Do you have a narrator in third person?

[Stimtheone]

So, for the motivation of this, I have recently discovered that in my writings I employ a slightly Lemony Narrator which is in line with a character in the world. The third person descriptors often have some flourishes of something extra rather than being just a detailed and emotionless accounting. Not saying all other stories are, but a good amount do feel like the description does not give a shit about the characters or events.

The question to you all is... IF YOU HAVE DONE THIRD PERSON... could you consider the story to have a slightly biased narrator or are they impartial accounts?

Obviously, first person has a clear narrator. But this time we're talking for third person.

 

[KeithD]

You can do it either way. You could even have a heavily biased narrator if you wanted.

 

[Euphony]

Sliding scale. To my mind, everybody has biases so they factor in.

As the author, you can use these for grand narrative flourishes or just to steam release a little part of yourself through your narrative (I think the minor levels often occur subconsciously)

Narrator is somewhat akin to a witness and witnesses are memory fallible as a rule, not an exception.

I don't think I could write a clinical narrator if I had to (at least retaining much writing enjoyment in the process)

Feels like it would read fairly dry but there are plenty of scientifically trained authors who write and enjoy reading in that style.

I lean more towards "the feels" and want similar storytelling narrators who I can identify with. (though too much personal or catty interjections aren't my thing unless they are later paid off narratively with a deft unreliable narrator turn)

 

[ElectricBlue]

So, for the motivation of this, I have recently discovered that in my writings I employ a slightly Lemony Narrator which is in line with a character in the world. The third person descriptors often have some flourishes of something extra rather than being just a detailed and emotionless accounting. Not saying all other stories are, but a good amount do feel like the description does not give a shit about the characters or events.

The question to you all is... IF YOU HAVE DONE THIRD PERSON... could you consider the story to have a slightly biased narrator or are they impartial accounts?

Obviously, first person has a clear narrator. But this time we're talking for third person.

The narrator can be as much a character as the characters. It comes down to the flavour and style of the story, and how it's being narrated. Your approach sounds fine.

 

[ronde]

In its most simple form, 1st person POV is one character narrating the story as seen through his or her eyes. That narrator has no information except what is gleaned from listening and observation of the other characters and situations that occur. The 1st person narrator can surmise and theorize about the characters and their actions.

In its most simple form, the form used by a great many professional authors, 3d person POV is an omniscient observer who is privy to both the speech and thoughts of all the characters in addition to observing the situation and the actions of the characters. The 3d person narrator only reports and does not interject conclusions or theories.

There are subdivisions of both 1st and 3d person POV's, but I think most readers are most comfortable with the simple forms. They make for easy reading.

 

[ElectricBlue]

The 3d person narrator only reports and does not interject conclusions or theories.

Not necessarily. The style of the third person narrative can suggest a narrator with attitude, with opinions. Tricky to do well, but it can be done.

 

[SamScribble]

In my mainstream stories, I quite like unreliable narrators. Here at Lit, not so much. In my experience, Lit readers tend to be a bit literal.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Not necessarily. The style of the third person narrative can suggest a narrator with attitude, with opinions. Tricky to do well, but it can be done.

"Oh! But he was a tight-fisted hand at the grindstone, Scrooge! a squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous, old sinner! Hard and sharp as flint, from which no steel had ever struck out generous fire; secret, and self-contained, and solitary as an oyster. The cold within him froze his old features, nipped his pointed nose, shrivelled his cheek, stiffened his gait; made his eyes red, his thin lips blue; and spoke out shrewdly in his grating voice. A frosty rime was on his head, and on his eyebrows, and his wiry chin. He carried his own low temperature always about with him; he iced his office in the dog-days; and didn’t thaw it one degree at Christmas."

 

[SimonDoom]

In its most simple form, the form used by a great many professional authors, 3d person POV is an omniscient observer who is privy to both the speech and thoughts of all the characters in addition to observing the situation and the actions of the characters. The 3d person narrator only reports and does not interject conclusions or theories.

There are subdivisions of both 1st and 3d person POV's, but I think most readers are most comfortable with the simple forms. They make for easy reading.

I disagree. This gives short shrift to the possibilities of third person POV. The great advantage of third person POV is that, if you use free indirect style, you can narrate the story almost exactly as though you are telling it from the person of your main character, just like in first person POV, but from time to time you can pull out and narrate things that the MC could not. It's fluid and flexible. I use a variety of points of view, but that's my favorite/go-to POV.

A classic example is Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. The first sentence of the novel is this: "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife." This is a classic example of 3d person omniscient point of view, with the narrator giving a very decided opinion on the subject, and it states the basic theme of the entire novel, but most of the rest of the novel is told in 3d person from the point of view of the MC, Elizabeth Bennett in a more or less free indirect style.

