write the story in first person POV? It's illogical for someone to be narrating their life when they've passed- especially if there is no element of fantasy to the tale. I've been struggling with this one because I've outlined my story, and can't seem to start actually writing it because I fear that, at the end, the narrative might seem illogical if not executed properly. I have to be very mindful of what tense, and POV I choose to write in. This is all so confusing.
If your MC commits suicide at the end of the story, does it make sense to...
- Thread starter cursedsillycause
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 8,654
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.amazon.com
Why not? Sunset Blvd. was narrated by a dead guy. American Beauty was, too. And The Lovely Bones started with the protagonist already dead (although it is supernatural).
The thing is, if you wait until the very end to say, "and then I killed myself" it would be a letdown. All the above examples start off with the narrator saying he/she is already dead.
The thing is, if you wait until the very end to say, "and then I killed myself" it would be a letdown. All the above examples start off with the narrator saying he/she is already dead.
The Bucket List is one of my favorite movies, and it is narrated by Morgan Freeman's character after his death. It has no fantasy aspect to it. I don't see any issue with it at all.
LOL, you know what? I was actually going to do that....something to that effect at least. Thank you, this is helpful.
I don't think it's necessary for readers to know the character is already dead for the narration to work. It might be more difficult to pull off well, but foreshadowing can help there. But you won't know if it works until you try, so, see how it feels. If it's not working you can change it.
Last edited:
... it'll only work in certain types of works. In them the posthumous pov will seem perfectly natural. In other types of works it'll seem strained and artificial.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 25,582
- Reaction score
- 3,787
- Location
- New Hampshire
- Website
- madhousemanor.wordpress.com
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 8,654
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.amazon.com
One of my planned stories (actually, I started it, but then another narrator bullied her way in and I lost my interest...it's a long story) is told by someone who is dying--which the reader will learn at the end of the second chapter. The entire story is him looking back on his life, wondering where he went wrong, and leads back up to his death.
I'm telling it in past tense, if that helps you with what tense to put it in.
I'm telling it in past tense, if that helps you with what tense to put it in.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2005
- Messages
- 4,827
- Reaction score
- 336
- Location
- Pittsburgh, PA, USA
- Website
- home.comcast.net
I don't see why a story couldn't be first person(past tense), then end with the main character committing suicide. And the death would not have to be revealed from the beginning, but it would have to be foreshadowed enough to not be surprising. You could even have an epilogue in third person if you wanted to show reactions to their death.
Jenny Downham's novel Before I Die is written first-person present. And her narrator does die at the end.
You're making an unwarranted assumption that a first-person narrative is always an account told after the events. It can just as easily be an interior monologue, as in the example I've just cited.
You're making an unwarranted assumption that a first-person narrative is always an account told after the events. It can just as easily be an interior monologue, as in the example I've just cited.
^ This.
I've written a book in first person present tense where the character commits suicide at the end.
It doesn't mean that he's dead and telling you the story. It means that he's telling you the story as it happens.
I've written a book in first person present tense where the character commits suicide at the end.
It doesn't mean that he's dead and telling you the story. It means that he's telling you the story as it happens.
A question first person narration faces is: how is the MC telling his story?
Is he writing it down for some reason?
Is she orally telling the story to someone?
Mode of communication uncertain: first person approaching third person in its freedom from an explicit mode. I suppose you could imagine that the first person MC is experiencing the story moment to moment or recounting it in his own mind.
If your conceit is that the MC is writing down or speaking his story, then it will be unrealistic to go beyond the moments BEFORE suicide. You could go right up to his decision to commit suicide, his declaration that he's about to kill himself, but without a postscript in another POV, the reader won't be certain he went through with it.
In the "third person" first person, the MC could go up to the moment of death, even beyond it. Some readers won't buy this, but many others will have assimilated the convention that such narration is, yeah, real-world-impossible but story-world-acceptable.
Is he writing it down for some reason?
Is she orally telling the story to someone?
Mode of communication uncertain: first person approaching third person in its freedom from an explicit mode. I suppose you could imagine that the first person MC is experiencing the story moment to moment or recounting it in his own mind.
If your conceit is that the MC is writing down or speaking his story, then it will be unrealistic to go beyond the moments BEFORE suicide. You could go right up to his decision to commit suicide, his declaration that he's about to kill himself, but without a postscript in another POV, the reader won't be certain he went through with it.
