First Person -- Does it really matter why a narrator is narrating?

[AnneMarble]

I've used first person for a couple of WIPs lately (as it seemed suited to those stories). But once, in a crit group, some of the participants asked questions along the lines of "Why is the person narrating their story?" They weren't asking me why I was using first person. Instead, they wanted to know ... Is this a memoir? Is it a letter? Who is he writing to, and why is he telling them all these things, including embarrassing incidents he might not want to reveal?

But ... uhm... with first person, unless the reader is told otherwise, I've always accepted that it's a device. The narrator is telling me the story. Yes, I know that narrator doesn't know I exist. (He's a character in a story, so he had better not. ;)) I don't assume he's writing this story somewhere weeks or years later or that he's speaking into a tape recorder. After all, what if it's a spy novel involving state secrets? He might not be allowed to tell anyone else these things, even years later -- but as far as I know, he can tell the reader. :)

So what's the sitch? When I have a first person narrator, am I supposed to set up some contrivance that explains why the story is being told? Or should I assume that most readers will accept the first person without asking why he's narrating a story? I've recently read some threads where someone said that they would have accepted a first person narrator in a story in certain cases only if there was a tape recorder recording their words. But to me, in most cases, that sounds far more awkward and contrived than simply using first person. (I'll make exceptions for stories where it works, such as Fred Saberhagen's The Dracula Tapes.)

By the way, as I know dead first person narrators pop up in discussions now and then... I do have a first person character who dies in the middle of a chapter. But he ends up in the afterlife and comes back as a ghost, so there.
:e2tongue:

[JTstories]

I've heard that question too. I don't put much stock into it. The story isn't about the reader, it's about the story. If you start trying to validate WHY and to WHOM the story is being told you are losing focus and spending too much time trying to justify telling the story in the first place.

Some stories work best in first person, some work best in third. I don't let stuff like "Why is the narrator telling me this" get in the way of the superior presentation.

[JoNightshade]

I'm fine with having no explanation, so long as the end of the story leaves me with the sense that the character has continued on. If its in first person past tense, who knows at what point the MC decided to tell his story, and why? Not important. If it's first person present tense, I just assume the MC is internally narrating his life like most of us do.

[maestrowork]

No, the narrator doesn't have to be "narrating." For all we know, the narrator could be talking to himself, or just hallucinating, rambling, whatever.

[yttar]

Using my wife's account to post.

There are stories that it is clear the 1st person is narrating the story for a reason after the events.

Famous works are, "A Handmaid's Tale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Handmaid's_Tale)" and Sherlock Holmes.

The Handmaid's Tale jumps around to give the distinct impression that she is recording the events of her life when she is able to do so without getting caught. But frankly isn't clear that that is the reason for the unreliable narrator, so it is explained afterwards in the "Historical Notes."

Sherlock Holmes has the express statement of Watson following Sherlock around for the sole purpose of recording his life.

These are examples of a first person narrator who is very visible to the reader. Most of the time however, the 1st person pov is invisible to the reader. The reader doesn't think about the narrator telling the story, to who, or why. They just accept the writing as is. And the author uses it to make the reader that much closer to the story and to limit what the reader knows to only what the narrator knows. (After all, every story changes when you change the person who tells it.)

Now I have read stories in workshops and creative writing classes, where I ask the author, why is the narrator telling me this. In those cases, it's because the narrator is very visible and the prose sounds like the person is telling the story to the reader. (Sherlock Holmes has a very strong sense of this that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle uses really well and with purpose.)

Just because it's in first person, doesn't mean the narrator is telling this to anyone, writing it down, or talking to himself. And unless you're writing a noir piece, he probably doesn't have an internal monologue narrating his life either.

So if people are regularly asking you why and to whom is this story being told, it probably isn't because it's first person, but because they are too aware of the narrator talking to the audience.

-Ninja-Bear

[Linda Adams]

Are those who made the comments readers of fiction? It sounds like they might be non-fiction readers who haven't read a lot of fiction. I sometimes got strange comments in my critique group, and they always came from two people: one didn't read at all, and the other was a non-fiction reader.

[Phaeal]

I think it could be helpful for the writer to know why his first person POV is motivated to tell his story. This could aid and color the narration.

There are many different approaches to a first person narration. The narrator can be looking back at maturity over how life has shaped him, as in David Copperfield. Or she can seem to be with the reader, in the present, breathlessly relating what's recently happened or what is happening at that moment as to a trusted friend -- the Shopaholic series is a good recent example.

The first person narrator can have a specific purpose for writing or recording or speaking his story. He may be trying to put down a history that needs to be told. He may be trying to understand himself. He may be trying to justify himself. He may even be lying, consciously or unconsciously, and hence unreliable.

The point from which the narrator narrates, the form of the fictive narration (written, spoken, taped or videoed, thought), and the reason for telling the story -- I'd say these are all things a writer can be asked to know.

[Matera the Mad]

Right -- you know why the MC is narrating the story, if only "because I wanna do it that way!" No need to explain it to the reader as long as it makes a satisfying story. I think crit-groupers get uptight about small things after a while. It's part of the process, and they should outgrow some of it.

[jodi henley]

and sometimes people ask questions just because.

weird questions.

ask them what they're writing, what pov they're using and why.

I think the use of 1st person is just a stylistic choice. Way back, it used to be used "consciously", like those nineteenth century writers who made the asides, and said things like, "little did I know, gentle reader, that I would one day come to regret the events"

nowdays, it's just a way to bring the reader in tighter like someone else said, and control the story flow. Unless you belong to an experimental fiction group, or some kind of literary thing, you don't have to justify personal choice.

how about coming up with a nifty question to ask back when this sort of stuff comes up? Like...er,

In your scene (insert) where (insert) does this, how does the scene structure and subtext contribute to the overall story goal, and what is your story goal? Does it have a deeper societal meaning? *lol*

[BlueTexas]

I've used first person for a couple of WIPs lately (as it seemed suited to those stories). But once, in a crit group, some of the participants asked questions along the lines of "Why is the person narrating their story?" They weren't asking me why I was using first person. Instead, they wanted to know ... Is this a memoir? Is it a letter? Who is he writing to, and why is he telling them all these things, including embarrassing incidents he might not want to reveal?

:e2tongue:

I'm just guessing, but if they'd read the entire piece, would they know the answers at the end? The last three or four 1st POV novels I've read, I couldn't have answered it at the beginning, but at the end it's obvious. If that's so, then it becomes a question you don't have to answer, really.

[AnneMarble]

...Just because it's in first person, doesn't mean the narrator is telling this to anyone, writing it down, or talking to himself. And unless you're writing a noir piece, he probably doesn't have an internal monologue narrating his life either.

So if people are regularly asking you why and to whom is this story being told, it probably isn't because it's first person, but because they are too aware of the narrator talking to the audience.

