has yet to master first-singular and third. Even second person is probably easier to master. But thanks for bringing it up for memory's sakes. And yeah, well worth checking out.


----------



## Kyle R (Oct 30, 2017)

EmmaSohan said:


> I want the reader to see the story as occurring inside the reader's mind, and view the events from that perspective.
> ...
> The reader could see my first person character as telling a story to the reader. Ugh, I don't want that. The reader could view the world from a watching perspective, with my main character as just one of the people in the story. Ouch.



Almost sounds like you want to write in Second Person.

Have you given that approach a try? :encouragement:


----------



## clark (Nov 14, 2017)

A poetic form that would, I think, adapt well re both perspective and POV in fiction is the Dramatic Monologue.  The form was used so extensively--many would argue, to virtual perfection--by Robert Browning (d. 1889, age 77), that it is seldom used in the modern era.  The form is unique in that the audience does not exist.  The speaker is talking to a clearly defined audience within-the-poem that _reacts _to what the speaker says, but we know of the reaction only because of the speaker's reaction to the reaction.  The audience within-the-poem, never speaks.  The relationship of the reader to both speaker and audience within-the-poem, does not exist.  BOTH of them do not know we exist.  We are behind a curtain, under a table, in a closet--whatever--eavesdropping; thus, we do not "hear" the poem. . .we _OVERhear _the poem.  We cannot trust "what"" the speaker says, because the speaker is at a juncture of extreme importance in his life and, usually, will say and do anything to sway his audience's response to one of agreement or sympathy to the reader's perspective.  These speakers lie, distort, exploit, and manipulate  events or supposed 'feelings' of others, to serve their own agenda.  As readers, we must be acutely alert to the self-serving perspective of every word in the poem.  Browning's _The Ring and the Book_ presents, in 12 Books, 12 different speakers arguing the efficacy of their POV on a well-documented 17th-century Italian murder.  If you read the whole thing, you'll be the_ third _person currently alive who's got thru the whole thing_. . ._and you'll probably strike the word "Truth" from your vocabulary.

I'm not that familiar with Form in contemporary fiction.  What do you fiction writers think--would the DM be of interest to you?


----------