In the "third person" first person, the MC could go up to the moment of death, even beyond it. Some readers won't buy this, but many others will have assimilated the convention that such narration is, yeah, real-world-impossible but story-world-acceptable.
Last edited:
That's a good point, though I would find a novel in which a narrator "writes" a story as it happens in itself unrealistic and awkward--what happens when bits of action come up? Doesn't our hero need to put down the pen? I think that's an issue that's unique to first/present, as you say, because past is--well--the past. A narrator has the time to sit down and recall, via pen or mouth or morse code, whatever.
Although, a past tense first person narrator likely should not be able to describe the act of suicide--and even the timing of when this story is told needs to be more specific (like you said, up until the decision itself, depending on how quickly the death occurs. Maybe a slow-acting drug overdose could be written through).
But like I said, I would have trouble believing a narrator is writing things in the present, unless the story points out the oddity of it and works around it as a quirk.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 8,654
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.amazon.com
It's a literary device, not to be taken literally.
I mean, does omniscient mean there's a God somewhere with a pen and paper jotting down what happens in the world?
If it's 3rd limited, does the narrator really read minds?
I think if people hold that kind of misconception they need to read more.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 8,654
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.amazon.com
Oh great! Now you've ruined it. At least I hope nobody dies. Next, you're going to tell me the Nazis lost the war! Bah!
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2009
- Messages
- 793
- Reaction score
- 152
- Location
- Austin, TX
- Website
- www.katherineokelly.com
Agreed here. As a reader, I think I'd be pissed to have the MC commit suicide at the end unless this is clearly foreshadowed earlier on or the suicide serves a much higher/greater purpose than the MC herself. If the MC dies because of outside circumstances beyond her control, that's fine, but if she takes her own life only for her own sake and it comes as a surprise, I'd be pissed. It's kind of like the MC quitting their goal/quest in the last chapter. Why have we come this far and struggled against so much only to quit and end it? Even if the character had no choice but to commit suicide (however an author would propose it's 'necessary'), I'd still be frustrated unless this is done well. There would have to be something major accomplished by this act or I'd wonder why I went along for the ride. Handle with care because this sounds like high wallbanger potential.
I hated Dan Simmons's Hollow Man because the protagonist contemplates suicide very early in the book, decides against it. Very last page, he blows his brains out so he can go to the author's idea of atheist heaven where he can become one with sine waves and 1s and 0s. What a bunch of bull. Made me wish the MC had killed himself the first time and saved me the 300 pages of mopey crap in between.
Does a posthumous pov just confirm to people what they already believe, that there is life after death?
I don't believe in life after death, and I don't want readers to think I do.
I don't believe in life after death, and I don't want readers to think I do.
To answer the question of "How is the MC telling his story?" I ask "As long as it's interesting, who cares?" It's a question of whether you're trying to present the text as truth like you're just curating someone's diary by using some sort of epistolary mode, or whether you're just telling a story and you'll assume the reader will suspend their disbelief enough to figure that you're not the MC's nom de plume. Raymond Chandler, for example, does not attempt to explain how his books are from Philip Marlowe's point of view.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2009
- Messages
- 793
- Reaction score
- 152
- Location
- Austin, TX
- Website
- www.katherineokelly.com
Every reader will bring their own bag of assumptions to the table, but here's my take:
To me, yes. I don't associate it with any particular religion, but if a narrator is speaking posthumously, I assume s/he's in some sort of "beyond" and that the moment of death is not the end.
Now that's a different issue, I think. I would assume the posthumous POV means the character is in some sort of afterlife/beyond, but I would not assume that the author is in any way religious or believes in an afterlife herself.
(Just like I can write a story about goblins, but it doesn't mean I believe they exist)
To me, yes. I don't associate it with any particular religion, but if a narrator is speaking posthumously, I assume s/he's in some sort of "beyond" and that the moment of death is not the end.
Now that's a different issue, I think. I would assume the posthumous POV means the character is in some sort of afterlife/beyond, but I would not assume that the author is in any way religious or believes in an afterlife herself.
(Just like I can write a story about goblins, but it doesn't mean I believe they exist)
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 8,654
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.amazon.com
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2009
- Messages
- 2,757
- Reaction score
- 517
how long post humous is the view there?
is it 10 seconds after death, or 10 months? I would think this is important.
ALso, there's always the "This was a note written on my deathbed" kind of device.
- Status