# Narrative style pros and cons



## shivanib (Jul 17, 2016)

More specifically for me, first person vs. third person. What do you like better?

I personally like the voice/character I can create via a first person narrative. But it's much harder to build a world that way. 

Thoughts? Tips you use as a writer of either style to overcome obstacles/drawbacks of either?


----------



## bdcharles (Jul 17, 2016)

Either is good. Depends what the voices command. 

I agree with your point about first person but I like the style of third person limited - you get the voiciness but not the relentless pinned-to-the-head immobility and incessant yammering of first. In both cases I spend time thinking about - really daydreaming about, almost being - the character, to really help me attempt to let their essence live and breathe in writing.


----------



## Patrick (Jul 17, 2016)

Disclaimer: what follows is my opinion.

Third person. There are no drawbacks with third person. First person has plenty of drawbacks, however. Third person even trumps first person's supposed main strength: character study. The distance creates intimacy, though some will (mistakenly) tell you otherwise.

When is it OK to write in first person? When you need a break from the difficult stuff. I am guilty of that. At a superficial level, something playful like my Liebestraum shorty story might seem more difficult, but the novel I am writing is many times more challenging. I am sorry if I view first person as a play thing. That's just my limited experience.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 18, 2016)

I love both first and third. They each have their own flavors and nuances.

First person, combined with a truly unique and riveting voice, is a powerful thing to behold. Third person, though, has a sort of narrative versatility that's hard to beat.

I tend to oscillate in my preference. Some days I'm all about first. On other days, third person is my groove.

Either way, I believe a good writer can write the hell out of any POV or tense. :encouragement:


----------



## Sam (Jul 18, 2016)

I prefer third past because it is the industry standard and the most-used point of view in every genre save one or two. 

That's not to say there's anything inherently bad or amateur about first. But if you're looking to maximise chances of publication and/or readership, first past (or present) is the Marmite of POVs, insofar as people either love it or hate it. Because readers are so used to reading third (if you read classics, very few of them are in first) it's almost as invisible as the word 'said'. It's familiar. It's comfortable. And it gives the writer the most freedom to craft the tale.


----------



## TWErvin2 (Jul 18, 2016)

For me, the choice between 1st and 3rd person POV is based upon the story I want to tell, and how it can best be relayed to the reader.

First person is more difficult in a wider ranging story, I think, where multiple outside elements influence the storyline in 'unexpected' ways. This can be worked through with a single first person character POV, and it can add mystery or a sense of discovery, as the reader learns and experiences along with that individual. However, working such into the plot can be tricky, and complicate the storytelling process.

Third person offers more 'options' (both limited and Omniscient). There are more perspectives available to the reader, and more distance possible from the POV characters, which allows more 'outside' input provided to the reader during the storytelling.

So far all of my novels have been first person POV. My short stories have been split between third person limited and first person POV. I've never attempted omniscient. That one would be a challenge for me...especially the balance of what not to 'share' with the reader, and not feel like I'm keeping something back or 'cheating', if that makes sense.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 18, 2016)

My novels have been written from the third person limited point-of-view (*not* style; style is determined by many factors, of which POV is only one), but my short work is often written from first person. I like a multitude of characters, and I like to 'head-hop' among them. In the tighter confines of a short story I'm comfortable with staying within one character and using first person for intimacy. Those are just my preferences, though, and there's no reason not to believe that my choices will change in the future -- depending on the material.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 18, 2016)

Patrick said:


> When is it OK to write in first person? When you need a break from the difficult stuff. ... I am sorry if I view first person as a play thing. That's just my limited experience.


I think it's a common belief, actually! A lot of writers (and readers) seem convinced that first person is easier, because one can simply write with their own speaking voice—the same one they use every day.

But, to me, that's just entry-level first-person writing, where the author is still using their _own_ voice, instead of adopting the character's.

Truly immersive first-person fiction happens (in my opinion) when a writer does the opposite: when they put aside their own voice and build a new one. When they breathe life into a perspective that's fresh and original, and (in most cases) entirely unlike their own.

