First or third person style.

[i_would]

Hi all,

I'm thinking of writing a new story, have some ideas, and for fun am considering playing a bit with the narrative style, and would like to hear some comments.

Most of my writing so far is third person limited: limited to a single character, and can see and know no more than what that character sees and knows. I've heard before it's considered the easiest, well that can very well be.

I've also worked with first person narrative. And now I'm looking for your ideas on how to handle conversations in the first person. I find there are basically two ways: the "regular" way and the "narrating" way I'd call them, for lack of better terms or knowing how it would formally be called.

Regular way, very similar as to how it's done in third person:

I woke up, and found the bed next to me empty. My girlfriend had got up already, I did not notice her leaving the bed. I got up myself, put on a bathrobe, and walked down to the living room. My girlfriend was in the kitchen preparing breakfast.
"Good morning," I said.
"Good morning," she replied. "I'm frying eggs and bacon, you want some?"
Hugging her from behind I said, "Sure, love to. Can I help with anything?"
"Yes, you can make the tea, and maybe some more toast."
I released her from my hug, turned around and put some more bread in the toaster.

Narrating way, more like what you'd hear from someone recalling something that happened to them:
I woke up, and found the bed next to me empty. My girlfriend had got up already, I did not notice her leaving the bed. I got up myself, put on a bathrobe, and walked down to the living room. My girlfriend was in the kitchen preparing breakfast.
I greeted her, and gave her a warm hug from behind. She was frying eggs and bacon, and asked me if I wanted some as well, which I happily accepted. Releasing her from my embrace I asked her what I could help her with, and she asked me to make tea and some more toast for our breakfast.

OK so this was a quick 'n dirty example, not very happy with the wording but it's how the conversation is approached that is what this is about.

Which way do you guys prefer, and why?

 

[sr71plt]

This illustrates the difference between "showing" (your first example) and "telling" (your second). Current popular writing technique favors showing.

 

[slyc_willie]

The advantage of writing in first-person narrative is that you are under no obligation to provide the reader with any more information than that of the character illustrated by the narrative. This gives you the chance to shock or surprise your reader later on.

Writing in third person poses many challenges. First is the question of "How much should I show them?" A lot of writers feel they need to infuse all the characters in a story with as much depth as that which you give any particular character. In other words, if your main character, Johnny, shares all of his innermost thoughts with the audience, then all the other characters should as well. This is a trap. Avoid it if you can.

Writing from the third person literally allows you to play God. You can show or hide as much as you want. But if you show too much from one character, and not enough from the others, you run the risk of creating reader-based suspicion. As cliche as it sounds, you are forced to find that happy medium between showing -- or telling -- too much and not enough.

I like writing in first person. It allows me to delve into the depths of a single character while keeping all the others at arm's length. I can interject as much suspense and mystery into the others as I wish.

 

[sr71plt]

Third person limited (from the perspective of just one of the characters) permits you to do the same as you note for first person. I mainly write in first person too. It's the most intimate choice, and erotica is the most intimate genre.

 

[i_would]

Writing from the third person literally allows you to play God.

That is called "third person omnipresent", isn't it? One of the variations of third person writing. I've never tried that myself, having stuck to third person limited. Can be very useful if you want to follow several characters that each go their own way. And in that case you may or may not go inside character's heads.

I find this quite difficult as it can quickly become a mess. Storylines necessarily intertwine, making it hard to keep track of stuff, and for shorter stories I think it's unsuitable due to the too frequent switches from one line to another, particularly when characters do not stay together. And indeed it's the least intimate.

What I have done (unpublished story, needs work) is when writing in the third person limited, is have a second character tell the main character about some event. Then you're definitely limited to the "telling" way, as otherwise it's getting really unnatural. This as I wanted this second character to do something on her own, instead of having the main character have all the fun.

 

[i_would]

This illustrates the difference between "showing" (your first example) and "telling" (your second). Current popular writing technique favors showing.

Thanks, another bit of confusion out of the way I've seen that so often here, "you should show, not tell", without really understanding the difference. The second somehow just sounds a bit more natural to me, the first can be almost instantly converted to third person limited by changing every "I" by "he" or "she".

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Any style works some time or other, the book by Jim Harrison (LEGENDS OF THE FALL) has one word of dialogue in it, only one. Its 99.99% narrative. Cormac McCarthy uses no quotation marks. So the real question is, WHAT WORKS BEST IN A PARTICULAR STORY?

 

[MatthewVett]

I tend to write in the first person, and I try to show, not tell, but I'll leave it to readers to decide whether or not I succeed. I've just always had an easier time in the first person. I think I only have one third-person story right now... But I have an idea for a second.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I tend to write in the first person, and I try to show, not tell, but I'll leave it to readers to decide whether or not I succeed. I've just always had an easier time in the first person. I think I only have one third-person story right now... But I have an idea for a second.

If it was 'show' we'd all be drawing pictures with Crayolas and posting the pix; its always 'tell.'