-Ninja-Bear
The problems probably came about because it was an early draft (the novel was still in progress), and I was experimenting with something that didn't work. :D I tried doing it in third person from the POV of one MC with interspersed segments from the journal of the other MC. For example, the MC was introduced to the character, and in the middle of the scene, I'd have "Entry from the Journal of Wulf..." with a couple of paragraphs from Wulf's POV (first person), then back to the MC third person. Aargh!
:e2smack:

I probably threw them with that. It clearly didn't work, so I told them that I'd change it so that they had alternating chapters, or so that each chapter would end with the full journal entry. But then they (well one person in particular) thought the journal entries were too detailed because they included dialogue (how dare I include dialogue in a novel? ;)) and embarrassing incidents like Wulf accidentally getting something in his eye. So they thought I should get rid of that stuff. And I thought "Wouldn't it be easier to make it into first person narration and forget about the journal?" They also suggests ways he might be telling the story, such as in a letter to someone or a memoir.

Are those who made the comments readers of fiction? It sounds like they might be non-fiction readers who haven't read a lot of fiction. I sometimes got strange comments in my critique group, and they always came from two people: one didn't read at all, and the other was a non-fiction reader.
It was a mix. One wrote (and read) SF, one wrote literary fiction, one was writing a graphic novel, and there were one or two other members there. But many of these comments came from the SF guy (and it was a fantasy story).

It's also a clear sign that having people familiar with other genres can be a problem (although there are advantages). The literay fiction critter had a problem because of unfamiliar terms, such as the made-up countries plus the term "mage." He was confused throughout because he thought mages were an ethnic group and couldn't figure out why it was lowercased and thought that showed prejudice against the mages. It was only when I told them it's another word for "wizards" that he figured it out. On the other hand, he made some good points that helped me fix things.

He also gave me great insight into why SF/fantasy sometimes has a hard time attracting readers from outside the genres. A lot of it comes from the unusual terms that are common to the genres. What strikes me as odd, however, is that the same people who don't mind reading a historical novel with lots of unfamiliar terms and weird names will balk at an SF or fantasy novel with unfamiliar words like "mage" and odd names. So I wonder if there's more to it than that. (I might have started a thread on this eons ago. :D)

[AnneMarble]

I think it could be helpful for the writer to know why his first person POV is motivated to tell his story. This could aid and color the narration.
Sometimes I don't know right away. :) In the story that was being critted, first person seemed appropriate for Wulf because he was a mage and moody (and literate) and thus the type of person who might narrate his life at a later date, whether in his head or in a memoir. The other MC was an imprisoned warrior, illiterate when the story started, and more down-to-earth, and thus less likely to narrate his life story even if he did learn to read in a later chapter. In my current WIP, alternating mage and warrior POVs, well, you can't shut these mages up. Maybe the warrior is narrating because it's the only time they can get a word in edgewise. ;)

Right -- you know why the MC is narrating the story, if only "because I wanna do it that way!" No need to explain it to the reader as long as it makes a satisfying story. I think crit-groupers get uptight about small things after a while. It's part of the process, and they should outgrow some of it.
Unfortunately, the group broke up because some members got new jobs and we never had the time to meet anyway. (It was a crit group run at work as part of an activities thingie. A crit group at work... Talk about creating potential problems. :)) But yes, people sometimes get fixated on the wrong thing, and then they can no longer just read the story. Another person asked to read the same chapter (probably an even earlier version) and then got hung up because a lot of things weren't explained. I don't think she understood the concept of "The narrator just got there, and he doesn't know yet." Let alone the concept of "The writer hasn't made up her mind yet." :)

and sometimes people ask questions just because.

weird questions.
Ah, that reminds me of my experience with an on-line critique group that rhymes with fritters. ;) Although to be honest, I'm sure people thought some of my questions were weird as well.

I'm just guessing, but if they'd read the entire piece, would they know the answers at the end? The last three or four 1st POV novels I've read, I couldn't have answered it at the beginning, but at the end it's obvious. If that's so, then it becomes a question you don't have to answer, really.
They only read the first chapter. I also modified a teensy bit of it because we were meeting at work. The guy in charge assured me that he had no problems with the content, but I did want to tone one scene down a bit. So then the controversial scene happened too quickly, and I confused them again.
:e2smack:

That'll learn me. :)

[maestrowork]

The first person narrator can have a specific purpose for writing or recording or speaking his story....
The point from which the narrator narrates, the form of the fictive narration (written, spoken, taped or videoed, thought), and the reason for telling the story -- I'd say these are all things a writer can be asked to know.

Not really. I don't see first person that way at all. It's basically just a story, but we get to see the character going through with it, their thoughts, etc. It has nothing to do with why the character is telling the story or the form of the storytelling (tape, journal...) I think that's when readers get into trouble, trying to figure out how the narrator was able to tell the story, especially in present tense. That's just not the point, at least not to me.

As for the crit group... I bet many of them write in 3rd person mostly. Writing in 3rd person does have the mindset of "telling a story." After all, there's a 3rd party narrator who is not part of the story. So why is he saying "the protagonist did this and that"? The narrator is by default a storyteller. But in first person, the line is blurred. The narrator IS the character, so it's not necessary that the character is telling the story. The character may very well be hallucinating and words just appear on paper. :) It's not to say the 1st person narrator never narrates or tells the story to "someone." It happens all the time. I'm just saying it's not necessarily so.

[girlyswot]

I don't think the question of motivation is limited to first person prose, though it may be most obvious in that case. I also don't think that the motivation needs to be set up in some literary contrivance, though that does work well in some cases (I am reminded of both The Tenant of Wildfell Hall and Jane Eyre). I do think that as a writer, it's a helpful question to have asked yourself.

Francine Prose in 'Reading Like A Writer' has a very helpful chapter on this. The point is really why does your story matter and who does it matter to? Those questions will determine what you include in the story and the tone in which it's being told. Is it a story being gossiped to a group of women at the bus stop? Or a reminiscence from a grandparent to a grandchild, wanting their story to be remembered? Is it being written for a private reason, in a journal, never to be read by anyone else? And so on. You can see how each of these scenarios would give a different feel to the same story. Are you playing up the sensationalism, trying to put things in perspective and cover over shameful episodes, or being brutally honest and personal?

Any series of events can become a number of different stories. You have to know which one you're telling. Asking who is telling it, to whom and why will help determine what the story is. And it will help the reader to know where they stand in relation to it.

[Perks]

I'm with you, Anne, I've never questioned why the narrator is narrating. We could chicken and egg that problem all day.

I say the answer is "He's narrating because you opened the front cover, which makes me wonder, why did you look in the book? What were your motivations? Are you bored? Or you going on a long car trip?"

Good grief.

[AnneMarble]

Not really. I don't see first person that way at all. It's basically just a story, but we get to see the character going through with it, their thoughts, etc. It has nothing to do with why the character is telling the story or the form of the storytelling (tape, journal...) I think that's when readers get into trouble, trying to figure out how the narrator was able to tell the story, especially in present tense. That's just not the point, at least not to me.
I wonder if some people are just more literal minded about first person viewpoint? If the person is narrating, then they must be writing it down. But as someone brought up on another board I was reading, why do those same readers accept omniscient narrators? Why don't they ask why God (or a god) is taking the time to write down all those omniscient narratives? ;)

As for the crit group... I bet many of them write in 3rd person mostly. Writing in 3rd person does have the mindset of "telling a story." After all, there's a 3rd party narrator who is not part of the story. So why is he saying "the protagonist did this and that"? The narrator is by default a storyteller. But in first person, the line is blurred. The narrator IS the character, so it's not necessary that the character is telling the story. The character may very well be hallucinating and words just appear on paper. :) It's not to say the 1st person narrator never narrates or tells the story to "someone." It happens all the time. I'm just saying it's not necessarily so.
Come to think of it, most of them did write in the third person. Except for the graphic novelist, and I think that the POV of his graphic novel might have been third person or maybe even omniscient. Maybe they weren't used to writing in first, and for that matter, maybe they didn't read it that much. There are a lot of people who refuse to read anything written in the first person, no matter what. And if they had to read it for a class or critique group (kickin' and screamin'), they'd probably have some of the same questions because they're not used to first person.