I'd even go as far as saying: if my first-person character sounds like me, I'm probably doing it wrong. :encouragement:


----------



## Patrick (Jul 18, 2016)

Kyle R said:


> I think it's a common belief, actually! A lot of writers (and readers) seem convinced that first person is easier, because one can simply write with their own speaking voice—the same one they use every day.
> 
> But, to me, that's just entry-level first-person writing, where the author is still using their _own_ voice, instead of adopting the character's.
> 
> ...



Perhaps for some that is true. I can write autobiographical and non-autobiographical characters in first problem (lol), and it doesn't present any more of a challenge than writing those characters in third person, although it does limit the author. Third person is written with free indirect style these days, so it loses none of the voice you can achieve with first person. Third person allows you to soar and to glide back down to the character's inner thoughts.

There are some kinds of fiction that seem to lend themselves to first person. The Martian is an interesting example. It's almost as if a novel with a protagonist in splendid and dreadful isolation may as well be written in first person. The idea of isolation among others is what prompted me to write a number of short stories in first person, but here the the first person is not a limitation, because of how short the wavelength is. The epistolary novel seems to embody the same principle of a short wavelength for first-person narration as most desirable, only it is of course a series of entries, each a short wavelength. 

Perhaps I view it as a play thing because of all the complexity it removes from the sort of narrative one can achieve with third person.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 18, 2016)

There is a type of third person narration where the narration is only the character's thoughts, and we see and hear only what the character sees and hears. So we live the story inside the character's mind.

And that's really just first person present, except the reader has to understand the conventions and do the translation. And to get that, the author has to give up everything the first-person present narration gives up: head-hopping, omniscience, author's personal commentary, etc.

So, given that style, it's hard to be critical of third person. But Emma found that she usually doesn't enjoy it, and that's reliable enough that she will sometimes set down a book without further reading if it's in third person.

If you are looking for writing advice, Emma thinks it depends on what world you are creating. If the story is mostly inside a character's mind, try first person. If it's just events, try third person.


----------



## ppsage (Jul 18, 2016)

In the first place, it's confusing and limiting to confound POV with style. Two distinct elements of fiction. -------------- If you have difficulty envisioning telling a broader story in first, give classic detective fiction a glance, where it's pretty much de rigeuer. ----------------- Short drafts in first person are a great way to mine for distinctive and telling dialogue in what will become a third person narration.


----------



## Jigawatt (Jul 19, 2016)

I enjoy writing from both, first person and third person point of view. Occasionally, I write second person. I would not attempt a novel doing second person, but it has its usefulness. The key to selecting point of view is determining how you want the story to be presented, and the type of experience you have in mind for the reader (second person sentence right there). 

Examples of first person are my true-life adventures, fictionalized stories where I'm either an investigator or detective relating a case, or I'm one of the characters telling the story. The advantage of first person is using as a guise my inability to see beyond my current field of vision. I can interject my thoughts for effect. For instance, "There's a knock on the door. I peer through the peep hole. Standing in the hallway is a lady in tears holding a gun. This can't be good." And just like that, I've created a mystery, and I'm the main character.

If I want the reader to experience the story as it unfolds, then third person is my choice. As third person, I can streamline the narrative and keep the action moving. Instead of interjecting thoughts or explanations, I just let the action tell the story (show versus tell). 

I can't live as a writer without either one, first or third person point of view. I can live without second person point of view... if it becomes necessary... such as avoiding being boiled alive.


----------



## cinderblock (Jul 20, 2016)

Generally first person. I like the intimacy and access to the character's thoughts. This is the unique strength of the medium.

Third person can be good, if written by someone who knows what they're doing (ex: John Williams), but far too often, third person feels superficial... like you're reading a movie.


----------



## Sam (Jul 20, 2016)

cinderblock said:


> Generally first person. I like the intimacy and access to the character's thoughts. This is the unique strength of the medium.



Unique? 

You can do that in third as easily as you can in first. 

First doesn't have a monopoly on character thought or intimacy.


