1st Person vs 3rd Person [Archive] - Literature Network Forums

imthefoolonthehill

11-12-2004, 12:40 AM

I am currently writing a book... I've gotten to 6000 words... and I'm thinking about starting over.

I started writing it using first person.... but I want people to know the character's thoughts. How do I do this using first person?

there are a few ways, but they all sound corny... like... "I imagined he was thinking, or it looked like" ... my character is NOT going to be telepathic.

Also... any tips on writing in the first person? or third person? *disclaimer* i won't give any of you credit in my book if i take your advice.

Do you think i should switch ... vantage points... to third person?

amuse

11-12-2004, 12:42 AM

imthefoolonthehill

11-12-2004, 12:56 AM

thats a good idea... i think i'll head to the library tomorrow.... please more ideas!!!!

Luckdragon

11-12-2004, 01:36 AM

I read a book where there is a shift between third and first person narrative, separated by ***. If you can carry this out well, go for it. Should be interesting and all.

mono

11-12-2004, 02:07 AM

If you really wanted, you could write in the third person, but when you intend to express what your main character thinks, write of him/her thinking it in quotation marks:

"How redundant," he mused to himself.
Instead of . . .
He thought it redundant.

In retrospect, I think Dostoevsky used this method profusely in Crime and Punishment. Good luck!

Avalive

11-12-2004, 03:07 AM

I,personally,always prefer 1st person

imthefoolonthehill

11-12-2004, 09:38 AM

Avalive... i do too... but how do you do the other character's thoughts???

Mono...and everyone... thanks for the ideas... but they all seem to include some sort of switch to third person... i'll do that if i have to, but somehow i think it'll take away from the feel of my book...

I just wish there was an easier way to do this.... lol... and i'm not quite sure how well switching back and forth would work, luckdragon... if i could pull it off that might be a good solution... i'm just not too sure it would work well...

Shore Dude

11-12-2004, 10:42 AM

couldn't people tell you stuff? or you could learn it along the way. or in retrospect ponder. um...how about glancing through a few books written in first person. then stick with it for a leetle bit longer.
I think this is great advice.

What makes great writers is their ability to write in manners that may seem difficult. You will need to get creative in how you get points across to the readers. Like you had initially thought, the approach of "I imagined he was thinking, or it looked like" ...could potentially get boring for you readers.

Don't forget, there are many ways in which a writer can get information and ideas across to his or her audience, without losing the integrity of the point of view. Flashbacks, are one example. Interactive dialogue. Written forms of communication are others.

You should check out The Catcher in the Rye. From what I remember, that was very much a first person sorta novel.

Also, there were some threads in the General Chat forum which talked about point of view in Frakenstein. That might also be a good book to check out for ideas, because the story uses three seperate narrators through the use of journal entries and dialogue.

Jester

11-12-2004, 05:38 PM

what ive always done, i love writing in first person, is switch characters making it obvious within teh first paragraph that you're now speaking through sombody else.... do for example...

"Hi Lucy, How are you," Jessica said as she approached me, we are gonna go out barhopping tonight. she is wearing pink. I hate pink and find red a more attractive and startling color.
***
I was wearing pink, just to annoy Lucy. She's so fun to pester about colors. She thinks Im not being feminist enough by waring red like she does when we go out.

(this is soemthing i mad eup on teh spot, not meant to imply antyhing or even to say anything really)

imthefoolonthehill

11-14-2004, 04:37 AM

hmm... thanks for the help guys, i'll let you know how/if it works out... more suggestions are always wanted.

BSturdy

11-14-2004, 10:06 PM

Maybe you could switch to different characters using chapters.

I (hopefully correctly) remember this being done very effectively in The Bonfire of the Vanities.

Hope this helps and good luck with the old tome!

Shea

11-15-2004, 01:06 PM

I'm not much of a writer but, why not try having your character be extremely observant of facial expressions and body language. Maybe these expressions remind him/her of something in particlar that may relate to the idea your trying to bring across to the reader. Though I really don't know if that made much sense. (that's why I'm not much of a writer).

Taliesin

11-15-2004, 02:59 PM

Well, that actually is the problem with the 1st person writing and sometimes it is also the point.
Using the 1st person means more living in to your character and with that comes the things your character doesn't know. It gives a more one-sided approach which is a certain style.
When your character can guess everything, then he would probably not very realistic. Also you would have to change your character.

But btw. We suggest (if you start again) using the 3rd person. We find it more flexible. You can live into the character with that as good as with the 1st person in Our opinion plus you can describe a lot of more thoughts.

But don't use sentences like : "They are so arrogant," thought he. In his opinion the new harvesting system was bad and it was making him furious. He found that although maybe the system was quite shiny and new and he was a bit out-dated but he thought that that was actually OK. He thought that
old things were not bad at all because people had been using them for centuries.

This is a pretty clumsy text.

But perhaps try like this:
They were so damn arrogant. That new system! Couldn't they see how bad it was? Well, yeah, it was all shiny and new and maybe his system was a little bit out-dated, but what was wrong with it? Old things worked. It was clear. People had done so for centuries.

That, We find, is not so clumsy.

