First Person vs Third in Fiction

[jasonlockwood 0]

I am curious if anyone here can offer their views on first person versus third person in fiction. I've read lots of novels written in either, but was wondering if there is an objectively better approach to third person, given that it provides a wider scope to the novel - or at least it appears that way. I am asking because I am at the very beginning stages of planning a novel and have been weighing both approaches.

I welcome any and all thoughts on this matter.

[piz 0]

I am curious if anyone here can offer their views on first person versus third person in fiction. I've read lots of novels written in either, but was wondering if there is an objectively better approach to third person, given that it provides a wider scope to the novel - or at least it appears that way. I am asking because I am at the very beginning stages of planning a novel and have been weighing both approaches.

I welcome any and all thoughts on this matter.

For fiction, they're equally valid stylisitc choices. Not so for factual or opinion pieces - the former are usually best presented in third person (reserving first person statements for quotations), and the latter are always in first person (though sometimes only implicitly, as in this post).

[jasonlockwood 0]

For fiction, they're equally valid stylisitc choices. Not so for factual or opinion pieces - the former are usually best presented in third person (reserving first person statements for quotations), and the latter are always in first person (though sometimes only implicitly, as in this post).

I wonder in which contexts one or the other would be preferable.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

For fiction, they're equally valid stylisitc choices. Not so for factual or opinion pieces - the former are usually best presented in third person (reserving first person statements for quotations), and the latter are always in first person (though sometimes only implicitly, as in this post).

I wonder in which contexts one or the other would be preferable.

First person works very well in mysteries -- think Mickey Spillaine -- because it allows the reader to know ONLY what the protagonist knows. It has the disadvantage, however, that you can't wonder whether the hero will live or die because dead men tell no tales.

Third person lets you tell the reader more than the characters know and this can sometimes be an advantage. It does not, however, let you inside a character's mind and know what he is thinking.

In addition there are two variations on third person: the "inclusive" and the "omniscient" points of view. The inclusive point of view describes one character's thoughts and things available to his senses. The omniscient point of view can describe more than one character's thoughts as well as knowledge unavailable to any of the characters in the story.

If you look at Atlas Shrugged, you will find Ayn Rand using all of these points of view in one scene or another. In fact, the scenes where Eddie is talking to the nameless track worker in the cafeteria is almost a first person account.

[Arnold 0]

Hey, first person, third person - what about the second person having a say?

[alann 0]

Hey, first person, third person - what about the second person having a say?

All the time, in Poetry and song lyrics

[alann 0]

"I wonder what he meant by 'first person'?"

"alann wondered what Jason meant by 'third person'... besides Jason and himself, there was only the cat. And then it occurred to him: Jason was an animal rights activist."

First Person (FP) is inherently limited, as Betsy said, in that you can only be in one head. That is an advantage when you want a tight identification with the protagonist (or narrator) in whose head you're in. Moving between Third-Person Omniscient (TPO) and Third-Person Limited (*) requires a very clear transition in POV, or it can be confusing. TPO is the most reliable narrator, since he knows everything. Third-person limited can be substituted for FP, since they are attached to 1 character, but, then, you can't -- in essence -- move the camera back and know what other characters are thinking. Moving from TPO to First Person is usually only done after a new chapter or section and can be very jarring (but that can work, if you are, for example, moving from TPO storytelling to a diary entry or a soliloquoy. FP makes it personal.

In my experience, TPO and TPL work better together. Tolstoy's sense of life sucks, but he was a highly-skilled writer, technically, and he used TPO to TPL transitions, especially notable in the first scene, the ballroom scene, which is almost cinematic, in his tracking-shot-like omniscient view of the crowded, glittering, elegant scene, then moving into individual conversations and tight TPL character sketches of individual characters of the upcoming drama, by way of introduction.

I was advised by a writing teacher and a few books, in the past, to stick to Third Person unless I had a damned good reason, because it's a more forgiving medium. If you need to reveal things that the FP narrator can't know, TPO to TPL can be accomplished with minimal disruption, or you can stay in TPO.

But, ultimately, it's your story and you have to tell it the way you find the most appropriate for the characters, the atmostphere, the genre, and the story itself. Have fun!