...Francine Prose in 'Reading Like A Writer' has a very helpful chapter on this. The point is really why does your story matter and who does it matter to? Those questions will determine what you include in the story and the tone in which it's being told. Is it a story being gossiped to a group of women at the bus stop? Or a reminiscence from a grandparent to a grandchild, wanting their story to be remembered? Is it being written for a private reason, in a journal, never to be read by anyone else? And so on. You can see how each of these scenarios would give a different feel to the same story. Are you playing up the sensationalism, trying to put things in perspective and cover over shameful episodes, or being brutally honest and personal?
In that WIP and my currnent one (OK, ones), the characters are definitely major players. For example, the mage and the barbarian who will eventually break out of that prison and overthrow stuff and free the other mages from the governing body of mages that has become tyrannical. Or the mage and the border lord who defend the throne from a usurper.

They don't cover up their shameful episodes -- because it's more fun when they reveal them. :) In fact, I have one part where one MC accidentally stabs and kills the other, and the other MC comes back as a vengeful ghost. Then he abuses the stabber for a while. That part was so important to the story (and characters) that it was the first and only time where I repeated the scene from both POVs.
:e2faint:

Any series of events can become a number of different stories. You have to know which one you're telling. Asking who is telling it, to whom and why will help determine what the story is. And it will help the reader to know where they stand in relation to it.
Maybe my problem is that when I start out telling the story, I don't know these things yet, or if I know them, I don't know them consciously. :D I just start writing and might eventually think "Hey! This guy is really interesting, and lots of stuff happens to him, and he makes stuff happen to other people." I wonder how many authors make conscious decisions about their narrators, and how many plunge into the story and worry about it later?

[AnneMarble]

I'm with you, Anne, I've never questioned why the narrator is narrating. We could chicken and egg that problem all day.

I say the answer is "He's narrating because you opened the front cover, which makes me wonder, why did you look in the book? What were your motivations? Are you bored? Or you going on a long car trip?"

Good grief.
Great idea. I'll think of those questions next time this comes up. :)

I wonder if this depends on the type of story the person is used to reading. In those threads I mentioned, an editor said she hated stories that end with the first person narrator changed to a wall and dying, because obviously they couldn't have written that narrative. She's very well versed in Victorian and Edwardian supernatural literature, where the narrators often did literally write their narrative, and the stories she accepts are often traditional ghost stories along those lines. Maybe in that field, narrators are supposed to follow Victorian tradition and write in a journal or write letters that end with "There's a scratching at the door! They're here! If you read this letter, you'll know what happened."

I say: DON'T ANSWER THE RIDICULOUS QUESTION IF SOMEBODY ASKS IT.
But it gives me a chance to play with their minds. And brains are such fun playthings. :)

I would turn around and ask them why they are telling somebody else's story. Why would somebody ask such a question. I would never ask a third person writer why they are telling a story.
Good point. If this comes up again, I'll ask why someone is telling their story in the third person and who their narrator is. If it's omniscient, I'll ask why God cares enough to narrate their story for them. After they are finished gibbering, we can get back to the critiquing.
:ROFL:

[BlueLucario]

It matters because of either the authenticity of the narrator or how too close the author is to their main characters. Not every character is suitable for telling a certain story. And for some authors it's especially difficult for them to keep themselves seperate from the characters.

[Amie Stuart]

I say: DON'T ANSWER THE RIDICULOUS QUESTION IF SOMEBODY ASKS IT.


I have to agree w/KTC....sometimes a story just has to be written a particular way. And rules were made to be broken

Amie

[Little Earthquake]

Are those who made the comments readers of fiction? It sounds like they might be non-fiction readers who haven't read a lot of fiction. I sometimes got strange comments in my critique group, and they always came from two people: one didn't read at all, and the other was a non-fiction reader.

I'm so confused - why would someone write, or join a critique group, if he/she doesn't READ? That's like someone who wants to be a musician but never listens to music. It just seems absurd.

As to the OP's question - I don't know that there needs to be a "reason" for the narrator to be telling his/her story. When a reason is stated - as in The Handmaid's Tale, to borrow someone else's example - it's usually relevant to fully understanding the story. A reader will not understand the whys and hows of the world the handmaid lives in without the clarification of the epilogue. With most books I read, however, I don't wonder why the narrator is relating the story to me. I feel like he or she finds the events interesting and just wants to share them with whoever will listen.

[JTstories]

Are those who made the comments readers of fiction? It sounds like they might be non-fiction readers who haven't read a lot of fiction. I sometimes got strange comments in my critique group, and they always came from two people: one didn't read at all, and the other was a non-fiction reader.

Haha, way to contribute nothing at all.

[James81]

1st person, to me, is a tool to do a couple of things:

1. Add EXTREME depth to one particular character while maintaining a certain air of "mystery" to all the other characters. (Remember, that in 1st person, we are only getting one limited point of view, so the "story teller" himself is in no way able to describe how the other characters are feeling, thinking, etc.)

2. A way to insert MYSELF into the story. Now, not all my first person characters are based on me, but if I have traits that are a part of ME that I want to convey in a character in my story, then it's really easy using first person.

[girlyswot]

Maybe my problem is that when I start out telling the story, I don't know these things yet, or if I know them, I don't know them consciously. :D I just start writing and might eventually think "Hey! This guy is really interesting, and lots of stuff happens to him, and he makes stuff happen to other people." I wonder how many authors make conscious decisions about their narrators, and how many plunge into the story and worry about it later?

Well, I don't think you do have to know these things at the beginning, but I still think it's a legitimate question for a critiquer to ask later on in the process.

[Dale Emery]

The point from which the narrator narrates, the form of the fictive narration (written, spoken, taped or videoed, thought), and the reason for telling the story -- I'd say these are all things a writer can be asked to know.

I agree.

Also, the narrator's choice of audience can color the story.

There's a writing exercise (probably from What If?) that says: Suppose you're leaving a movie theater and you witness a mugging.

Now write the story as you would tell it to your mother. As you would tell it to a police officer. As you would tell it to your significant other.

There were a few other audiences in the exercise. The examples in the book (from students of the book's authors) showed significant differences in how the story is told, depending on who it's being told to.

If a story includes incidents that embarrass the first person narrator, the narrator might tell the embarrassing details to one person, omit them to another, and twist them more favorably to another.

Both the narrator's motivation for telling the story and the narrator's choice of audience influence the details that the narrator tells, and the style of the telling.

If people are commenting on the narrator's reasons, perhaps the details don't fit the reasons the readers can come up with on their own. Or perhaps the selection of details is inconsistent (reveling in embarrassment in one place, hiding the details in another). Knowing more about the narrator's intention would either help the reader to understand, or the author to choose the details more consistently.

