First person

[aspiringwriter]

Are there any "rules" out there that say a first person story can't be written? I know there are many mysteries out there that are told in fiirst person. My question then is this: What's wrong with writing a first person novel? I know there are limitations, but what if the story is supposed to be like that?

Thanks

[blacbird]

None whatever. Many many many novels are written in first person POV, ex: Huck Finn, A Clockwork Orange, all the Rex Stout Nero Wolfe mysteries, To Kill a Mockingbird, the list goes on and on. Which provokes two questions: Where did you hear such nonsense? and Do you actually read many novels?

bird

[September skies]

What about Bridget Jones Diary? It even had a sequel. Isn't that in the first person?

[maestrowork]

Many great novels are written in first person. The problem with first person is that it's harder to write well than, say, third person limited. And there are limitations and pitfalls: limited POV, too much introspection/internal dialogue, too many I's... If done well, a 1st person story could be an incredible, personal adventure...

[aspiringwriter]

I was just curious. I've heard it somewhere that first person novels aren't very popular but I know there are a number of novels written that way. Thanks again.

[Starlightmntn]

As others have said, there is nothing inherently wrong with first person. However, many, many beginning writers use first person thinking it builds intimacy with the protagonist, but then fall into the traps peculiar to first person POV. As Maestrowork stated, first person can be difficult to write well. The result is that editors and agents see a ton of not-so-great first person novels. There may be a cringe factor when some of these editors and agents see the first person POV in a submission.

[Jamesaritchie]

I was just curious. I've heard it somewhere that first person novels aren't very popular but I know there are a number of novels written that way. Thanks again.

First person novels aren't very popular in some genres, such as fantasy and romance. But first person novels are extremely popular in other genres, such as mystery, western, literary, and even horror. One of Stephen King's most popular and award winning novels, "Bag of Bones," was written in first person, and Dean Koontz's extremely popular Christopher Snow novels were written in first person.

Now, first person novels from new writers are not very popular with editors, and this is where the "first person novels aren't popular" line comes from.

First person is much harder for a new writer to handle well than is third person limited. Trouble is, first person seems much easier to write, so many new writers try it, anyway. This has given the combination of first person/new writer a terrible reputation.

[blacbird]

Addendum to James's post: I think maybe the biggest pitfall for a first novelist in writing in first person is an inability to separate the narrative POV character from the writer, resulting in a lot of introspective navel lint-picking autobiographical angst. The best first-person POV stuff I've seen tends to come from a writer picking a narrative character who is clearly removed from the writer's personal life, and inhabiting that new character fully in narrating the story. I previously mentioned A Clockwork Orange, by Anthony Burgess, as a good example of a first person novel; it's also a good example of the use of a non-autobiographical narrative character. Another one would be Thomas Berger's novel Little Big Man, source of the famous movie with Dustin Hoffman; the novel is as good as the film and well worth a read. Also, in more genre-specific work, the Travis McGee novels of John D. MacDonald.

bird

[SC Harrison]

I think it also depends on the "outlook" of the character in question. First Person follows not only the observations of the protagonist, but his/her perceptions as well. Regardless of how well-written it is, if the reader doesn't agree with (most of) the opinions of the narrator, they won't be able to identify with him/her. The only escape is to close the book.

I have read and enjoyed most of Gore Vidal's stuff, but Myra Breckenridge (sp?) and Myron had me climbing the walls. Crazy people should not be narrators, no matter how many "interesting" things they have done in life.

[three seven]

Regardless of how well-written it is, if the reader doesn't agree with (most of) the opinions of the narrator, they won't be able to identify with him/her. The only escape is to close the book.Three Seven hoped this wasn't true.

[Jamesaritchie]

I think it also depends on the "outlook" of the character in question. First Person follows not only the observations of the protagonist, but his/her perceptions as well. Regardless of how well-written it is, if the reader doesn't agree with (most of) the opinions of the narrator, they won't be able to identify with him/her. The only escape is to close the book.