 

[Stimtheone]

In its most simple form, 1st person POV is one character narrating the story as seen through his or her eyes. That narrator has no information except what is gleaned from listening and observation of the other characters and situations that occur. The 1st person narrator can surmise and theorize about the characters and their actions.

In its most simple form, the form used by a great many professional authors, 3d person POV is an omniscient observer who is privy to both the speech and thoughts of all the characters in addition to observing the situation and the actions of the characters. The 3d person narrator only reports and does not interject conclusions or theories.

There are subdivisions of both 1st and 3d person POV's, but I think most readers are most comfortable with the simple forms. They make for easy reading.

Well, in my stories the narrator can vaguely be determined to be a deity which can observe both their thoughts, speech and motivations. He is very human and has some personal touches, the god does not lie... but he can occasionally engage in drama and obfuscate things a bit. Often I can imagine him telling the story to an audience, maybe even consisting of the characters of the stories, wishing to embarrass them a bit or tease.

But it seems the recipe can work. Though so far I don't think anyone noticed. Or if they did, no one said anything.

 

[ElectricBlue]

But it seems the recipe can work. Though so far I don't think anyone noticed. Or if they did, no one said anything.

Probably because you did it well.

Thinking about it some more, it's very likely used widely (as evidenced above by Bramble and Simon), and is well accepted by readers. Like Simon, I use close third person narration a lot, and it's just as intimate as first person, and rarely neutral or distant.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Probably because you did it well.

Thinking about it some more, it's very likely used widely (as evidenced above by Bramble and Simon), and is well accepted by readers. Like Simon, I use close third person narration a lot, and it's just as intimate as first person, and rarely neutral or distant.

...and even when the narration is intended to be neutral, it can only be as neutral as its author's unacknowledged prejudices allow.

I disagree. This gives short shrift to the possibilities of third person POV. The great advantage of third person POV is that, if you use free indirect style, you can narrate the story almost exactly as though you are telling it from the person of your main character, just like in first person POV, but from time to time you can pull out and narrate things that the MC could not. It's fluid and flexible. I use a variety of points of view, but that's my favorite/go-to POV.

A classic example is Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. The first sentence of the novel is this: "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife." This is a classic example of 3d person omniscient point of view, with the narrator giving a very decided opinion on the subject, and it states the basic theme of the entire novel, but most of the rest of the novel is told in 3d person from the point of view of the MC, Elizabeth Bennett in a more or less free indirect style.

As an example of how Austen takes advantage of omniscient mode to set the scene, there's this summary of Lizzie's parents at the end of chapter 1:

Mr. Bennet was so odd a mixture of quick parts, sarcastic humour, reserve, and caprice, that the experience of three-and-twenty years had been insufficient to make his wife understand his character. Her mind was less difficult to develope. She was a woman of mean understanding, little information, and uncertain temper. When she was discontented, she fancied herself nervous. The business of her life was to get her daughters married: its solace was visiting and news.

That's relevant information for the coming story, and Lizzie is undoubtedly aware of it, but she'd never be so blunt in describing her own mother's failings. To get that information across from her perspective alone would take a lot of "show"; omniscient mode (and in particular, having a voice that isn't Lizzie's) lets her do a quick bit of "tell" to get that info across. She doesn't depend solely on that - those traits are reinforced throughout the story in things Lizzie does witness - but it helps get the story started.

One could argue that most of Chapter 2 is from Mr. Bennet's perspective:

R. BENNET was among the earliest of those who waited on Mr. Bingley. He had always intended to visit him, though to the last always assuring his wife that he should not go; and till the evening after the visit was paid she had no knowledge of it.

...

The astonishment of the ladies was just what he wished—that of Mrs. Bennet perhaps surpassing the rest; though when the first tumult of joy was over, she began to declare that it was what she had expected all the while.

“How good it was in you, my dear Mr. Bennet! But I knew I should persuade you at last. I was sure you loved your girls too well to neglect such an acquaintance. Well, how pleased I am! And it is such a good joke, too, that you should have gone this morning, and never said a word about it till now.”

“Now, Kitty, you may cough as much as you choose,” said Mr. Bennet; and, as he spoke, he left the room, fatigued with the raptures of his wife.

It's only partway through Chapter 3 that it seems to settle down to following Lizzie, though even after that there are a few brief excursions e.g. Chapter 61:

As for Wickham and Lydia, their characters suffered no revolution from the marriage of her sisters. He bore with philosophy the conviction that Elizabeth must now become acquainted with whatever of his ingratitude and falsehood had before been unknown to her; and, in spite of everything, was not wholly without hope that Darcy might yet be prevailed on to make his fortune.