I think questions the narrator's intent and audience are worth at least considering, especially if multiple readers have raised the issue.

Dale

[AnneMarble]

...
If a story includes incidents that embarrass the first person narrator, the narrator might tell the embarrassing details to one person, omit them to another, and twist them more favorably to another.

Both the narrator's motivation for telling the story and the narrator's choice of audience influence the details that the narrator tells, and the style of the telling.
In this case, the problem I had was that one member (and he was the leader of the sessions) didn't think the narrator should be putting the embarrassing stuff in there at all. Also, keep in mind that this was not a large group -- there were only three to four other people, and one of them came late and may not have read very far into the chapter. (I think the leader was the only one who brought up some of those issues.)

The one thing everyone who participated did agree on was that the way I did the first person was jarring. I originally tried to intersperse the third person narrative with excerpts from the journal. (I might have used a few spaces to keep them separate, maybe italics.) They were right that the effect was jarring. One member also wondered when he was writing all this as I never mentioned he was writing this down. Because of their reactions, I did move all the first person stuff into its own section, and it did flow better as a result. But the class broke up not long after that (because of time contraints and people moving), so they never got to see a later version.

If people are commenting on the narrator's reasons, perhaps the details don't fit the reasons the readers can come up with on their own. Or perhaps the selection of details is inconsistent (reveling in embarrassment in one place, hiding the details in another). Knowing more about the narrator's intention would either help the reader to understand, or the author to choose the details more consistently.

I think questions the narrator's intent and audience are worth at least considering, especially if multiple readers have raised the issue.

Thinking back, I can't think of any time my narrator showed any restraint. :) In the first chapter alone, he revealed some very personal elements, including sexual desire and a very unpleasant sexual encounter. I think the leader wondered if someone would reveal that in a journal, but then he seemed to think I should write it as a letter to a family member or something. Then, remembering that the character was in a prison (sort of a political prisoner), suggestions came about, such as a magical pen that writes his thoughts and then sends the letter to a friend or relative outside the prison so that he wasn't caught by the guards. By this time, I decided to give up and just do traditional first person narration (rather than a journal) because I wouldn't have to explain when and why he was writing all this stuff. :D (And there you see some of the problem with critiquing a work in progress.)

FWIW I think the leader was really strict about POV. I'm strict, but not in that way. I once had a sentence that said something like "Jehan struggled to pick up the crate." (Jehan was not the POV character.) He told me that it should say "Jehan was struggling to pick up the crate" because Jehan was not the POV character, and the POV character wouldn't have known that he struggled.
:Shrug:

[Dale Emery]

Thinking back, I can't think of any time my narrator showed any restraint. :) In the first chapter alone, he revealed some very personal elements, including sexual desire and a very unpleasant sexual encounter. I think the leader wondered if someone would reveal that in a journal, but then he seemed to think I should write it as a letter to a family member or something.

Oh... that's just a thoroughly unimaginative leader. You should see some of the stuff I've written in my journal. But of course I won't show you that.

Lots of reasons to write this stuff in journals: Catharsis, wanting to remember the details for possible future story ideas, making sense of intense experiences, writing it down to stop it from spiraling endlessly in your head, all kinds of reasons. (And each reason would lead to a different telling.)

FWIW I think the leader was really strict about POV. I'm strict, but not in that way. I once had a sentence that said something like "Jehan struggled to pick up the crate." (Jehan was not the POV character.) He told me that it should say "Jehan was struggling to pick up the crate" because Jehan was not the POV character, and the POV character wouldn't have known that he struggled.
:Shrug:

Ahh, I'm getting a better picture now. I don't think "strict" is the right word for that. Sounds like the "leader" has a number of eccentric personal rules that he imagines are general rules.

Dale

[AnneMarble]

Oh... that's just a thoroughly unimaginative leader. You should see some of the stuff I've written in my journal. But of course I won't show you that.

Lots of reasons to write this stuff in journals: Catharsis, wanting to remember the details for possible future story ideas, making sense of intense experiences, writing it down to stop it from spiraling endlessly in your head, all kinds of reasons. (And each reason would lead to a different telling.)

Maybe he never wrote in a journal himself. And we can bet that he never read any chick lit. ;)

Ahh, I'm getting a better picture now. I don't think "strict" is the right word for that. Sounds like the "leader" has a number of eccentric personal rules that he imagines are general rules.
Sadly, a lot of writing instructors (as well as people who write "how to write" books) seem to be like that. :cry: Still, he had some good ideas about how characters perceive the setting, etc. And in the segment I got to lead, we had fun putting together a purposedly bad poem to submit to Poetry.com. :D

[grrrrrshon]

I've read several books where the narrator appears to be writing down the story for whatever reason. if it feels contrived I tend to ignore it, even though overall it lowers the quality of the book. A good story doesn't need an excuse, and introducing it as a diary entry or a manuscript or even as a memory usually detracts from the story itself.

[AnneMarble]

I've read several books where the narrator appears to be writing down the story for whatever reason. if it feels contrived I tend to ignore it, even though overall it lowers the quality of the book. A good story doesn't need an excuse, and introducing it as a diary entry or a manuscript or even as a memory usually detracts from the story itself.
Journal entries are hard enough to explain. I should put a note above my computer that says "No more bloody journal entries!" :D And what about letters? (That was one of the recommendations for the first person sections.) Writing a novel in the form of letters is really hard. I know of some writers who have managed it -- yes, even in this century. ;) But they're better writers than I am. Besides, as hard as it is to explain why the character is writing a journal, it must be even harder to explain why he's writing all this in a letter. Then you have to invent the person he's writing to and change the style because he's writing a letter, not a journal, and then...
:e2thud:

And then there's the fact that I mixed third person and first person sections in the same book! :Wha: I know some people think that is evil incarnate! :eek:

[IceCreamEmpress]

There are two options: either those people aren't reading well enough, or the author (you, in this case) isn't selling it well enough in the story yet.

I think that the convention of "When I opened the book, I started this conversation with someone" is a good enough framing device for a first-person narration. Now, when you mix it up and draw people's attention to the frame and the points of view, you need to make sure that you're selling it strongly.

"You don't know about me without you have read a book by the name of The
Adventures of Tom Sawyer; but that ain't no matter."

"Call me Ishmael."

"Last night I dreamt I went to Manderley again."

According to the people in your group, none of those work. To which I say "ha!"

[IdiotsRUs]

it must be even harder to explain why he's writing all this in a letter. Then you have to invent the person he's writing to and change the style because he's writing a letter, not a journal, and then...



And let's face it - who is the letter to? Because it'd be a very different leter if I was writing it to my mother / husband / kids/ police / random bloke I met on the bus.

Different things would be missed out / glossed over/ told in gory detail.


Maybe that's the trouble. Who are you writing your first person story for? By which you can probably extrapolate : who is your audience?

[AnneMarble]

And let's face it - who is the letter to? Because it'd be a very different leter if I was writing it to my mother / husband / kids/ police / random bloke I met on the bus.