This was some impromptu text, but maybe you understand. We find that when We express someone's view's (in third person) as facts, as things that are, not as someones subjective thoughts then that is almost 1st person.
If you still find that you prefer the pure 1st person, We advise you to use multiple 1st person.

We find that this 1/3 th person is the best one because one can quickly switch points of view from the almost-first-person (gives forward one person's ideas and thoughts) to a complete third person (for example describing of things that are not seen by anyone) and back again.

"How redundant," he mused to himself.
Instead of . . .
He thought it redundant.

But our suggestion would be:

How redundant.

imthefoolonthehill

11-18-2004, 12:59 AM

Scheherazade

11-18-2004, 08:32 AM

I think "Wuthering Heights" used different narrators in different chapters to give the reader a chance to hear different perspectives.

Jester

11-18-2004, 02:49 PM

poisonwood bible does that as well

subterranean

11-18-2004, 09:12 PM

I currently writing a story as well (havent finish it and it already few months since i first started), and I'm using a first person point of view. Unfortunetly it was written in my mother tounge language and it's in my pc at home. So i cant share it with you for the moment.
Personally I my self love first person point of view and I agree that you should stick with the first person point of view.
Have u read the novel Angela's Ashes? It was written by Frank McCourt and as I remember he's using the first person. He wrote a story about himself, it's like an autobiography and i think he succedeed in bringing his characters and his thoughts. As a reader i'm absolutely touched by his childhood sufferings and really got a clear picture about how his childhood environment formed his personalities as he grew up.

simon

11-18-2004, 09:41 PM

How did the Poisonwood Bible strike you Jester?

Scheherazade

11-19-2004, 05:58 AM

How did the Poisonwood Bible strike you Jester?

Unexpectedly and swiftly on the head??? :goof:

Jay

11-19-2004, 02:28 PM

Fool? Have you read Virginia Woolf'sMrs Dalloway? Maybe that kind of perspective switches could work for your book :)

Scher: LMAO!!! :D

Scheherazade

11-19-2004, 02:39 PM

*shudders at the mention of Mrs Dalloway* :cold:

Jay

11-19-2004, 02:45 PM

Really? MRS DALLOWAY
:angel:

Taliesin

11-19-2004, 05:15 PM

Poisoned Kitkats again?
Or the Poisonwood Bible, which seems to be an excellent melee weapon?
Or :eek: *thunder and rain* "Mrs Dalloway" :eek:

Scheherazade

11-19-2004, 07:56 PM

Poisoned Kitkats again?
Or the Poisonwood Bible, which seems to be an excellent melee weapon?
Or :eek: *thunder and rain* "Mrs Dalloway" :eek:

You are suffering from a bad case of 'Thread Confusion', Taliesin! :lol:

mono

11-19-2004, 11:35 PM

*shudders at the mention of Mrs Dalloway* :cold:

Interesting. Please explain. I would only shudder out of the novel's amazing expression of talent.

Jester

11-20-2004, 12:58 AM

How did the Poisonwood Bible strike you Jester?

I spent the first (well the first years of my life that I could remember, 2 and up) eleven years of my life being raised in Africa but my parents weren't missionaries and only in Sudan we were in a small village like the one described... (i love saying this to see reactions but can't here, we had the largest house in town and our latrine caved in) I can relate to the girls just a little bit and I enjoyed reading it. Brought me back home in soem ways (I was in Bangladesh when I read it) anyway I thought it was very well written and very emotional too.

Scheherazade

11-20-2004, 04:20 AM

Interesting. Please explain. I would only shudder out of the novel's amazing expression of talent.

When I read it back at university, I found it hard to follow and too much effort for what I got out of it at the end. I was left with a 'And? / So what?' kind of feeling, which I don't like while reading books.

Maybe I should re-read it again now that I am not expected to read it part of a curriculum and see how I react.

subterranean

11-20-2004, 06:58 AM

Agree with yours, i mean i only able to read till page 10 and i said..thats it !!

baddad

11-22-2004, 02:49 AM

(for anyone who cares) I decided to start over, but to keep the first person... any thoughts i need to learn, i think i will learn through flashbacks and "he must have thought bla" and that sort of thing....

thanks for the help, suggestions are always welcome.

Of course it is impossible to REALLY start over. Those original 6ooo words aren't going anywhere, and may possibly (quite 'probably' if experience is any teacher) come in quite handy later. Personally I find that writing a manuscript involves (as I'm absolutely sure you know) many levels. The first level involves getting the raw manuscript out of your soul and onto a piece of paper. At this stage a general idea of the presentation is needed, but the finished project may well be a different monster altogether. SO..........just write. If some of the sections you lay down are in the third person, so be it. If there is a profusion of 1st person, 3rd person mixed up swithching back and forth......so be it. Just get it out, spew it out, lay it down........deal with the details later. In fact I often mark an area of a manuscript I know will need later refinement with a line of big black letter XXXXXXXX's so I can find the offending (i.e., need work, but the idea is boxed in) passages more easily the 2nd or 3rd or 28th time I go back inside to make adjustments to a story. Carpe Diem my friend and great luck with the book......

