The First Person

[scribblemyname]

This entry is part 2 of 8 in the series December Ramblings

Because naturally, the first person in importance and existence is oneself.

So, prompted by in_the_blue: my thoughts on the first person point of view in fiction.

I have an odd relationship with these sorts of things. Fiction is fiction. It's all a device. It's all a way to convey a story and lock you, the reader, into the moment. Which is a fancy way of saying that I have no opinion on the point of view as a point of view and I often wonder why so many people get up in arms over this.

Divergent by Veronica Roth is in first person. We are told "I" and "we," etc., and that's the narrator/main character, Tris. But once the story gets going, as a reader, I am swept along and forget the point of view, the verb tense, and so forth because I'm lost in the story. When I read a third person point of view story, such as Emma by Jane Austen, the same thing happens. I forget how it's written and get caught up in what is going on. I forget half the words, except as they let me speed faster through the panorama in my mind. If I notice the framing for too long before getting sucked in, then there's a good chance you're doing it wrong. Equally half of my favorite books ever are in first person and the other half mostly in third. The book of poetry, naturally, doesn't count either way. :grins:

There is one thing that I'll admit is difficult to pull off as gracefully in first person—names. You're stuck with self-referential names and thus, Andrew and Natalie, the names of Tris's parents in Divergent, are only mentioned once each. I had to ransack the book to find them for fanficcing. Other than that, they are rightly referred to as Mom and Dad.

So there you have it, the bulk of my opinion on the first person. Though if you think about it, "the first shall be last..." and all that jazz.

Download article as PDF

Originally published at Liana Mir. You can comment here or there.

Comments

[thecatisacritic.livejournal.com]

I have had an interesting relationship with the first person point of view.

Used to be, I had an issue with writing in first person because the story wasn't about me. I didn't feel right using "I" to tell it.

Then I objected it to it because it was too limiting. As a story I once read pointed out, it was hard to believe that a first person narrator could actually be in danger (if they died, no story.)

Then I found a way around that: I wrote in multiple first person POVs, so that was okay again.

When I got into fanfic, though, I found a new reason to be bothered by it. I absolutely hated first person fanfic. I think it was just one of my oddities, but if it had any explanation, it was because the writers did not create the characters they were using and therefore had no right to put themselves in their heads.

Now that I'm doing all original fiction again, I've written in both third and first person, probably more in third than first, but I have enough first in there, and it is effective, I think, when it needs to be. It was very useful for my historicals.

*shrugs*

I know some people can't stand one or the other point of view, but I've found it doesn't matter that much as long as it doesn't take away from the story.

Now I do have to wonder just how well I accomplish that whole "forget the framing" thing...

[scribblemyname]

As a story I once read pointed out, it was hard to believe that a first person narrator could actually be in danger (if they died, no story.)

I've heard that too, but I don't believe it. Just kill the character in first person language and it's done. There's no rule that says you can't. Think The Lovely Bones, which I'll never read, but seriously proves that person is really just a device.

I've never thought about the fanfic thing. To me, if I'm writing it, I don't really care who thinks I shouldn't try to get in a character's head. That's the whole reason I write fanfic, whatever person I use.

But I guess, I'm just aware of the artificiality of fiction. It's fiction. It's always artificial. Because of that, I can't find it in me to logically call any device of fiction more or less artificial than another. It all depends on the execution.

I'm trying to think of something of yours in first POV.

[thecatisacritic.livejournal.com]

No, not for me. For me, dead is dead. Conscious thought ends. I can't accept a story that continues on or is set after someone is dead. The only way that a first person story where the narrator is in mortal danger works for me is if the story ends when they die.

I don't like thinking of characters as devices. If that's what they are, I shouldn't be writing.

I think it is important to know a character's head to write for them, but I think it's also a thing where every fan sees that head space differently, and when I read first person fanfic, it almost always feels out of character because there way of seeing that headspace never lines up with mine.

I just had a very strange/strong reaction to the whole "artificial" thing, and as I tried to figure out why it bothered me, because I know logically it's a story and not real, but it still bothers me to hear it called that way.

I think I am getting irrational/argumentative again, as well as depressed (I hate this time of year) so I won't even try and get into that.

I'm not sure if it's a good sign or not, but All the Men in My Life is first person.

[scribblemyname]

That is what I meant. They die and the story ends, but there's no reason it CAN'T end tragically.

Pardon the confusion: point of view is a device, not characters.

Ah! This is a good sign. It means that indeed, I did forget the framework and get sucked up into the story. You use 1st person well, be assured.

