On narrative styles

[LaRascasse]

I've frequently mulled over this question. I suppose it plagues many of us here - first person or third person (second person narratives are very sparingly used).

There are many cases where I ideally want to use FP narrative, but realize that I am limited to only what my MC thinks/says. Entire swathes of information where my protag isn't present become unavailable to me. Recently I did write a story with a bastardized version of FP, where I liberally used information, conversations and events the narrator would ordinarily not know, all the while adhering to I/me/my. Sometimes within the same scene I switched from my protag to a conversation happening at the other end of the room he was oblivious to.

I guess what I'm asking is - what is more important, adhering to a narrative or telling the story?

 

[glynndah]

Is the story readable? Does it work in the format you choose, whatever that may be? Is it a story worth reading?

Those questions are more important to me for the most part.

 

[LaRascasse]

Is the story readable?

Readable as in you can make out at all times what is going on. It takes the best of both worlds - the omniscience of TP and the thoughts and speech from FP.

Does it work in the format you choose, whatever that may be?

It works in the sense that I can relay everything I want to say.

Is it a story worth reading?

I hope so.

 

[Darkniciad]

I write FP when the story lends itself to it. Most times, that's a simple story that's focused pretty tight on a couple of characters and a simple scenario. The broader the storyline gets, the more I lean toward 3rd. I've stopped a running story and converted it from FP to 3rd more than once. "Taste of Sherry" as RR is the most recent one.

I choose one or the other, though. When I write FP, I write it entirely in the voice of the character. An aside in 3rd to show something the character doesn't know would clash horribly.

That's just me, though. My FP narratives are liberally seasoned with the character's speech patterns and quirks. A toned-down retelling from the character might not clash so much.

 

[slyc_willie]

These days, I write mainly in third person. It may be third person omniscient, in which I get into the heads of all my main characters (and even some secondary ones), or third person limited, in which I tell the story mainly from a single main character's point of view. I think I like third person limited because I can describe a single character's thoughts without doing the same for other characters, which might result in revealing important information before I want the reader to know it. It's almost like first person narrative.

Case in point: my current story is told almost entirely from the point of view of the protagonist. I pretty much only include thought monologue from him and no one else. However, on a few occasions, I let the reader in on what supporting characters are thinking, either through actual thought monologue or via expressions and actions the main character does not see.

A lot of people will tell you to not mix the narrative. They'll say it's confusing, misleading, and convoluted. To a good extent, I say, "screw that." Write the story as you envision it, and if that means changing points of view, go for it. Only your skill and the reader's interpretation will tell you if you carried it off.

 

[_Lynn_]

These days, I write mainly in third person. It may be third person omniscient, in which I get into the heads of all my main characters (and even some secondary ones), or third person limited, in which I tell the story mainly from a single main character's point of view. I think I like third person limited because I can describe a single character's thoughts without doing the same for other characters, which might result in revealing important information before I want the reader to know it. It's almost like first person narrative.

Case in point: my current story is told almost entirely from the point of view of the protagonist. I pretty much only include thought monologue from him and no one else. However, on a few occasions, I let the reader in on what supporting characters are thinking, either through actual thought monologue or via expressions and actions the main character does not see.

A lot of people will tell you to not mix the narrative. They'll say it's confusing, misleading, and convoluted. To a good extent, I say, "screw that." Write the story as you envision it, and if that means changing points of view, go for it. Only your skill and the reader's interpretation will tell you if you carried it off.

That. I write. I'm still learning. I've only been writing seven years and I knew nothing when I came here.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

These days, I write mainly in third person. It may be third person omniscient, in which I get into the heads of all my main characters (and even some secondary ones), or third person limited, in which I tell the story mainly from a single main character's point of view. I think I like third person limited because I can describe a single character's thoughts without doing the same for other characters, which might result in revealing important information before I want the reader to know it. It's almost like first person narrative.

Case in point: my current story is told almost entirely from the point of view of the protagonist. I pretty much only include thought monologue from him and no one else. However, on a few occasions, I let the reader in on what supporting characters are thinking, either through actual thought monologue or via expressions and actions the main character does not see.

A lot of people will tell you to not mix the narrative. They'll say it's confusing, misleading, and convoluted. To a good extent, I say, "screw that." Write the story as you envision it, and if that means changing points of view, go for it. Only your skill and the reader's interpretation will tell you if you carried it off.

I agree. If your FP narrator knows the other characters well she can generally anticipate how they will respond and the thinking that drives their actions. That is, the mind-reading is plausible and likely to be right.

 

[lovecraft68]

I ran into this in some published stuff. The book was from the pov of several characters during the course of the book and in some chapters they were there together.

So rather than decide which "I,me" I should be I went to third person which gave me a chance to "Head hop" and be able to describe what was going on wiyth more than one character at once.

 

[RedMonkeyButt]

I write in first person unless it's an RP. I don't know why. I've just always written my stories in the first person. Even in RP I would catch myself slipping into the first person (I played on boards that had rules, mainly that RPs were written in third person past).