(*) ... Or Third-Person 'Inclusive', as Betsy names it. But, I've heard 'Third-Person Limited' more commonly used, which I like because that's an explicit recognition of the limitation of the POV, in direct contrast to it's 'Omnisicient' alternative. I've also heard it called TP 'Personal'.

[jasonlockwood 0]

Excellent advice from Betsy and Alan. I had started off thinking I wanted an "intimate" approach in first person, but as the scope of my story has expanded, I realized I needed a broader style. Mind you, I am at the very beginning stages of planning and outlining, but having some clear direction NOW will save me a lot of re-writing later. It will also enable me to write the story I really want to.

Thanks to all who offered their opinions.

[piz 0]

For fiction, they're equally valid stylisitc choices. Not so for factual or opinion pieces - the former are usually best presented in third person (reserving first person statements for quotations), and the latter are always in first person (though sometimes only implicitly, as in this post).

I wonder in which contexts one or the other would be preferable.

First person works very well in mysteries -- think Mickey Spillaine -- because it allows the reader to know ONLY what the protagonist knows. It has the disadvantage, however, that you can't wonder whether the hero will live or die because dead men tell no tales.

400 pages of first-person narrative ends with:

... As I finished the letter, it all finally became clear. Everything Wilson told me was true. He wasn't in the room that night, he wasn't involved with Samantha, and he was completely out of cash. The killer had to be

"And so, Your Honor, the journal found next to Detective Harrison's body ends. He was found lying next to his desk with a single bullet wound in his chest."

[bborg 0]

James Patterson's novels jump between first person and third person, which is odd but allows him to put you in the hero's shoes in some chapters while also giving you a bird's eye view of other activities. I got bored halfway through the second book I picked up, but the point is you can use these devices however you choose as they suit your purposes. No need to stick to convention.

[jasonlockwood 0]

James Patterson's novels jump between first person and third person, which is odd but allows him to put you in the hero's shoes in some chapters while also giving you a bird's eye view of other activities. I got bored halfway through the second book I picked up, but the point is you can use these devices however you choose as they suit your purposes. No need to stick to convention.

I think I would find that jarring for me as the writer. I also decided on an essentially chronological approach, though I have enjoyed novels that jumped in time (A.S. Byatt's Possession being one example). In the end, what motivates me is the story itself, but I do have to decide on the approach before diving into it.

Prodos' lovely wife Sydney (the author of A Turn for Dewurst) made it clear how important the early stages of outlining are, and so I want to get that right, of course. I also like the idea of keeping a journal, which will enable me to flesh out ideas. Ultimately a project like this is nothing to sneeze at, and given that I have a full time career, a very long term project, indeed.

[bborg 0]

I think I would find that jarring for me as the writer. I also decided on an essentially chronological approach, though I have enjoyed novels that jumped in time (A.S. Byatt's Possession being one example). In the end, what motivates me is the story itself, but I do have to decide on the approach before diving into it.

But doesn't the approach (the form) follow from the story (the content)? I'm not a fiction writer, but for example if I had a story in mind where some innocuous details were very important and I wanted the reader to know that early on, jumping in time is one way I could focus their attention. I could start in a later time when the impact of those details was apparent, and then go back and the reader would automatically be interested in what I wanted them to be interested in. Or, another device that's sometimes used is when you skip around in order to follow how different characters end up at some event. This can be good if the reader needs to have an understanding of the psychology of characters that appear unsympathetic from one perspective. But if either of these approaches were used gratuitously I imagine they would be more disorienting than useful.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Ultimately a project like this is nothing to sneeze at, and given that I have a full time career, a very long term project, indeed.

If Nevil Shute could do it, so can you!

[Bill Bucko 0]

As has been pointed out, in First Person it's not strictly necessary that the narrator survives. See Hugo's "Last Day of a Condemned Man." Or Poe's "The Conversation of Eiros and Charmion." Or his "Manuscript Found in a Bottle." For a classic "stunt," see Agatha Christie's The Murder of Roger Ackroyd.

I gained valuable insight into novel writing (e.g. early vs. late point of attack) from William Archer's Play-Making: A Manual of Craftsmanship. [see, under The Writer's Roundtable, my thread on Editing the First Page of a Novel: http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=1769 ] Archer was an English champion of Ibsen's.