Jay

11-22-2004, 12:29 PM

Scher? :p
Mrs Dalloway
:angel:

imthefoolonthehill

11-22-2004, 05:19 PM

baddad

11-22-2004, 11:00 PM

Jay, no i have not read that book.

Baddad- i know what you mean... i was thinking about merging the two stories for awhile, and i've already used a few of the same phrases from the old one. Thanks for the advice.

One of my professors was fond of saying, "Words are like bars of gold. Use them judiciously". So you see, imthefoolonthehill, the words you have banked aside still have value. Of course, that same professor (with five inch waxed and madly styled eyebrows and a heavy Scottish accent) told his class the following words had absolutely NO value and would not be acceptable on any essays he marked; he, she, him, her, they, that, was, them, society, people, it, their, because, and many others I can not remember at the moment. I think the list he had so graciouusly photocopied for his students contained 146 entries.............but ya gotta love a professor with a sense of humour.....

imthefoolonthehill

11-23-2004, 02:19 AM

heh... i know a guy with big eyebrows... he taught our heigeine seminar that all the junior high guys were forced to go to... (no, i didn't smell bad, not even in junior high)

BSturdy

11-24-2004, 02:59 PM

The computer can't tell you the emotional story. It can give you the exact mathematical design, but what's missing is the eyebrows. - Frank Zappa

There is a great musical instrument called 'The Delay Lama' - a computerised singing buddhist monk - with realistic eyebrows. You think i'm joking - that's where the quote is from?

Scher - thanks for clarifying my post, together with a more worthy example!

Scheherazade

11-24-2004, 03:04 PM

Scher - thanks for clarifying my post, together with a more worthy example!

Hmm?? *blinks*

I refuse all the charges and not saying anything else until my counsil is here! :rolleyes:

Jay

11-24-2004, 03:18 PM

*runs into the room all out of breath* Present! Did I miss anything? :p

BSturdy

11-24-2004, 03:45 PM

Scher - I meant about the characters in chapters thing

Scheherazade

11-24-2004, 03:49 PM

Scher - I meant about the characters in chapters thing

Sorry, I gathered that when I went back to the first page of the thread :blush:

BSturdy

11-24-2004, 03:51 PM

p.s. As a very drunken (fallen over drunk) barrister that I helped into a cab not so long ago said: "Stay away from lawyers, we're a rum lot"

I don't know if he intended the pun!

Scheherazade

11-24-2004, 05:09 PM

p.s. As a very drunken (fallen over drunk) barrister that I helped into a cab not so long ago said: "Stay away from lawyers, we're a rum lot"

I don't know if he intended the pun!

I very much doubt that! :D

Edna Mode

11-15-2005, 02:27 PM

Hi, I am trying to write a paper in the first person for my English class, and well I forgot what 1st person is. Could you tell me what it is and possibly give me an example?

Thanks Edna Mode

PeterL

11-15-2005, 03:57 PM

Hi, I am trying to write a paper in the first person for my English class, and well I forgot what 1st person is. Could you tell me what it is and possibly give me an example?

Thanks Edna Mode

Example: I wrote a reply to a post on this forum.
third person: He wrote a reply to a post on this forum.

mousemouse

11-16-2005, 12:09 PM

Here's a weird idea for you!!
How about including the author as and extratextual element. You could do it by letting the main character and the author discuss various ideas for the plot or something like that.
The author (not you) would always be aware of the other characters thoughts, since they're all in his head, but the main character could get a life of his own..

Edna Mode

11-16-2005, 07:42 PM

Thanks :wave: , here is what I wrote....

Persona on Clytemnestra

I thought I loved him, but now I have found a new love, what should I do? They are both truly mine, all mine, nobody else can have my precious lovers. But I do not want both, only one will do, I don’t have enough time for two. My dears Agamemnon, and Aegisthus I must choose, whom ever it may be that is not chosen shall be very sorry I am afraid. You who are not picked above the other should be fearful , though I do still love you.
We have now chosen, and you, you my dearest Agamemnon are the loser, your heart has been had. My soul is the ultimate deceiver and yours was the unfortunate victim. You were gone for much to long so I went seeking another. I have now plotted your death along with the help of my new lover my dear, why did you have to come back? I will rid your soul of the love for mine that I know can only be unlocked by a key. Our son Orsetes will all but hate you, he will love you, mourn for you if anyone he would hate it will be me. This has been shown to me by the gods, but that is all I have seen. Your heart my love will be free, freed by my knife like key. My love is to be bled out of you as it drips from your heart leaving a crimson puddle around you. Your heart will be released, set free, I will let it go because I love another.

It is much later now, my son has betrayed me and my new lover also. He murdered us, our hearts were black as coal but disguised as white doves, so innocent and pure in their outer form. I do wish my old love, though I do love my new lover, that I could have only seen clearer to have the soot wiped off my heart. Only if the gods wouldn’t see my dirty heart, oh and my new lovers to. But I do not feel guilty for what I have done so I’m sure that the gods will not see my heart this way. Enough with my mourning my old lover for I am not afraid… in fact I am sure that the gods will see it my way. No judgment, no time will I spend paying for my wrongs for I am perfect farewell my old lover, greetings to my new lover.