 

[MichaelWest]

"Don't tell me the moon is shining; show me the glint of light on broken glass." Anton Chekhov

When I read erotic stories, the ones I tend to enjoy most are told from first-person point of view such that I am seeing the events unfold from their experience. I tend to write the same. Present tense and stream of consciousness engage me better. I am experimenting with alternating person view in the confines of a short story to bleed in another voice without drowning out the viewpoint character. Playing with these tools is part of the fun sometimes.

Every narrative mode, point of view, voice, and so one lends itself to a way to relate information, each has strength and weakness. An author once advised writing the same scene in different ones, changing the choices to see how it reads. You may be surprised how your story works with a change to any one of the variables.

 

[PennLady]

I prefer third-person narration, whether it's limited to one character or goes among many. I prefer that in both writing and reading. However, that is not to say I haven't enjoyed some first-person stories, and I even wrote one myself.

I think writing the scenes in different voices is a good idea, although I don't do it myself. For me, that's mostly b/c as the story comes into my head, it's nearly always in third person, and trying to make it first person just doesn't work.

My story King's Bay was the one exception -- it came into my head in first person (inspired by a song, perhaps that's why) and I couldn't make it work in third person. So I went with what was working. It was an interesting experience, and I might try it again but I haven't had the inspiration for any yet.

 

[slyc_willie]

That is called "third person omnipresent", isn't it? One of the variations of third person writing. I've never tried that myself, having stuck to third person limited. Can be very useful if you want to follow several characters that each go their own way. And in that case you may or may not go inside character's heads.

I find this quite difficult as it can quickly become a mess. Storylines necessarily intertwine, making it hard to keep track of stuff, and for shorter stories I think it's unsuitable due to the too frequent switches from one line to another, particularly when characters do not stay together. And indeed it's the least intimate.

What I have done (unpublished story, needs work) is when writing in the third person limited, is have a second character tell the main character about some event. Then you're definitely limited to the "telling" way, as otherwise it's getting really unnatural. This as I wanted this second character to do something on her own, instead of having the main character have all the fun.

Third-person omniscient gives you the greatest freedom, since as you said you can get inside anyone's head. But also like you said, it can make for a mess of things. If the writer is confused as to what's going on, you can bet the reader will be, too.

Any style works some time or other, the book by Jim Harrison (LEGENDS OF THE FALL) has one word of dialogue in it, only one. Its 99.99% narrative. Cormac McCarthy uses no quotation marks. So the real question is, WHAT WORKS BEST IN A PARTICULAR STORY?

I think McCarthy gets away with his style because he's McCarthy. If anyone else tried to publish a novel without quotation marks to indicate dialogue, it would be rejected. But you're right; every story is different and some styles might work for some authors while falling flat for others. The only problem is, you won't know it until the story is already out there.

There was a novel, The Loves of Harry Dancer, I think, by Elmore Leonard (I may have the wrong novel, but I know it was Leonard). I remember thinking the story wasn't pretty remarkable, but the style of writing Leonard chose for it was pretty unusual.

Different. Poignant. Single words as sentences. Took some time to get used to it. Confusing. Wondering. Staccato.

The entire story was written like that, which made it stand out. Had he not written it that way, I doubt I would have remembered it.

 

[_Lynn_]

I agree with PL. I prefer third person as a reader even though I have read first person stories that I enjoyed. When I write, I seldom think about which POV I'll use, instead going with the story as I see it in my mind.

SR mentioned erotica is the most intimate genre and first person is the most intimate choice. And I see his point. However, I don't write much erotica (not for Lit at least). I tend to write in the romance and non-erotic categories here. Third seems to fit better.

 

[sr71plt]

I'll have to say that third-person omniscent is a good choice for readers who just want to let a story wash over them and don't want to think very much; don't want to have to dig for meaning. The author fills in most everything for them. That's a legitimate approach, of course. As a viewer of TV or movies, that's often the limit I'm willing to invest in a work.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Third-person omniscient gives you the greatest freedom, since as you said you can get inside anyone's head. But also like you said, it can make for a mess of things. If the writer is confused as to what's going on, you can bet the reader will be, too.



I think McCarthy gets away with his style because he's McCarthy. If anyone else tried to publish a novel without quotation marks to indicate dialogue, it would be rejected. But you're right; every story is different and some styles might work for some authors while falling flat for others. The only problem is, you won't know it until the story is already out there.

There was a novel, The Loves of Harry Dancer, I think, by Elmore Leonard (I may have the wrong novel, but I know it was Leonard). I remember thinking the story wasn't pretty remarkable, but the style of writing Leonard chose for it was pretty unusual.

Different. Poignant. Single words as sentences. Took some time to get used to it. Confusing. Wondering. Staccato.

The entire story was written like that, which made it stand out. Had he not written it that way, I doubt I would have remembered it.

I love Elmore Leonard (and McCarthy). Leonard says George V. Higgins taught him how to write, and Higgins says John O'Hara was his master. I just read a Chester Himes short story today, the story is 100% ghetto twaddle but excellent. Its like Uncle Remus gets a parole to leave prison for his mammys funeral. It works! DONT TRY THIS AT HOME KIDS!