I have read and enjoyed most of Gore Vidal's stuff, but Myra Breckenridge (sp?) and Myron had me climbing the walls. Crazy people should not be narrators, no matter how many "interesting" things they have done in life.

I believe third person limited also follows the perceptions of the protagonist, as well. At least good third person limited does. I think crazy people make great narrators, and people slowly going insane are even better ones.

There's really very little difference between third person limited an first person, when both are done right.

[Sarita]

Crazy people should not be narrators, no matter how many "interesting" things they have done in life. I don't necessarily agree with this. Have you read any of ^ Three's WIP? Uh. The guy is f*cked up, but he's got a slew of people waiting for the book to be done. He's fascinating.

I think it depends upon the voice you give your character. If he's an *** (like Thomas Covenant) but the story is good, you might be able to hold your readers.

I think crazy people make great narrators, and people slowly going insane are even better ones. Indeed! :)

[veinglory]

Some publishers dislike first person--check out your intended market and preferred pusblisher's guidelines. But in the end it's your story.

[maestrowork]

Personally, I think crazy people or evil people or something so "out there" would be a great narrator. If told well, it's really fascinating to get inside that person's head. And there's probably something amazingly universal about the character that, even if you don't agree with what he thinks or does, you can still understand and, thus, identify with him in some way. Also, I don't think first person means the readers must share the narrator's values. To me, it's as if I'm sitting there and listening someone fascinating (or crazy) telling me a story, with the comfort to know that I can close the book when I feel uncomfortable, then pick it up again at my own pace, safely.

[jen.nifer]

Curious! Cause my first WIP is in first person...

[jen.nifer]

Addendum to James's post: I think maybe the biggest pitfall for a first novelist in writing in first person is an inability to separate the narrative POV character from the writer, resulting in a lot of introspective navel lint-picking autobiographical angst.


Noted!

[maestrowork]

Addendum to James's post: I think maybe the biggest pitfall for a first novelist in writing in first person is an inability to separate the narrative POV character from the writer, resulting in a lot of introspective navel lint-picking autobiographical angst.

It's fun, though, when the readers start to wonder if the character and the writer are one of the same... or "how much does the author puts himself in the character?" It's fun to get them guessing. ;)

[SC Harrison]

Okay, I've read some pretty good crazy-person stuff, and it can be thrilling in horror or crime genres. A sociopath who is also genius can give you a "better leave the lights on" feeling, which is cool. What I am talking about is senseless babble, stream-of-consciousness, the crazier the better type stuff. Maybe it's just personal preference, but I just can't get into it.

My first ms was written in First Person. I didn't really plan it that way, it just happened. There's also a little lint-picking, but I cleaned out most of the self-righteous stuff after my second reading. I also noticed (and removed) a couple of stupid POV mistakes. It is trickier than I thought it would be.

[writerterri]

It's hard and fun. I'm writing one now and I'm getting stuck alot. But learning is the fun part. See my invite down below and you will see what I mean. Good luck.

[mkcbunny]

I believe third person limited also follows the perceptions of the protagonist, as well. At least good third person limited does. I think crazy people make great narrators, and people slowly going insane are even better ones.
This is basically what I am in the process of trying to pull off in my first novel, and it's ... well ... it's really hard. My protagonist is a nut, and the story follows her transition from one kind of self-protective insanity to another—a little bit wacky, a little bit ugly, a little bit loopy. In tackling the tale, I wanted to reveal her state of mind, but I absolutely did not want it to be in the first person.

Until I read this thread, I didn't know about any of the aforementioned perceptions regarding first-person/new author works. But, as a reader, I have a difficult time getting into a first-person piece [of any length] if it's not really well done. You need to have a character that lives separate from you, the author, and I need to feel and believe that person is real within a few sentences of the start, or I will be annoyed and just put it down.

[reph]

Epistolary novels are necessarily in first person(s), and there's no rule againt them.