[jasonlockwood 0]

Ultimately a project like this is nothing to sneeze at, and given that I have a full time career, a very long term project, indeed.

If Nevil Shute could do it, so can you!

That is an excellent point. In fact, I KNOW I am capable of it. There are some things I needed to master beforehand, so my years as a technical writer helped with that. The primary problem I used to have was one of organization. After writing a lot of documentation over the years, including some long manuals, I gained the skills needed. I also had to learn to be clear and succinct. Yes, I know, technical manuals aren't frequently known for that, but it was my goal to convey tricky material in such a way that the target audience wasn't left scratching their heads.

Another important bit of experience for me has been living life. When I first thought of writing fiction, I was in my 20s. I had neither the maturity nor the wide range thinking skills to devise a good plot, and my writing at the time was still immature.

Here's a nice thing Nevil Shute and I BOTH share: a love for Australia!

[Ed from OC 0]

Here is a discussion of narrative mode and several options available.

[alann 0]

Third-person limited can be substituted for FP, since they are attached to 1 character, but, then, you can't -- in essence -- move the camera back and know what other characters are thinking.

I meant that FP doesn't support 'moving the camera back' (to TPO). Not as smoothly as Third Person Limited to Third Person Omniscient transitions.

Sorry about that.

[alann 0]

Re: Starting 'late in the action': I've always known it as in medias res: In the middle of the action

[Well, actually, at birth, I was completely illiterate in Latin and many other things, so I haven't actually always known this... this was hyperbole... and I started 'always' later in my life, to increase the drama].

Especially in an action/adventure novel, you want to plunge your reader into the story and dropping them into the middle of a turgid scene does just that. You just have to describe the scenario so they can clearly see it, in a clear context. Then, their curiousity (in the best case) aroused, you tell 'em how we got here. I studied with Second City Improvisation and in medias res was their preferred method of launching a scene. You jump in, create the situation (event), the point of view (i.e. the character), and the context (history/story). It's a strong way to start and, in an improvised scene, it rivets everyone's attention (onstage and off) on the 'what the hell is going on?' For their polished sketches, SC started with a successful improv, then looked at it with a dramaturgist's eye and edited and tightened the piece.

A chronological opening can work, I guess, but it's hard to build interest and momentum from zero. Maybe this was implied by Aristotle's Unity of Time and Place, but even in Antigone, Sophocles --Aristotle's paragon of dramatic virtue -- on which he built the rules of his Poetics, the very first scene we see is Antigone's meeting with her sister Ismene, to discuss burying her brother Polyneices, in defiance of the new king Creon's edict. This scene is based on prior history, the battle between her two brothers, Eteocles and Polyneices, Creon's politics, and so on. This background is revealed later, after that initial scene.

However, this was the dawn of formal drama and rather presentational, with its extended speeches and chorus narrations. Flashback and temporary confusion are well-accepted nowadays, as long as they are nailed down soon enough that the readers/audiences don't close the book in frustration or walk out of the theatre.

[jasonlockwood 0]

Especially in an action/adventure novel, you want to plunge your reader into the story and dropping them into the middle of a turgid scene does just that. You just have to describe the scenario so they can clearly see it, in a clear context.

This reminds of novels that use a prologue that is set at some other point in the story, usually after the events of the main story. Is this the kind of thing you're referring to, Alan?

[piz 0]

Especially in an action/adventure novel, you want to plunge your reader into the story and dropping them into the middle of a turgid scene does just that. You just have to describe the scenario so they can clearly see it, in a clear context.

This reminds of novels that use a prologue that is set at some other point in the story, usually after the events of the main story. Is this the kind of thing you're referring to, Alan?

I've seen that, and also the effective use of "backstory" so that the current story opens in the middle of a larger "history" which is revealed as the main story progresses chronologically forward from the opening scene. Good examples are The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien, where tales from the history are told by characters in the present, and Shogun by James Clavell, where actual scenes from previous times involving the story's characters are interspersed throughout the story.

I'm working on a story that opens with an action scene that establishes both some of the main characters and the primary problem to be overcome, then will use Clavell's approach to provide wider context as time progresses from the initial event.