When To Use Which?

SexyChele

Lovin' Life
Joined
Apr 24, 2001
Posts
6,099
I'm wondering when other writers know when to use first person and when to use third person when writing their stories. I started off writing in first person because it was easier. Then, for some unknown reason, I began writing in third person, and found I liked it. Now it is what I use.

I've received some excellent feedback from people, and one of the comments I get on occasion is: "This story might have been better told in first person." While I can agree with them, I also think it works in third person. But I want to be flexible and, as everyone else, always looking to improve.

So, when do you know when to use first person or when to use third person? Is it something you just "feel"? Is it a type of story? (Non-consent vs Erotic Couples, for example) Or do you always stick to one POV?
 
for me, it's something i just feel. there is no conscious thought going into the decision, it just happens.

i have also come to the conclusion that no matter what or how we write, we are always going to get somebody else suggesting that we could have written it differently.

being openminded and accepting a suggestion is one thing, actually taking that suggestion on board and changing the completed story is another.
 
SexyChele said:
So, when do you know when to use first person or when to use third person? Is it something you just "feel"? Is it a type of story? (Non-consent vs Erotic Couples, for example) Or do you always stick to one POV?

One clue is how often you have to use the backspace key.

If you have to keep correcting "I" with "he" or vice versa, then you're probably using the wrong POV.

I'm most comfortable in First Person, Conversational mode -- like I'm telling a story to friends at the bar. However, I use Third Person when I need to be able to keep track of more than one character or there is more going on than the main character knows about.

For me, it all depends on the scope of the story -- a personal account of one character's adventures works best in first person, a story about a couple's adventures or a family's life, requires Third Person.
 
I've got stuff up in all three. Like Weird Harold so eloquently stated, it's entirely dependent on the story.

I prefer third person limited in short stories, but I will write in first person. I generally don't think about it in advance, it just comes out that way, sometime in the first paragraph when the protagonist makes him or herself known. It's either an "I" or a "s/he."

Generally, though, I prefer to read third person, past tense stories. It's hard to do a really good first person story, in my view, no matter how personal it feels when you're writing. First person gives severe short shrift to secondary characters and they just never get well developed.

Of course, in porno, that's usually not necessary, it seems.

But it's all personal preference, really.

The only thing the "experts" seem to agree on is the use of second person. In a word, don't. Which you knew that already anyway.

:)
 
Basically, it depends on how you wish the story to be percieved. If you wish to give multiple details of what's going on without distraction, then third person is the way to go. WHen Mary and Chuck are getting crazy, oblivious to what's going on around them, Todd and Lena might be doing something too interesting for the author to ignore. First person limits this, as any one character cannot percieve everything at once, and no character can dig into another's thoughts or feelings.
However, first perso works well if you wish to make the story more like a fantasy. If Chuck is the main character (I) and wishes to believe that everybody is having the time of thier life, then that is what is happening. His perception smakes it so. ALso, first person is the best, and only concievable way, to create a truly intense situation. It is necessary to isolate the feeling to one to truly create a sense of reality.
On Lit. I always write in the first person, though there is no guarantee that it will remain so. I just fee it makes for better Lit. stories...
 
There are a few stories which can only be told in first
person, a few stories which can only be told in third
person limited, a few stories which can only be told in
third person omniscient. But ONLY a few of each.
(The -- professional -- author who does the V. I. Warshawsky
stories almost always writes in first person. She wrote a
collection of short stories, though, in which one was
third person. Read the collection, and you can tell why.)
Mostly, though, you can write what is -- to a first
approximation -- the same story from any of the three
normal story-telling modes.
Clearly, of course, you don't want to do a story in first-
person if it includes the death of the main character.
A 3rd-person omniscient or 3rd-person switched POV allows
you to write each participant's orgasm. This is a real
advantage in writing erotica.
I've even written a story from the "Watson" POV which got
fairly good critical comment.
I tend to use 3rd-person limited POV which has almost no
differences from the 1st-person WRT what sorts of stories you can do.
 
emoticon free zone

I agree that it's in the gut.
The story and the character decides.
Sometimes I experience that I want to be distant from the characters and to watch them, together with the reader.
Other times I want to be one of them and experience what they are experiencing.
Harold's comment was right on the money... if you keep correcting yourself, it's the wrong POV.
Sometimes, I'm half way through a story and then decide to change. Very irritating to go back and change it all.

