Whats wrong with 1st person? - Writers Forum

Eiji Tunsinagi · 08-03-2004, 07:31 PM

I've been hearing that a persons first novel shouldnt be first person...why? Do publisher not like it? But I've seen first novels being in 1st person and being succsessful.......I want my first novel in first person....is it a good idea or will it be looked over?

MisterRaziel · 08-03-2004, 07:45 PM

I can't see anything wrong with it. It lends a really gritty crime noir feel to the narrative.

The way I see it, you shouldn't confine yourself because of what you think others might like. The POV isn't a bad thing if it works with the story.

eleutheromaniac · 08-03-2004, 08:15 PM

I think the reason is that writing first person narrative for an entire novel is exponentially more difficult than third person. The reason is that you are limited in how the narrator percieves events as well as what events the narrator could percieve. There are certain events that, although they may be crucial to telling the story, the character who is narrating the story could not possibly know about. So you have to address it in kind of an end-run sort of way. It's tricky and it makes writing a novel that much more difficult. Personally, I liked the challenge of it. First person and third person both have distinct advantages and disadvantages: you have to decide what is best for you and your book. I think I saw a thread about this in the critique forum.

Lupin3 · 08-03-2004, 08:41 PM

Dear god eleuthero, we (almost) agree!

Actually, I would say third person omniscient is the most difficult perspective to do well.

Here's another thread where I've laid out some of my thoughts:

http://www.writingforums.com/viewtop...742&highlight=

I'd really like to hear everyone's thoughts on this subject, so stop on by.

Eiji Tunsinagi · 08-03-2004, 09:04 PM

omni-whateth??? I've never understood the difference between those third person close/Normal third person/Third person Omniscient. Someone elaborate, for my sake. I even read an article on it and STILL didnt get it.

Lupin3 · 08-03-2004, 09:44 PM

I elaborate on it in the link provided above.

Lupin3 · 08-03-2004, 09:46 PM

Oh and hey, fellow Atlantan.

JSneddon · 08-03-2004, 10:07 PM

I didn't understand the 1st person rule until after I sold my first novel, which was written in.... 1st person.

The primary reason is publishers want to the antagonist to have a POV. Showing a scene where the protagonist is preparing in one way, and flipping to a scene where the antagonist is preparing another, builds suspense. It allows the reader to see things the main character can't. This is very difficult if not impossible to do in 1st person.

Another drawback to writing the story in 1st person is you pretty much know the protagonist survives whatever is thown at him/her. It lessens the threat they face.

But remember, if the story will be better written in 1st person, then do it.

The only rule to writing is there are no rules. If you don't believe that then take a look at the variety of the books out there. The novel just needs to be better by breaking rules than it would be following them.

Lupin3 · 08-03-2004, 10:20 PM

Interesting comments, J. And congratulations on having sold your first novel. I don't know, it coulda been ten years ago, but I just found out so congrats anyway. Deal.

I would suggest that the way out of many of the apparent constrictions of 1st person is to remember that the narrator does not necessarily need to be reliable. The story you're reading, however much it seems to be told from the perspective of the hero, might actually be told from the perspective of the antagonist. Or something. The narrator needn't be the central character, and needn't be speaking the truth.

Twain's "The Jumping Frog of Caleveras County" or Melville's "Benito Cereno" are good examples of unreliable narrators. Actually, "Huck Finn" is a excellent example, now that I think about it.

eleutheromaniac · 08-03-2004, 10:30 PM

^ That's exactly what I did for my book, with a little twist at the end.

JSneddon: I think that would really only apply to action/adventure novels. In Catcher, for example, there was no real antagonist (unless you count all the 'phonies') and I don't think knowing whether or not he was going to die had an impact.

Eiji Tunsinagi · 08-03-2004, 10:35 PM

Yo, fellow person-in-same-state. But that has nothing to do WITH:

Is it better to have the emotion expressed in first person or the movement best expressed in third person? I like both----and hope I will be able to put both together at some point in the future.

Lupin3 · 08-03-2004, 10:36 PM

Cool man, put your readers in the mind of the enemy!

Eiji Tunsinagi · 08-03-2004, 10:38 PM

Even better, dont bother telling them whos view its from---the hero or villan. But then I'd be confusing even myself.

JSneddon · 08-04-2004, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Is it better to have the emotion expressed in first person or the movement best expressed in third person?

There is no reason emotion cannot be every bit as poignantly expressed in third person.

Quote:

I think that would really only apply to action/adventure novels.

I agree. However, when the reader can see things the protagonist cannot, it provides a new realm of possibilities. As I said, the rules can be broken for the right reasons. Although I still disagree with Leisure Books, they are the ones who decide whether they want my novels.

If done properly and effectively, you can do whatever you want. The key is knowing and understanding all the different POV's and why your story is better using one than another.

gabriella · 08-04-2004, 08:31 AM

I honestly can't stand first person. I just bought a fantasy series in first person though, so that I can see how that would work out. I don't know why it would be worse, but I just don't like it much. In all my books-to-be I have plots and characters that never meet or know of each other's existance, but they're all needed. Similarly, I love it when I can throw in the antagonist, too. I just feel like first person limits way too much, so I don't know if I'll ever write a novel in first person.