----------



## Patrick (Jul 20, 2016)

If you think third person is superficial, you haven't read widely enough. you could read the modernists to see what literary techniques they employed, or you could just read contemporary literary fiction. Edward St Aubyn's Patrick Melrose novels should be sufficient. Third person not only can be good, it is the superior point of view. I know when I say this that people always want to point to examples of first-person stuff that's good, and it just completely misses the point. Third person can do everything, while first person is very niche and so by definition more limited. Yes it has a place, but a relatively small and specific one.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 20, 2016)

Handled with skill, any POV can be effective. Third is the historic default tense, but, currently -- and for quite some time -- first is enjoying a blossoming of popularity. Pick up a copy of a contemporary literary magazine like Glimmer Train and you will find that many, if not most of the stories are written in first person. Does that make that tense better? Not at all. Is third 'better'? No. Neither tense is "easier", or more robust, except for the author using them. It's like arguing about which color is better. Neither is better -- only more appropriate for the way the author wants to approach their story.

Vehement adherence and defense of one particular POV says more, I believe, about our limitations as writers than it does about the limitations of the tense being denigrated. Just my opinion.


----------



## Patrick (Jul 20, 2016)

Terry D said:


> Handled with skill, any POV can be effective. Third is the historic default tense, but, currently -- and for quite some time -- first is enjoying a blossoming of popularity. Pick up a copy of a contemporary literary magazine like Glimmer Train and you will find that many, if not most of the stories are written in first person. Does that make that tense better? Not at all. Is third 'better'? No. Neither tense is "easier", or more robust, except for the author using them. It's like arguing about which color is better. Neither is better -- only more appropriate for the way the author wants to approach their story.
> 
> Vehement adherence and defense of one particular POV says more, I believe, about our limitations as writers than it does about the limitations of the tense being denigrated. Just my opinion.



When the wavelength is short, as it is in a short story, I think POV becomes a moot point, but I don't think it can be argued successfully that first person is as robust or flexible as third person.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 20, 2016)

To me, the ultimate goal is reader enjoyment—and that, in my opinion, can be achieved masterfully with either form. :encouragement:


----------



## Patrick (Jul 20, 2016)

Kyle R said:


> To me, the ultimate goal is reader enjoyment—and that, in my opinion, can be achieved masterfully with either form. :encouragement:



Yes, it can.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 20, 2016)

Patrick said:


> When the wavelength is short, as it is in a short story, I think POV becomes a moot point, but I don't think it can be argued successfully that first person is as robust or flexible as third person.



My point is: I don't think it needs to be argued at all. There are classic works of literature written from both POVs. The POV we choose only has to be robust and flexible enough to say what we want to say.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 20, 2016)

Patrick said:


> ... Third person can do everything...



Patrick, are you trying to say that it can do everything that first person can do AND as elegantly? Or that it can do everything first person can do but there might be inelegance or ambiguity?

To give a simple example, my book now starts "I _need _to know who that guy is." Obviously, that could be written in third person has "She thinks_, I need to know how that guy is_." That's less elegant, right? I would never start a book that way. And, to look ahead, we can't have a book being half italics.

Or you are envisioning something else?


----------



## Patrick (Jul 20, 2016)

Terry D said:


> My point is: I don't think it needs to be argued at all. There are classic works of literature written from both POVs. The POV we choose only has to be robust and flexible enough to say what we want to say.



I agree with you, and first person has a place. If it didn't, great authors wouldn't use it.



EmmaSohan said:


> Patrick, are you trying to say that it can do everything that first person can do AND as elegantly? Or that it can do everything first person can do but there might be inelegance or ambiguity?
> 
> To give a simple example, my book now starts "I _need _to know who that guy is." Obviously, that could be written in third person has "She thinks_, I need to know how that guy is_." That's less elegant, right? I would never start a book that way. And, to look ahead, we can't have a book being half italics.
> 
> Or you are envisioning something else?



I wouldn't start that way in third person. Who is she? May as well give a name. And who is the guy she's looking at? What's he doing? Where are we? She could be watching him play football, read a book, get his lunch, etc. I don't like to leave the setting suspended for too long. If you're arguing that third person can't create an elegant stream of consciousness, then that isn't true.

You don't need to use tags in third person, either. Emily needed to know who the guy... blah blah blah.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 20, 2016)

EmmaSohan said:


> Patrick, are you trying to say that it can do everything that first person can do AND as elegantly? Or that it can do everything first person can do but there might be inelegance or ambiguity?
> 
> To give a simple example, my book now starts "I _need _to know who that guy is." Obviously, that could be written in third person has "She thinks_, I need to know how that guy is_." That's less elegant, right? I would never start a book that way. And, to look ahead, we can't have a book being half italics.
> 
> Or you are envisioning something else?