I make my living in the film industry and writing screenplays is a curious mix of the two. You write in third person, but all characters in film have to say "I".
Just an interesting observation to kill some time.... maybe I should make a cup of coffee...
 
Re: emoticon free zone

Coolville said:
I make my living in the film industry and writing screenplays is a curious mix of the two. You write in third person, but all characters in film have to say "I".

Dialogue in any fiction is like that -- what's inside the quotation marks is usually present tense, first person, just exactly as the character would speak the words.
 
Thanks all, for the answers. Based on some of the feedback here, I'll be taking a closer look at some of the stories I'll be writing. Though like KM stated, I think I do prefer third person, past tense when I read a story - maybe that was why I switched. Dunno. Maybe I'll try a first person story just to find out if I've improved over the past few months.

Thanks again!
 
I use these guidelines, which I have set for myself. You may or may not find them helpful.

Use first person when you want to focus on one character and that character's thoughts and feelings.

Use third person when you want to focus on more than one character and thier thoughts and feelings.

Use second person when one character is writing a letter or message to another. NOWHERE ELSE.

NEVER EVER EVER use present tense.
 
star of penumbra

Star of Penumbra said:
NEVER EVER EVER use present tense.

Star i have read several stories when asked to give feedback and they've been in present tense. i've been unable to say why they didn't feel 'right' to me. i've known they could have been written in a better way, but i haven't had the skill to explain in exact detail what was wrong. the stories simply sounded 'wrong' to me.

can you explain why you wont use present tense please? i'd appreciate hearing it. :)
 
Re: star of penumbra

wildsweetone said:
Star i have read several stories when asked to give feedback and they've been in present tense. i've been unable to say why they didn't feel 'right' to me. i've known they could have been written in a better way, but i haven't had the skill to explain in exact detail what was wrong. the stories simply sounded 'wrong' to me.

can you explain why you wont use present tense please? i'd appreciate hearing it. :)

Present tense can be a wonderful way to tell a story. Done well, it brings an immediace and natural element of suspense that no other tense can match -- Especially when combined with First person POV.

However, as you noted above, if it's NOT done well, it leaves the reader with the feeling that something "just isn't right" about the story. Present tense is possibly the most difficult story-telling mode and is best avoided unless the author is extremely confident and talented.
 
It's always good to see what's out there.

Sheiner's wonderful anthology, "Best womens erotica, 2001" contains the following:

22 stories.

15 in the first person. Of those 4 are PRESENT tense (a couple, relatively brief); 11, past.

The 'first person porn' (past)--as I call it-- has this to be said. It has the air of the confessional. Sex is usually hidden, and someone is saying, "Listen, I'll tell you exactly what happened that night."

Our ears prick up.


7 stories in the third person, usually with one person the focus and limited omniscience; i.e., into that person.

In fact, then, 3rd person is not so much used to tell all characters' feelings and sensations. The mind would become over burdened.

Third, limited, though permits a greater detachment. The classic "Story of O", one of the most literary of porn stories is third. The lead character is objectified, and being effaced as a person, so that makes sense.

I'll add one comment: IF you're literary, or attempting it, and love dazzling words and striking sentence constructions, you necessarily would have to go for 'third', and not doing that is one of the biggest mistakes at literotica, IMHO. There simply aren't enough author-story-teller people for main characters out there for first person to make sense. Consider such howlers as
"I yielded myself in the face of his gradiloquence."
 
PS,

I disagree with Killer M on the following:


"First person gives severe short shrift to secondary characters and they just never get well developed. "

Applied to bad writers, yes. It is, however, a limitation of imagination; nothing to do with 'person.' Consider that the wonderful array of characters in David Copperfield, which I read decades ago, are still fresh: Uriah Heap, Mikawber, and others.

