First Person vs Third Person: Which is more popular in Erotica?

[Voboy]

In my opinion, there should be a good reason to write a novel in first-person. A good reason which the story depends on.

Out of curiosity, is this not the writer's call? The writer wanting to write in FP should be reason enough, no?

If not, then what's your idea of a "good reason?"

 

[lovecraft68]

When I began writing erotica I went with first due to the argument it really put the reader into the story, they become the "I"
But at the same time I was posting first person stories here, I was working on a novel and writing third because it gave me the ability to head hop without confusion and for the reader to not know every thought in the characters head....its hard to pull a twist out of a character who is the "I" you've been reading as the entire story.

I switched to writing strictly third a few years back, and don't regret it. In fact, if I look back on older stories I tend to think they all would have been better had I done them in third.

 

[SimonDoom]

As some others have said, I think most of the time there's no conscious decision to write in 1st person or 3d person POV. Among my 54 stories, there was one that I started in 1st person POV and consciously chose to rewrite it in 3d person after being about a third of the way through it. But that's the only time.

Some general thoughts on why you might choose one v. the other:

1st person:

1. You only want to tell the story from one POV.
2. You think 1st person POV will get your reader into the shoes of the narrator more easily.
3. The character doesn't die (it's problematic to tell a story from the perspective of somebody who dies, unless it's a ghost story).
4. The element of surprise is important (a 1st person POV character cannot know what is around the corner, while an omniscient 3d person narrator can).
5. It's important to you to tell the story from a particular, subjective voice, as opposed to a more objective 3d person perspective.

3d person:

1. You want to tell the story from more than one perspective (omniscient 3d person, or alternating 3d person limited).
2. You want the narrative voice to be different from the character's voice.
3. You want the narrator to be able to tell the reader things that are happening that the character in the story cannot know.
4. You want to achieve a certain emotional distance from the main character.
5. The character dies in the story (unless it's a ghost story).

All of these are legitimate reasons to choose one or the other. I'm sure there are others I'm overlooking.

 

[Trionyx]

I write in both first and third. I can't give you a reason why I do either. My brain picks one randomly when I start writing and I stick with it.

As I think about it, I don't recall ever making a conscious decision whether to use first or third person. The choice seems to have always been an intrinsic part of the conception of the story.

Ditto to the above. Roughly a third of mine are first person and the rest third. A few are told from several points of view which does seem to be unpopular with certain readers.

 

[KeithD]

3. The character doesn't die (it's problematic to tell a story from the perspective of somebody who dies, unless it's a ghost story).

I have read an award-winning novel where this was managed (Catcher Caught, narrated by a boy dying from leukemia). The difficulty involved was not writing it in the first person but that it had to be in the present tense, as the boy was dead at the end.

 

[Britva415]

In my opinion

Why should writing in first person require any more excuse than writing in third? Everybody gets to have personal preferences but that doesn't make them an author's "should".

How much older than two months does my account have to be before I can have an opinion ffs?

 

[Britva415]

Yes! I'm sure there was somebody else before Dresden that started the "Urban Fantasy" trope of first person

I mean, I feel like part of Dresden goes back to Raymond Chandler.

 

[Britva415]

Out of curiosity, is this not the writer's call? The writer wanting to write in FP should be reason enough, no?

If not, then what's your idea of a "good reason?"

My opinion is not the writer's call, no.

I spelled out pretty clearly that "good reason" to me specifically means that in the story there's a reason for this narrative choice.

That is the writer's call, yes.

Or it isn't. Sometimes authors do shit for no reason.

 

[TheRedChamber]

My opinion is not the writer's call, no.

I spelled out pretty clearly that "good reason" to me specifically means that in the story there's a reason for this narrative choice.

That is the writer's call, yes.

Or it isn't. Sometimes authors do shit for no reason.

There's not that much difference between close third and first person, so I think in a lot of cases the author preference and ability for a particular voice can be a reason. The author just needs to be aware of the strength and limitations of that particular voice (including those Simon outlined). I'm not sure why you seem to think that third should be the default and first should only be used on special occassaions. Choosing to do omniscient third or (shudder) second, is a much stronger call for a writer to make.