Yes, third can be just as elegant as first -- if the writer takes the time to choose the right words instead of choosing those which are inelegant by design as you did in your example.

In fact, it can be just as elegant even if we step into past tense:

_I need to know who that guy is._ April continued to watch as he moved across the lawn as gracefully as a tiger. "I _need_ to know."

You don't need the clunky; 'She thinks,'. That's just bad writing. Which is the whole point here: write it well and it really doesn't matter.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 20, 2016)

To me, if you say third person can do anything, you can't then say that I have to completely rewrite a start so it fits third person better.

Some authors in fact write things like "she thought". I agree it's clunky, but so is using a lot of italics.

[FONT=Cambria, serif]_But we'd be better off_[/FONT][FONT=Cambria, serif] with [/FONT][FONT=Cambria, serif]_his paintings_[/FONT][FONT=Cambria, serif], Jay thought. [/FONT][FONT=Cambria, serif]_There's so much the ranch needs_[/FONT][FONT=Cambria, serif]. ( (Perfect Touch, Lowell, page 10)[/FONT]

Patrick suggested: "Emily needed to know who the guy was." Is that a statement about reality (the narrator is saying she needs to know) or how Emily expresses her feelings? I meant my start to be a about her feelings, not that it was some life-and-death issue.

And that issue (reality versus perception) is incessant. I wrote: "I'm very obviously the only female at this crowded, testosterone-loaded table." If you write that as "Jade is very obviously . . . " isn't that going to sound like the narrator's description of reality? Note that I was not describing the setting -- the reader already knew she was the only female at a table of football players. I was trying to describe what she was perceiving and feeling.





[FONT=Cambria, serif][FONT=Cambria, serif]
[/FONT][/FONT]


----------



## Patrick (Jul 20, 2016)

EmmaSohan said:


> To me, if you say third person can do anything, you can't then say that I have to completely rewrite a start so it fits third person better.
> 
> Some authors in fact write things like "she thought". I agree it's clunky, but so is using a lot of italics.
> 
> ...



There are much better ways to convey her need to know who the guy is; I don't want to take the time writing such an example, however. With free indirect style you can convey all that perception and emotion, Emma. You can just write that Jade is the only female at the crowded, testosterone-loaded table. How is anything lost? 

You're stuck in an outdated mindset that the narrator's voice and protagonist's voice must always be separate and distinct. Free indirect style has been around for a long time.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 20, 2016)

EmmaSohan said:


> To me, if you say third person can do anything, you can't then say that I have to completely rewrite a start so it fits third person better.



I'm not telling you you have to do anything. Write it the way you want, but stop trying to tell me your way is better than how another skilled writer would do it in third person. It may be better for you, but that's all. It's not intrinsically better.



> Some authors in fact write things like "she thought". I agree it's clunky, but so is using a lot of italics.



I never said using 'she thought' is clunky. I said the way you used it was deliberately bad (but clunky works for me too). I personally dislike starting the sentence with the attribution, and I believe the fewer attributions the better. Also, italics are no more clunky than are properly used commas, quotation marks, or any sort of punctuation. I consider clunky something which impedes the flow of the sentence, italics have no effect on flow.



> And that issue (reality versus perception) is incessant. I wrote: "I'm very obviously the only female at this crowded, testosterone-loaded table." If you write that as "Jade is very obviously . . . " isn't that going to sound like the narrator's description of reality? Note that I was not describing the setting -- the reader already knew she was the only female at a table of football players. I was trying to describe what she was perceiving and feeling.



Sure that sounds like a narrator's description, but, again, you are deliberately writing something that reads ugly (too much telling, not enough showing). The same level of feeling can be generated in a well written third person passage. But first is okay, if that's how you roll.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 20, 2016)

Terry D said:


> I'm not telling you you have to do anything. Write it the way you want, but stop trying to tell me your way is better than how another skilled writer would do it in third person. It may be better for you, but that's all. It's not intrinsically better.



I am not sure what you are saying here. I have tried to tell you something?

To me, third person handles some things better than first person, AND VICE VERSA. I thought that was a standard position.