To take a contemporary case, consider, in the anthology of Sheiner's, already mentioned, the story "Waste" by Lisa Glatt, with a wife's delineation of her husband. At _literotica_, consider the narrator's first mistress in "Famous Blue Raincoat."
 
abashed-dreamer said:
I'll add one comment: IF you're literary, or attempting it, and love dazzling words and striking sentence constructions, you necessarily would have to go for 'third', and not doing that is one of the biggest mistakes at literotica, IMHO. There simply aren't enough author-story-teller people for main characters out there for first person to make sense. Consider such howlers as
"I yielded myself in the face of his gradiloquence."

This is NOT a failing that is limited to any particular point of view or tense -- This is a failing of basic English skills and vocabulary!

One other case that occured to me, where third person is a MUST use POV: When your main character is naive or innocent.

When there are things that the reader understands, or needs to know and the main character doesn't really understand what's going on, third person resolves the feeling of "double vision" many readers get when trying to deal with a character that is "too different."
 
Weird Harold said:


One other case that occured to me, where third person is a MUST use POV: When your main character is naive or innocent.

When there are things that the reader understands, or needs to know and the main character doesn't really understand what's going on, third person resolves the feeling of "double vision" many readers get when trying to deal with a character that is "too different."

On the other hand, having a naive or innocent narrator would allow the author to show inconsistencies in the world around the narrator that people "native" to the world take for granted. Sure, it would take a talented author to use a naive narrator effectively and some of the thematic elements of the story might get buried under a difficult narration, but I think that it could certainly be used to great effect.
 
green_rook said:

...it would take a talented author to use a naive narrator effectively ... but I think that it could certainly be used to great effect.

Ever read "Flowers for Algernon?" (The short story that the Movie "Charlie" was based on.) It's the "exception that proves the rule" in this case.

Almost anything that has ben advised against in this thread is possible for a talented story-teller. A good story, well told, can overcome a lot of faults in things like POV and tense.

The advice here, at least mine, is directed at amateurs trying to improve their story-telling.
 
Good Grief! So many opinions, I just couldn't resist giving mine. Don't bitch at me if it is similar to some else's. They just happened upon this thread before I did.

OK. I agree that first person is easiest and probably the way most people start out. It was the way I started out, but mainly because the first story I wrote was about my experiences. But, the second, third and more did continue to be in first person, for the most part.

I have written one story in second person (waiting for the groans to die down) but there was a reason for that. I wanted to make the reader feel they were part of the story. You would have to read the story to understand what I mean. And, it was written with a woman in mind, so I don't think men would get the same affect. But, you can be the judge.

After meeting and talking to other writers and reading what they say about what they like to read, I have noted that third person is usually preferred. I don't know if it is always the way a story should be written, because of who and what the story is about. There will always be a need for first person.

As for if it is a feeling or not, I don't know. I still have to almost force myself into third person. Past and present tense is an issue with me, too. So, maybe I am too involved with what others think and not enough with what I should think.

So, that is my take on this. For the most part I'm still learning, growing and creating an identity. It's nice (yet a bit unnerving) to see that more experienced writers still have problems with this.
 
QUERY

Here's a point that has not been mentioned.
For third parties, which is to say, most major characters, their description will often be exactly the same in a first or a third person.
Here's a piece from "Poltergeists" in the _Best Short Stories of 1993_ Ed. L. Erdrich.

[Jane Shapiro]
Zack's girlfriend, Bibi, looked as much like Nora as somebody else could--a sexier, ruder Nora, in muddy cowboy boots. In the daytime, Bibi smelled like a puppy--she was working after school for a vertinarian, planning to become one. She liked to tell long, bloody, oddly arousing stories about veterinarian life. Bibi was very beautiful and happy.

QUERY: In your opinion, is this from a first or third person story.... Stay tuned for an answer.