Different things would be missed out / glossed over/ told in gory detail.
Oh, yeah. As open as my characters are, he probably wouldn't tell his mother about the naughty bits. :) And he wouldn't right about some of the politically sensitive issues.

Maybe that's the trouble. Who are you writing your first person story for? By which you can probably extrapolate : who is your audience?
Apparently not the people in the critique group. :ROFL: I was aiming the story at people who enjoy fantasy novels, but who don't mind gay male MCs. Maybe I should give up and write yaoi graphic novels. ;)

[eleven]

This is an interesting discussion, and something I have never thought about before. Up until now I have just thought of POV as a stylistic choice. But now that I think about it most first person narrations do give a reason for why they are telling the story, perhaps not overtly, but the reason not only informs the style and content of the story, but also affects the way the reader reads the story.
For example Solaris is a story told by a scientist as a very matter-of-fact account of weird and unexplainable events. The scientific and rational style shows us the reason he is telling it (it is of scientific interest) without telling us overtly. As well it serves to make the story more believable to the reader, and also gives it a kind of cold, emotionless tone that suits the content.
Also asking why the character is telling the story can help you decide who the best character to tell the story is. This may not be the main character. Eg, in the Shawshank Redemption the story is told by an onlooker, to whom the actions of the MC seem quite mysterious, clever, and surprising. If this story had been written as an account by the MC it would have lost that mystique and element of surprise, as well as the tone of warmth and wisdom brought to the story by the narrator. The reasons for the MC to tell the story would not have been as heart-felt, and may have come across as bragging or exaggerating.
I guess ultimately, if the story is interesting enough, then that is justification in itself as to why it is being told. However, I think that knowing why your character is telling it can add a lot more depth and interest to the meaning and interpretation of the piece.

[RJK]

A Lit major could answer this better, but I believe that authors in the latter half of the 19th century using first person began their novels with an explanation of why they were telling the story. Or they removed the story by one level by having the narrator stumble out of the jungle and begin telling the story.
As time progressed this practice fell by the wayside and the story just began with the narrator picking up the story at an interesting point and moving forward from there.

Your crits may have limited exposure to first person POV and have only the earlier fiction to guide them.

[Constantine K]

This is part of the reason while I'll never write in first person: every time I read it, it feel fake to me. It feels like someone is telling me a story, rather than me experiencing the story. There's a difference to me.

[Exir]

This is part of the reason while I'll never write in first person: every time I read it, it feel fake to me. It feels like someone is telling me a story, rather than me experiencing the story. There's a difference to me.

Well, if that's the case, then your favourite POV is second person, right? Because 3rd person is no different from first person in terms of "someone telling me a story, rather than me experiencing the story."

[Stew21]

In my WIP, the first person POV narrator is telling a story about something that happened to him. I cannot tell you why he is telling it. He is definitely telling it TO the reader though, he's a conversational narrator, and it often reads like he is talking directly to the reader (I think he does, anyway). I wouldn't want to have to explain why he is telling the story. Hopefully it is because the story is compelling and interesting enough to be told. He's narrating the story to the people reading, quite clearly.
Your crit group's question is confusing to me.

I agree with Kevin. there's no reason to answer it.
And I agree with Perks - we could chicken and egg it all day.

If an author offers a reason for narration and it is sound and fits well with the story, I accept that. If they don't, I never question it and just accept that it isn't important to the story. If why it is being told is not part of the plot, it shouldn't be contrived to justify the story's existence. I just don't see that as reasonable at all.

[lkp]

Hmm. Interesting discussion. I don't think I would have been on the side of the original critiquer, but I do like to see some of the motivation for the 1st person character to tell the story, and who he/she thinks his audience is. It makes the story more compelling to me. It doesn't have to be some sort of device like a letter or a journal, and I'm willing to give an author who writes contemporary fiction much more leeway than an author who writes historical fiction. If you're writing historical fiction and your character is writing a diary or an autobiography in a period when a character of that station would never write a diary or an autobography, don't expect me to read it.

[Hobbes]

Lots of mysteries are written in the 1st person and they just start. No one asks why they're telling the story. Stories are told, simple as that. When you sit down to dinner with your family (people still do that don't they?) and one of the kids just starts telling you about something that happened at school, do you stop him and say, "Why on earth are you telling me this?" No. At least not always. Anyway, I say, write what you need to write the way you need to write it.

[Pup]

The problem with analyzing first person narration too much, is that at a certain point, one needs to ask, how does the narrator have the skill to write his first novel (or memoir, actually) without any of the usual beginner's mistakes?

Most people couldn't write or dictate a publishable novel-length manuscript about their life on their first try, especially if writing wasn't a particular interest.

So one has to start by suspending disbelief over the fact that every first person narrator just happens to be a literary genius, in addition to being whatever else they are. Either that or they're all using ghost-writers, and then you've complicated the issue by introducing another layer of narrator.

[Constantine K]

Well, if that's the case, then your favourite POV is second person, right? Because 3rd person is no different from first person in terms of "someone telling me a story, rather than me experiencing the story."


Nay. In third person, I don't know who is telling me the story. I am no longer reading, and am instead inside the story.

With first person, I feel like I am reading a story that someone else has written, which in fact I am. It shouldn't be like that, though. I should forget that I'm reading, and be lost in my imagination.

Maybe I'm just weird.

[Exir]

Nay. In third person, I don't know who is telling me the story. I am no longer reading, and am instead inside the story.

Actually, weird as it may seem, there IS a narrator in third person POV. That narrator is either a God-like knowitall (omniscient), or somebody who is forced to look through the eyes of one character (limited).

[sassandgroove]

I've used first person for a couple of WIPs lately (as it seemed suited to those stories). But once, in a crit group, some of the participants asked questions along the lines of "Why is the person narrating their story?" They weren't asking me why I was using first person. Instead, they wanted to know ... Is this a memoir? Is it a letter? Who is he writing to, and why is he telling them all these things, including embarrassing incidents he might not want to reveal?

bolding mine
Humm...my first thought was of "High Fidelity" by Nick Hornby. I don't recall him setting up why Rob is talking to the reader. He is telling us the story of his relationships with women and how he got to where he is with his current relationship. But there isn't a contrivance like a journal or recording. I think that would have just come off as silly. (that I recall). "Bridget Jones Diary" by Helen Fielding is a diary, so there's your explanation. I think she did it well, making me forget that in my own journaling I don't have dialog in the detail or extent that she does, though i do write what people have said to me on occasion. BUt I think first person, in general, if done well, doesn't need an explanation, it is just a way of telling the story.

The problem with analyzing first person narration too much, is that at a certain point, one needs to ask, how does the narrator have the skill to write his first novel (or memoir, actually) without any of the usual beginner's mistakes?

Most people couldn't write or dictate a publishable novel-length manuscript about their life on their first try, especially if writing wasn't a particular interest.

So one has to start by suspending disbelief over the fact that every first person narrator just happens to be a literary genius, in addition to being whatever else they are. Either that or they're all using ghost-writers, and then you've complicated the issue by introducing another layer of narrator.I don't think so at all. I haven't read a lot of first person lately- so I am going to refer to "HIgh Fidelity" again. I never thought of it as Rob (The main character) having written down his story for me to read. I read it like Rob was talking to me.

