1st person or 3rd person?

[Themoodyone]

I am sometimes conflicted about which is more *effective* in the erotic genre. 1st person gives you a true confession perspective (pretty damn hot) and 3rd gives you the flexibility to get into the heads of all characters at the same time (pretty complex ... and hot)

Your thoughts.

[rgraham666]

I've written in both and prefer 1st person. I just find it easier to write in.

That ability of 3rd person, to get inside the heads of all the characters, is one that has to be used with great skill and restraint. Otherwise you end up with what is known as 'head hopping', which can be extremely confusing to the reader.

Even my 3rd person stories I keep to a single POV.

[Themoodyone]

Originally Posted by rgraham666

That ability of 3rd person, to get inside the heads of all the characters, is one that has to be used with great skill and restraint. Otherwise you end up with what is known as 'head hopping', which can be extremely confusing to the reader.

I am pretty new to sharing my stories and wonder if "head hopping" is an issue in my third person attempts. I will have one posted soon. "The Pretender" It has the addded complication of no names to the characters. I often do this to personalize it for the reader. Ironic, I know - but the character can be a true reflection of the reader's interpretation this way. Or so I think.

[sr71plt]

I think they both can be done effectively--and can both be screwed up. If you find yourself naturally falling into one or the other when you start writing your story, you've probably chosen the best one for that story.

There are a couple of brands of 3rd person. The omniscient version, where you get into everyone's head at once, isn't very popular in the U.S. Market now--more so in the British market. I'm reading a Nora Roberts book now in that, and it seems disjointed and every time she swaps perspectives the intensity dissipates.

A way of handling the multiple perspective with 1st person now is to sectionalize and move between sections with characters. I like using that device that when I want to work with the "things not being quite what they seem" in the characters' perspectives. My writing partner here and I have done several stories (and a couple of e-books) using this technique--and making use of characters not really understanding what the other characters' true perspectives are--but the reader being able to see them all.

[Liar]

Originally Posted by rgraham666

Even my 3rd person stories I keep to a single POV.

Even many of my 3rd person stories are actually in 1st person. Because the narration plays a character adressing the reader and telling a story, readily admitting that sometimes, it doesn't know what's going on. Getting things wrong, correcting itself, reflecting over it's ability to tell the story, and so on.

[Themoodyone]

I get that 3rd person can be disjointed, but I can feel marginalized by 1st person and loose the nuances of what the protaganist is feeling. In my novelette this works (I think) because the protaginist's mysterious nature is an alluring and important part of his character. But if that was not the case...

With first person I love the idea of allowing the reader to feel like they are the one who is experiencing the action or that they are "listening" to someone confide in them alone. So I am a not a big fan of reading or writing stories where the first person perspective switches back and forth in sections. It seems less authentic some how. (personal hang up perhaps.)

Thanks for the insights though. Just what I need to work this out.

[sr71plt]

Originally Posted by Liar

Even many of my 3rd person stories are actually in 1st person. Because the narration plays a character adressing the reader and telling a story, readily admitting that sometimes, it doesn't know what's going on. Getting things wrong, correcting itself, reflecting over it's ability to tell the story, and so on.

If your narrator is a character in the story, you're writing flatly a 1st-person story.

Your narrator not knowing everything that goes on just means you aren't writing in omniscent mode.

3rd person that isn't omniscent is when the narrator isn't a character but only gets into the mind of one of the characters.

Omniscent works best, I think, when you actually work it a lot. If you lull the reader into thinking they are only getting into one of the character's heads and suddenly up pops an inner thought of another character, the reader stands a good chance of being brushed off the attention rails.

[Liar]

Originally Posted by sr71plt

If your narrator is a character in the story, you're writing flatly a 1st-person story.

No, my narrator is the storyteller. He has no relation to the plot or the characters within. It's a great device, because I can have the narrator making snarky commments about the plot holes in the story he's telling, and I don't have to patch them up.

[penandpaper]

As a reader, I enjoy first person more. It adds a level of reality to it that's nice. This is not to say that third doesn't work, but I think it's harder to do well.

[Themoodyone]

Originally Posted by penandpaper

As a reader, I enjoy first person more. It adds a level of reality to it that's nice. This is not to say that third doesn't work, but I think it's harder to do well.

Just as I suspected.

[WRJames]

I usually write in third person. I detest switching from one first person to another, although in one book I editied Life and Death on the Mississippi it was just between two characters and it worked pretty well. In general, though, first person gives a very limited perspective.

Of course, you can always have one of the characters tell a story. That is a natural way to drop in first person narrative, and it provides the flexibility to add information that character would not know.

[sweetness6280]

I only have one story posted here, so I'm going to answer from a reader's perspective.

As already stated, both can be quite effective, if executed well.

1st person can be very hot, and if you don't name this character, it creates a strong connection with the reader. Personally, I like 1st person if the story is short and the author makes me care about the protagonist, with the rest of the characters primarily peripheral. 1st person narratives are unreliable and prone to fantasy, but this works perfectly in erotic fiction.