Again, this isn't telling us much that Lizzie couldn't figure out from his behaviour, but omniscient mode streamlines the exposition.

 

[SimonDoom]

Again, this isn't telling us much that Lizzie couldn't figure out from his behaviour, but omniscient mode streamlines the exposition.

I think one of the great pleasures of this book is Lizzie's character and talent for observation. It's possible to imagine that everything the narrator says is something she would think for herself, even if ironically (like the first sentence). The 3d person POV makes it ambiguous, but fun as well.

 

[PennameWombat]

Well, in my stories the narrator can vaguely be determined to be a deity which can observe both their thoughts, speech and motivations. He is very human and has some personal touches, the god does not lie... but he can occasionally engage in drama and obfuscate things a bit. Often I can imagine him telling the story to an audience, maybe even consisting of the characters of the stories, wishing to embarrass them a bit or tease.

But it seems the recipe can work. Though so far I don't think anyone noticed. Or if they did, no one said anything.

You seem to have an incredibly narrow view of what third-person POV is and can be. This is a form of an omniscient third-person POV, and that's perfectly fair.

The question to you all is... IF YOU HAVE DONE THIRD PERSON... could you consider the story to have a slightly biased narrator or are they impartial accounts?

Obviously, first person has a clear narrator. But this time we're talking for third person.

But your view of third person POV is way too narrow.

About two-thirds of my stories here are third person, but almost all of them are what's referred to as 'third person limited,' (or third person close) where the narrator's POV is a character's POV. And for most of those stories, the POV rotates among different characters in different sections. Of course each of these POVs represents a biased point of view, because it's reflecting that character's POV. Whether some of my writing shifts to 'third person deep' or not is going to be a matter of opinion.

Whether these narrators are biased or not, reliable or not, all depends on what the author wants to convey and how they convey it. Most of my narrators here are generally reliable, in that they rarely intentionally lie, but that doesn't mean they'll reflect everything happening. They may also inadvertently misrepresent what another character's thoughts might be, since they cannot see that other character's thoughts, only their actions and speech, and misunderstandings happen. They're not omniscient.

You should look up and read guides on different POVs.

In my mainstream stories, I quite like unreliable narrators. Here at Lit, not so much. In my experience, Lit readers tend to be a bit literal.

I'm not a big fan of any stories with extremely intentionally unreliable narrators, but this differs from levels of bias. It can be hard to pull off, so I'm careful about trying it here. Because my experience meshes with this comment. How much it's the readers and how much it's my (in)ability to pull it off, well, dunno.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I think one of the great pleasures of this book is Lizzie's character and talent for observation. It's possible to imagine that everything the narrator says is something she would think for herself, even if ironically (like the first sentence). The 3d person POV makes it ambiguous, but fun as well.

Yeah, I think that's reasonable - where it does describe things that Lizzie couldn't have observed directly, e.g. Mr. Bennet's inner thoughts or his conversation with Mrs. Bennet, I think they're all things that she could reasonably have surmised. She wouldn't have known exactly what her parents said to one another, but she could've figured out the gist. So although it's not always strictly Lizzie's perspective, it keeps the reader close to her perspective, and avoids the problems that can come with head-hopping.

I'd have to reread to be sure, I don't think the story ever gives us insight into Darcy or Wickham's thoughts beyond what Lizzie could reasonably have guessed at the time.

 

[RetroFan]

In my mainstream stories, I quite like unreliable narrators. Here at Lit, not so much. In my experience, Lit readers tend to be a bit literal.

I found that when I wrote a Loving Wives story with a possibly unreliable narrator. They weren't very impressed, to put it mildly.

 

[Jmanchu]

So, for the motivation of this, I have recently discovered that in my writings I employ a slightly Lemony Narrator which is in line with a character in the world. The third person descriptors often have some flourishes of something extra rather than being just a detailed and emotionless accounting. Not saying all other stories are, but a good amount do feel like the description does not give a shit about the characters or events.

The question to you all is... IF YOU HAVE DONE THIRD PERSON... could you consider the story to have a slightly biased narrator or are they impartial accounts?

Obviously, first person has a clear narrator. But this time we're talking for third person.

Depends on what you're going for. Omniscient narrators might be all knowing and even impartial, but you can make your third person narrator be as partial or impartial as needed or even straight up describe things in the way a character would but in their third person voice. There are unreliable narrators after all, and many stories use unreliable narrators. If you're going to relay a character's thoughts or emotions into the narration it's not a bad thing if they influence the narration with their opinions or feelings of something in that moment, even if it's third person. You're just narrating what's happening in the story, and the story is influenced by the characters. If the narrator has a more present personality or is something of a character in the story then the narrator's own opinions might be there and be biased in his/her description of things as he or she narrates them. It's all about how you want to convey your story.