I tend to write in close third. I like it because you can be in the head of a strong central protagonist, but still have something of an independant authorial voice on them, pointing out their foibles or character in a way that they probably wouldn't do themselves (I've been told I flirt with my characters). That said, the current set of stories I'm working on uses first person, particularly because I'm very conciously writing much simpler plotted and much shorter stories which have the non-PoV female characters as being the instigators, plot-movers of the stories and the MC as much more of a blank slate. On this occassion, I don't want to stand outside of the male character because I don't have much to say about them anyway and don't want to waste words on them. (Whether this approach works or not, we'll see).

 

[Voboy]

I spelled out pretty clearly that "good reason" to me specifically means that in the story there's a reason for this narrative choice.

Yes.

That's exactly what I'm asking you to clarify... "there's a reason for this narrative choice" such as what? What reason works for you, as a reader?

 

[Britva415]

I'm not sure why you seem to think that third should be the default

fgs how many times do I have to position this as a matter of taste?

Why should you like pineapple on pizza? I fucking don't but you do you.*

*Hypothetical. IDK if you like pineapple on pizza. But don't pretend that there aren't people who do.

 

[Britva415]

Yes.

That's exactly what I'm asking you to clarify... "there's a reason for this narrative choice" such as what? What reason works for you, as a reader?

There are two things which work for me as a reader.

One is, writing which is good enough that I don't find myself failing to suspend disbelief, and asking myself "So, why are they telling this story? And who exactly are they telling it to, anyway? Like, who am I to them? And how did they do it, are they typing it? Dictating it? What?"

The other is, actually having the answers to those questions in the story. This part is one example of what I meant when I referred to "narrative reason."

I suppose "narrative choice" comes in to play under my first option, too, because in my opinion part of what would make it "good enough writing" that I don't get taken out of the narrative to wonder those things is when the story is such that it couldn't have been written any way other than first person. If it's good enough, I don't wonder those things.

 

[Voboy]

There are two things which work for me as a reader.

One is, writing which is good enough that I don't find myself failing to suspend disbelief, and asking myself "So, why are they telling this story? And who exactly are they telling it to, anyway? Like, who am I to them? And how did they do it, are they typing it? Dictating it? What?"

The other is, actually having the answers to those questions in the story. This part is one example of what I meant when I referred to "narrative choice."

I suppose "narrative choice" comes in to play under my first option, too, because in my opinion part of what would make it "good enough writing" that I don't get taken out of the narrative to wonder those things is when the story is such that it couldn't have been written any way other than first person.

...okay... but surely, that's your perception, as a reader?

You don't get to impose narrative choices on a writer. That's their business. You might not like their choice, but it doesn't make it a "wrong choice" simply because you don't like it.

In short, their reasoning as the creator of the work matters more than your reasoning as the consumer of it. JMO.

 

[Britva415]

...okay... but surely, that's your perception, as a reader?

You don't get to impose narrative choices on a writer. That's their business. You might not like their choice, but it doesn't make it a "wrong choice" simply because you don't like it.

In short, their reasoning as the creator of the work matters more than your reasoning as the consumer of it. JMO.

fgs I never said anything other than what "my perception as a reader" was.

When I say "my opinion is that a writer should..."

I'm not saying "a writer should."

I'm saying "my opinion is."

I keep on saying it's a matter of taste.

 

[Britva415]

You don't get to impose narrative choices on a writer.

I keep on saying it's a matter of taste.

That's actually not the only thing I'm saying.

The other thing I've been saying is this (and you're welcome to flame my ass for it, especially if you're guilty of it. All this push-back I'm getting makes me wonder if people are feeling attacked):

The quality of the writing matters. Sorry if this is controversial.

It makes a difference. The author's choices can be made absent-mindedly, or, thoughtfully.

When they're made thoughtfully, it's almost certainly going to be more compelling to (me to) read.

 

[Britva415]

You don't get to impose narrative choices on a writer.

And writers don't get to impose a reaction on me.

 

[Voboy]

That's actually not the only thing I'm saying.

The other thing I've been saying is this (and you're welcome to flame my ass for it, especially if you're guilty of it. All this push-back I'm getting makes me wonder if people are feeling attacked):

The quality of the writing matters. Sorry if this is controversial.

