First Person Issue-My character's voice is boring!

{edit} removed grammar nazi vibe from my post...

And, I think he's like Merlin. The guy has a sense of god's judgment with every word he says. "You will not pass!!!"

"The smurfs left the village before dawn just to annoy Gargamel." The little bastards.

A.P.M. said:

Is this something that would alienate a lot of readers? How do I fix this?

Click to expand...

Most readers are probably not going to find excessive detail interesting. They come to the book to read a particular story, not get overloaded on all the details. I don't know if this is you, but some writers dive into details because they want to control exactly how the reader sees the story, but excessive detail can actually crowd the story out. It can also make a lot more work for you because all the details have to match up.

A number of years ago, I thought about writing a book of my Desert Storm experiences. I very much wanted to convey the army experience, so I put in all this detail. I had rank abbreviations like 1SG, PFC, SSG; I even had a scene where I spent two pages describing the soldiers marching off to war. Quite literally:

"Company!" called the commander.

Six platoons sergeants looked over their shoulders in unison: "Platoon!"

"Attention!"

The soldiers snapped into a position of attention as one.

"Right!"

"Right!"

"Face!"

"Forward!"

Click to expand...

Accurate, yes, but not very interesting. I had someone tell me the jargon was confusing and hard to follow. Your story should never be sacrificed in favor of the details.

How to fix? Focus on the story you want to tell and figure out what details are important to making progression with the story. Describing a statue that plays a major role in the story or a character who will become important later on is a good use; describing the angle of a character's arm as he picks up an object is not a good use.

Pick the high points and stop. Less is always more. Sometimes stating the tree name is enough without describing the tree for the next three paragraphs.

Apply your character's personality to details he is choosing to identify. I loved Laurell K. Hamilton's early books because she brought her character's personality into the details and created images. Most often, it can be done with a sentence or two.

You also might post a sample chapter over in Share Your Work to get more specific comments.

Consider looking at some TV show examples to suggest the kind of thing you could vary.

"Psych" is about a guy who pretends to be a psychic. He succeeds because he notices tiny details everyone else misses. He's an oddball, though, and that permeates his speech and presumably his thoughts. Does that suggest anything you can do?

Or look at "The Mentalist," which again is about a guy who's supposedly a psychic. His emotional issues run throughout everything he sees and does.

I'm not saying you should do what these shows do. Just that taking a look at them might give you ideas you can use. Your character observes things, and that's an important part of his personality. But what matters to him? What does he want? What's he afraid of? What's the worst thing that could happen to him? What makes him happy? Those things should color everything.

Given what you describe, I would try to write the story in third person, and allow this character to express his personality through conversations, journals, what have you. Basically, in small doses. So that this characteristic, which can be annoying, becomes a characteristic of HIM, and not of the book overall.

Or, if you don't want to write exclusively in third person, find another way. Perhaps have his first person perspective interspersed with third person chapters (obviously, this needs to be driven by the story). Or do a very close third person, where you are totally in his head, "Bob noticed every detail of the plant. It's St. Jon's wort, hypericum calycinum, he told himself. Also known as Aaron's beard. But he looked at the leaves -- clearly, this plant had not been getting enough sun" but then step back after a bit, so every paragraph is not like that for the *reader* but they get that every experience of life is like that for *him*.

Again, just thoughts, but sometimes it's worth considering a big change if what you are doing is not working in a major way.

If you have a first person narrator describing and analysing EVERYTHING he/she sees, in exhaustive detail, it will be definitely be dull. You could make the description much more selective (if your 1st person narrator is a highly trained observer they will automatically screen out background details and focus only on the imporant stuff, so being selective would be perfectly natural).

Or go 3rd person. Have you read any Sherlock Holmes short stories? We see everything through Watson's eyes, Holmes sees the same things, but at the end of the story Holmes delivers his brilliant interpretations and solves the mystery. Holmes is an expert observer and analyst but if he was the 1st person narrator the reader would find out what he knew the instant Holmes knew it. There wouldn't be the dramatic "reveal" we get from that 3rd person distance, that gives suspense stories their "oomph".

