Horror POV

Third person provides important distance between the reader and characters. Where that distance exists, uncertainty, suspense, and menace can fill in. First person can backfire, because too much comfort with the protagonist can develop. Also, there are purists who believe that if the story is told in the first person, then the protagonist must survive in the end, because how else could the story be told? (I don't buy into that, however).

Unpublished writers (including me) are often discouraged from writing in the first person, because there is a tendency to write about the protagonist's feelings and impressions too much rather than sticking to the action.

for a short story, first person can work great. every single edgar a. poe short story was in first person, and those are almost the only stories i've ever read that were truly scary despite you knowing the character won't die. okay, most of us aren't e.a. poe. damnit.

something like 'thinner,' where the protag eats the pie at the end he knows will kill him, can work. generally, i prefer third person, though, because first person stories aren't always handled very effectively except with a few writers. i'm not adverse to first person, but i have to be pretty motivated by the plot summary if it's a novel. i wouldn't say no outright, but not my first choice, either.

First/Third

Third person limited and first person are both very good for horror novels. It all depends on the skill of the writer. Two of my favorite modern horror novels, Stephen King's "Bag of Bones," and Dean Koontz's "Fear Nothing," are both written in first person.

And maybe the most famous of all horror novels, Dracula, was also written in the guise of first person journal entries.

First person is handled badly by many writers, but so is third person.

The right POV for a horror novel, or any other novel, is the POV the writer is most comfortable using.

Starlightmntn said:

Also, there are purists who believe that if the story is told in the first person, then the protagonist must survive in the end, because how else could the story be told? (I don't buy into that, however).

Click to expand...

Unless one writes it in first person, present tense (where we find out things exactly as the character finds them).

However, I *am* one of those semi-purists that argues against first person point of view for characters that are going to die. Unless, again, it's in present tense.

I've got a story that was accepted for publication (not so much horror) that was first person, present tense. And it also broke the rules people talked about in this thread about 'focusing on the characters thoughts/feelings'. But, as the story was about the character lying in the gutter and dying, I think focusing on his 'thoughts/feelings' was exactly what the story needed.

However, generally? Give me the distance of third person. Cause then, not only do I get to visualize the scenes better, but it means the author can give us the 'monsters' POV as well. Which can sometimes be the worst POV for the reader, because suddenly, you develop a sympathy for the devil - as it were.

Rabe...

Rabe said:

Unless one writes it in first person, present tense (where we find out things exactly as the character finds them).

However, I *am* one of those semi-purists that argues against first person point of view for characters that are going to die. Unless, again, it's in present tense.

I've got a story that was accepted for publication (not so much horror) that was first person, present tense. And it also broke the rules people talked about in this thread about 'focusing on the characters thoughts/feelings'. But, as the story was about the character lying in the gutter and dying, I think focusing on his 'thoughts/feelings' was exactly what the story needed.

However, generally? Give me the distance of third person. Cause then, not only do I get to visualize the scenes better, but it means the author can give us the 'monsters' POV as well. Which can sometimes be the worst POV for the reader, because suddenly, you develop a sympathy for the devil - as it were.

Rabe...

Click to expand...

I really hate present tense. I've read occasional short stories where it worked, but by and large I find it unreadable, gimmickly, and completely unconvincing. The one thing I won't do is read a novel written in present tense. In all my life, I've made it trhough two present tense novels, and both would have been infinitely better in past tense.

agree about present tense. kudos for making it through two, i've never been able to get through one. okay, i admit it, i've never even *seen* one, to be honest. short stories are okay, but i've always viewed present tense as an experiment for most writers.

a slight expansion on 'dracula,' not only was it written as journal/diary passages, but also as letters, new clippings, phonographic diaries (van helsing), and ships logs. probably a good 80-90%, afair, are in journal/diary form, but there are other ways stoker got the story across, too, not necessarily 100% what you'd call first-person. i mention that only to illustrate that even a first-person story can have some elbow room to a certain extent. (it's also been noted that 'dracula's terror comes from the creature *not* being around. i'd have to reread it to see if i agree or not.)

like rabe, i'd have to say i'm a semi-purist in that a first person shouldn't have the narrator die. it *could*, and it would be gimmicky, but that's not always a terrible thing. i've only really seen the gimmick work in short stories or in the hands of a pro, and even then there's a sort of unsatisfied part of me that walks away from it in the end. if someone can do it well, great, go for it. otherwise, if there's no point to it, why limit your audience? it's like one of those stories with nothing but dialogue. i'm sure those have been published and there are probably some good ones, but, boy, i have to be desperate to plod through one.