Ranoo

02-08-2006, 05:58 PM

Xamonas Chegwe

02-08-2006, 06:35 PM

Are any novels honest?

They are all fiction, or at best fiction based upon historical fact. What does it matter if the narrator is first person or third. I've read many books that mix the two very effectively.

Important things are: the suitability of the style to the story; the beauty of the prose; the skill in characterisation, description, tying all of the plot threads together and drawing the reader into the author's world; the way that the novel holds a mirror up to our own lives and emotions; there are many more.

Authors lie for a living, all of them. Unlike politicians, lawyers, real estate agents and journalists (not an exhaustive list), they announce to the world that they are lying!

On the subject of Mosteghanemi (who I will admit to not having heard of before), English author Martin Amis wrote a novel called "Success" with two 1st-person narrators, that took it in turns to tell their versions of the same tale - chapter by chapter. The two versions were completely unalike. Is her novel at all like that?

But why is her novel more honest? - surely it is more dishonest, as it has three fictitious accounts of the same ficticious story.

Charles Darnay

02-08-2006, 07:49 PM

I agree. There is no such thing as honesty/dishonesty in narration..... except when youj're Dan Brown and you try and pass fiction off as historical content.

An author writes, what he or she writes "is" - there is no honesty nor dishonesty to it. First person is no different from thrid person in that matter.

I find that I enjoy thrid person more than first person narration - not for the honesty - but for the ability to play with angles in a situation.

higley

02-08-2006, 08:25 PM

hmm, I've always been wary of books written in first-person--not because of any qualms I might have with honesty and whatnot, I just feel that third-person narrative allows the reader to take a step back and see the big picture. In first-person, you've got a limited perspective on matters and it's difficult to interpret anything differently than how the narrator tells you.

That said, I really liked Catcher in the Rye and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Told by one person, but still you don't feel like you're missing out on anything. I can't hardly say what it is that makes a good first-person narrative--you just know it when you see it.

A Hard Rain

02-08-2006, 08:50 PM

As I lay Dying written by William Faulkner is narrated by 17 different characters, some having more entries than others, some main characters some make only one or two appearances. Nevertheless, there are obvious advantages in having a first person narrative that the 3rd person narrative has hard hard time coming to convey unless there are obvious monologues or soliloquys where the character speaks to convey what he is thinking. The first person narrative has the ability to use a steam of consciousness type narrative. Likewise The Sound and the Fury uses three first person narratives and a 3rd person narrative, four passages total. The neat thing about using more than one first person narrative in a story is that you get to see not only the perspectival complications of our world, but at times, different characters can shed light on others and their short-comings.

That is not to say there are not disadvantages of the first person narrative, but you have to understand that the unreliable narrator is not necessarily a disadvantage, and actually can be used to show something that would otherwise be very hard to convey.

Whifflingpin

02-08-2006, 09:47 PM

"The Ring and the Book" by Robert Browning tells a story from successive viewpoints, each one in turn changing the meaning of the tale until the "truth" is known. On the surface, it is an attempt to reveal the story as it might be uncovered by witnesses at a trial. At other levels, it challenges our perceptions of truth, our conventions of storytelling, and no doubt a host of other things that I have missed.

.

blp

02-08-2006, 09:48 PM

A first person narrator also solves a lot of problems of style for an author, vis Catcher in the Rye, American Psycho, lots of others I'm sure. It gives the book a clear, consistent voice and lets the writer write the book as a sort of performance of that character. Having to find one's own voice as the author of a 3rd person narrative always seems to me a lot harder.

About half of Italo Calvino's 'If on a Winter's Night a Traveller' is written as a second person narrative.

Pendragon

02-09-2006, 08:41 AM

As a Sherlock Holmes fanatic, I get aggarvated with moderen wtiters who publish Holmes novels WITHOUT first person narration by Doctor Watson. That was how Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote the origial stories (with four exceptions) and how they should be written. Without the good Doctor telling the story, it doesn't really feel like Holmes. But if not Watson, still tell the tale in first person narration by someone besides Holmes. Laurie R. King's Mary Russell/Holmes series, for example, is narrated by Russell. Carole Douglass' Irene Adler/Holmes series is narrated by "Nell". Third person doesn't really fit the Sherlock Holmes story lines. :nod:

Ranoo

02-09-2006, 08:42 AM

Thanks all for passing ;) by .
you've given good reasons :cool: :D

Maybe I should not have used the word honesty ,I think reliable is more accurate .According to the terms in the literary dictionary the first person narrative is divided into two types 'reliable or unreliable". In my opinion , as a reader when I read a novel such us The Great Gatsby ,which is narrated by unreliable narrator Nick ,and he is one of the characters ,I felt that there is something being hide away from me .This of course does not mean it's not a good one or I hate this kind of narration. In addition to that , talking about the writer himself ,when he writes his novel in this type of narration (the1st person) he can make us as readers a little bite lost since he can be biased for instance criticizing one of the characters or on the contrary praising one of them ,and no one can blame or condemn him because there is a narrator whom his point of view is being presented to us.

Thanks :banana: !