It makes a difference. The author's choices can be made absent-mindedly, or, thoughtfully.

When they're made thoughtfully, it's almost certainly going to be more compelling to (me to) read.

I’m not feeling attacked. I’m quite comfortable with the quality of my writing.

Im not sure you’re expressing yourself well. No worries.

 

[Britva415]

In my last story, not particularly award-winning, I explained when 'I' started writing down the story and why, and it ends just before 'I' commit 'Suicide by Mob'. There's a change from past tense (most of the story) to present tense in the very end.

This is a great example of suspension of disbelief on the part of a reader of a first-person narrative.

I haven't read your story, but:

Does the reader, the audience, have an identity inside of the story?

Who is the reader to the narrator?

Why does the reader have the privilege of hearing the story and being present for the suicide?

And if there aren't concrete answers to any of those questions, is the story compelling enough that the reader won't wonder?

@Voboy

This is the kind of thing I've been talking about.

 

[Bramblethorn]

How much older than two months does my account have to be before I can have an opinion ffs?

You get to have an opinion, but other people get to challenge it. There's a big difference between "this is what I like" - a statement that's solely about your own preferences - and "this is how stories should be written", which suggests some imperative for authors.

The "two months" comment wasn't related to that at all, just a joke about how often the second-person discussion comes around here. Wasn't intended to suggest that being a relatively new member affected the validity of your opinions, apologies if it came across that way. I've been here a decade but if I posted something like "in my opinion, stories shouldn't be longer than 10k words" I'd expect just as much pushback on that as you got here.

 

[Bramblethorn]

fgs I never said anything other than what "my perception as a reader" was.

When I say "my opinion is that a writer should..."

I'm not saying "a writer should."

I'm saying "my opinion is."

Even with that qualifier, "my opinion is that a writer should" is still expressing more than just a statement of taste.

If a whole bunch of people are interpreting these words differently to how you intended them, perhaps at least consider the possibility that the problem is not solely with the audience.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Yes! I'm sure there was somebody else before Dresden that started the "Urban Fantasy" trope of first person but I don't think that everything written in the genre of Magic in the Modern World, needs to be first person. I would hate it if all books slipped into that style.

I think lately I've been butting up against how the Main Character, the "I" of the story knows the feelings and pleasures of the people around him. Which would be a lot easier in Third Person because you don't have to explain what the other person is doing to tip off the MC.

What if the MC doesn't have to know those things? IRL we all live in the first person, none of us are telepathic, we experience that kind of uncertainty about what's in other people's heads all the time. It can be a great ingredient for a story.

 

[BobbyBrandt]

There's a popular view that first person is somehow automatically "more intimate" because you're in the mind of the protagonist. I don't agree. I think you can get just as "in close and intimate" with close third person, as close as you want.

I use both, and I remember a fellow writer saying, some time ago, "My God, you put the reader on their pillow, whereas I just want to go away and close the door."

What I will never understand are those folk who say, quite vehemently sometimes, that they will never read something that's not written in their prescribed voice. They're often the same people who carry on as if they're authoritative - I tend to think they're limiting themselves as readers.

I wrote in the perspective that I feel best suits the story, and a major consideration is the amount and type of dialogue that I envision being part of the tale.

I know it's a generalization, but I see writers who struggle with writing good dialogue leaning more heavily on first person perspective.

 

[Voboy]

Im not sure you’re expressing yourself well.

Or, as Bramblethorn (who is generally more tactful than I) puts it,

If a whole bunch of people are interpreting these words differently to how you intended them, perhaps at least consider the possibility that the problem is not solely with the audience

 

[Britva415]

The "two months" comment wasn't related to that at all, just a joke about how often the second-person discussion comes around here. Wasn't intended to suggest that being a relatively new member affected the validity of your opinions

I know

I was joking back

 

[Britva415]

Even with that qualifier, "my opinion is that a writer should" is still expressing more than just a statement of taste.

If a whole bunch of people are interpreting these words differently to how you intended them, perhaps at least consider the possibility that the problem is not solely with the audience.

what if I word it like -

"my opinion is that if a writer wants ME to like their shit, they should..."

I can see how someone might not have read that between the lines I drew.