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

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.

yttar said:

...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

Click to expand...

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. 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!


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.

Linda Adams said:

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.

Click to expand...

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. )

Phaeal said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Matera the Mad said:

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.

Click to expand...

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."

jodi henley said:

and sometimes people ask questions just because.

weird questions.

Click to expand...

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.

BlueTexas said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.


That'll learn me.

maestrowork said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

maestrowork said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

girlyswot said:

...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?

Click to expand...

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.

girlyswot said:

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.

Click to expand...

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. 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?

Perks said:

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.

Click to expand...

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."

KTC said:

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

Click to expand...

But it gives me a chance to play with their minds. And brains are such fun playthings.

KTC said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Dale Emery said:

...
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.

Click to expand...

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.

Dale Emery said:

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.

Click to expand...

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. (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.