Patrick wrote, "Third person can do everything", which is true if he means "though perhaps not as elegantly". If he means it can do everything just as elegantly as first person -- which he seems to be arguing -- I actually do want to disagree. You have been arguing on his side. Did you realize that?

Really, to write well in third person (or whatever you choose to write in), you have to be aware of the problems and how to solve them; saying there are no problems seems like a poor choice to me. Same for giving advice.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 20, 2016)

Patrick said:


> There are much better ways to convey her need to know who the guy is



Better than "I _need _to know who that guy is"?



> I don't want to take the time writing such an example, however.



I think my point is that it would be more difficult to write this in third person and say exactly the same ideas just as elegantly. You are not helping your cause to describe that task as difficult. Give yourself an 8-word limit and go for it.



> With free indirect style you can convey all that perception and emotion, Emma. You can just write that Jade is the only female at the crowded, testosterone-loaded table. How is anything lost?



Sigh. The point is NOT that she's the only female at the table. The point is that she is FEELING that. How do you convey that that's NOT just a narrator description when the previous sentence might contain a narrator description?

Cadence gave an example of free indirect style, and I pointed out that it was ambiguous whether it was the person's opinion or the narrator's opinion. It made a big difference. Cadence I think said it was both, embracing the ambiguity. ("not only is the general perception that these tears are stupid, but it immediately feels like the character feels their tears are stupid too.")

The same: "Annie dumped a whole lot of Christmas shopping on the table and looked in the mirror. Her hair would never look good again..." Is the narrator saying that her hair would never look good again? It could continue, "But she was too vain to ever admit that." Or is that what Annie is thinking? Totally different meanings.


----------



## Patrick (Jul 20, 2016)

EmmaSohan said:


> Better than "I _need _to know who that guy is"?
> 
> I think my point is that it would be more difficult to write this in third person and say exactly the same ideas just as elegantly. You are not helping your cause to describe that task as difficult. Give yourself an 8-word limit and go for it.
> 
> ...



Emma, the problem here is that you set the game up by giving us these examples and by giving us a word limit to reverse engineer your first-person writing into third person. I have not once in my life approached my writing that way. 

Your first-person example demonstrates no more of her feeling than my third-person one; in both instances, the clue to the way she feels about the situation is the description "testosterone-loaded table".

What's inelegant about it and more ambiguous than the first-person example? The dual voice of author and protagonist is in fact very elegant, and is standard practice for novelists.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 20, 2016)

First person can do one thing that third person generally can't: in first, the POV character can speak directly to the reader, as if the character is aware of an audience.

Most (or pretty much all) of the third person I've read doesn't do that; even in deep third (or "free indirect"), the POV characters seem completely unaware of the reader's presence.

For me, this gives first person a distinct feel that third person doesn't have—the impression that the character is interacting directly with me, the reader.

A lot of readers like that; that added sense of connection between them and the character.

Third can sure do a lot. In terms of versatility and narrative options, I definitely agree that third is the king. (I'm even writing my debut novel in third). But still, third can't do _everything_. When it comes to that reader/character bond, at least, for me: first person is the clear winner.

And round and round the carousel goes . . . :encouragement:


----------



## Terry D (Jul 20, 2016)

EmmaSohan said:


> I am not sure what you are saying here. I have tried to tell you something?



Well, there is this...



EmmaSohan said:


> To me, if you say third person can do anything, *you can't then say that I have to completely rewrite a start so it fits third person better.*






> To me, third person handles some things better than first person, AND VICE VERSA. I thought that was a standard position.



Change that to, "For me, third person..." And I'm right there with you. Just don't try to tell me I can't do the same thing in third as you can in first. First works for you. Sometimes it works for me, but even then, it's a choice I make -- I can do the same things in third as I do in first, if I choose to. I never feel limited by a particular POV. I don't see why that is hard to understand. I don't give a damn as a reader, and I'll use whichever is best for my story as a writer. Hell, I can take a story I've written in first person and rewrite it into third and be just as happy... and vice versa.


----------



## LeeC (Jul 20, 2016)

Seems to me Terry has in essence exemplified what I see as great writing. It's the developed skill of the writer to bring out the story in an engrossing way, regardless of our pigeonholed dogma. Not that I'm all that accomplished, but having the freedom of a collection of connected sketches, I included both first and third for a little variety. Can't tell you the "advice" I've received, good and bad, about the approach I took. Different strokes ..., Can't please all the people ..., and all that. Develop your skills broadly, and apply them as you see fit.


