Write On! :: Discuss the art and craft of writing

Make a new account

On the kuro5hin site, we see a lot of godawful fiction come through there. Most of it is written in the first person, so I've become a bit of a nuisance about pointing out how writing in the first person perspective (FPP) is the hallmark of a novice writer. I've written a lot about this and janra came across one of my posts and she asked me to add it here. Sorry about the length. I didn't have time to write less. Also, my degree is in philosophy which specializes in writing a lot about very little things. So, here it is, modified so that it makes sense outside of the discussion I was having with someone else:

Basically, FPP is the biggest de facto plot hole ever devised by man. It is the mark of a capable writer to fill it in. Novice authors don't. FPP tempts beginning writers away from the light side. Here's what some new authors think it does:

1) Inserts the reader into the story
2) Heightens dramatic tension
3) Simplifies the character development process

Here's the catch. It does do all of the above but not in the way that the author expects.

In 1, the author attempts to cast the character as the narrator. This fails the moment the character does something that the reader would not do. Characters shoot guns, talk glibly, ride motor cycles. Most people don't and it distances the reader from the material. Sure, in a "wouldn't it be cool if I could do this" way, it's possible for us readers to be that narrator; more likely we just name the character "I" and give him special pronouns and we readers never adopt the persona of the narrator.

In 2, it can do that since it limits the readers perception just to what the narrator can see. This may be effective for horror (Edgar Allen Poe and H. P. Lovecraft wrote extensively in FPP) but dramatic tension should come from the situation and not from yoking the reader. Is it scary for me to yell "Boo"? Is it scarier to build up a horrific plot line? If your story relies on yelling "Boo", then you have a weak story.

In 3, it simplifies it by casting the reader as either the narrator or as the person hearing the story. Often, the author intends for the reader to be the narrator. This means that he doesn't do any character development at all. Character development is half of the story writing process, and arguably the toughest half. It's also the half that rewards people for reading. Character development is the process where the author earns the reader's emotional investment. But since I'm not the narrator (as evidenced by point 1), the author never makes the attempt to gain my emotional investment. He's cheated me; I feel cheated; I want my money back. I don't care if the character lives or dies. Maybe he deserves the fate of the story.

(At this point, someone pointed out that my problem was with SPP, implying that the author may be the person telling the story instead of wanting the reader in the role)

The same problems exist in Second Person Perspective (SPP), too, but there the idea of the "the reader is the agent" is explicit. In FPP, there's this vague middle ground. Either the author himself is the narrator or he's casting the reader as the narrator. If the author is the narrator, points 2 & 3 still apply. And an author who inserts himself into a story is a near failure as an author if he is incapable of creating both a world and a believable character (see the movie Adaptation, but this is really a metamovie). Part of an author's job is to create people. Most real people just aren't that interesting. Most authors are dull. The author needs to sell me the characters and not just assume that I care about them, even if it is the author himself.

Here's another thing. Most novice writers never describe the narrator. But suppose we have a simple tale about Ali who remotely controls a robot that kills people. Now, compare what we know about Ali to this unknown "I". Which one do you find more interesting? I assume Ali is Arab by the name, but that's my only clue. Also, I have a mental image of what he looks like, and I assume he's a kid for some reason. In a bad FPP story, I have no idea. I know it's not me and that's it.

Plots don't act. People do. Events don't happen spontaneously. People bring them about. Character development fleshes out these events and make them more real. Sure, an impersonal bullet kills a man just as effectively as the man who shot the gun, but are you interested in the bullet or the gunman? What brought this man about to shoot? New writers forget this. And when they use FPP, they put their ordinary selves into extraordinary circumstances and forget that there's other people acting in the world. The circumstances become the driver; plot takes over as the impetus to the story; humans cease to exist except to advance the plot. This always comes across as forced. At the denouement, imagine the big faceless corporate CEO grabbing a gun and shooting at the protagonist. Convenient for the plot, perhaps, but did he really get to be CEO by shooting his way to the top? The whole thing comes across as absurd, but that's how characters are employed by novice writers; they needed a big gun fight so insert <here>. Oh, wait, it's absurd that he fight without it being in his lifestyle. OK, make him a mobster... And such cliche just goes to show how little care the author took with his character development. FPP is just the tip of the iceberg to this problem. But eliminate FPP, and the author is more likely to confront them; or he will at least for the main character like in the other story in the queue.

And it's not like character development necessarily takes that much page space. It's just hard to fit in to the flow of the story. But that is what good authors do and bad authors don't. All perspectives have the problems of organic plot advancement and character development, but FPP and SPP permit authors to avoid them. They shouldn't.

My biggest recommendation to authors who want to do an FPP story is to assume that the narrator is of the opposite sex. That should give them the distance they need to do some actual creative work. Or, ("For the love of God, Montresor!") at least give the character a name.