PeterL

02-09-2006, 04:03 PM

Maybe I should not have used the word honesty ,I think reliable is more accurate .According to the terms in the literary dictionary the first person narrative is divided into two types 'reliable or unreliable". In my opinion , as a reader when I read a novel such us The Great Gatsby ,which is narrated by unreliable narrator Nick ,and he is one of the characters ,I felt that there is something being hide away from me .This of course does not mean it's not a good one or I hate this kind of narration. In addition to that , talking about the writer himself ,when he writes his novel in this type of narration (the1st person) he can make us as readers a little bit lost since he can be biased for instance criticizing one of the characters or on the contrary praising one of them ,and no one can blame or condemn him because there is a narrator whom his point of view is being presented to us.

Thanks :banana: !

First person narration allows the author to put the reader in the same position as the narrator. It is up to the reader to determine whether the narrator is reliable, and authors can play games with reliability. Consider Poe's "William Wilson", it is pure first person narration. the thoughts of the character, but it is uncertain what actually happened. Some of Robert Browning's poems were first person narrations, and again uncertainty or ambiguity were the results. It was the intention of the author that the reader make a decision about what happened. If you want clear, easily understood, prose, then the omniscent third person is best; but if you want to investigate the mind of a character, then first person is best.

I understand what you mean about Nick in "The Great Gatsby". Nick was too close to the action to be a completely reliable narrator, but Nick clearly felt some distance from the other characters. If you spend a little time at it, you may realize that while reading Gatsby you figured out what Nick's perspective was, and you probably made adjustments for that. Think about it for a few minutes, and you might see that Nick was the best available narrator. The next best POV would be omniscient third person.

Xamonas Chegwe

02-09-2006, 04:19 PM

What about John Fowle's narration in "The French Lieutenant's Woman"?

In this novel, the narration is 3rd person throughout, but Fowles continually mentions things about the process of writing the novel. For example, he remarks at one point that he has been disingenuous in not mentioning certain feelings that one of the characters was experiencing until then. He tells the reader why he wrote some of the scenes the way he did.

James Joyce's "Tilly", that I posted as poem of the week recently, is similar. It's a short poem that starts as a supposed third person narrative of a boy herding cattle with a flowering branch. At the end of the poem it becomes clear that the 'actual' narrator is the tree from which he broke the branch.

Can we really trust third person narrative any more than first?

adilyoussef

02-10-2006, 04:31 PM

Naration by the first person point of view, or the omniscient or the limited third person point of view is just a way for the writer to deal with the readers. Personally, I preffer the first person point of view and that because while reading a novel being narated in this way, I always have the feeling of being involeved in the story. Reading a novel narated by a third person point of view, for me, is like being an outsider watching without being involeved in the story -- to be passive. There is one feature that I like in naration by the first person point of view, regardless reability or honesty, which is the limitation of the knowledge of the narator. The reader is discovering the story with the narator step by step. S/he doesn't relly on him/her but uses his/her imagination a lot through the naration. At least, this what happens with me. I admit that there are some exellent pieces of literature narated in the third person point of view that fascinate me a lot, especially Joyce, Woolf and many others, but one should be crafted like them to play, if I'm allowed to use this expretion, with the reader through his/her naration.

Scheherazade

02-10-2006, 06:45 PM

What do you think of Humbert Humbert of Lolita as a narrator? (I am still a-reading the book)

Themis

02-10-2006, 07:08 PM

Ad topic (I apologize beforehand that I'm far too tired to read every other post through right now, I'll get to that at an other point):

I think that "1st person narration" is a very special thing. Some stories need it, some are made worse by it.
When writing in first person, you can make the experience of learning about the life of the character deeper, better in certain ways. If you're planning to focus on the thoughs of the protagonists, writing in 1st person is the best you can do.
In stories where lots of things happen, where the character is not the most important element but what happens to him, what he does, etc, I wouldn't use 1st person narration. To me, 3rd person narration seems a far better option in that case.

PeterL

02-11-2006, 12:28 PM

What do you think of Humbert Humbert of Lolita as a narrator? (I am still a-reading the book)

Humbert Humbert is one of the least reliable narrators that I know of. Lolita would be tremendously different with any other POV. Imagine it as a first person narration with Lolita the POV character.

Mililalil XXIV

03-07-2006, 01:04 AM

Hello ,
What do you think about a novel or a story that is told from the point of view of one of the characters .Do you prefer this kind of narration or you prefer for example (the third person narration )?

Well ,some of us might argue saying the first person narration have disadvantages of being dishonest ,since the narrator has the freedom to tell us only what s/he wants us know . Recently , in an Arab literature ,to be more specific in an Algerian literature, a female writer Ahlam Mosteghanemi wrote trilogy and each of which is narrated by one of the three characters. Do you think this way can help in solving the problem of first person narration? since we can listen or read the same story from different point of views ,and the percentage of dishonesty or being biased is less than before?
I don’t know if there is a novel or so in English that has the same form of Mosteghanemi's novel.
Ingenious idea!
I like first person narratives in which the other characters give their own first person narratives in the dialogue.

