First, Second & Third Person POV's

[thebullet]

As soon as I see the pronoun "you" referring to a character represented by the reader, I bail. I've never seen a 2nd person story that wasn't impossible to believe, at least for me.

As someone earlier wrote: 1st person: good
2nd person: bad
3rd person: good

I wrote most of my earlier stuff in the 1st person. That's why my last major opus was in the 3rd person. I wanted to learn how to do it right. Not that I did.

 

[Weird Harold]

It is possible to write stories in the 2nd person but it takes more skill than most of us have to make it plausible in an extended passage.

Why handicap yourself when a story can be told in 1st person or in the various types of 3rd person? Writing is hard enough without adding to the difficulties.

This is the heart of the POV question for me -- especially in the context of amateur fiction -- the difficulties of staying withn the restrictions of the POV and the difficulty level of writing in each.

Third Person Omniscient is has the fewest restrictions on what can be told and is therefore the easiest to write well in. That doesn't mean it isn't possible to screw it up and write badly, but it is by far the most forgiving format for a beginner.

First person is a somewhat intuitive POV and fairly easy to write well in, with only minimal attention to the restrictions on what the narrator can know. Novices and Amateurs often don't pay even the minimal attention to the necessary restrictions an as a consequence amateur stories in first person often suffer from confusing contradictions.

Second person is not forgiving at all and as a result second person POVs written by amateurs tend to read like stories written by amateurs. Plus it has the inherent nature of excluding half of the population whichever gender it's directed at. If Second Person wasn't used primarily as a way to avoid naming the characters it would have less of a stigma attached to it.



Any POV can be used effectively if it's used for the right reasons but first person and second person POVs are just harder to write well and consequently are found in more bad stories than third person POV.

The questions each author needs to ask is "what POV is best for this story" and "Can I write the story within the restrictions of that POV."

 

[smy3th]

As soon as I see the pronoun "you" referring to a character represented by the reader, I bail. I've never seen a 2nd person story that wasn't impossible to believe, at least for me.

I guess I haven't viewed believability as a necessary characteristic of all erotica, or even all fiction. Harry Potter, believable? Lord of the Rings, believable? 2001 - A Space Odyssey, believable? No.

I see erotica as tending strongly toward fantasy. Not of all it. Some is quite believable, and that has its place. But much of it is not even aimed at believablity.

I find first person the most believable. First person past tense may have actually happened. Third person is usually not very believable, especially the omniscient third person - there are no omniscient third persons, so it's obviously fiction. As soon as you express the feelings of more than one character, you have blown the cover off believability.

Only first person can truly be believable, in the sense of making you think that maybe this story actually happened.

Second person, is often present tense, which is not then speaking of past events, or even of actual present events, but of the wishes of the author. It is believable as to the author expressing true wishes and desires. In that sense, it is often more sincere than third person.

 

[smy3th]

Whore or slut. That is the question.

Can I be both?

 

[smy3th]

This is the heart of the POV question for me -- especially in the context of amateur fiction -- the difficulties of staying withn the restrictions of the POV and the difficulty level of writing in each.
Any POV can be used effectively if it's used for the right reasons but first person and second person POVs are just harder to write well and consequently are found in more bad stories than third person POV.
.
.
.

The questions each author needs to ask is "what POV is best for this story" and "Can I write the story within the restrictions of that POV."

I think this pretty well sums up my viewpoint. One POV may be harder to write well than another, but the question is, "what POV is best for this story."

I don't think that Third Person can do anything that First or Second can. Sure Third Person can tell the story, but the appropriate POV sets the scene, sets the mood, and tells the story best, and in my view, that is not always Third Person.

Having said all that, based on critiques of my own Second Person piece, it apparently doesn't come across to others as I envision it, and probably doesn't work the way I wanted it to. I think that my own response to this genre is apparently not typical. I thank you all for your very helpful and well expressed views on this.