And I journal quite a bit - so when I read Bridget Jones I just accepted the premise, and even took to carrying around my own journal, realizing she didn't just write by her bed at night. WHat a great idea. Carrying around my own journal has helped me a lot. anyway, I didn't question Bridget's skill, since most people who journal that regularly have been doing it a while.

If you are reading a first person and find yourself wondering that, maybe the first person wasn't written that well. maybe.


Nay. In third person, I don't know who is telling me the story. I am no longer reading, and am instead inside the story.

With first person, I feel like I am reading a story that someone else has written, which in fact I am. It shouldn't be like that, though. I should forget that I'm reading, and be lost in my imagination.

Maybe I'm just weird.Maybe you just haven't read first person that was written well.

this discussion is making wonder if that is what is wrong with my first novel. If not first person, maybe I need to at least limit it to one pov.

[dpaterso]

Classic Fantasy from Roger Zelazny -- the first 5-book Amber series (SPOILERS AHEAD) -- the 1st person narrator-hero Corwin reveals at the end of the 5th novel that all along he's been telling his story to his estranged son as an explanation of his absence, and his somewhat extreme actions, while he awaits possibly fatal judgement at the Courts of Chaos.

I'm not saying that giving a reason for writing in 1st person is mandatory, but that reveal was very satisfying indeed.

-Derek

[sassandgroove]

Yes but it sounded to my from Anne's first post that the people in the group wanted a reason like - did they write it or record it or are they talking to us - not a reason like they have a good story to tell. To me contriving to put a recorder there just to have it is silly. Revealing towards the end of the story that the narrator is wanting to share his story with his son is A GOOD IDEA.

I also like stories like Fried Green Tomatoes where you sort of wonder if the narrator is the person in the story. That I think was more in the movie than the book, but it was a neat technique. It surrounded Mrs. Threadgood with mystery.

[dpaterso]

Yes indeed. I'm also just as satisfied with the easy assumption that the narrator, at some future point, may sit down and write his or her memoirs, or relate them to an interested listener. Tho' when I write 1st person stories I don't even think about it, I just do it.

-Derek

[AnneMarble]

Humm...my first thought was of "High Fidelity" by Nick Hornby. I don't recall him setting up why Rob is talking to the reader. He is telling us the story of his relationships with women and how he got to where he is with his current relationship. But there isn't a contrivance like a journal or recording. I think that would have just come off as silly. (that I recall).
Today, I think that's what most first person stories are like. In the past, first person narratives tended to be journals, diaries, letters, etc. (This was a long-established tradition, starting from some of the very earliest British novels and still used even by authors such as Edgar Rice Burroughs in the 1920s and beyond.) That might be because when the tradition started, novels were new (hence the name "novel" ;)), and many people thought of them as trivial, so the authors were trying to make them look authentic, even if they were about wild adventures. (Edgar Rice Burroughs originally wanted his pen name to be Normal Bean, because he wanted to reassure people that despite the wild stories he wrote, he was still a normal being. :D Unfortunately, someone on the staff of the pulp magazine didn't get the joke, so his story was published under the pen name of Norman Bean.) Also, journals, diaries, and letters were more common in those eras.

Classic Fantasy from Roger Zelazny -- the first 5-book Amber series (SPOILERS AHEAD) -- the 1st person narrator-hero Corwin reveals at the end of the 5th novel that all along he's been telling his story to his estranged son as an explanation of his absence, and his somewhat extreme actions, while he awaits possibly fatal judgement at the Courts of Chaos.

I'm not saying that giving a reason for writing in 1st person is mandatory, but that reveal was very satisfying indeed.
That's a cool reason to narrate a story. :) It would take me five novels to figure it out, and by then, I'd probably have to go back and rewrite the first four novels. Which would be awkward if they had already been published. ;)

Yes but it sounded to my from Anne's first post that the people in the group wanted a reason like - did they write it or record it or are they talking to us - not a reason like they have a good story to tell. To me contriving to put a recorder there just to have it is silly. Revealing towards the end of the story that the narrator is wanting to share his story with his son is A GOOD IDEA.
I agree. But in the class, I thought their ideas sounded more like "excuses" than interesting reasons for someone to be telling a story.

I'd forgotten this, but originally, I started out writing the story only from the POV of the barbarian (third person limited). I thought of adding the mage's journal entries later. So I was still working it out. (They were aware it was still a work in progress, even if it was in a lot of progress.) I'm sure that caused some of the confusion. :)

I once read that a famous British actor, I think it was Sir John Gielgud, used to try all sorts of ideas out before the actual previews and performances on stage. Some the director would accept, and some he would shake his head at in disbelief. For example, Sir John was playing Angelo in Measure for Measure, and for the first dress rehearsal, he came out wearing a wig of curly blond hair. (Get it? Angelo? :) He wanted to stress the contrast between Angelo's name and his actions.) The director shook his head and made him go back to the more appropriate hairstyle -- one that wouldn't make people laugh. Maybe my early drafts were like Sir John's ridiculous blond wig.
:roll:

[maestrowork]

This is part of the reason while I'll never write in first person: every time I read it, it feel fake to me. It feels like someone is telling me a story, rather than me experiencing the story. There's a difference to me.

If you do it well, you can become part of the world, experiencing it instead of just reading it. It has nothing to do with whether it's 1st person or 3rd.

If you don't do it well, everything is just tell, tell, tell or navel gazing. You won't be letting your readers experience the story.

Again, I don't see this as a problem with the narrative. It has more to do with the reader's (yours) own hang-ups.

[Dale Emery]

BUt I think first person, in general, if done well, doesn't need an explanation, it is just a way of telling the story.

I don't think the narrator necessarily has to explain the reason for writing or telling the story. But I think it's probably necessary for narrator to have a plausible reason, and for the readers to be able to detect it. Maybe the narrator expresses the reason directly, or maybe it's plain from the context.

If readers are asking why the narrator would tell the story, then there's something important about the story that isn't coming across. Knowing the narrator's reason may or may not solve that problem. But whether it solves the problem or not, the complaint is hinting at a problem of motivation or plausibility or consistency or something.

Dale

[C.J. Rockwell]

I stumbled onto this thread while searching for critique groups, but I'm glad I did. It's an interesting discussion.


With most books I read, however, I don't wonder why the narrator is relating the story to me. I feel like he or she finds the events interesting and just wants to share them with whoever will listen.

I agree with Little Earthquake. This is how I read stories in 1st person, whether they're novels or short stories. I think 1st person gives certain immediacy to the protagonist that can get the reader immersed quickly. Also, it can be great way of inserting character motivation without bogging the reader down in seemingly endless passages of exposition/back-story.

I used to be afraid of writing anything in first person because my early attempts made my protagonist sound too vein or self-centered. But I love reading 1st person stories, and envied writers who could pull it off so well.

Now I have written a few stories in 1st person past tense and I don't have that fear anymore. In fact, I find 1st person easier in some respects because I tend to make less technical mistakes in 1st person than I do in 3rd person, not sure why, but it helps.

If someone asked me why I chose 1st person for a story, I'd simply say it was because my protagonist "demanded" he or she narrate it, LOL.;)

The more sane answer: When developing a new story, I find that I get this feeling from deep inside that tells me what POV to take the story. I write third person when I need to explore the story from different angles or when I need a certain distance between me and the characters. It has to feel right for the story.