Naration by the first person point of view, or the omniscient or the limited third person point of view is just a way for the writer to deal with the readers. Personally, I preffer the first person point of view and that because while reading a novel being narated in this way, I always have the feeling of being involeved in the story. Reading a novel narated by a third person point of view, for me, is like being an outsider watching without being involeved in the story -- to be passive. There is one feature that I like in naration by the first person point of view, regardless reability or honesty, which is the limitation of the knowledge of the narator. The reader is discovering the story with the narator step by step. S/he doesn't relly on him/her but uses his/her imagination a lot through the naration. At least, this what happens with me. I admit that there are some exellent pieces of literature narated in the third person point of view that fascinate me a lot, especially Joyce, Woolf and many others, but one should be crafted like them to play, if I'm allowed to use this expretion, with the reader through his/her naration.
I quite agree with you, Adil.
As for my comment above, let me add that it is a skill of a great writer to blend different "genres" of writing into one.

adilyoussef

03-07-2006, 06:09 PM

I quite agree with you, Adil.
As for my comment above, let me add that it is a skill of a great writer to blend different "genres" of writing into one.

Glad to hear so.

optimisticnad

04-29-2006, 02:40 PM

ugh. first person narrative, ugh again. Reading it isn't so bad, but when you're trying to write in first person yourself-at least in my case, it comes out awful and false and...I don't know, i feel trapped, like I don't have the freedom to make certain comments so I tend to stay away from first person fiction. Actually reading it is great cos i appreicate how difficult it must have been. And yes, Humbert Humbert, fantastic. As for reliability..i dont know enough to comment but any novel, regardless of point of view is biased in some way or other which questions reliability and I think this is more true for first person narration.

Woland

04-29-2006, 07:53 PM

Roger Zelazny's Amber books are written in first person. The main character starts the story with nearly complete amnesia (he has some gut feelings) and as the story progresses he finds out that he is one member of a very scheming and murderous royal family. The reader has to guess what is going on as Corwin learns the truth of his situation. It's a lot of fun.

As to the idea that first person is a more "honest" perspective - I dont buy it. The reader can be manipulated by a biased first person narrator just as easily as by a dishonest third person narrator.

mtpspur

04-30-2006, 01:41 AM

For me it depends on the character. Tarzan novels are third person//John Catre novels are not (by Edgar Rice Burroughs. Matt Helm and Quiller are 1st person (Donald Hamilton/Adam Hall) and James Bond is not (Ian Fleming). I can't imagine Bond leading us thru Goldfinger/Dr. No and the Helm series would lose a lot of impact told 3rd person.

Dracula is told from several viewpoints and add perspective to the story that works well in mood setting but I rarely read past Harker's journal anymore.

The Fu Manchu novels rotate from book to book--1st/3rd and the 1st person account always reads better. Compare Return of Fu Manchu with Mask of Fu Manchu. (I'm finding Sax Rohmer not aging well with me as I continue to chase my glory literary junk teen years. Can't read Doc Savage anymore but anything with the Shadow 1931-1939 holds.

RobinHood3000

04-30-2006, 08:19 AM

As to the idea that first person is a more "honest" perspective - I dont buy it. The reader can be manipulated by a biased first person narrator just as easily as by a dishonest third person narrator.It's more honest in that it gives a better insight into the thoughts of character, not in the sense that it is more objective.

ShoutGrace

12-21-2006, 01:44 AM

In retrospect, I think Dostoevsky used this method profusely in Crime and Punishment. Good luck!

Indeed he did, and, in fact, it was a dilemna similar or almost exactly like imthefoolonthehill's that led him to do it. He start C&P off in the 1st person, but couldn't get all he wanted out of it, so stopped writing and switched to 3rd person. ;)

Gazette

02-08-2007, 08:48 AM

First person is the best for several reasons, number one things are more exciting if you know how to write in first person and the fact that things seem to be more alive. Third person is best for beginners and those who are not confident in their abilities.

Miss Anonymous

08-30-2007, 09:48 PM

Hello everyone!

As a forewarning, I'm new here and I didn't exactly know where to post this particular thread, so if it's in the wrong place just blame it on me being a newbie. :D

I'm planning on writing a novel, for lack of a better word, and I'm writing it in the first person perspective, but I'm having some trouble with character backgrounds. I'm not having that much trouble with the main character, it's the other important characters that are giving me problems. I don't want to let the main character introduce the other characters in a way that suggests he just met them, for example: "he had brown eyes, black hair, dark skin, etc." He's known them for years already, but I know that I have to have him describe them in some way so as to give the readers a bit of a picture of what they look like, I just don't know any unique ways of doing so. So, any of you that don't mind giving out advice, can you help me?

barbara0207

08-31-2007, 07:23 PM

Welcome to the forum. :)

You are right, the way you put it the descriptions sound a bit awkward. Why don't you insert them by way of speaking, such as 'I looked into his brown eyes' or 'He had always been a bit obsessive about his nose, thought it wasn't straight enough, but plastic surgery?!' or 'I knew her when we were kids, and she was small and mousy back then, but now she had grown into a ... woman.'