 

[silverwhisper]

quiet cool makes the key point i think re: the suitability of POV being story-dependent.

i'm kinda laughing to myself b/c my preferences are varied. i can read any POV and enjoy it, assuming equal skill and quality on the parts of the author and work. i wrote a 3 parter (that i'm not submitting here) expressly b/c 2nd is for me the most challenging. it was, in musical terms, an etude. it's a piece i plan to submit for traditional publication at some point.

i tend to find 3rd person easiest to write: perhaps it's a function of growing up watching TV & movies and having that kind of objective perspective so much of the time. i don't know. but b/c it's so easy, it's common and to me at least, kinda boring. of course, in the hands of a stylist, such as hemingway (so sue me: i like his nick adams stories), that's OK. i think that this is in general a POV that particularly is advantageous to those w/ a distinctive style.

i like 1st person b/c often the author makes the deliberate choice to use the power of that POV to illustrate the narrator's trustworthiness (or lack thereof) as in the great gatsby.

ed

 

[Quiet_Cool]

I guess I haven't viewed believability as a necessary characteristic of all erotica, or even all fiction. Harry Potter, believable? Lord of the Rings, believable? 2001 - A Space Odyssey, believable? No.

I see erotica as tending strongly toward fantasy. Not of all it. Some is quite believable, and that has its place. But much of it is not even aimed at believablity.

I find first person the most believable. First person past tense may have actually happened. Third person is usually not very believable, especially the omniscient third person - there are no omniscient third persons, so it's obviously fiction. As soon as you express the feelings of more than one character, you have blown the cover off believability.

Only first person can truly be believable, in the sense of making you think that maybe this story actually happened.

Second person, is often present tense, which is not then speaking of past events, or even of actual present events, but of the wishes of the author. It is believable as to the author expressing true wishes and desires. In that sense, it is often more sincere than third person.

The point of the matter isn't whether or not the reader reads the story and decides it might be real. That's irrelevant. The point is whether or not it seems as though it could be. People aren't stupid; they know it's fake when they open the work and begin to read, and they're supposed to know. That's how they know when to suspend disbelief, as in those cases you mentioned (LOTR, 2001, etc...).

The matter is, how far must they suspend in order to finish and enjoy the story, and whether or not it's too far. In the Case of Penelope's Rock Hard Penis (I believe Sherlock Holmes solved this one with a portable fingerprint kit, some careful deduction, and a Viagra prescription) belief is over-suspended, and she most likely will bail. That's where 2nd person draws a line that the other two don't. Again, as pretty much everyone has said, that doesn't make the POV, or your story in particular, a bad route, or a poorly written story. It merely means that, as an author, you'll have to accept these possibilities before you offer the story up for viewing by others.

Personally, I don't like 2nd person, but others have stated otherwise. So I guess I mean that, if you accept that I (and people with similar tastes) won't read the story, but that others will, then you're ready to post the story. Simple as that. Accept the possible drawbacks, and live with it.

Didn't mean to discourage you.

Q_C

 

[smy3th]

The point of the matter isn't whether or not the reader reads the story and decides it might be real. That's irrelevant. The point is whether or not it seems as though it could be. People aren't stupid; they know it's fake when they open the work and begin to read, and they're supposed to know. That's how they know when to suspend disbelief, as in those cases you mentioned (LOTR, 2001, etc...).

The matter is, how far must they suspend in order to finish and enjoy the story, and whether or not it's too far. In the Case of Penelope's Rock Hard Penis (I believe Sherlock Holmes solved this one with a portable fingerprint kit, some careful deduction, and a Viagra prescription) belief is over-suspended, and she most likely will bail. That's where 2nd person draws a line that the other two don't. Again, as pretty much everyone has said, that doesn't make the POV, or your story in particular, a bad route, or a poorly written story. It merely means that, as an author, you'll have to accept these possibilities before you offer the story up for viewing by others.

Personally, I don't like 2nd person, but others have stated otherwise. So I guess I mean that, if you accept that I (and people with similar tastes) won't read the story, but that others will, then you're ready to post the story. Simple as that. Accept the possible drawbacks, and live with it.

Didn't mean to discourage you.

Q_C

Your view of disliking 2nd person seems to be the majority viewpoint. I appreciate your comments. I am going to try to avoid 2nd person. I do see the problems with it. I think the conceptual mistake I have been making is having seen it work so well in things written custom for one person in private communication, thinking that it would also work for public consumption. That seems to be erroneous.

I think I most prefer first person, myself. Sherlock Holmes by the way, was written first person from the POV of Dr. Watson. I find omniscient third person breaks believability for me. When the author starts telling me what the villian is doing, as well as what the hero is doing, I don't like it. I probably don't stop reading it though. I don't stop reading milk cartons at the breakfast table either.