Some people might prefer a purely impartial narrator that sticks to clearly painting the story in a purely factual way and others might like an unreliable narrator that gets into characters heads and lets them influence the bias of the narrative or a narrator that doesn't mind giving a biased or emotional description that may be biased like calling a person a jerk or windbag, if they're being troublesome to the character whose point of view is being considered in the scene. Like I said, depends on how you want to make your story fun to read.

One story that immediately comes to mind is Harry Potter. Everything in the narration is heavily influenced by the main character's views on things even to the point that the way some characters and events are described initially is proven wrong later on or comes off as different later once the main character later gets understanding of the situation. Snape is described in the first book in a way where he's kind of untrustworthy and a bad guy especially in the narration until it's shown he's actually not a bad guy and was trying to protect the main character from the real bad guy.

 

[BobbyBrandt]

So, for the motivation of this, I have recently discovered that in my writings I employ a slightly Lemony Narrator which is in line with a character in the world. The third person descriptors often have some flourishes of something extra rather than being just a detailed and emotionless accounting. Not saying all other stories are, but a good amount do feel like the description does not give a shit about the characters or events.

The question to you all is... IF YOU HAVE DONE THIRD PERSON... could you consider the story to have a slightly biased narrator or are they impartial accounts?

Obviously, first person has a clear narrator. But this time we're talking for third person.

When I write in the 3rd person, the narrator is envisioned by me to be someone who realistically could have witnessed the events with a perspective appropriate to the plot.

For example, when I wrote a story about a man and woman reconciling after several years, I envisioned the narrator as their adolescent son. This influenced not only the words used for the narration but also the perspective of the narrator towards events within the story. I am working on a young adult/teen story currently that is being told by someone of the same generation. I could have chosen for it to be told by a parent, teacher, or another adult, but I felt the story flowed better when told by someone closer in age to the characters.

Narrators can, and frequently should hold opinions and biases. IMO, they just need to be complimentary and not conflicting to the spirit of the story.

 

[Handley_Page]

So, for the motivation of this, I have recently discovered that in my writings I employ a slightly Lemony Narrator which is in line with a character in the world. The third person descriptors often have some flourishes of something extra rather than being just a detailed and emotionless accounting. Not saying all other stories are, but a good amount do feel like the description does not give a shit about the characters or events.

The question to you all is... IF YOU HAVE DONE THIRD PERSON... could you consider the story to have a slightly biased narrator or are they impartial accounts?

Obviously, first person has a clear narrator. But this time we're talking for third person.

I prefer third person

 

[mirafrida]

I found that when I wrote a Loving Wives story with a possibly unreliable narrator. They weren't very impressed, to put it mildly.

Ha, a few weeks ago when I took the foolish plunge to publish a LW story, it had a first-person narrator who was not, I would say, "unreliable" - but slightly biased. The haters (of which many many) seemed entirely confused by this concept, and convinced that the narrator character was 100% me

 

[RetroFan]

Ha, a few weeks ago when I took the foolish plunge to publish a LW story, it had a first-person narrator who was not, I would say, "unreliable" - but slightly biased. The haters (of which many many) seemed entirely confused by this concept, and convinced that the narrator character was 100% me

Incest/Taboo readers have done this too when commenting on my stories written in first person, asking why 'I' did or didn't do certain things.

Not just on Literotica, but in general, people seem to be struggling with the concept of fiction more in recent years, be it literature (written or online), movies or TV shows, either thinking it is real or convinced that somebody who hasn't experienced the events in the story or isn't like the main characters cannot write about it. That's part of the appeal of writing fiction, writing about things you haven't experienced and are part of your imagination.

 

[12oclocktales]

How about having the narrator insert him/herself in the story to direct the action, taking on the "editorial we" persona? Anyone ever do that successfully" Example: Third person, third person, third person, then "Maybe we should let Mike tell his own story now" followed by Mike telling own story using first person.

 

[nice90sguy]

Kurt Vonnegut's 3rd person narrative style is unlike anyone else's -- full of wry asides, like a guy telling you a story in a bar. He also is a master of dramatic irony -- he manages the unbelievable trick of providing spoilers, telling you what's going to happen later on, while still keeping you riveted. Fucking genius.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I try for all my stories to have a voice all their own. Don't always manage the trick. But first or third person isn't the issue. The voice and tone of the tale are what's most important to me. From Mystery to Horror, Romance (do I do romance?) to erotic, tone and voice are what makes a story work or not work.