This is just my writing preference. I'll read anything that can catch and hold my attention long enough. It doesn't have to be a page turner, but I don't put the book down (or back click) just because it's written in third person. I just don't happen to like writing in that perspective.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I write FP for short stories, except for a couple of my longer works where I switched between POV's. I did make it quiet clear who was narrating the scene.

Also, dialog does allow the writer to let the reader know what has gone on in that characters life when they were away from the primary POV (story teller).

I do tend to move into third person when the work will be larger than say 8K words. Although my last work was in first person and was 95K words long. I just felt it would provide more impact than if told in 3rd person.

Sometimes it's the story that drives the POV, other times it just how I feel the story should be told.

Sex is always better in first person POV. The mind of the narrator is wide open to the reader. Every feeling, every thought about who and what he/she is doing is available without the filter of a 3rd person.

 

[glynndah]

Readable as in you can make out at all times what is going on. It takes the best of both worlds - the omniscience of TP and the thoughts and speech from FP.



It works in the sense that I can relay everything I want to say.



I hope so.

Then I say, "Go for it!"

A from the good little witch.

 

[PennLady]

There's also no reason you can't switch POVs within a story. I've seen it done plenty of times, whether it's two people telling the same story from their own "I" POVs, or going from first to third and back again.

First person, although not usually my favorite to write in (or read sometimes), is only as limiting as you make it, I think. If you want your character to know something, I'd bet you can find away to make them know it. An overheard conversation, an email left open, all kinds of things.

 

[Noira]

I write strictly in either first person or third limited.

I can't STAND reading omnipotent third unless the writing is spot fucking on. Hopping around loses the intimacy of getting close to your narrating character. Are those side conversations that important? I, the reader, generally think 'noooooope'. Omnipotent third is a chore to read when it hops from head to head every paragraph, because it never lets you get really close to the story. If you're going to omnipotent third, at least give your readers the grace of switching POV only every scene, but keep a scene in character as the lead character. Which is basically limited third, only you're not keeping the same narrator for the whole story, but at least for the scene!

If you really gotta do it, I've seen first person where it's first person but for a different "I" for different chapters.

So rather than decide which "I,me" I should be I went to third person which gave me a chance to "Head hop" and be able to describe what was going on wiyth more than one character at once.

This actually annoys me enough as a reader that I will stop reading. I hate it. It totally severs my connection to the story. Multiple head voices in one scene drives me up the wall.

Because it IS confusing and convoluted.

No one ever sulks about limited third. I've never heard anyone complain about limited third when different characters take the narrative voice for different scenes, even. That seems to be the best of both worlds. Some stories do demand more than one narrator. While I often maintain one, because I'm fond of writing in first person, I've done plenty of stories in third with larger casts. Usually I give each character a chapter.

The thing with omnipotent third is, it only works well if you have a distinct narrator voice, for example, The Chronicles of Narnia, though it need not be that overt, you just have to have a very distinct writing voice for the narrative rather than letting a new character narrate each line. Then the storyteller becomes the voice people depend on, and the headhopping doesn't become like wading through molasses to get to the actual story. When writing in limited third, the narrative is still driven by the perspective of the character. When writing in omnipotent third, it should be driven by the perspective of the writer, who'll draw the reader's attention in.

That's just my several cents. "Trust the story" only works if you really know what you're doing. Like all advice, it can be ignored.

But I have stopped reading books in omnipotent third because I couldn't get past the voice to get into the story. Especially when it comes out of nowhere, I hate it so much.

My advice to the first poster would be "limited third". My answer to the question asked is...

"Narrative is the dish your story is served in. It doesn't make sense to serve chili in a dozen tiny bowls. But it makes sense to serve multiple courses in several dishes." What kind of meal do you want your story to be? Serve it appropriately. There is no one or the other is better or more important because you need them both.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I write strictly in either first person or third limited.

I can't STAND reading omnipotent third unless the writing is spot fucking on. Hopping around loses the intimacy of getting close to your narrating character. Are those side conversations that important? I, the reader, generally think 'noooooope'. Omnipotent third is a chore to read when it hops from head to head every paragraph, because it never lets you get really close to the story. If you're going to omnipotent third, at least give your readers the grace of switching POV only every scene, but keep a scene in character as the lead character. Which is basically limited third, only you're not keeping the same narrator for the whole story, but at least for the scene!

If you really gotta do it, I've seen first person where it's first person but for a different "I" for different chapters.


This actually annoys me enough as a reader that I will stop reading. I hate it. It totally severs my connection to the story. Multiple head voices in one scene drives me up the wall.

Because it IS confusing and convoluted.

No one ever sulks about limited third. I've never heard anyone complain about limited third when different characters take the narrative voice for different scenes, even. That seems to be the best of both worlds. Some stories do demand more than one narrator. While I often maintain one, because I'm fond of writing in first person, I've done plenty of stories in third with larger casts. Usually I give each character a chapter.