So as a rule you would not give the complete description at a time but whenever it fits in. I hope this makes sense to you. :)

Logos

08-31-2007, 07:43 PM

Mod note: moved from General Literature :)

Logos

08-31-2007, 07:44 PM

Welcome to LitNet Miss Anonymous. Just for your information, there was a discussion about this subject a while ago, it might be helpful to you :)

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3389
.
.

sbmarti2

09-04-2007, 10:26 PM

I prefer the style of 19th century France, where the omnipotent narrator is discussing the story with you. i.e. 'And now we will leave our hero for just a moment to learn of other interesting events', etc.

May be a bit dated, but I've always enjoyed it.

Butterfly_Wings

07-14-2008, 02:45 PM

PeterL

07-14-2008, 02:53 PM

I'm currently writing something that is very intense in nature, graphic in an specific subject that requires the reader to be inside the body of the protagonist and for the story to carry its point, the reader should feel everything that the protagonist lives.
Yet I'm unsure which method would be best for this story, whether I should write it from a 1st person point of view or from a 3rd?
I'm weary about both b/c in 1st person I get the feeling that some things will get lost in the story, details that are not experienced from the 1st person yet still somehow important. Yet in the 3rd person the intensity will be dimmed and the story not as powerful.
Which would be best?

If you want to reader to experience it as if inside the narrator, then first person would be best, but, if there are things that are not experienced by the main character's , then the third person would be better. Unfortunately, you have both, so you should change something. I have a preference for first person, so might let the main character learn about those things somehow, or you could cheat and have the main character overhear something. You could also do as oters have suggested and have a seond narrator.

Lioness_Heart

07-14-2008, 03:54 PM

I'm currently writing something that is very intense in nature, graphic in an specific subject that requires the reader to be inside the body of the protagonist and for the story to carry its point, the reader should feel everything that the protagonist lives.
Yet I'm unsure which method would be best for this story, whether I should write it from a 1st person point of view or from a 3rd?
I'm weary about both b/c in 1st person I get the feeling that some things will get lost in the story, details that are not experienced from the 1st person yet still somehow important. Yet in the 3rd person the intensity will be dimmed and the story not as powerful.
Which would be best?

Would you be able to use a mixture? As in, narrate most in the third person, but have snippets of first person narrative in the parts that you want to be more intense?

And an extra thought...

The narrative structure of Frankenstein is very interesting (Walton-Victor-Creature-Victor-Walton) in many ways, but in this context, it's good because different perspectives are given on the same events, and the reader doubts the various narrators' reliablility, thus seeing their faults more clearly. Sorry, I'll give a better explanation of what I mean tomorrow... g2g

johann cruyff

07-14-2008, 04:33 PM

Most of my favourite novels were written in 1st person,so I guess I prefer that kind of narrative,although I don't really care as long as the writing is good.

kelby_lake

07-15-2008, 10:49 AM

1st person is hard for me. I like the idea but if the person is actually a character and there are things happening away from them that I'd like to write about, it's hard. In Vanity Fair, it is my recollection that Thackerey mocked the idea of the
omniscient narrator who seemed to be able to go everywhere.
I think the third person is good as each character can be told in depth without bias. Perhaps then, a mixture of the two?

Loike

07-15-2008, 12:32 PM

What about John Fowles' narration in "The French Lieutenant's Woman"?

In this novel, the narration is 3rd person throughout, but Fowles continually mentions things about the process of writing the novel. For example, he remarks at one point that he has been disingenuous in not mentioning certain feelings that one of the characters was experiencing until then. He tells the reader why he wrote some of the scenes the way he did.

Oh, gosh, I love that novel. It makes me all warm and tingly on the inside. :). I do like third-person narration, because I find that a lot of subtle humour and, in Fowles' case, a gentle mocking, can be injected into the text and like somebody else has commented, a broader perspective is achieved.

But at the same time a welcome change is afforded by reading a novel in first-person. It makes for some very absorbed reading, I feel, and often inititiates a more personal response to a novel than third-person narration does.

Both obviously have their advantages and appeals, and I certainly wouldn't want to see the decline of one in favour of the other when so much can be obtained from the two.

xx

amalia1985

07-15-2008, 12:58 PM

It depends. I think that 1st Person narration is a really special style, as long as the authors have the talent to use it in such a way that will make the writing unique.

Lioness_Heart

07-15-2008, 03:49 PM

May I rephrase yesterday's garbled post?

ahem...

The first-person narrative in Frankenstein is really effective, as the same events are told from the points of view of both Victor and the Creature; the reader is encouraged to empathise with the narrator, so when such opposing narrators are used, both sides of the picture are seen, and the reader can get a more balanced picture. Also, characterisation-wise, many of Victor's flaws are highlighted during the creature's early narrative when the reader feels sympathy with the creature: this differs widely from Victor's own account, and makes him seem less reliable as a narrator. This allows the reader to pick up on weaknesses in his character later on during his narrative. I don't believe this would be nearly so effective as a third-person narrative.

Although I like both 1st and 3rd person - the narrative is what the author makes of it. Some 1st person narratives seem a little waffly and overly emotional, but it all comes down to the author's own style

Beautifull

07-15-2008, 07:31 PM

i think it matters on what kind of story it is. some sound better if they are told in first person, because if it was told in third, it just wouldn't be the same. some are told in third for the same reason.

but if someone is wondering if they should write their new story in first or third, it might not matter who it is they go to for advice...it will matter on the author themselves. only they can see how their story will come out, because every writer has a different imagination and way of writing.

it solely depends on the author and their story,which is better,first or third.