[Jamesaritchie]

Epistolary novels are necessarily in first person(s), and there's no rule againt them.

No, no rule against them, but it can be darned hard to find a publisher for them, especially if you're a new writer.

[Jamesaritchie]

I think the two biggest mistakes new writers make in first person is a drastic overuse of the word "I," and in having the protagonist look inside more than he looks outside. Most stories take place outside the protagonist.

It's a version of show versus tell. Just as in third person limited, the protagonist's reaction to the events is best shown through his outward actions and reactions, rather than told through internal monologue.

[maestrowork]

I have seen a few recent epistolary novels, one based entirely on emails. Yes, they do get published. Will I read them? Not really. But they do get published.

[Jamesaritchie]

I have seen a few recent epistolary novels, one based entirely on emails. Yes, they do get published. Will I read them? Not really. But they do get published.

Yes, they do. So do hundreds of first person novels. But it ain't easy, especially for new writers.

[maestrowork]

I think the two biggest mistakes new writers make in first person is a drastic overuse of the word "I," and in having the protagonist look inside more than he looks outside. Most stories take place outside the protagonist.

It's a version of show versus tell. Just as in third person limited, the protagonist's reaction to the events is best shown through his outward actions and reactions, rather than told through internal monologue.

Good point, James. One thing I really dislike in first person stories (and I write plenty of them) is the author's insistence of injecting his/her feelings and commentary in everything:

"I love you," Jenna said. She was clearly lying, I just knew.
"I love you, too." I didn't want her to suspect anything.
She took the letter and tossed it away. I knew she wanted to read it, but she didn't want to make a scene. I felt sad. Blah blah blah...

Also, it's easy to filter everything through the narrator, and it diminishes the readers' involvement in the story:


I saw her coming my way. I could smell the perfume on her. I touched her and felt her soft skin. I heard her cough.


Ugh! Why not just:


She came my way and the fragrance of her perfumed preceded her. Her skin felt soft to the touch. Then she coughed.

[jen.nifer]

Noted x 2. ;-)

Though, with that particular caution, if I try to keep to the 'show, not tell theory' then I shouldn't fall in a heap. Too many times. Heh.

(Btw, would anyone care to add their 3 cents worth to my other query in the punctuation topic? PLEASE. Yes, I should have created a new thread altogether).

[three seven]

The guy is f*cked up, but he's got a slew of people waiting for the book to be done. He's fascinating.Fascinating maybe, but I wouldn't say I'm any more f*cked up than the next man... ;)

[Jamesaritchie]

Good point, James. One thing I really dislike in first person stories (and I write plenty of them) is the author's insistence of injecting his/her feelings and commentary in everything:



Also, it's easy to filter everything through the narrator, and it diminishes the readers' involvement in the story:



Ugh! Why not just:Ugh! Why not just:


Quote:
She came my way and the fragrance of her perfumed preceded her. Her skin felt soft to the touch. Then she coughed.

__________________


Exactly. When first person is written correctly, it can sometimes read almost as if it were third person limited.

[Cathy C]

First person novels aren't very popular in some genres, such as fantasy and romance. Actually, there are more and more novels in both romance and fantasy that are being written in first person. Both of our published romances are first person, male POV, and a number of other romance authors are using first person with success. Kim Harrison, Katie MacAllister, Linda Howard, along with lots of others. And there's no disputing the success of Laurell Hamilton's first person fantasies! :D

I don't know if it's a trend in writing, or just that more publishers are taking a stab at something "new" and they all picked the same thing... :Shrug:

But we're certainly happy with the result! ;)

[WerenCole]

This is an interesting conversation for me for it touches on two subjects which I am currently dealing with. When I write as my alter ego (Weren Cole) I almost always use the 1st person POV, though even though my old friend Weren is my alter ego, he is not me. I feel I do well in terms of distinguishing Weren's narration and my personal feelings as the author and sometimes I feel that I actually am writing in 3rd limited and have to remind myself that I started the darned story in 1st and that is the way I want to keep it. The point though is that it comes to this, and I think Uncle Jim would agree: If the story is compelling and well written, avoiding the pitfalls inherent with any form that can be used, and with proper care taken with the structure and information presented, then it will be considered because in our culture, well, quality gets consideration and crap goes to the slush pile. Bottom line. If you are going to use a certain form that do it right, or at least make it compelling enough to attract interest.