I don't think the narrator necessarily has to explain the reason for writing or telling the story. But I think it's probably necessary for narrator to have a plausible reason, and for the readers to be able to detect it. Maybe the narrator expresses the reason directly, or maybe it's plain from the context.

If readers are asking why the narrator would tell the story, then there's something important about the story that isn't coming across. Knowing the narrator's reason may or may not solve that problem. But whether it solves the problem or not, the complaint is hinting at a problem of motivation or plausibility or consistency or something.

Dale also makes a good point. Those are my two cents, I hope they've helped.

[patrick bateman]

Some of my favorite novels are written in first person and wouldn't consider any of them to be the MC using the book as a memoir or letter of some sort. The trouble I've found with some writers is that they become obsessed with "studying" writing and cease to be able to simply enjoy any form of writing. And so they come up with all sorts of things that suddenly offend them or are "wrong" even when the writing inspires neither in most people.

[AnneMarble]

Some of my favorite novels are written in first person and wouldn't consider any of them to be the MC using the book as a memoir or letter of some sort. The trouble I've found with some writers is that they become obsessed with "studying" writing and cease to be able to simply enjoy any form of writing. And so they come up with all sorts of things that suddenly offend them or are "wrong" even when the writing inspires neither in most people.
Oh God, that is so true. :D I remember a discussion of POV where some SF writer (I think it was Barry Longyear, known for his workshops) said that a line along the lines of "The field, fallow since the year before..." was breaking out of POV. Wha?! I could imagine if the POV character didn't know this, but he would have known this. I guess you could argue that at that point in the narrative, he wouldn't be thinking that the field had been fallow since the year before. Sure. Whatever. But I'm pretty sure readers won't care. :)

Sometimes you have to include sentences like that for the reader, so that they are not left wondering about stuff that happens in your story. Technically, it could be out of POV, but I'd rather keep a reader than lose one from being "technically correct." Sure, I try to avoid stuff like "He looked surprised" when I'm talking about the POV character. But I might have to describe, for example, what the setting and the POV character (or his/her clothing) look like because readers wnat to know, even if at that time, the character should be thinking of something else, like surviving the plot.

[Dawnstorm]

FWIW I think the leader was really strict about POV. I'm strict, but not in that way. I once had a sentence that said something like "Jehan struggled to pick up the crate." (Jehan was not the POV character.) He told me that it should say "Jehan was struggling to pick up the crate" because Jehan was not the POV character, and the POV character wouldn't have known that he struggled.
:Shrug:

Next time tell him that there are plenty of tell-tale signs of the struggle. Like, say, not picking it up straight away and heaving a lot and sweating...

On second thought, don't. He'll counter with "Show, don't tell," and there's little defense against that bugbear. (At that point, I'd suggest running for the hills. And don't leave your text behind.)

I guess you could argue that at that point in the narrative, he wouldn't be thinking that the field had been fallow since the year before. Sure. Whatever. But I'm pretty sure readers won't care. :)

Sometimes you have to include sentences like that for the reader, so that they are not left wondering about stuff that happens in your story.

See, that's exactly why it can become important to know the circumstances in which the first person narrator narrates. Whether the sentence should be included or not depends entirely on what the narrator thinks the listener/hearer needs to know. That includes the narrator's assumptions about the knowledge of the reader.

This is especially important in secondary world fantasy, as the genre convention for first person narrators is that the narrator talks to an in-world audience. That is: my default expectation would be to assume that I'm evesdropping on a conversation, and I have to figure out the setting.

If you want to break that convention, it might be a good idea to be aware of what you're doing, or you'll soon be producing the fantasy equivalent of this:

"Suddenly a cow blocked my way. A cow is a quadruped mammal, huge and horned, but not very aggressive. Normally."

Compare this to:

"Suddenly a cow blocked my way. Do they have cows where you come from? Perhaps not. A cow is..."

See the difference? The second version works whether the listener is from a place where there really are no cows (in fantasy this could be another dimension), or if the narrator has very strange assumptions about the world. The first version only works if the reader, prepared by something very much like the second version, already reads the narrator like that.

So, if you had the clause about the fallow fields in your 1st person WiP, I'd assume two things:

a) It's important to the narrator at the moment of speaking.

b) The narrator assumes the reader/listener doesn't already know this.

If one of these assumptions doesn't make sense in the context of the story, I'll be kicked out of the text for a short while (provided that I notice this, which I might not).

Why the narrator tells the story is an important PoV question, but you can choose to make it irrelevant by your narrative technique. (And, yes, the question is important for all kinds of narrators - except, perhaps, for the 3rd-limited ones, because those shy narrators are always hiding from thre reader.)

Sure, I try to avoid stuff like "He looked surprised" when I'm talking about the POV character. But I might have to describe, for example, what the setting and the POV character (or his/her clothing) look like because readers wnat to know, even if at that time, the character should be thinking of something else, like surviving the plot.

Wait a minute, are we still talking first-person? It sounds like you're talking about 3rd limited, now. *Confused*

Was the first part also about third limited? If so, what I've written doesn't really apply to what you said.

Third-limited is very in the moment; first person narration tends to be more reflective, like 3rd omni, really (the magic word is "hindsight" ;) ).

[AnneMarble]

Next time tell him that there are plenty of tell-tale signs of the struggle. Like, say, not picking it up straight away and heaving a lot and sweating...

On second thought, don't. He'll counter with "Show, don't tell," and there's little defense against that bugbear. (At that point, I'd suggest running for the hills. And don't leave your text behind.)
:D Good ideas, all of them. I think I added some swearing and grunting in the rewrite. And he didn't get to see it. :) I think this one was third person limited.

See, that's exactly why it can become important to know the circumstances in which the first person narrator narrates. Whether the sentence should be included or not depends entirely on what the narrator thinks the listener/hearer needs to know. That includes the narrator's assumptions about the knowledge of the reader.
I think the example they quoted was third person limited. On the other hand, but the same rules about what the character knows and doesn't know can apply. On the third hand (eek, how did that hand get there?), I think the writer was just anal about third person limited. ;)

Wait a minute, are we still talking first-person? It sounds like you're talking about 3rd limited, now. *Confused*

Was the first part also about third limited? If so, what I've written doesn't really apply to what you said.

Third-limited is very in the moment; first person narration tends to be more reflective, like 3rd omni, really (the magic word is "hindsight" ;) ).
In the last case, I was talking in general. What I'm writing right now is third person limited, so I was struggling with the usual -- for example, "How do I describe him? All the writing advice says that readers in this field want to know what the guys look like." :rolleyes: I want to avoid saying something like "He was over six feet tall with a sturdy frame and fair hair" when describing the POV character during third person limited. :D

And then "Do I describe the great hall? The POV character knows what it looks like, and right now, he's more interested in the duel he's about to push someone into fighting." So I slip in details that might come up during a tense scene.

But when I get back to my other writing thingies, then I'm back to writing in the first person (alternating POVs between my two MCs). Opening up a whole new can of worms. Description can be an even bigger pain. Unless the character is Moonstone (my countertenor mage), in which case he has no problems with describing himself. And his clothing. ;) But my warrior is not going to tell people he's tall, muscular, and hairy, so I have to surreptiously slip those descriptions in.