 

[soflabbwlvr]

I write in both the first and third person POV. I don't have a preference for either; I'll use whatever the story requires. As a reader I have a slight preference for first person. I feel that it enhances the possibility that the story might actually be true.

In my current story I am experimenting with present tense. I've never written anything in that style before, and I didn't actually intend to do so in this story. But it is extremely dialogue heavy, and it makes sense to do the entire story this way. The litmus test will come in the second half, which is much more action-oriented.

 

[slyc_willie]

I love Elmore Leonard (and McCarthy). Leonard says George V. Higgins taught him how to write, and Higgins says John O'Hara was his master. I just read a Chester Himes short story today, the story is 100% ghetto twaddle but excellent. Its like Uncle Remus gets a parole to leave prison for his mammys funeral. It works! DONT TRY THIS AT HOME KIDS!

Leonard was one of my first writing influences. I didn't like them all, which goes to show that not everything a good writer publishes is necessarily good reading material. What stands out for me was the forcefulness in his writing. It was very unapologetic.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Leonard was one of my first writing influences. I didn't like them all, which goes to show that not everything a good writer publishes is necessarily good reading material. What stands out for me was the forcefulness in his writing. It was very unapologetic.

Leonard says he learned how to goose the power of his prose from Higgins, and Leonard had many years of best sellers before Higgins published anything. Higgins was high octane prose, cuz all his characters are thugs and lawyers and politicians and terrorists and dirtbags. And Leonards early works arent lame to start with.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Which way do you guys prefer, and why?

Depends what I'm trying to achieve. The first question would be, why am I giving a detailed account of how breakfast got made?

If the answer is "because I need to move the story on to morning", then I'd narrate it, heavily edited. "Next morning when I woke up, my girlfriend was already making breakfast. I went downstairs, hugged her, and helped make the toast." That way I can get ahead to the interesting bits. Writing dialogue is a lot of effort and I don't want to waste it on scenes that don't matter.

If the answer is "because I want to give readers a feel for who these people are, and how they relate to one another", then I'll use dialogue. Done carefully, it's a very effective way to reveal that stuff, especially when interwoven with non-verbal cues.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I think you portray character best with incidents that directly affect the story, like...a character takes an overdose of sleeping pills, or another character lets the cat outta the bag about the characters motives or agenda.

 

[chocolatecookie3]

I like either first or third person. First seems to be more "in your face" and it's hard to distance yourself from the character (as a reader). I like your first example better. The narrator doesn't have to describe everything that's going on. You can use dialogue.

 

[Dyslexicea]

Depends what I'm trying to achieve. The first question would be, why am I giving a detailed account of how breakfast got made?

If the answer is "because I need to move the story on to morning", then I'd narrate it, heavily edited. "Next morning when I woke up, my girlfriend was already making breakfast. I went downstairs, hugged her, and helped make the toast." That way I can get ahead to the interesting bits. Writing dialogue is a lot of effort and I don't want to waste it on scenes that don't matter.

If the answer is "because I want to give readers a feel for who these people are, and how they relate to one another", then I'll use dialogue. Done carefully, it's a very effective way to reveal that stuff, especially when interwoven with non-verbal cues.

Very good advice!

If you happen to take a first year writing class at a major university, your first assignment is likely to be to write a story about your summer vacation. Why? Because that is all 1st person is, at least in most professors minds. In other words you only have a story about I, me. If you happen to point out that a number of the English Classics were written in 1st person, you'll likely get totally useless bullshit.

Unlike most 1st person stories written here at lit a really good first person story does develop all the main character, which third person does also but in a much easier way. With a 1st person story you have the view of I/ME about the characters. As Bramblethorn said you use dialogue to develop relationship between the characters but you also use dialogue to build your other characters. In most good fiction there are really only three characters who's profiles you need to feather out. Using the typical lit story, first person I, her/his lover and the antagonist, if there is such a person.

Methods to build the characters using Dialogue. Dialogue between the I and her/his lover. Dialogue between the I and another character, doesn't need to be an important character, about her/his lover. Overheard Dialogue between others about his/her lover. These same methods are used for any other character who needs to be developed.

If I chose to write here, I would write in the 3rd person. It's much easier to build characters in a 3rd person story. Granted if you want peeps to believe it's a real story 1st person is your best choice.

 

[sr71plt]

The main issue with erotica and first person, I think, isn't character development--it's conveying directly the sensory aspects--what the senses actually experience and the emotionalism of it without any translation, distillation, or interpretation between the character and the reader.

 

[damppanties]

The main issue with erotica and first person, I think, isn't character development--it's conveying directly the sensory aspects--what the senses actually experience and the emotionalism of it without any translation, distillation, or interpretation between the character and the reader.

Wouldn't the same connection between the narrator and reader suffice? In fact, that might work better as it drops the reader in a story as a spectator, which might gel better than forcing them into a first person view which he/she might not identify with.

 

[sr71plt]

Wouldn't the same connection between the narrator and reader suffice?

Well, yes, if the narrator was the one having the experience (in which case it would be in first person).