It goes without saying that the most common forms of western narratives are either told 'third person omniscient' (i.e 'a sudden darkness spread across the city and the people reacted with fear and dread') or 'first person' ('suddenly i found myself plunged into darkness'). it's rare, though becoming more popular for stories to be told in 'second person' ('you heard the lights go out and suddenly feel yourself plunged into a sudden darkness'), though often it seems this is a stylistic choice and as such is not often used for longer work such as novels. rarer still is 'first/second person pluralism' ('we/they heard the lights go out and we/they were suddenly plunged into darkness'). in the latter's case, such a voice is quite commonly used - though rarely for the entirety of a piece of course.
the question i would like to ask then is, when it comes to your work, what factors influence your decision of who's perspective your story should be told from? are you the kind of writer who lets the work make the choice for you, or do you make a deliberate choice? what do you notice about the difference in impact of, say, a first-person narrative over a third-person omniscient narrative?
personally, both applies, but i definitely find it is an issue that comes up when i am about to start a new project. for me, a first-person narrative works better in the following cases:
- my protagonist (or protagonists, if i am telling a story from multiple angles) has a personality that is extremely developed, easy to empathize with (though not necessarily without their flaws) and has a character that is both articulate and distinctive enough to be able to deliver an interesting viewpoint.
- they are present within every scene and their status allows for me to develop other characters as well.
- the story is intended to be highly personal and subjective
- the story is intended to be something of a character study either of the protagonist or of somebody who is closely linked to the protagonist
on the other hand, i find third-person omniscient works a lot better when the story:
- takes place in multiple scenes, in multiple time periods and does not require any bias toward any particular character or group
- involves describing events and actions that would not necessarily be witnessed by anyone in the story - i.e the 'twig snapping in an empty forest' paradox
- requires a high degree of ambiguity and objectivity
- requires distancing, a character to be somewhat unknown to the audience
there are obviously exceptions for all of the above, but as a general rule i find them to be true. what do you think?



2Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote

Bookmarks