Under what circumstances is it best to use first person?
Thanks.
I've explained this at greater length and detail, but the basics are actually quite simple.
First person at once can get you deeper inside a person's head and keep you at arm's length. In third person, you know what's going on in someone's head. In first person, you know what they're willing to write down on paper. This introduces the possibility of an UNRELIABLE NARRATOR, which is something that can be used to great affect by a talented writer.
The trouble with first person is usually that, in the hands of a beginner, it is not well thought out. For some reason this person is one that a great many authors begin with, probably because many of us daydreamed our first stories with ourselves as the heroes. This isn't a good reason to use first person POV, though.
When I started attempting to write, I started in first person, primarilly because of the Chronicles of Amber. The first short story I hacked out was in present tense. It wasn't purposeful. But perhaps, I was trying to recover the illusion of immediacy only found in third person.
However, I can't imagine the Chronicles of Amber in third person. Neither could Ender's Game be written in first. But when I read the Amber series, and Corwin 'hellrode' his way toward Chaos, I never once thought, "Hey, this isn't immediate enough." I was right there.
The main point is that readers will not care whether a story is in First or Third IF it's a good story and well written. So the most important thing is to be a skilled writer and write only great stories!
What you express is the reason why many authorities discourage relatively new writers from writing in first person (when their goal is to get their early writing published). It demands much more from the writer in terms of writing "in character" consistently, and keeping the voice of distinct characters consistently distinct throughout a story. It's a skill like most others that usually needs to be developed over time and practice. In third person there is a single narrator that's not part of the story and so is expected to add little or no "personality" to it as the narrator only conveys observations of the other personalities (an oversimplification).
[Edited to add the following, I had to run off before I could finish]
As far as tense-related things go, you can do things like create journal entries to mitigate the "delay" factor, or ever write in present tense, but you do lose some sense of drama because you know the character had to have survived to be recording what happened to her/him. Also, it would be hard to convey a first-person account that was captured "as it happened" (because the character is busy with the happening and can't be writing it down until later) which it's plausible the narrator could be doing. You could create a character that always carried a running tape recorder or something.
It's a subtle thing, and for my part I don't experience that first person seems more in the past than third, although I suppose that if I looked for it, it might be there.
[This message has been edited by dee_boncci (edited January 20, 2007).]
quote:
Considering that most of us here write fiction, we're never writing about ourselves.
Oh, how this statement is ever so wrong. When you write, it's all about you. How could it not be? You are the only person you have any experience being. You take your mind, your ideas, your thoughts, and your perception, and translate pieces of them into fictional characters. You extrapolate how it feels to be someone else, but everything is measured against the benchmark of being you. That's why Statesman is dead wrong when he says this:
quote:
I only write in first person. Because the way I see it nobody has any right to write a story that isn't about themself, or from their point of view.
[This message has been edited by Spaceman (edited January 20, 2007).]
quote:
quote:Considering that most of us here write fiction, we're never writing about ourselves.Oh, how this statement is ever so wrong. When you write, it's all about you. How could it not be? You are the only person you have any experience being. You take your mind, your ideas, your thoughts, and your perception, and translate pieces of them into fictional characters.
You're right, I didn't phrase that very well. When I wrote that, I was thinking in terms of being the narrator, not the author. The author of fiction is writing about himself, but the narrator isn't necessarily the same person. With fiction, we usually rely on it not to be, because the narrator is usually a character in these fictitious stories, even if it is just as chronicler. Am I making any sense?
In this case, the narrator doesn't have to have any personal stake to the story, just so long as it's an important and meaningful one to be told. The author is writing a fiction about himself, but the narrator narrates as if the story were nonfiction, and that story is not necessarily about itself. Just because the story isn't about the narrator, though, doesn't make Third Person any less appropriate than First Person, and that's what I was trying to say.
[This message has been edited by Ray (edited January 21, 2007).]
For instance my MC is imprisoned in a deep, dark hole when he is writing/ telling the story. Do I need to tell you he wrote it in blood on the walls or whatever I decide he did?
Scott
Take the children's book series, Animorphs by K. A. Applegate. It's never quite clear how the narrators are communicating their story. All that's made known is that they do it in secret and their manuscript is kept in well guarded places or spots where they can keep their anonymity. Much is left to the imagination. This keeps with the general tone of the series that they are under considerable stress and danger, but they're still taking the proper precautions. Here, we're left to infer most of the narrators' current situations.
Others can be more overt. I can't remember the title, but OSC has a short story about a man who's just committed suicide, but the corpse is still "alive" enough to chronicle the events. The narrator continues writing with a pen and paper and he explains in detail his current circumstances while he's writing. Great description ensues as he talks about what he thinks he looks like and then explains that he's using his own blood to finish writing because it feels like the pen is out of ink. We're given a lot of this information because the narrator is trying to give as accurate an account as he can about this strange afterlife, and it does add its own sense of humor to the overall situation. And in the end, you're not quite sure that the narrator is even giving an accurate account.
It really depends on how important the current circumstances are in adding to your readers' sympathies. Will it make the story any clearer, or explain more of what's going on.
As for the blood on the walls, unless the cell is really large, your narrator isn't going to be able to tell a long story. Writing with your own blood can get pretty messy, and cause a lot of unnecessary pain and time--you have to give yourself some time to heal because your body doesn't have a limitless supply.
My character is in an oubliette. Very deep, very dark. He has been down there for over a century. Ive commented that he has begun recounting his history to the darkness, partly to maintain a bit of sanity and so as not to forget his own story. He doesnt believe anyone can hear him. Perhaps there is a shaft somewhere in the underground. He can't see it but perhaps it leads somewhere that someone can hear him. That someone sits there and writes the tale as he recounts it. It may even lead to a rescue.......hmmmmm.
quote:
He can't see it but perhaps it leads somewhere that someone can hear him. That someone sits there and writes the tale as he recounts it. It may even lead to a rescue.......hmmmmm.
That being the case, you may want to consider framing the story, or rather, having a third person narration about the character who hears him, and then go into the first person account. Of course, this being the case, you'll also need to explain why the person who hears him is bothering to write it down, or at least the parts that he's hearing.
Although with this shaft thing, I have to question how this prisoner wouldn't know about it. After all, if you've been in a spot for at least a hundred years, you're gonna know your surroundings pretty darn well.
I've started collecting some basic metrics on characteristics of stories published in anthologies and magazines. You can find them here and here. They're not complete by any stretch, but of the stories surveyed, only about 10% of them are written in the present tense. (The anthologies varied more widely, with as many as 26% present-tense stories in one anthology, and 0% in Writers of the Future.)
Since present tense is relatively rare, you can expect it to interfere with some people's enjoyment of the story. Things that are unfamiliar to us can distract us.
In literary fiction it's much more common, so for that kind of market you're probably fine.
I'd bet (I've done no research) that young adult fiction uses past tense almost exclusively, though.
Regards,
Oliver
I like the idea of starting out with the 3rd person for the character writing it down. I was thinking that perhaps this is not the first time he heard the MC voice. He thinks it is paranormal perhaps. I could even have the 3rd person portion of the story be present day even though the main character is telling a story that starts in the 1700's. He is immortal after all. Im still fleshing it out in my head. I have a beginning and and ending for the 1st person portion of the story. Im still filling out the middle. Just kicking around ideas.
Scott