----------



## Tettsuo (Jul 21, 2016)

Terry D said:


> Well, there is this...
> 
> Change that to, "For me, third person..." And I'm right there with you. Just don't try to tell me I can't do the same thing in third as you can in first. First works for you. Sometimes it works for me, but even then, it's a choice I make -- I can do the same things in third as I do in first, if I choose to. I never feel limited by a particular POV. I don't see why that is hard to understand. I don't give a damn as a reader, and I'll use whichever is best for my story as a writer. Hell, I can take a story I've written in first person and rewrite it into third and be just as happy... and vice versa.


You can't do the same thing in 3rd that you can do in 1st (and visa versa).  You can do something similar or have a similar impact, but you cannot do the same thing.

Just a minor point of clarification.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 21, 2016)

Tettsuo said:


> You can't do the same thing in 3rd that you can do in 1st (and visa versa).  You can do something similar or have a similar impact, but you cannot do the same thing.
> 
> Just a minor point of clarification.



The same effect can be created.


----------



## Tettsuo (Jul 21, 2016)

Terry D said:


> The same effect can be created.


My only disagreement is with the word "same".  You'll never create the same effect, only something similar.

A more important point is why would anyone want to create the same effect between those perspectives?  If you're trying to make 1st and 3rd feel the same, you're not using either viewpoints anywhere near as well as you could.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 21, 2016)

So, two opinions that anything written in first person can -- with no problems -- be rewritten in third person without changing meaning. (evidence in the mail?) I still don't think that's conventional opinion. I don't think that's good advice. But you knew that.

The number of problems changing from first to third is so large I don't know which one to discuss next. Consider

He points a gun at me
He points a gun at her

The transition to third person is simple. But, to me, the first invites thinking of someone pointing a gun at me. The second invites me picturing one person pointing a gun at someone else. You can make the third person be like the first, with work and I think by accepting many of the limitations of first person. But I am not sure it ever gets the same as what first person naturally has. bdcharles mentioned "the relentless pinned-to-the-head immobility and incessant yammering of first." Pejoratives aside, what if I want my reader inside my main characters head? Then relentlessnss is good, right?


----------



## Patrick (Jul 21, 2016)

We understand you champion first person, Emma. We also understand first and third person are, after all, two different points of view. You needn't post more examples which demonstrate the difference.

Third person never has the limitations first person has. Please stop asserting that it does. Whatever effect third person has, it doesn't suffer the same limitations as first person, because of the nature of third person. It's like trying to argue that a cheetah could never sprint like a cheetah if it could also move like a tortoise. The fact third person can get a reader inside the head of a character doesn't necessarily preclude the omniscient experience of third person... ever.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 22, 2016)

For an author, I agree that third is way more versatile. With third, you can head-hop, present the reader with things outside of the awareness of the characters . . . all sorts of things. Narratively speaking, third person is like a trusty all-in-one tool for the writer.

But, as mentioned earlier, what third person can't do is create the one effect that makes first person so distinct: that of a POV character who seems to be aware of the reader, and is speaking directly to them.

In third person, you can look over the character's shoulder. You can even move into their skin and experience their thoughts, as Nora Roberts does here, in _The Black Hills_:

Cooper Sullivan's life, as he'd known it, was over. Judge and jury—in the form of his parents—had not been swayed by pleas, reason, temper, threats, but instead had sentenced him and shipped him off, away from everything he knew and cared about, to a world without video parlors or Big Macs.

The only thing that kept him from _completely_ dying of boredom, or just going wacko, was his prized Game Boy. As far as he could see, it would be him and Tetris for the duration of his prison term—two horrible, stupid months—in the Wild freaking West.​
We get a strong sense of character and voice, seamlessly moving into young Cooper's mind. But even then, Cooper never seems to be _aware_ of you, to acknowledge you, to look right at you and speak to you, the reader.