I tried to use artificial vs. not true because fiction is more not "real" than not "true." The best fiction is always true. So I don't use that word in my general conversation or head, but I just picked one that didn't imply deceibt. I've never liked equating fiction to lies because it's far too true to me to do so.

But if I'm going to sit and dissect the tools of HOW to write rather than WHAT to write, I do come back to the whole idea of it's a story. How serves the what, not the other way around. There is only one rule of fiction I've ever discovered: whatever you do, do it consistently.

[thecatisacritic.livejournal.com]

It can. It just wasn't something I'd encountered ever when I read that or was feeling that way about first person. That was before the age of killing characters on every show and movie and book.

Okay.

I think that might have been why it was upsetting: the stories are... true, to the characters and to their world. They don't feel unreal in that sense. They feel genuine and true, even though I wrote the story and it's not real. That's what's so hard about separating it.

I've always summed up what to write with someone else's wisdom of "write what you want to read" which I also extend to mean "write what matters to you." How to do that varies by writer, though, and it does seem to be kind of a non-issue because what works for one writer doesn't work for another and the same for readers.

I do sometimes enjoy talking about the different methods and stuff, though. It can be interesting, but maybe that's just because writing is about the only thing I know how to talk about.

[scribblemyname]

Yeah, I don't kill characters, but I never feel a loss of tension from the POV. As far as that goes, there are stories where the "I" dies and it switches to a new 3rd person POV and keeps on trucking. This is also how one successful mystery series made it SEEM as if the detective died, then brought him back.

So that's kind of what I mean when I say, the how doesn't dictate the what for me. It just doesn't. It's a story, however you want to tell it. When I talk about my day, I do it in present tense even though it's already happened and should be in past. So yeah. But that's just me.

That is also why I don't do meta very well. Stories and characters aren't devices; how I get them onto paper is. Meta makes my characters feel like devices to me—a how rather than a who.

what works for one writer doesn't work for another and the same for readers.

:grins: And always this.

[thecatisacritic.livejournal.com]

I don't like stories where characters die, but that seems to be all too common with what I used to be into fandom wise. It was another reason why I moved away from doing stuff with it. I was tired of the unnecessary deaths.

I haven't read any series like that, but I could see how it might work. I was going to say I wouldn't do it, but I guess I sort of did by shifting the point of views in the Superhero story. It wasn't quite the same because there was always a first person lead-in to a third person section, but I guess I did do it.

I like it to be about telling a good story. If first person is the way to tell it, then it works. If it doesn't, then it should be in third. Or second, maybe, but that one does seem trickier.

I guess I never stopped to think about it that way, but I think I feel the same: I don't want my characters or stories to be devices. That could explain why I was bothered by a friend's comment that the reason I couldn't finish my stories was because I was using them to solve a problem in my life I couldn't solve.

It all comes down to personal preference in the end. :)

[in-the-blue.livejournal.com]

Unsurprisingly, I love first person POV (almost as much as I dislike omniscient POV). I think first person lends an immediacy to the story that isn't really there otherwise. That said, I don't think it's the right venue for every story. I know I've been using it a lot the past year, almost exclusively in fact. I can't say it bothers me at all in fanfiction. It didn't bother me in the Divergent series until the last book, where Veronica Roth had multiple characters with first-person POV and even that wouldn't have been a problem if they'd sounded less alike.

I know I'm probably in a minority with it. I also enjoy second person when it's done well, and a lot of people can't stand that. I notice that I start out a lot in third person, then shift to first. I know when I shift that I've got a good enough grasp on the character to want to tell the story through their eyes. Right now I can't imagine telling DJ's story in third person, for instance, but I can't imagine going back and retelling Drowning Again in first person. What's right is right in the moment.

I guess some stories just lend themselves to it more than others.

[scribblemyname]

Every story has its own best flow, and I agree with you on that wholeheartedly. I prefer 1st person multiple POV to use 3rd for the secondaries myself; otherwise, it makes me have to notice the switches and pay attention to the framework. Never good for me. I read to turn the editor brain off and sink into story, but I see your point.

I like 2nd with small caveats: I'm a girl so the "you" in relation to any masculine-only related body actions tends to throw me out of the story for a moment. Otherwise, I like it when it's done right.

I know I love your stuff in 1st or 3rd. :grins: But yeah, there's a different comfort level involved to write 1st.

[trovia.livejournal.com]

Fiction is fiction. It's all a device. It's all a way to convey a story and lock you, the reader, into the moment. Which is a fancy way of saying that I have no opinion on the point of view as a point of view and I often wonder why so many people get up in arms over this.

Yeah, this. I'm with you.

[scribblemyname]

:)