Weren

[MadScientistMatt]

This is basically what I am in the process of trying to pull off in my first novel, and it's ... well ... it's really hard. My protagonist is a nut, and the story follows her transition from one kind of self-protective insanity to another—a little bit wacky, a little bit ugly, a little bit loopy. In tackling the tale, I wanted to reveal her state of mind, but I absolutely did not want it to be in the first person.

Until I read this thread, I didn't know about any of the aforementioned perceptions regarding first-person/new author works. But, as a reader, I have a difficult time getting into a first-person piece [of any length] if it's not really well done. You need to have a character that lives separate from you, the author, and I need to feel and believe that person is real within a few sentences of the start, or I will be annoyed and just put it down.

I remember watching a video of a man with a serious case of schizophrenia in a psychology class, as well as reading a handfull of monologues that some people with that condition have delivered. The talk often jumped all around, with one sentence seldom having anything to do with the previous one. Some psychologists called it "word salad." I just can't imagine trying to read an entire novel-length work that successfully emulated how someone with that disorder would try telling a first person story.

[scarletpeaches]

Crazy people should not be narrators, no matter how many "interesting" things they have done in life.

How would one then explain the success of books like A Clockwork Orange?

[Ol' Fashioned Girl]

I was told - lo, these many years ago - that in Romance and / or Mystery, 1st person was 'bad' because there's no question about whether or not the narrator survived whatever happens in the plot...

Didn't stop me from tackling 1st person, but it did make me work on a few twists to throw readers off the trail now and then.

[Jamesaritchie]

Actually, there are more and more novels in both romance and fantasy that are being written in first person. Both of our published romances are first person, male POV, and a number of other romance authors are using first person with success. Kim Harrison, Katie MacAllister, Linda Howard, along with lots of others. And there's no disputing the success of Laurell Hamilton's first person fantasies! :D

I don't know if it's a trend in writing, or just that more publishers are taking a stab at something "new" and they all picked the same thing... :Shrug:

But we're certainly happy with the result! ;)

That's good to know. When I was a member of the RWA several years ago, no one would even look at a first person novel.

But by unpopular I didn't mean with readers, but in percentages of first person novels published. In romance, fantasy, and science fiction, I believe the percentage of first person novels is under 1%, though this may have changed just a bit.

[SC Harrison]

How would one then explain the success of books like A Clockwork Orange?

A good friend of mine tried to get me to read it back in the late seventies, but I couldn't get past the second or third chapter. I can barely handle English, much less the language the main character was speaking. When I mentioned this, my buddy said:

"Just keep reading, you'll get into it after you get used to it."

That argument didn't wash then, and it probably won't now. As I said, it's a personal preference thing. If I listed some of the books I've really enjoyed here, I would probably be tarred, feathered, rode out of town on a rail, etc.

As far as the success of Orange, I understand there was a great deal of controversy surrounding the book shortly after its release, due to the graphic nature and suggestive narration. There was also controversy about The Satanic Verses.

I didn't finish that one, either.

[reph]

I remember watching a video of a man with a serious case of schizophrenia....I just can't imagine trying to read an entire novel-length work that successfully emulated how someone with that disorder would try telling a first person story.
Schizophrenia is varied. It isn't just one condition; psychologists speak of "the schizophrenias." Some schizophrenics speak more coherently than the man in the video. There are other forms of mental illness, too, whose bearers communicate in understandable language.