My point is that if you can't tell, then clearly first and third person are equally good for describing persons other than the main figure
(unless the narrator really wants into all these person's heads, which is rather rare; most third person narrative, as pointed out by several, is limited, in its inspection, to one person's inner state, sensations and feelings).
 
Weird Harold said:
Ever read "Flowers for Algernon?" (The short story that the Movie "Charlie" was based on.) It's the "exception that proves the rule" in this case.

Sorry, Harold. The movie you talked about is one of my favorites. But, it is spelled "Charly". OK, I know it is a small error, but I rarely get the chance to correct anyone. I had to take the chance.
 
DVS said:


Sorry, Harold. The movie you talked about is one of my favorites. But, it is spelled "Charly". OK, I know it is a small error, but I rarely get the chance to correct anyone. I had to take the chance.

No problem. I haven't even thought of that movie for years, so I didn't remember the correct spelling.
 
First person is not always easy

I find it challenging to write in first person, because the definition of other characters and their actions can be difficult to achieve. Each character and scene are seen through the eyes of the main character, and the author must manipulate the other character's actions and expressions so that the main character's perceptions tell the reader what the author wants him/her to know. In third person omniscent, character definition takes place by an unbiased "observer" who sees what the author writes, and not what his personality allows him to perceive.

If the female main character were of the sort with a poor attitude toward men, it would be difficult to have her relate any other perception, because she would not be able to see further than her own prejudice. An "innocent" main character can see no further than his or her experience, and the "real" secondary players often need to be unveiled throughout the story as the main character gains experience.

I use first person only when I want the reader to see through the eyes of my character. Third person omniscent is much easier for me to write when I want all characters to be represented as they really are or as they want to be perceived.
 
Weird Harold said:


Ever read "Flowers for Algernon?" (The short story that the Movie "Charlie" was based on.) It's the "exception that proves the rule" in this case.

Other "exceptions that prove the rule" would include Huck Finn, Holden Caufield, Forrest Gump, and Benjy (and probably others that I've yet to come across; does the Chief in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest count?). Can multiple exceptions prove a rule? Probably.

I wonder if "Flowers for Algernon" (and by extension the novelization Charly) actually would qualify as a naive narrator. Sure, he's naive at the beginning and end, but there's a good part in the middle where he's fully aware of what's going on; often he's more aware of what's going on than those who should know more than him. Still a very good story.
 
Re: Re: star of penumbra

Weird Harold said:


Present tense can be a wonderful way to tell a story. Done well, it brings an immediace and natural element of suspense that no other tense can match -- Especially when combined with First person POV.

However, as you noted above, if it's NOT done well, it leaves the reader with the feeling that something "just isn't right" about the story. Present tense is possibly the most difficult story-telling mode and is best avoided unless the author is extremely confident and talented.

This is pretty much why I don't use present tense; because it doesn't read right. I'm not skilled enough as a writer to use it effectively.

Also, I hate it becasue it's pretentious and artsy (no offence meant to anyone who writes this way. Just the way I feel).
 
green_rook said:
I wonder if "Flowers for Algernon" (and by extension the novelization Charly) actually would qualify as a naive narrator. Sure, he's naive at the beginning and end, but there's a good part in the middle where he's fully aware of what's going on; often he's more aware of what's going on than those who should know more than him. Still a very good story.

It was the way the narrator changes through the story that makes his naive perceptions stand out, and why that story came to mind as an example.

You asked, "Can multiple exceptions prove a rule?"

Yeah, multiple exceptions can prove a rule, especially when they include such illustrious comapny as the works you cite. When something difficult is done well, it stands out from the crowd and hilights the skill required. When something difficult is attempted and fails the work falls into well deserved obscurity.

As many others have said here, "you need to know the rules before you can break them." Novice authors need to polish the tricks of holding a reader's interest by following the "rules" before they stretch their wings into more difficult techniques and styles.

Discussions like this one help define where potential problems lie for novices -- as most writers here are -- and help them develop the skills needed for god story-telling.
 
Back
Top