Contrast that with a first person narrator (like R here, from Isaac Marion's _Warm Bodies_) who seems to address you, the reader, directly from page one:

I am dead, but it's not so bad. I've learned to live with it. I'm sorry I can't properly introduce myself, but I don't have a name any more. Hardly any of us do. We lose them like car keys, forget them like anniversaries. Mine might have started with an 'R', but that's all I have now. It's funny because back when I was alive, I was always forgetting other people's names. My friend 'M' says the irony of being a zombie is that everything is funny, but you can't smile, because your lips have rotted off.​
To me, this is first person's real appeal—the way the character seems to interact with the reader. It's why readers tend to use words like "connected", "personal", and "intimate" when describing first person.

Does first person have limitations? Absolutely! Compared to third person, first has considerably less narrative options for the writer. In pure first, you're essentially shackled into the character's lone perspective. But, while it lacks third's enviable flexibility, first also has its own trump card: the distinct way in which the POV character seems to look out at the reader and break the fourth wall.

Mostly, I find the choice between using first or third is simply a matter of deciding how I want the narrative to feel.

Do I want that seamless _in the character's skin_ feel? Or possibly that all-powerful touch of being able to move throughout the story (and in and out of other character's heads) at will? Then third person is definitely the way to go.

Do I want that personal connection between reader and character, where it feels like a story is being told to the reader, by the very person living it? Then first person's the path to take. :encouragement:


----------



## Patrick (Jul 22, 2016)

Dodgy ground. You have a narrator in both first and third person, so there is the understanding the narrator is addressing the "audience". What wall is there to break? Directly addressing the reader is not something I am fond of, and indeed I never do it even in my first-person stories, but it is possible to do it in both first and third person. "You, dear reader, might be wondering what it was like to be dead. Well, Eddy could tell you... if his lips hadn't rotted off and his larynx rigormortised into a tight little knot in his sunken throat, which only seemed capable of squeezing up timber groans for 'braaaaaaains.'" You can even have a character directly address the reader.

A bit too meta for a classical narrative, and rather shatters the suspension of disbelief by reminding the reader that this is in fact just a story they're being told. But surely nobody would write in first person for access to something that will comprise less than 1% of the narrative and when the same thing is available, though perhaps less common, in third person?


----------



## Terry D (Jul 22, 2016)

Tettsuo said:


> My only disagreement is with the word "same".  You'll never create the same effect, only something similar.
> 
> A more important point is why would anyone want to create the same effect between those perspectives?  If you're trying to make 1st and 3rd feel the same, you're not using either viewpoints anywhere near as well as you could.



I see what you mean. It's actually just a matter of semantics. If I want to create a sense of suspense, or of fear, or humor, I can do it in either POV. The effect -- fear, suspense, humor -- will be the same, I will just get there in a different way. Sure, they will read differently, but the overall effect will be the same. IMO.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 22, 2016)

Patrick said:
			
		

> You have a narrator in both first and third person, so there is the understanding the narrator is addressing the "audience". What wall is there to break? Directly addressing the reader is not something I am fond of, and indeed I never do it even in my first-person stories, but it is possible to do it in both first and third person.



True, a third person narrator can address the reader—but how often have you seen a third person _character_ acknowledge the reader? Like you say, it'd likely feel a bit too meta to not be distracting. In first person, though, I find that kind of reader-awareness lends itself naturally to the protagonist.

Salinger's Caulfield opens _Catcher in the Rye_ by grudgingly telling the reader (referred to as "you"):
If you really want to hear about it, the first thing you'll probably want to know is where I was born, and what my lousy childhood was like, and how my parents were occupied and all before they had me, and all that David Copperfield kind of crap, but I don't feel like going into it, if you want to know the truth.​
Twain even goes a bit further, dipping into the meta, by having Huck tell the reader the previous novel he appeared in:

You don't know about me without you have read a book by the name of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer; but that ain't no matter.

​Not all first-person narrators explicitly address the reader like the examples above, but even with those that don't, there's still a feel (at least for me) that the character's aware of my reader presence, sharing their experiences and thoughts with me like a friend.

Some days, as a reader, that feeling is what I'm looking for—and it's only something that first person can give me.

Other days, though, I crave that more omniscient, invisible reader presence that third person tends to give.