[maestrowork]

As I said, it's a personal preference thing. If I listed some of the books I've really enjoyed here, I would probably be tarred, feathered, rode out of town on a rail, etc.

Of course it's a personal thing -- reading preferences. I just don't want people going around saying, "I can't stand first person, so you shouldn't write in first person." (I'm not saying anyone of you say that)... it's like saying, "I don't like romance novel -- so romance novelists are bad writers." That'd be absurd. I don't read fantasy -- just can't really get into it. But no way would I say one shouldn't write fantasy and Tokien was a bad writer. It's just not my thing, that's all.

[WerenCole]

Speaking as to the success of Clock Work Orange helps validate the point I was making earlier. Strictly speaking at the time it was considered more of a science fiction peace, though as a whole I think it could be considered more pulp these days than science fiction. The fact of the matter is that it is original, structured well and well written, if you can get past the language that Burgess created, a mix of English and old an old Russian dialect.

Maybe though I have a touch of bias because when I read Clock Work Orange in high school and studied it's structure, it was the first book that I had read that really inspired me to be a writer, so I tend to hold a special place for it in my heart. (You can imagine a me as a teenage writer, being kind of a rogue myself, throwing around droogies and the such to nauseating affect:Headbang: )

Weren

[Jamesaritchie]

How would one then explain the success of books like A Clockwork Orange?

A good friend of mine tried to get me to read it back in the late seventies, but I couldn't get past the second or third chapter. I can barely handle English, much less the language the main character was speaking. When I mentioned this, my buddy said:

"Just keep reading, you'll get into it after you get used to it."

That argument didn't wash then, and it probably won't now. As I said, it's a personal preference thing. If I listed some of the books I've really enjoyed here, I would probably be tarred, feathered, rode out of town on a rail, etc.

As far as the success of Orange, I understand there was a great deal of controversy surrounding the book shortly after its release, due to the graphic nature and suggestive narration. There was also controversy about The Satanic Verses.

I didn't finish that one, either.

We're not on the same page, but we're halfway there. I thought "A Clockwork Orange" was an excellent read. Not an easy read, by any means. In fact, one of the more difficult books to read I've found, but a very, very good read, despite this.

"The Satanic Verses" on the other hand, left me completely cold. I've always thought the controversy made it a bestseller.

I actually prefer reading first person novels, be they literary such as "Catcher in the Rye" and "Moby Dick," or genre mysteries and westerns such as those written by Lawrence Block, Robert B. Parker, John D. MacDonald, and louis L'Amour.

[Jamesaritchie]

I was told - lo, these many years ago - that in Romance and / or Mystery, 1st person was 'bad' because there's no question about whether or not the narrator survived whatever happens in the plot...

Didn't stop me from tackling 1st person, but it did make me work on a few twists to throw readers off the trail now and then.

I always thought this was a really silly argument against first person. Even though the protagonist can die in third person, really, how often does it happen? How often do readers even want it to happen?

I greatly prefer protagonists who survive. I don't always want happy ever after endings, they usually bore me to tears, but I do want to live the story along with the protagonist, I want to be the protagonist for the duration of the story, and dying isn't part of living the story.

[jen.nifer]

But who is to say, if in first person and there is an unhappy ending, that they're not narrating from a comfy sofa in the afterlife? You just never know.

[Perks]

Hmmm... you never do know, do you? Could make me want to write... oh wait. I already did. :)

The possibilties are endless.

[FolkloreFanatic]

Did any of you read the Nanny Diaries? I'm curious as to what you thought of it if you did. That one was extremely popular (a #1 bestseller, if I recall correctly), and it was first-peron present. Talk about difficult to pull off. o.O

I'm actually working on a first-person narrative about a girl with narcolepsy, if anyone wants to slaughter--ahem--*critique* a short excerpt of my work. It's over in the Share Your Work-->Mainstream/Contemporary section, under "Excerpt called Catch-22." The chapter, not the title of the book.