 

[oggbashan]

... I find omniscient third person breaks believability for me. When the author starts telling me what the villian is doing, as well as what the hero is doing, I don't like it. I probably don't stop reading it though. I don't stop reading milk cartons at the breakfast table either.

Either alternating 1st person POVs and alternating 3rd person limited can be effective in a longer story. Tom Clancy uses alternating 3rd.

Og

 

[smy3th]

I just wanted to thank all those who offered advice on this. Based on the advice (both public and private), I completely re-wrote my story, from second person into third person. In the process, I think it was greatly improved. It was changed from just a personal communication into an actual story with even a certain amount of plot and character development.

I think that the second person version worked as a personal communication, and for that purpose, I think the second person had some advantage, but for public consumption, I can see why that was not the best POV.

If you want to read the end result, you can find it here:

http://english.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=218081

Thanks for the advice.

 

[BlackShanglan]

It's late, but my tuppence -

That any POV can be used to write a good story is not the same as saying that POV doesn't matter. I'd class POV with other structural elements of the literary art - poetic structure springs most strongly to mind here, but others fit - in that it's not so much that one or the other form works, but that the key is matching one's choice to one's topic.

To use the poetry comparison, "The Charge of the Light Brigade" makes perfect sense in short, rhymed lines of dactylic dimeter. It's about a cavalry charge, so of course "Cannon to right of them / Cannon to left of them / Cannon in front of them / Volleyed and thundered" works perfectly. That dactylic dimeter is extremely rare and strikes the ear very heavily, but it's perfect for hoofbeats and gunfire. But think what a struggle it would be to write a lullaby in that meter. You'd have to do some quite impressive things with softening word sounds to have a chance.

So with POV. The question is not "what's the best?" but "what fits what I am writing?" Imagine trying to shoot "The Sixth Sense" from any point of view but the psychiatrist's, or "The Crying Game" from Dil's POV instead of Fergus's. Those choices would destroy all of the beautiful tensions of the originals. The limited information and intense emotional focus of first person are needed for some sorts of texts or stories. First person can do more, as well; imagine reading "A Clockwork Orange" from any POV but Alex's. Without his wit, laughter, and amusing, engaging voice, what is he? A thug, a murderer, and a rapist; a thoroughly repulsive character. Only getting inside his head makes him work.

On the other hands, Austen would lose three-quarters of her charm without that warm, wry, delightful voiced omniscience that touches gently on all that is most ridiculous about all of us. And how could we demand that Woolf forsake the intense delight of "Orlando" with its staggering mix of third-person biography and first-person asides from the narrator? There's a sure hand on the pen, and no mistaking. And that's the heart of it. Knowing what works with your topic, and knowing, too, what you yourself do best.

One of the best compliments I've had on the craft of writing was a simple one. "You know, if this was written from any other point of view, it would be unreadable." Yes, it certainly would. And it made me proud to have found it.

Shanglan

 

[elsol]

Call me Ishmael.

In a first person narrative, one character carries the story... he/she doesn't have to BE the story, but they have to pick the reader up and carry them from beginning to end.

The brilliance of this line is how well it begins to do the things necessary for this to be achieved.

a) It establishes identity and personality for the narrator.

b) It creates a separation between reader and narrator... it forces the reader into the voyeur seat. (Strap in or kick out!)

A pitfall of the first is that new writers don't understand... I still has to be developed.

The bad part is that my preference is for new writers to begin with the first-person... it teaches focus and control. It is also the easiest place to learn character development because all you really need to do is inject I with a little bit of you.

--Gack... sometimes I wonder why I didn't just become a professor. All those co-eds.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Stella_Omega]

I guess I haven't viewed believability as a necessary characteristic of all erotica, or even all fiction. Harry Potter, believable? Lord of the Rings, believable? 2001 - A Space Odyssey, believable? No....

But- yes, they are believable, within the context of the story. All three of those examples are very successful at ;
1) postulating a world that runs by certain rules, and
2) adhering to those rules all the way through the story.

Afterwards, of course, you remember that Elves and Dwarves are made of plaster in real life, but while you are caught up in the novel, you are engaging in something called "willing suspension of Disbelief".
And an author who can't help you get into that state- if they can't make their unreal, fictive world real- then that's bad writing.
just a side note!

 

[woodnymph_O]

wasn't David Copperfield in first person ?