Conversely, if the other characters are fully developed, I prefer 3rd person. It takes a very skilled author (with a strong editor) to write omniscient and not end up with a nasty mess. While I enjoy complete omniscience in other genres, I can't seem to get through an omniscient erotic piece.

I don't really have a problem with an author who "head hops," if it is clearly signposted. That's the beauty of 3rd person - being able to get inside the head of multiple characters. If the characters are fully developed, I want to know what they are thinking. Unfortunately, I tend to write in 3rd limited, and I get blasted for head hopping, but only by erotic writers/editors. Oddly, those in other genres do not have a problem with it.

sr71plt, I would love to know which Nora Roberts you are reading. I enjoy her books, and never have any trouble following her, nor do I feel there is a diminished intensity. This is likely just a personal preference. I also enjoyed Lost in the Funhouse, Riddley Walker, and A Clockwork Orange, so I enjoy a piece that challenges me, even if I have to read a passage multiple times. I agree with you sr71, that omniscience works best when used consistently.

I like the sectionalized format. I think it's wonderful way to tell only portions of the story, and tie it all together near the end. I'm working on a piece now that utilizes this format. It will be interesting to see how well I execute it.

LOL, all that verbiage to say I like them both, when done well.

[sr71plt]

Originally Posted by sweetness6280

sr71plt, I would love to know which Nora Roberts you are reading. I enjoy her books, and never have any trouble following her, nor do I feel there is a diminished intensity. This is likely just a personal preference. I also enjoyed Lost in the Funhouse, Riddley Walker, and A Clockwork Orange, so I enjoy a piece that challenges me, even if I have to read a passage multiple times. I agree with you sr71, that omniscience works best when used consistently.

Chesapeake Blue. It keeps leaving hints that there were earlier works using some of these characters, but there's no indication what they were.

[AnnOnymousFantasia]

I read Sarah Monette's Melusine series, and she did the first person incredibly well, especially in her first two books, although getting a feel for some of the dialects used by her characters was difficult at times. She switched perspectives between two brothers, although in the latter two she added third characters that distorted the flow from the way the previous books had been written. (They were still good, but it still bothered me a bit.)

Catherine Asaro, in her Skolian Empire series, sometimes annoys me. Although I've enjoyed reading the series, she is inconsistent in her books: some are in first person and some are in third. Primary Inversion was in first person and featured Soz Skolia as the narrative voice. The Radiant Seas was in third person and also featured Soz as one of the main characters, and that got on my nerves just a bit because we'd already been in her head previously. So while I have no preference to first or third, I do prefer seeing consistency within an author's series.

Yet another book I read was Tropic of Night by Michael Gruber. I enjoyed the plot, but it switched between first person when reading about the character Jane, and third person when with character Jimmy Paz. Again, it drove me crazy. There was another book I read (I don't remember the name or author offhand) that did something similar, only the first-person viewpoint was told in journal entries read by characters written about in the third-person. In this regard, the switchoff was not so bad, but in my opinion, this sort of writing generally feels like the author is cheating somehow.

[Dragonlipz]

First person, definately first person, unless third works better.....

[driphoney]

Originally Posted by sr71plt

A way of handling the multiple perspective with 1st person now is to sectionalize and move between sections with characters. I like using that device that when I want to work with the "things not being quite what they seem" in the characters' perspectives. My writing partner here and I have done several stories (and a couple of e-books) using this technique--and making use of characters not really understanding what the other characters' true perspectives are--but the reader being able to see them all.

Dave Berry did this once in Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Guys . . .



He was very effective. Just not romantic or deep.

[driphoney]

Originally Posted by sr71plt

If your narrator is a character in the story, you're writing flatly a 1st-person story.

Your narrator not knowing everything that goes on just means you aren't writing in omniscent mode.

3rd person that isn't omniscent is when the narrator isn't a character but only gets into the mind of one of the characters.

Omniscent works best, I think, when you actually work it a lot. If you lull the reader into thinking they are only getting into one of the character's heads and suddenly up pops an inner thought of another character, the reader stands a good chance of being brushed off the attention rails.

This is interesting. When I started my story, I just jumped in with both feet, completely clueless regarding what I needed to fret about. I seemed to pretty much pull it off. But then I wanted to improve and had questions, so I came here and all of a sudden started reading about 'head hopping' and got quite paranoid about it.

Now ridiculous fretting has stunted what had been a natural flow of consciousness when writing the story. It was so much better when I was clueless and just had to have the editor point out that I'd occasionally combined characters actions and thoughts in one confusing paragraph.

Personally, I love reading first person stories, but am finding them very hard to write. It's hard to find ways to convey the thoughts and actions of other characters. How many times can you say, "I noticed Josephine was staring at my dick . . ." ? or "The look in her eyes told me all I needed to know. I was wasn't going to get screwed, I was screwed"? My respect for those who do it well really went up when I attempted it myself!