Dori

07-15-2008, 09:05 PM

I prefer 3rd.

And what about 2nd person? :p (I haven't the time to look through the rest of the posts so forgive me if someone has already mentioned it.)

tractatus

07-16-2008, 09:34 AM

Yes, 1st Person narration is harder to write.
If we compare, 3rd is easier, traditional, and have more flexible timeline.

2nd person is the rarest, as long as i know. The most valuable ones I can remember is Fuentes's Aurora and Calvino's famous If on a Winter Night (http://www.italo-calvino.com/ifon.htm).

kelby_lake

08-10-2008, 12:00 PM

I like 3rd person limited

urb

09-12-2010, 02:40 PM

Whenever I pick up a novel, I find myself looking to see if it is written in the first or third person. My preference is the third person, but I just wanted to ask the question here.

Kyriakos

09-12-2010, 03:10 PM

stlukesguild

09-12-2010, 03:13 PM

I couldn't care less. Such a question strikes me a rather akin to "Do you like blue or red in a painting?"

L.M. The Third

09-12-2010, 03:39 PM

I voted for the first person. I don't believe the third person is realistic, since i am of the view that a writer can only know himself/herself in any reasonable depth, and will inevitably therefore present others in simplistic ways, or false ones.
Perhaps you forget that first person in novels is generally used for a character, just as third person. It is merely a different way for the writer to control the reader's consciousness.

Dark Muse

09-12-2010, 06:37 PM

I couldn't care less. Such a question strikes me a rather akin to "Do you like blue or red in a painting?"

Hahaha, I more or less agree.

I do love books which have unconventional first person narrators, or rebellious and sardonic narrators but I do not acutally prefer first person narration over 3rd person narration, I think both can be equally effective if used well by the author, and I will not choose to read or not read a book based upon the narration style.

I enjoy both equally.

There was one time when I had wished a book was in the 3rd person becasue the narrator made me want to dig my eyes out with a spoon and I was just tired of listening to her.

Modest Proposal

09-12-2010, 06:52 PM

I couldn't care less. Such a question strikes me a rather akin to "Do you like blue or red in a painting?"

Oh, definitely red.

Modest Proposal

09-12-2010, 06:53 PM

No, yellooooooow...

MadcapLaugher

09-12-2010, 08:24 PM

I like both equally. Sometimes thought I find if I hate a book written in 3rd person I'll personally blame the author, but with 1st person I'll blame the terrible narrator.

The Comedian

09-12-2010, 09:13 PM

I think I made a thread about this a while ago, but I prefer stories told in the first person. Not exclusively -- nor do I think one point of view is better than the other. But there's something just intriguing and intimate and soothing and compelling about reading the voice of the teller (implied or otherwise). I don't know. I just like it. Maybe I like red better than blue too.

But what we're talkin' about here is taste, right? So along the same lines, give me an honest slug of Jack Daniels over your fancy Irish and Scotch whiskeys. Just tastes better to me.

Alexander III

09-13-2010, 12:29 PM

I prefer third in general, oh and in painting there is no doubts about it Green is the way to go.

PeterL

09-13-2010, 01:46 PM

I voted for Other, but both first and third person are fine, if they are written well. First person is more intimate, and if the character is well done, it will draw me into a story. Third person is fine for stories with multiple locations and central characters where there is no clear narrator in the story.

kelby_lake

09-14-2010, 06:10 AM

I voted for the first person. I don't believe the third person is realistic, since i am of the view that a writer can only know himself/herself in any reasonable depth, and will inevitably therefore present others in simplistic ways, or false ones.

The writer is the person who writes the other characters. They are basically extensions of him/herself, so of course they know what the other characters are thinking. It's like playing god, really.

nandakishore

09-14-2010, 11:27 AM

PeterL

09-14-2010, 01:24 PM

I'm late in jumping into this conversation, and have not read all the posts, but I'm curious: has a novel ever been written in the second person?

Ramsey Campbell has written a short story that way; but I have forgotten the name.

Quite bit has been written in the second person. I have only read a few small piece, but there are novels. I don't know how long these are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-person_narrative

Heteronym

09-14-2010, 05:35 PM

I prefer the third person narrator. For these reasons: a third person narrator can incorporate a first person narrator but not vice versa; I'm never convinced that someone would narrate something - what justifies the act of narration? No one in real life tells a 300 page-long story. The third person narrator can enter the minds of any character, jump from protagonist to protagonist, digress, whereas the first person is centered on one character; the third person narrator can change the tone and register: it can become technical, erudite, vulgar, lyrical, comical, etc., in a heartbeat. This is what Mikhail Bakhtin calls polyphony; in a first person narrator the voice is the same.

In sum, for the third person narrator offers a great freedom to the writer to explore language, use creativity and experiment. The first person narrator, instead, seems to me the easiest way of writing, by merely describing someone's impression of something, like a detached observer.