It all depends on what your character does and what sort of story you are writing. If you don't think 1st person is working why not try rewriting a few pages in 3rd? You have nothing to lose.

A.P.M. said:

Ok, so the main character of one of my works in progress has been trained all his life to observe and report on what he sees. He's a magician who is being trained as someone who will chronicle history.

Therefore, his voice-the way I write him-is incredibly detailed and factual, and I'm afraid it's boring.

I want to write this story in the first person. But reading it feels like reading a report. It's a report on what will be interesting events, but it's still report-like.

Is this something that would alienate a lot of readers? How do I fix this?

Click to expand...

I don't mean to come across as mean or condescending, but I think you are mis-diagnosing the problem.

You are writing something in a boring way.

Truth be told, it is all in the HOW and not so much the WHAT.

ANYTHING can be interesting, it is all in the manner you tell it.

Take a look at the History and Discovery Channels. Many of their programs are scholastic, detail oriented shows. However, these channels have revolutionized how they convey that information. Using a variety of techniques, they make the content not only interesting, but damned interesting. Exciting even.

My point? Basically, don't make the mistake of thinking that the subject is why something is boring. Truth of the matter is, it is in HOW we describe that subject. Anything can be interesting, it is all in the HOW.

So my wannabe sage-like advice is that you must rid yourself of the notion that the subject makes something interesting. Sure, there are some subjects that will be easier to make interesting and conversely subjects that are harder to make interesting. But regardless, it is all in the HOW.

Believe it! Then Achieve It!

End public service announcement

Mel...

Sherlock Holmes was my first thought, too. Just because the character notices every detail doesn't mean they need to be chronicled. I'd say stick to showing the detail when it's necessary. If the character is visiting a crime scene, for instance, and looking around and noticing a single thread on the carpet that was missed by everyone else, then it's going to come across that he's someone who notices detail.

Another option might be to only show it at the opening of a scene in his descriptions of setting. For instance, he walks into a room and gives a brief catalog of what stands out (don't need every detail, just what strikes him as important. Something like:

"Bedroom. Rumpled sheets. Box of condoms beside the bed. Opened beer, unfinished. No sweat on the bottle, but the top of the vanity was still discolored from the absorbed moisture."

Then you don't have to mention anything else again until it becomes specifically important. For instance, he's talking to someone and maybe the guy keeps touching his ear. He can notice something like that. It can be very analytical and logical and show this characteristic without having to go through every aspect. I'd actually find this sort of character very interesting. It's just a matter of showing what's important. And if you think about it, that's really what he's noticing.

Hope this helps some.

ETA: I think this might help make more sense. Think of it this way. If you're reading a character who is supposed to be funny, not every line that he says is going to be humorous.

Methinks it's the stuff that won't find its way into his "reports" that will reveal his personality and endear him to the reader. He has to think for himself and have his own opinions, surely? Which may not match what gets recorded in any shape or form. His having to conceal or mute said opinions and stop his own bias from trickling into his work could add to the fun. Just a thought.

-Derek

if you think he's boring then readers will think he's boring too

There are ways of showing characters are observant without including every single detail:

'I noticed how his eyes were permenantly focused at the floor whenever he talked to anybody. It began to annoy me more and more as I tried to discuss a problem which should have been of the utmost importance to him.'

It's not the amount of detail- it's the detail you choose.

You can also describe obscene or offensive things in great detail without a hint of emotion. That's always entertaining.

If this character has great powers of observation, show that, but show it in a way that's more than him just being the device you use to describe the scene for the reader. Let him add his own sense of personality to what he sees, his judgment about what he sees. His reasons for noticing what he sees. So that what he sees gives additional information to the reader they need to get him or the story.

Also, why does he notice what he does? (and I don't mean the "because he's been trained to" reason.) People are trained to notice things for specific reasons. If he's a magician reporting on what he sees, then what is the person he's reporting to after? What are they looking for that they want him to find? Because those are the things he'll look for and see and judge them so he can report back his opinions on the matter.

So if he's reporting on history, he'll probably take note of things he feels have historical significance in some way. And I gather that will have significance on the plot in some way, or he probably wouldn't be doing this, right?

Linda, you put me right back on the drill compound with this:

"Company!" called the commander.