The thing with omnipotent third is, it only works well if you have a distinct narrator voice, for example, The Chronicles of Narnia, though it need not be that overt, you just have to have a very distinct writing voice for the narrative rather than letting a new character narrate each line. Then the storyteller becomes the voice people depend on, and the headhopping doesn't become like wading through molasses to get to the actual story. When writing in limited third, the narrative is still driven by the perspective of the character. When writing in omnipotent third, it should be driven by the perspective of the writer, who'll draw the reader's attention in.

That's just my several cents. "Trust the story" only works if you really know what you're doing. Like all advice, it can be ignored.

But I have stopped reading books in omnipotent third because I couldn't get past the voice to get into the story. Especially when it comes out of nowhere, I hate it so much.

My advice to the first poster would be "limited third". My answer to the question asked is...

"Narrative is the dish your story is served in. It doesn't make sense to serve chili in a dozen tiny bowls. But it makes sense to serve multiple courses in several dishes." What kind of meal do you want your story to be? Serve it appropriately. There is no one or the other is better or more important because you need them both.

I feel the same about Canadians.

 

[LaRascasse]

First person, although not usually my favorite to write in (or read sometimes), is only as limiting as you make it, I think. If you want your character to know something, I'd bet you can find away to make them know it. An overheard conversation, an email left open, all kinds of things.

What about things I don't want my character to know about at the time, but I want my readers to know about?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

What about things I don't want my character to know about at the time, but I want my readers to know about?

Use action and description in place of thoughts and conversation.

 

[Handley_Page]

That. I write. I'm still learning. I've only been writing seven years and I knew nothing when I came here.

I've not been writing 'for fun' for anywhere near that, and I am still (trying to) learn the craft.

 

[sr71plt]

What about things I don't want my character to know about at the time, but I want my readers to know about?

Agree with JBJ here. Show it to the reader in what the character does. The best way to win over the readers is to engage them in the story. Let them make some discoveries that you haven't handed to them by flatly telling them. Third person omniscient is for the lazy writer and reader (which, though, is why it's still being used).

 

[PennLady]

What about things I don't want my character to know about at the time, but I want my readers to know about?

My immediate answer is to say that you either need to change that, or you need to go to third-person limited. I think there's a lot of flexibility in the different POVs and narrative styles, but it seems like you want something contradictory.

I suppose -- just suppose -- you could have some 3d-person omniscient intervals that contain the information you want the reader to know. In that "Meanwhile over here..." sense, or something like that.

I'd have to ponder it more but it seems like if you're writing in first person, and you want the reader to know something the narrator doesn't, then either you need a second narrator of some kind, or you need to change your strategy.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Agree with JBJ here. Show it to the reader in what the character does. The best way to win over the readers is to engage them in the story. Let them make some discoveries that you haven't handed to them by flatly telling them. Third person omniscient is for the lazy writer and reader (which, though, is why it's still being used).

I think you go too far. Surely, 'omniscient' allows readers to discover things that have an effect on the story that haven't been explained. I dispute it is lazy. Even the most successful fiction writers use the technique.

 

[sr71plt]

I think you go too far. Surely, 'omniscient' allows readers to discover things that have an effect on the story that haven't been explained. I dispute it is lazy. Even the most successful fiction writers use the technique.

That's fine with me--especially that you've commented on it. Your batting average is near zero on the forum, so I much prefer it when you disagree with me.

A good many of the most successful fiction writers entered "lazy" about the time they became successful.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I think you go too far. Surely, 'omniscient' allows readers to discover things that have an effect on the story that haven't been explained. I dispute it is lazy. Even the most successful fiction writers use the technique.

PILOTS right.

If the PC needs to be the last to know let his subconscious act it out outside of his awareness. But make it obvious enough the reader gets it.

Lemme offer a real life example:

I usta work with a psychiatrist who was Super Catholic and filled her office with plaster saints and shrines and the whole deal. At the same time that she was pious and wouldn't say shit if she had a mouthful, she dressed and painted herself up like a whore. Then her car breaks down and she hitches a ride with 6 drunk young men.

 

[SecondCircle]

I use both first and third, and rarely omnipotent at all. I usually don't use both in the same story unless I'm trying to deliver a particular effect. It just sorta seems a bit jarring to make such a switch when you're reading a story that does this. I guess because you go from being in someone's head to standing beside them so to speak.

For me omnipotent has too much damn telling. I think using actions and context clues to draw conclusions from every detail in the story makes for a better read. Omnipotent can be useful in certain instances, but it gets bland for me quickly.

That whole "show don't tell" thingy comes to mind.

As far as first person being restricted, JBJ has the right of it. You can show the reader things with events in the story without actually spelling it out. But even then it is a bit more confined. Personally, before I tell a story, I think of which POV would work best. If I really want the reader in a character's head because I only want them to know what they do, feel what they do, see the world through their eyes, then first person it is. This can still be accomplished with third person, but you got a little more wiggle room.

To me it really depends on the story you wanna tell and the effect you're aiming for with the reader.