[AnneMarble]

OK, I found the original rec.arts.sf.composition discussion where the Longyear example using the bloody field was brought up. :D

The example Longyear gives in one of this classes goes something like this:
Yudo and his two brothers stood looking at their grain field. Green only the day before, it now lay brown and withered. Yudo nodded. "It is the power of Rogor. Your tongue angered him, Arum."

The sentence "Green only the day before, it now lay brown and withered." is supposed to be a lapse out of third person limited and into third person omniscient. Yeah, OK, whatever. :rolleyes: If you start worrying about that sort of "lapse" while writing, you'll never get anything written. :tongue

The specific post is here (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.composition/msg/f7a81c6928ae1b1f?hl=en&dmode=source), and the entire thread is here (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.composition/browse_frm/thread/79308e3aef930f/fa46ff16c8eaf29c?hl=en&tvc=1&q=field+group%3Arec.arts.sf.*+author%3Aamarble%40a bs.net#fa46ff16c8eaf29c).

[sassandgroove]

talk about nitpicky. I wouldn't even notice the "slip" as a reader.

I notice head hopping, but as long as I can follow along, I don't mind it.

[Danger Jane]

No, the narrator doesn't have to be "narrating." For all we know, the narrator could be talking to himself, or just hallucinating, rambling, whatever.

Or maybe we just accept that it's an interior monologue, particularly in the case of first/present?

Sometimes I have a tough time with first/past when I start analyzing why the narrator would recall this with such vivid accuracy, particularly if you know they're remembering something from their childhood and they're eighty-six now. But that's just me and my inquisitive mind, and I shrug it off and keep reading.

Epistolary format is what I'm most critical of, because it's often not used to its best advantage. Most people do not recall entire conversations in their diaries or letters, and they certainly do not write them out the way many writers arrange their scenes. This format is best used when writers treat it for what it is.

[sassandgroove]

Epistolary format is what I'm most critical of, because it's often not used to its best advantage. Most people do not recall entire conversations in their diaries or letters, and they certainly do not write them out the way many writers arrange their scenes. This format is best used when writers treat it for what it is.You mean like Bridget Jones Diary? Yeah, I was re-reading that and thought about that, but I forgive it when it is a good story. (I love Bridget. :heart: )I once read a book called, "Page Four." The entire novel was supposed to be the essay for a college application. Stretch? Hell Yes. But it was a good book, so I forgave it.

[AnneMarble]

talk about nitpicky. I wouldn't even notice the "slip" as a reader.
Good, it's not just me. :D

I notice head hopping, but as long as I can follow along, I don't mind it.
I had to re-read something the other day because I could have sworn it switched POVs in the middle of a sentence. :e2thud: I don't remember if that turned out to be the case, or if it was just awkward. :tongue I wish I could remember so I could paste it here.

[sassandgroove]

the thing about head hopping is I didn't really notice until I read discussions here, in the novel forum, about POV and how head hopping is a no no. THen I read Marion Zimmer Bradley who has tons of books, and notice head hopping. I don't get confused, I know who is thinking what. SHe can do it. Right? BUt I've read a lot of her books and didn't notice it until we talked about it. Just like film school ruined movies. :)

[Dale Emery]

the thing about head hopping is I didn't really notice until I read discussions here, in the novel forum, about POV and how head hopping is a no no. THen I read Marion Zimmer Bradley who has tons of books, and notice head hopping. I don't get confused, I know who is thinking what. SHe can do it. Right?

Yeah, I don't think head hopping is a no no per se. Confusing the reader is a no no.

Writing in a head-hopping POV takes a lot of extra attention to the details that tell the reader who is thinking what, and to establishing early in the work (or the scene) that "we're going to be head hopping." Rendering those details well takes a writer who is either unusually skilled in that POV or unusually deliberate about it.

If you can attend to those details, you can keep the reader straight. If not, the reader will be confused.

So a head-hopping POV is not a no no, it's just not safe for a writer who doesn't yet have skill with it, or the determination to focus intently on the details.

Dale

[Angelicus]

Sorry to interrupt the discussion, but I'll just put in my two cents.

Personally, when I read or have read a book, I rarely truly question why the person is telling it to the readers. By default, everyone states since it's a story, and stories must be told! If the story ends oddly or in a great way, I'll just take some footnotes I had before, make a theory and be done with what I had.

There was one book that did offer me this question, however. When I was reading 'Catcher in the Rye,' the question kept ringing over and over, since Caulfield always said he lied and seemed to be connecting one event to a completely different event, and then reconnect with the main plot. The book was great, but because of it's unique writing style, I kept wondering why a high school drop out, high on teen angst was telling us his events during last Christmas, in such an odd manner.

What I'm trying to say is that the question most of the time is usually not needed. Many people will take subtle hints from the story and make their own conclusions why, if any question why the narrator is telling us this. On the other hand, if the character or writing style may be different from more common descriptions and uses, the question may pop up a few times. In conclusion, it's depends on the story.

Hope this was of help...and not a bother!

[Dawnstorm]

The specific post is here (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.composition/msg/f7a81c6928ae1b1f?hl=en&dmode=source), and the entire thread is here (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.composition/browse_frm/thread/79308e3aef930f/fa46ff16c8eaf29c?hl=en&tvc=1&q=field+group%3Arec.arts.sf.*+author%3Aamarble%40a bs.net#fa46ff16c8eaf29c).

Ah. This is the kind of writing advice I'd fight tooth and nail; and here I find the "amendment" worse than the original:

Yudo and his two brothers stood looking at their grain field. _Green only the day before_, it now lay brown and withered. Yudo nodded. "It is the power of Rogor. Your tongue angered him, Arum."
vs.

Arum looked up from the withered grain stalks in his hand and
turned to his two brothers. "These were green only yesterday!"
Yudo nodded. "It is the power of Rogor. Your tongue angered him,
Arum."

Arum has gone from shocked/resigned silence (I suppose we know him by that scene, or we're getting to know him later) to greenie melodrama (Well, he could have knelt down, gripped the earth, and exclaimed, "Nooooooo!"). The brothers have gone from unspoken understanding to cookiecutter dialogue.

It appears that Longyear, by noticing the "telling", didn't notice that the contrast between yesterday and today is filtered through Arum and showing his dismay.

Not everything that goes on in a characters head is verbal ("thought"). Some things you just notice, and they have an emotional effect. Arum may not verbally think "But these fields were green only yesterday," but the sentiment will be there, unarticulated. Limited should be able to deal with these states of mind.

(And, finally, the distinction between limited and omni isn't a categorical one; it's more a polar one. A sliding scale, zooming in and out of character PoV. Omni can zoom in and out at any time. A lot of limited starts out omniscient, zooms in and never out again. Basically, limited is omniscient that never zoomes out. [And if maestro contradicts me, ignore him. He's wrong. ;) ])

[Xfonic]

My entire novel has over 8 main characters, and a ton of sub stories all told in a 1st person view. What you must remember about 1st person is:

You are writing form the perspective of what someone is "thinking" either to themselves or in their head. People think differently in their head vs what people say out loud to each other. ... Something to keep in mind...