Historical Market Question

I think it really just depends on the story. I've read a range of stories in different eras that are 1st person or 3rd person. I've got two novels I'm working on; one is 1st and one is 3rd.

I've also seen a few multiple narrators as 1st person. I'm not a huge fan of them (at least the ones I attempted to read) but I think that had to do with the author's inability to distinguish the voices--especially when it was first person and one was a male narrator and the other a female. When they both sound the same, that's a problem.

But it can be done--you just have to have a really great sense of your character's voice. Personally I don't think I could do it; I'd rather just use third person limited and break the POV off by chapter or scene.

I think the marketability comes in with a certain era and place. It seems like editors and publishers are hesitant to accept anythinig too exotic, but that could just be how I see it.

I think you'll find successful HF books in either third or first person, so it is a question of finding and using the person that best suits your story. That being said, all things being equal (which they never are) I know my agent feels 1st person is a harder sell than 3rd. I think it is mostly because while 1st is easier to do than 3rd, it is much harder to do well.

Multiple 1st can be a problem for some editors. My first was written that way, and one publisher who passed on bidding said specifically the difficulty was the POV structure.

I guess it depends on the type of book. Mine is pretty 'commercial' (ie not literary) and there's an understandable tendency there not to go with anything too sophisticated.

Louise

I talked to an agent (it was only one) who asked what my book was in 1st or 3rd. I said 3rd and she said "Good!" I dunno if thats her personal choice or not.

Its one or the other when it comes to HF, I'd say. I havent read anything that hasn't been first person or third. I like whatever works well with the story. I heard last year that 1st sells better, but I dunno for sure.

Multiple narratives in first person can happen. Allison Weir had 13 of them! YIKES. The Boleyn Inheritance had 4 (I think). It all depends, but I dislike a lot of narratives. I dunno what the industry wants though

The problem with any book that uses multiple POVs, is that moving from POV to POV, you may not get especially close to any of them. That's as true for 3rd as 1st. But for some novels, it is exactly the right thing to do. I do think it is worth trying out a few different POVs when you are starting a new novel to figure out what really works.

Really...

what counts is if it works.

So it doesn't really matter about the POV, it's if the novel holds together as a complete and satisfying story. 1stPOV can do that just as well as 3rdPOV, so can 2ndPOV present tense when it's what the story needs, and the writer has skill enough to write well in that POV.

pdr said:

what counts is if it works.

So it doesn't really matter about the POV, it's if the novel holds together as a complete and satisfying story.

Click to expand...

QFT.

If you're drawn to multiple first, I'd say go for it. It's hard, but I love doing it, and I'm not the only writer of historical novels who's found success going this route. Check out Michelle Lovric on Google - she has five successful historical novels behind her already, and her new one 'The Book of Human Skin' (which comes out with Bloomsbury in April) is going to make her a big, big name. That's multiple 1st too, and is possibly the best historical novel I've ever read. (God, I hate her)

OK, neither she nor I (and I'm a lot lower down the food-chain, having only a deal so far and no evidence to provide in terms of sales) fit the very different US market in historical fiction, which seems to be far more female and romance skewed and is seen as a kind of 'genre'. In the UK, historical fiction is mainstream and huge, and if you can tell a damn good story in a way that makes people care that's all that matters. For what's marketable over there, you're better off listening to US members.

All I can say is that it's a pity market has to dictate your choice. I write multiple 1st because the voices in my head are all different, all disagreeing with each other, all fallible, all having something to contribute no-one else can, and I can't bring myself to gag any of them. The only significant character to whom I don't give a voice is my MC. No man exists as he believes he does. I want my readers to make up their own minds about this man by seeing him three dimensionally - through the eyes of his servant, his antagonist, his political opposite, the woman who loves him, the man who hates him. I know who he is, but who am I to tell anyone else what to think? Let them read the evidence of the witnesses who knew him, and decide for themselves.

Louise, who probably needs to see a psychiatrist.

PS - Gratuitous advice warning - Ophelia, it's probably a typo, but your OP uses a phrase that is death to any query or submission, which is 'fiction novel'. A novel is fiction by definition, and the use of that phrase has been quoted many times here as the quickest ticket to the wastepaper basket there is. I'm sure you know that perfectly well; you probably started to write 'historical fiction' and changed it to 'historical novel' without deleting the 'fictional' bit. I do that kind of stuff all the time...