Variety is the spice, and all that. :encouragement:


----------



## Tettsuo (Jul 22, 2016)

Terry D said:


> I see what you mean. It's actually just a matter of semantics. If I want to create a sense of suspense, or of fear, or humor, I can do it in either POV. The effect -- fear, suspense, humor -- will be the same, I will just get there in a different way. Sure, they will read differently, but the overall effect will be the same. IMO.


I agree with this 100%.

Both have their benefits and weaknesses, and both can achieve the similar effects on the readers.  Honestly, someone can't pull it off with either POV, it's the writer and not the POV that's the problem.

So, bottom line for me is, write what works best for you.  Both POVs can get you where you want to go, if you have the skill to achieve it in the POV of your choice.


----------



## Tettsuo (Jul 22, 2016)

Patrick said:


> We understand you champion first person, Emma. We also understand first and third person are, after all, two different points of view. You needn't post more examples which demonstrate the difference.
> 
> Third person never has the limitations first person has. Please stop asserting that it does. Whatever effect third person has, it doesn't suffer the same limitations as first person, because of the nature of third person. It's like trying to argue that a cheetah could never sprint like a cheetah if it could also move like a tortoise. The fact third person can get a reader inside the head of a character doesn't necessarily preclude the omniscient experience of third person... ever.


Do you believe that third has no weaknesses?


----------



## Patrick (Jul 22, 2016)

Kyle R said:


> True, a third person narrator can address the reader—but how often have you seen a third person _character_ acknowledge the reader? Like you say, it'd likely feel a bit too meta to not be distracting. In first person, though, I find that kind of reader-awareness lends itself naturally to the protagonist.
> 
> Salinger's Caulfield opens _Catcher in the Rye_ by grudgingly telling the reader (referred to as "you"):
> If you really want to hear about it, the first thing you'll probably want to know is where I was born, and what my lousy childhood was like, and how my parents were occupied and all before they had me, and all that David Copperfield kind of crap, but I don't feel like going into it, if you want to know the truth.​
> ...



I think it's too meta in either point of view. Not that he would care, but Salinger's _Catcher in the Rye_ would go winging across my room into the dustbin. I can make allowance for Twain's Huckleberry Finn because Huck is so charming, but then it very much depends on my mood. If I read that silly affectation in the first sentence of a novel, I am inclined more often than not to practice my throwing arm.



Tettsuo said:


> Do you believe that third has no weaknesses?



I believe it is the lord of all POVs and runs a Shadowfax ring around the competition. But as I said before, good writers can get up to all kinds of mischief. I just prefer the classical POV and its mastery. There is no higher achievement in the craft, imo. At heart, I am an Obi-Wan, not a Mace Windu.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 22, 2016)

Patrick said:


> I just prefer the classical POV and its mastery. There is no higher achievement in the craft, imo.


A lot of writers (and agents) agree with you there. It's definitely a popular POV for a reason.

Overall, though, I'm more concerned with the reader response than the method. In terms of affecting readers, the highest achievement, for me, is bringing the reader to tears. Or making them laugh. Or fall in love with. Or keeping them so enthralled that they absolutely _must_ keep turning those pages!

That's mastery, to me. And, like Tets and Terry have said, a good writer can accomplish this with whatever POV they use.

Who cares if you used pliers or a wrench to build the engine? As long as the airship flies. :encouragement:


----------



## Patrick (Jul 22, 2016)

Kyle R said:


> A lot of writers (and agents) agree with you there. It's definitely a popular POV for a reason.
> 
> Overall, though, I'm more concerned with the reader response than the method. In terms of affecting readers, the highest achievement, for me, is bringing the reader to tears. Or making them laugh. Or fall in love with. Or keeping them so enthralled that they absolutely _must_ keep turning those pages!
> 
> That's mastery, to me. And, like Tets and Terry have said, a good writer can accomplish this with whatever POV they use.



I have said multiple times that it's possible to do all of that with either first or third person. That's why I've only ever mentioned my preferences as opinion. I'd rather give a genuine reflection and highlight my likes and dislikes than give a generic response that doesn't really reflect my own thoughts.


----------



## keepyourheadup (Jul 23, 2016)

I feel like third person is the safer choice and can be used more effectively most of the time, but let me just say:
I ADORE first person horror. I almost always prefer my horror first person, nothing gives me the heebie jeebies more than a good first person story~


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

