So, writer types,

[glenatron]

A quick question for you writerly types:

Do you have a preference for writing in the first or third person and if so which and why? In what circumstances would you choose one over the other?

I don't really have a lot of knowledge about this stuff, not technical expertise to the degree most of you have to offer but I'm thinking of trying to throw something together that's a little longer than I would usually write and I don't want to make this decision wrong at the start because it will take a heck of a lot of unpicking...

Comments

[makoiyi.livejournal.com]

I write in third mainly, although I do write in first occasionally. The trouble with first for me is that I get tired of reading it after a while. For me, it's for blogs etc. It also seems that many of the Paranormal type books - vampires, werewolves etc, all - or nearly all, seem to be in first as well. Or is it that I just notice it more? First, done well, is a pleasure to read. But very often it isn't.

Third can be as restricting as first, it depends whether it's a limited one or one where you use multiple povs. I must admit I prefer it but then I like to get deep into characters and their internal thoughts etc.

[glenatron.livejournal.com]

Third sounds like a more complex issue in terms of how close you take it and what else you choose to reveal. I think probably a close third is what I'll be using, but this story would work in first person too.

Surely you can get almost more deep into your protagonist's thoughts through first? But then not into anyone else's I guess.

[makoiyi.livejournal.com]

Surely you can get almost more deep into your protagonist's thoughts through first? But then not into anyone else's I guess.

Yes, in first, absolutely, but I like to show different povs and, as someone else said, you are standing just that little bit further back and observing. Writing and reading from just one persepctive I just find too limiting. Sometimes, however, I will write a scene in first just to 'see' how a character reacts.

As I said, though, first done really well is a pleasure, but oft times you get too much *I* so that as a reader you become too aware of the writer instead of totally immersed.

[wldhrsjen3.livejournal.com]

I, uh, am not the most experienced writer so I feel like a fraud answering. But I've written both first and third and find that sometimes the story itself seems to call for one or the other. I've played around with a few short stories that just felt like they should be in first - the point of the story was the impact on one particular character, you know? But the novels I mess around with are in close third. I like staying fairly close to a character because I think knowing the motivations and _feeling_ the character helps drive the plot and raise tension, but I like the freedom of switching from one close third perspective to another in a different chapter if the story calls for it. And I feel like close third allows me to present a slightly larger picture than if I were restricted to straight first.

Of course, I haven't actually _finished_ any of these novels, so... grain of salt and all. :P

[glenatron.livejournal.com]

You're more experienced than me, certainly with regard to fiction.

I'm thinking along similar lines for what I want to do. Especially as my central character is likely to be somewhat naive and I think that is easier to show from the outside.

[skiesfirepaved.livejournal.com]

Oh yeh - disregard my comment, I second this one! XD

[skiesfirepaved.livejournal.com]

I always write in third, even when doing my Holmes fics (as the originals were first person, obviously). I hate first. I find it hard to write because I like to distance myself from the character, and it makes me feel like I'm the narrator ... I dunno, I'm just weird like that. :P

That being said, all but one of my favourite books were written in the first person. *shrug* Who knows.

"thinking of trying to throw something together that's a little longer than I would usually write" - NaNo? NaNo???? :D

[glenatron.livejournal.com]

I'm almost tempted, because you guys always seem to be having such a lovely time, but 1600 words per day? That's a lot and I'm still busy thinking up names for places and drawing maps for my setting. I haven't even got as far as characters or any of that.

I like the plot, though, as a general idea. The plot has legs.

[life-of-tom.livejournal.com]

I write in first a lot, though I see it of something as a bad habit. I do like it a lot, though- it's as if the character is addressing the reader directly, sharing their own reactions to everything. I think that's something that suits my writing style- I always strive to be conversational, and my characters, much like their author (for want of a better term- calling myself that sounds presumptuous!) are often wont to think something over and psychoanalize themselves. I'm interested in getting underneath their skin that way. I think that makes for a certain kind of story, though.

I think it's all about where your focus is. If it's about multiple points of view and grand sweeping plots, I think third person's the best.

Oh, and check out the opening sequence of Iain Banks' Complicity for an amazing use of the second person.

[life-of-tom.livejournal.com]

Oh, and a point I forgot to put in the post above- if you've got lots and lots of characters in third person, giving one a first-person perspective gives them a certain primacy. It might make them stand out in the narrative. I expect you could do something very clever with that- making the 'I' less reliable than 'they' in, say, a large historical novel. Of course, the 'I' is usually best as an insignificant figure:

'Napoleon strode into the meeting room, furious with himself for making such a tactical mistake, but also at his generals. Their incompetence incensed him, and his rage was like a physical thing, emanating from him in great mesmeric waves of terror.

It was I who opened the door for him. I was glad I would not be the focus of this anger. Sometimes I was unhappy at my lot in life, but not that day. I could stand the other side of the wind and watch the Emperor's hurricane fury shake his unfortunate subordinates to pieces.'

You could carry that on that situation, with the 'I' passing comment on the Great Man's fury. If you wrote a scene from Napoleon's point of view, it'd be less interesting.

'The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time' is a really good example of how first-person can work, too. The narrator doesn't understand what is going on at a human level at all, and this is used to wonderful effect throughout the book as the whole sad story unfolds.

[glenatron.livejournal.com]

This is something I want to work with a bit in that I do want the central character to be pretty naive, but I'm not sure whether that is best shown through their eyes or by having a bit more context from other characters that they might not necessarily notice.

It is quite a borderline case here.

[life-of-tom.livejournal.com]

If you can manage to get a coherent internal narrative for WHY a person makes a particular set of mistakes, or does something bad, then that becomes really interesting territory. I like what makoiyi said there about writing a scene from different points of view just to 'see what happens'.

You could actually deliberately contrast that, ie flick from some kind of slightly judgemental, omnipresent narrator's voice to that of the protagonist. A history book, contrasted with an inner monologue, say. The film 'District 9' (which is really good, by the way) does this, only with a faux-documentary instead of the history book.

Ooh- how about having each chapter of a story open with a historical fragment explaining why the protagonist is a dumbass, and having the protagonist arguing with back the text! That'd be a really cool format.

Of course, I don't know what kind of story you want to tell, so I may be completely and utterly wrong.

[glenatron.livejournal.com]

This is a pretty simple story, much more direct that I would usually write and if it does come to anything it will only find success through outstanding execution- which I'm not sure I'm up to yet in longer work - but it's a theme that interests me.

[shanks01.livejournal.com]

First is very cool. And makes it a bit more personal.

5th is quite good to.

[glenatron.livejournal.com]

The Ballad Of Bran McTaff must be going in that direction by now- a story told to Shanks that will then have been told to someone else, making it a fourth-person narrative?