I, You, He & She. . . . What's Your Favorite Point of View?

[The Comedian]

I've noticed recently that I have a strong preference for books (either fiction or non-fiction) written in the first person (I). Maybe it's the conversational tone that a first person perspective takes with the reader. Maybe the first person makes me feel the reality of the story more strongly. I'm not sure what it is exactly.

But when I look at the books that I have loved: Walden, the non-fiction of Edward Abbey, My Antonia and (heck) even graphic novels such as Blankets and Persepolis. . . . I see that they all have a strong first-person story teller involved.

Now, this is not to say that I read or enjoy this first-person perspective to the exclusion of all others. I've enjoyed many novels that use the common omniscient third-person narrator: Watership Down, Lord of the Rings. . .and many other books of this and other sorts.

Anyway, I was just curious of you have noticed a preference for a certain authorial perspective in your own reading habits?

[dfloyd]

first and third person. Whichever he uses is dependant upon the story line and how the author is involved. I see no difference in quality between the first and third person, and have no preference. Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities is written in the third person, while Great Expectations and David Copperfield are in the first person. They are all good stories. You would miss a lot of literature to only read books written in the first person.

[Amoxcalli]

I don't really have a preference, to be fair. It depends on the style and story. Some stories are better suited for third person, others for first person (although I've yet to encounter a good second-person story). I loved Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms, which is written in first-person. Kafka's Metamorphosis is just as brilliant, but third person.

To me, it doesn't really matter.

[Jeremydav]

I find that third person narratives are, often, better written than first person. But the exceptions are certainly there: Lolita, The Sound and the Fury, and others.

[applepie]

I find that I tend to prefer third person in most things. I like to know everything going on, so that feeling of being on the outside looking in works best for me. Sometimes I'll find something in the first person that I enjoy reading, but I really need to identify with the character more to read it. Say, example, if The Awakening had been written in the first person, I never would have been able to finish it. I just didn't "get" Edna, so I can't imagine trying to read the story told from her perspective... As it is written, I enjoy the story immensely and she is kind of that character that I love to hate:)

[Lokasenna]

I personally like a completely detached 3rd person account - I sometimes feel that other authors try to 'trick' you with false narrators, which can damage the transmission of the story.

That said, Agatha Christie's The Murder of Roger Ackroyd managed to pul off a very smooth narratorial twist, which I rather enjoyed!

[Desolation]

I like them both very much, but I generally prefer first person. A good story is a good story, but I think that first person narratives have more power to transcend plot and deal with psychological and philosophical themes (although Dostoevsky excellently blended plot, philosophy, and psychology in his thrid-person narratives). I also always enjoy the narrator's introspection and the workings of their mind.

First person narratives are flawed, however, in that they are often much more limited in scope. If you're seeing the story through one person's eyes, you often don't get to see as much of the background characters.

[Paulclem]

I liked Orhan Pamuck's use of a roving first person in My Name is Red, where each chapter relates what is happening from the perspective of a character or even a colour.

George RR Martin des this too in his Game of Thrones series A Song of Ice and Fire. The danger with the roving first person is that you would naturally become more interested in a particular character's story than another. This happened particularly in Martin's books where you were itching to get back to the bits set on The Wall,

[LitNetIsGreat]

I like them both very much, but I generally prefer first person. A good story is a good story, but I think that first person narratives have more power to transcend plot and deal with psychological and philosophical themes (although Dostoevsky excellently blended plot, philosophy, and psychology in his thrid-person narratives). I also always enjoy the narrator's introspection and the workings of their mind.

First person narratives are flawed, however, in that they are often much more limited in scope. If you're seeing the story through one person's eyes, you often don't get to see as much of the background characters.

Being lazy, that about sums up my postion too. :thumbs_up

Also, I would add that with a first person narrative it is often easier to really bond with the lead character/s, and it obviously lends itself well to non-fiction.

[Debbborra]

I've recently developed a real bias against second person. I think this is because when no one did it, it was exciting. But then everyone got excited and now it feels overdone and gimmicky.

As for first and second, I really think that it is impossible to have a preference. Some stories work better in one, and others in the other.

For instance, where the protagonist is flawed the closeness of the first person makes it easier to forgive and relate to the main character.

In very emotional texts the distance of third lets the reader feel without being overwhelmed by feeling.

I do like experimental povs, as long as they feel like an a real feat rather than just a trick.

[Pryderi Agni]

First person, please. Gives me an illusion of identification I don't find repulsive at all.

[Veva]

I quite like Jeffrey Eugenides's Virgin Suicides, this novel is narrated by a group of teenage boys, what I haven't encountered before... :thumbs_up

[Katy North]

Third person omniscient is my favorite. I like knowing everything :D.

I enjoy first person as well, especially in classics. However, if I'm looking for a sci fi or fantasy read, first person writing is a major red flag for me... for some reason it's hard for me to get into first person writing by current novelists. I think it might be because their characters emotions usually end up overshadowing the story.

[myrna22]

I have no favorite point of view. The concept doesn't even make sense. The point of view an author chooses is based on what he/she wants to say in that particular work. How a book is written is part of what the author is trying to convey. I can understand liking a book because of the way the story is told, the narrative voice, but each novel has its own, unique narrative voice which is chosen by the author because of what the author wants to convey.

[The Comedian]

I like them both very much, but I generally prefer first person. A good story is a good story, but I think that first person narratives have more power to transcend plot and deal with psychological and philosophical themes (although Dostoevsky excellently blended plot, philosophy, and psychology in his thrid-person narratives). I also always enjoy the narrator's introspection and the workings of their mind.

First person narratives are flawed, however, in that they are often much more limited in scope. If you're seeing the story through one person's eyes, you often don't get to see as much of the background characters.

Enjoyed your comments here Desolation. I think that in a lot of my reading, I bond more quickly to character than plot (generally; there are exceptions and such. . .). And a good, flawed narrator can pretty much take me to buy life insurance and I'll tag along just to read what happens.


I have no favorite point of view. The concept doesn't even make sense. The point of view an author chooses is based on what he/she wants to say in that particular work. How a book is written is part of what the author is trying to convey.

I completely agree with you that an author has a set agenda for telling his or her story. That's not really what I askin' about. I was more just asking the readers here if they had a preference and, if so, then hopefully a discussion of narrative point of view would follow.

Because, as you say, when an author chooses a point of view, he or she takes a major step (perhaps the most significant step) in framing how the story will be told and the way that the story will affect its readers.

[myrna22]

Because, as you say, when an author chooses a point of view, he or she takes a major step (perhaps the most significant step) in framing how the story will be told and the way that the story will affect its readers.

Yes, so how can one have a 'favorite point of view'? Well, I don't have favorites of anything anyway, so maybe it is a concept in a broader sense I don't connect with. However, the narrative voice in any work is one of its stylistic elements used to convey meaning. The overall effectiveness of the work is what interests me, including how the author uses narrative perspective. What, for example, can you say about works that have more than one point of view, more than one voice? For example, if you know Chronicle of a Death Foretold by Gabriel Garcia Marquez. It is not only told in 3rd person point of view, the narrative voice is very objective and journalistic. Detached. Third person point of view is not the same in every work. As well, in Chronicle, much of the novel is actually first person point of view because it comes from the retelling of an event by several 'narrators' whom the third person narrator interviews. In essense, there are a variety of voices in this work, a technique which is used to convey meaning. "I like first person pov, I like 3rd person" It doesn't make sense to me. What makes sense to me is the overall effect of the work.

[The Comedian]

"I like first person pov, I like 3rd person" It doesn't make sense to me. What makes sense to me is the overall effect of the work.

Okay.