Six platoons sergeants looked over their shoulders in unison: "Platoon!"

"Attention!"

The soldiers snapped into a position of attention as one.

"Right!"

"Right!"

"Face!"

"Forward!"

Click to expand...

I think a splash here and there of words like you have here, will awaken memories. Even people who didn't serve (endure), will remember movies of army formations, and military parades.

More related to the OPs problem, you can't have your character act on observed details, unless you've written them in. But as was mentioned, you can write them in a more interesting manner. If you're in first person, does your character have a partner or someone to speak with? or is all this description done through internal monologue. A partner with dialog would liven things up. You can allow them to have an unrelated conversation while your MC interjects with the details he's observing, etc.

Have you ever read a Nero Wolfe novel by Rex Stout? They're from back in the 30s, and the first person narrator, Archie Goodwin is likewise trained to report back to his boss (who NEVER leaves his house) on every single detail of his movements. Yet, it's very entertaining reading because of Archie's sarcastic wit. You might take a look to see if the method would work for your character.

I’m betting that if you look closely you’ll find that the character isn’t in the story, he’s telling it in past tense, but from his present—as a storyteller, not a participant in the scene. So, we don’t spend time in the story, we spend time in the author's den, listening, safe from all the things that would make the story exciting (really, the reader knows it’s you talking, while wearing makeup and a false mustache ;–).

A test would be to look at how often what you say is a summation of an event. If you say, “I heard the children come in and troop noisily up the stairs, that’s an overview. That doesn’t say it’s wrong to do that, but you need to keep in mind that summations can only come from the author, so every time you do it the scene clock, which marks the moments of the character’s life, stops.

The way around the problem is to mention only what the character is about to pay attention to, be that sight, smell, or any combination of the senses. That limits us to what the character thinks is important. And, we know it befiore the character, so we can speculate on what to do withou the character's input. Then, when the character reacts, we learn what he/she thinks of it, not what the the author does. POV, in reality, is all about the character’s perceptions, as modified by that character’s personality, background, and current needs. Which personal pronoun you use is a different matter, and mostly the writer’s personal choice. After all, saying, “He dismissed Shirley’s words as unimportant,” or “I dismissed Shirley’s words as unimportant,” changes nothing about the fact that that character decided that Shirley wasn’t worth listening to—which matters to the plot—and is all about POV, where personal pronouns don’t touch.

Something else to look at: Telling verses showing in the narrative sections of the prose.

Just recently, I realized that the true difference between showing and telling is simply a matter of conversation instead of a lecture. In telling, we pop fact after fact on our reader (as you mentioned), giving them nothing to do but listen. Too often that's boring

But a conversation involves the reader, in that what you say raises a question in the reader’s mind, which you then answer, giving the reader a feel of being with you and conversing. To illustrate, look at a paragraph from the Last Unicorn.

One day it happened that two men with long bows rode through her forest, hunting for deer. The unicorn followed them, moving so warily that not even the horses knew she was near. The sight of men filled her with an old, slow, strange mixture of tenderness and terror. She never let one see her if she could help it, but she liked to watch them ride by and hear them talking.

It would seem that this is a passage of telling, but look what happens when I take the role of the reader:

One day it happened that two men with long bows rode through her forest, hunting for deer.

Really... what happened?

The unicorn followed them, moving so warily that not even the horses knew she was near.

Ahh… But why did she need to hide? Afraid?

The sight of men filled her with an old, slow, strange mixture of tenderness and terror.

Really? That's odd, but interesting. Tell me more. (a “tell me more” situation is a hook)

She never let one see her if she could help it, but she liked to watch them ride by and hear them talking.

Ahh... so she understands? Or is she just fascinated by the voices? etc...

To me who is always the last to get the message, realizing this was an epiphany. There is an art to providing exposition that I never consciously realized existed. In fact, my forehead is still bruised from whacking the heel of my hand on it while shouting, “You idiot! How in the hell did you miss that one? It’s motivation/response units applied to exposition.” Duhhhh.

Maybe its really your character that is boring, thus his voice is boring. If he/she is dull, flat, Mary-Sue add some elements that will make them rounded in a sense.