[sr71plt]

Originally Posted by AnnOnymousFantasia

Yet another book I read was Tropic of Night by Michael Gruber. I enjoyed the plot, but it switched between first person when reading about the character Jane, and third person when with character Jimmy Paz. Again, it drove me crazy. There was another book I read (I don't remember the name or author offhand) that did something similar, only the first-person viewpoint was told in journal entries read by characters written about in the third-person. In this regard, the switchoff was not so bad, but in my opinion, this sort of writing generally feels like the author is cheating somehow.

Yep Gruber's The Book of Air and Shadows drove me crazy for the same reason. His style is really quite primitive and all over the place.

[ExoMani]

Originally Posted by rgraham666

I've written in both and prefer 1st person. I just find it easier to write in.

That ability of 3rd person, to get inside the heads of all the characters, is one that has to be used with great skill and restraint. Otherwise you end up with what is known as 'head hopping', which can be extremely confusing to the reader.

Even my 3rd person stories I keep to a single POV.

I'm in the process of editing my first 3rd person story, so your comment about 'head hopping' is timely. It appears that I'm guilty of doing just that.

Well, more editing, before I post this one.

*sigh*

[andy_charles]

I have always, always preferred to write in third person, whatever genre I write in. This is simply because, for a story to be successful, the characters need to have some kind of connection to the reader. Whether they're a good character or a bad character, letting a reader know what's going through their mind can help them decide how much they sympathise with that character.

However, I do take the point about head hopping, and freely admit that I probably am guilty of exactly this too. I also would happily say that in a number of instances, particularly in erotica, first person can be more stimulating to read than third.

[Dragonlipz]

I have on occasion written a story both ways (and this is when it helps to have an editor/friend/anyone else to put some other eyes on it and give you an opinion....
If you're like me, you'll listen carefully to the other person and then do exactly as you please...
First or third person POV has to rely on the story: which POV gets it right?
I wish I had the answer........

[dr_mabeuse]

Originally Posted by andy_charles

... Whether they're a good character or a bad character, letting a reader know what's going through their mind can help them decide how much they sympathise with that character.

In my opinion, a large part of a fiction author's skill is in how he reveals a character's thoughts and emotions without going inside their heads.

It's one thing to tell a reader that Ann didn't think she was very pretty and was worried about being ignored at the dance, but it's far better to show her fussing with her make-up and the bodice of her dress as she reveals or hides more cleavage. It's the old show versus tell business.

I think one of the ways you involve a reader in a story is by communicating more than you actually say, and making the reader work for it a little. The reader gets involved in interpreting the scene you present, and that means he's interested.

[Themoodyone]

Originally Posted by dr_mabeuse

In my opinion, a large part of a fiction author's skill is in how he reveals a character's thoughts and emotions without going inside their heads.

It's one thing to tell a reader that Ann didn't think she was very pretty and was worried about being ignored at the dance, but it's far better to show her fussing with her make-up and the bodice of her dress as she reveals or hides more cleavage. It's the old show versus tell business.

I think one of the ways you involve a reader in a story is by communicating more than you actually say, and making the reader work for it a little. The reader gets involved in interpreting the scene you present, and that means he's interested.

I very much agree with this poster and attempt to allow some room for interpretation on the reader's part as well. In this way we, the reader and I, can share in the development of the character. It is not always important to know all the details, sometimes it is more fun to simply infer them.

[TruantOne]

Originally Posted by dr_mabeuse

In my opinion, a large part of a fiction author's skill is in how he reveals a character's thoughts and emotions without going inside their heads.

It's one thing to tell a reader that Ann didn't think she was very pretty and was worried about being ignored at the dance, but it's far better to show her fussing with her make-up and the bodice of her dress as she reveals or hides more cleavage. It's the old show versus tell business.

I think one of the ways you involve a reader in a story is by communicating more than you actually say, and making the reader work for it a little. The reader gets involved in interpreting the scene you present, and that means he's interested.

Fabulous point Dr Mabeuse (BTW, I LOVE your work).

I find both POV's equally valid. It makes me crazy seeing all the advice being handed out to new authors re: 1st person doesn't cut it, you MUST write in 3rd person. My first stories (series) that I posted, Getting Over Joel, was in 1st person. My Nude Day Comp entry, No More Beige, in 3rd person. All were thankfully well received. We've all seen brilliant examples of both and no matter what POV it all comes down to the skill of the author. A good story told well is a good story, full stop. Let's not get tied up in knots about playing God or the individual, just write it!

[Liar]

Originally Posted by TruantOne

I find both POV's equally valid. It makes me crazy seeing all the advice being handed out to new authors re: 1st person doesn't cut it, you MUST write in 3rd person.

If that is indeed an advice new authors get, I couldn't agree less.

If, and only if, I was to recommend one or the other for an aspiring author, it would be 1st person. It's what most are familiar with already in a "what I did on my holiday" level, and one that is really difficult to mess up. Omniscience takes thinking. What to reveal? What to not? And why? 1st person perspective puts you in the position of a human, and the thought experiment is much simpler: What can you know? Tell only that. It is easily grasped constraints, and creative writing is often done best with some kind of ground rules. At least til you get the habit in and can start to fuck with the structure.