Nice batch of insightful comments. (Almost spelled it inciteful, which, if it is, for beginning writers, all the better!)

As a self-taught writer of fiction, I've fallen into many of the problems you point out. I started (of course) writing in first person exclusively. Discovered (as you point out) that there may be important things going on that the main character doesn't know about, which can't be included in the story. And that, since the other characters were not well sketched, they never actually wanted to do anything, so it was hard to develop a plot.

So mostly nowadays I behave myself and write in 3rd person. Sometimes looking over the shoulder of one character (so that it's first person in all but syntax); sometimes another character; sometimes more distant from the action, impersonally critiquing everybody. It makes for better character development, and once the characters (and a situation) are developed, they have the darndest habit of doing precisely as they please, not following my ideas about the direction the plot should go; rather just acting like people act. It's fun; it's breathtaking.

I've done warped little love stories in second person; it works nicely in love poetry and songs and such, but not so well in a story, if only because it demands that the reader identify with the narrator in a big way.
Exploring dark places since last Thursday
[ Parent ]

I'm just as self-taught, and all though I can't say much for some bad uses of techniques like that, I can say that the switching narrative techniques is quite a fun way to write. I've only run into slight problems with a tentative inclusion of Second Person thanks to F. Scott Fitzgerald and his sudden use of I or you in the middle of a third person imminent story, however, I think that this adds a certain conversational flair to the voice of your story.

Make sure not to restrict yourself to third person and then to kill off your voices indefinately - First person can often give your reader the edge they need to see within, especially if your conflict is Internal or remotely personal.

[ Parent ]

Due to the style, the character is telling the story him/herself, which means that the character should have a reason to tell the story, and somebody to tell it to.

This doesn't have to be explicitly shown, but I find that a first-person narrative using somebody who doesn't talk about his thoughts much to anybody and certainly wouldn't write them down as the point of view character a bit jarring. It just doesn't feel right.

That's one of the main reasons I opted for "third person immanent" (or as I like to call it, "first person but for the grammar") for my novel. The POV character is extremely unlikely to tell her own story for several reasons, and even less likely to find a person she'd be willing to tell it to. In my mind, that locked first person out immediately. I did, however, still want to show the inside of her head. The narrative, while still third person, is thus filtered by her perceptions, and includes her opinions, justified and unjustified with equal weight.

It can be tricky showing that somebody she dislikes is a nice person...

--
Who needs to be big and burly when you can just apply physics?

That's a tough issue. Robertson Davies has finessed it in a number of ways. One of my favorites among his novels, Fifth Business, is written as a series of auto-biographical letters from a schoolmaster (the main character, Dunstan Ramsey) ostensibly to his headmaster. It's a rollicking good tale, whatever the presentation. In a more recent essay, the author remarks that the critics seem to have missed his point: the headmaster Ramsey is addressing is in fact God. He's justifying his life, and the one great quasi-crime he's felt guilty about all his life.

Of course, one drawback to being too close to one of the characters is that you can't have any action in the novel not witnessed by that character. So sometimes a small ensemble of POV characters can be useful. But it's important for the reader to be able to tell immediately which character that is (some novels in fact use character names as chapter titles for this purpose).
Exploring dark places since last Thursday
[ Parent ]

A lot of characters are willing to tell their stories, but there are some that aren't, and those are the ones that I find jarring in first person.

The main character you mention, Dunstan Ramsey, apparently has a reason to tell (or write) his story, and that's great.

Of course, one drawback to being too close to one of the characters is that you can't have any action in the novel not witnessed by that character.

True enough, but then working within limits can provoke some great stuff, sometimes better than if you have as much room as you want.
--
Who needs to be big and burly when you can just apply physics?
[ Parent ]

hardly qualifies as a huge book, but the point is conceded nonetheless.

One author I have always admired when it comes to narrative voice in Kurt Vonnegut Jr. In several of his works (Slapstick & Breakfast of Champions for example), he does the sort of Third Person narrative where the narrator has a very distinct voice of their own and will occasionally directly address the reader. And he does it to tremendously good effect at that.

Another device he uses is that of having a ghost as a narrator (Galapagos). This works to great effect, because the ghost can observe what is going on throughout the story without directly interacting (in a fly-on-the-wall sense), but you also have a structured personality who can comment on what is going on.

This device was also used in Douglas Coupland's Girlfriend in a Coma.

Of course, if you use this device you have to accept that you are introducing a surreal element into your story and also that your narator character is now going to need some sort of resolution to their own story as well as the resolutions you owe to your other characters.

Also, I have read some good things which were written in second person, but none of them longer than about 1000 words. In a really short piece, it can actually feel natural, but much longer than that and it really does start to just scream WRITING EXERCISE.

If you want to read my most recent attempt at second person, you can go to my website at http://smut.dhs.org and enter "sp" (lower case, no quotes) into the form.

cheers

#!duff

Points of view