First Person or Third? What's Your Preference?

[mccardey]

I'll happily read and write both.

 

[ldlago]

Writing in the second person is one thing. Narrating in the second person presents an altogether different challenge. I've never done it, and I'm not sure how I would go about it. Unless I'm speaking to myself. I might say you (meaning me) are an idiot. You see what you've done here. You've fouled everything up. If someone has a better example, I'd love to hear it.

 

[BRG2003]

I enjoy reading and writing both. I love to craft character voices for first person and play with unreliable narrators although my current WIP is in third person because I have a very vivid image of my setting and I want to give it a little focus. To quote and article I read long ago, first person is like being inside a character's head and staring through their eyes while third person limited is like watching from a camera that follows the character closely; one allows you to read about the thinking process of a character but you can only focus on what said character notices at every moment, while, with third person, you can take a break and describe something the character might not be thinking about right now, like the beautiful sunset behind them.

 

[thewonder]

I don't know what you call it when your narrator is a character who isn't really in the story and knows, to some extent, what is going on in the minds of the other characters, or at least, pretends to, but I tend to write in that. It's probably just first-person subjective, but the narrator usually isn't the principal protagonist or really even involved in the story whatsoever.

 

[Kat M]

I don't know what you call it when your narrator is a character who isn't really in the story and knows, to some extent, what is going on in the minds of the other characters, or at least, pretends to, but I tend to write in that. It's probably just first-person subjective, but the narrator usually isn't the principal protagonist or really even involved in the story whatsoever.

I think that's third omniscient (omniscient = knowing everything). It's quite common in older literature. Difficult to pull off but I adore reading it when done well because you can compare/contrast characters' perceptions.

 

[thewonder]

I think that's third omniscient (omniscient = knowing everything). It's quite common in older literature. Difficult to pull off but I adore reading it when done well because you can compare/contrast characters' perceptions.

Leo Tolstoy does so better than anyone else, in my opinion. Reading Tolstoy destroyed my capacity to write prose.

I, however, usually write the narrator as a subjective character. They're not at all impersonal. They have opinions and quirks. I do so so that it's as if someone is telling you a story. It's a kind of first-person subjective where you have to suspend your disbelief so that they can act as a third-person omniscient.

 

[TheMightyAz]

Without a doubt third person. I like the flexibility.

 

[WriteMinded]

I prefer to read books written in third person. There was a time when I wouldn't read 1st person novels - ever. That has changed.

My writing, thus far, is always in third. I don't know why I stick with it. First person comes easy peasy. Why am I making it so hard on myself?

 

[Kirkhammer]

I'm in the camp of liking both, reading and writing. I think they have their pros and cons. A big pro to first person is that everything goes through the lens of the narrator, for better or worse. With third person you can be a bit more objective, but then you have to decide how objective you want to be. For the most part, I've written in third person, but I'm trying out first person as well.

 

[Unimportant]

Since we all view the world from a single perspective, I believe that stories written in the first person create a more relatable experience for the reader. What are your thoughts?

As a reader, I find it easier to 'become' the character if it's written in third person rather than first. Dunno why. With first person, I'm always that teeny bit aware of being 'talked to', so I don't get the total immersion into the story.

And, again as a reader, I really hate books that have multiple first person POV characters.

 

[Unimportant]

I don't know what you call it when your narrator is a character who isn't really in the story and knows, to some extent, what is going on in the minds of the other characters, or at least, pretends to, but I tend to write in that. It's probably just first-person subjective, but the narrator usually isn't the principal protagonist or really even involved in the story whatsoever.

That's an external narrator. They can be limited, or they can be omniscient, as the author chooses to design them.

 

[Chris P]

Leo Tolstoy does so better than anyone else, in my opinion.

I agree and I don't. Where I agree is that I love War and Peace (it's one of ten books I'd take to another planet), and how his omniscient works so well for me is that he has the benefit of hindsight and the following history to pull from. Forty years later, it's fairly easy to know the inner thoughts of the historical characters, and what the fictional characters around them must have thought. Where it also works for me is that he (usually) spends significant time in one character's head before shifting to another. Poorly executed omniscient often has a whiplashy feeling of getting into the heads of other characters too quickly. Where Tolstoy's omni doesn't work for me is (as was common at the time) he tells us why the character says or does something when it's obvious from the words or actions. "Pierre glared at Rostov in hatred, and drew his pistol, wanting to shoot Rostov." (Not a real example, but not far off.

Another work where I thought omni was done was is Snow by Orhan Pamuk. Here, the narrator is describing the final weeks in the life of a friend, as if the narrator has researched and conducted interviews although he doesn't appear as a character. In this case, the narrator has a reason to know what the various characters were thinking.

 

[ldlago]

I agree and I don't. Where I agree is that I love War and Peace (it's one of ten books I'd take to another planet), and how his omniscient works so well for me is that he has the benefit of hindsight and the following history to pull from. Forty years later, it's fairly easy to know the inner thoughts of the historical characters, and what the fictional characters around them must have thought. Where it also works for me is that he (usually) spends significant time in one character's head before shifting to another. Poorly executed omniscient often has a whiplashy feeling of getting into the heads of other characters too quickly. Where Tolstoy's omni doesn't work for me is (as was common at the time) he tells us why the character says or does something when it's obvious from the words or actions. "Pierre glared at Rostov in hatred, and drew his pistol, wanting to shoot Rostov." (Not a real example, but not far off.

Another work where I thought omni was done was is Snow by Orhan Pamuk. Here, the narrator is describing the final weeks in the life of a friend, as if the narrator has researched and conducted interviews although he doesn't appear as a character. In this case, the narrator has a reason to know what the various characters were thinking.

Chris P., Have you seen the 1972 BBC production of War & Peace? They do the entire novel, 20 episodes, 14 hours and 50 minutes. Anthony Hopkins plays the part of Pierre Bezukhov. If you haven't, I highly recommend it. You won't be disappointed.

 

[Unimportant]

Leo Tolstoy does so better than anyone else, in my opinion.

It depends on what you're looking for. The external narrator's voice has to suit the subject matter. Tolstoy is undeniably brilliant, but I don't think he could've written a narrator to suit, say, Pride and Prejudice the way Jane Austen could -- P&P works so well because of the narrator's dry, pithy observations about each character. Or a women's fiction author like Maeve Binchy -- her narrators are always kind, honest, and caring, which suits the kind of stories she writes.

 

[Chris P]

Chris P., Have you seen the 1972 BBC production of War & Peace? They do the entire novel, 20 episodes, 14 hours and 50 minutes. Anthony Hopkins plays the part of Pierre Bezukhov. If you haven't, I highly recommend it. You won't be disappointed.

Thanks for the recommendation. I've seen a six hour version, and of course the Hollywood one with Audrey Hepburn and Henry Fonda. I'm not much of a movie or TV watcher anymore, but this one looks worth it.

 

[Nether]

I prefer reading in the third person, and I prefer writing in the third person.

I've written maybe a handful of first person POV short stories in the past (and I kinda like the POV for horror because it feels easier to narrow a POV's focus and to slide in references to an emotional state). However, the most recent time I tried to start a novel in the first person, I wound up killing the project and going to third.

 

[Unimportant]

I did once write a short story in second person, as an experiment (yanno, to see if I could do it). It was surprisingly difficult to do -- trying to make it work, to remain consistent, to stay in the POV. It turned out okay (by which I mean I sold it and it got published) but I don't think it's something I'd try again.

 

[Spaceranger82]

When it comes to reading, it doesn't matter, but when it comes to writing, I tend to use third person unless it's something where I feel first person would be warranted, such as hardboiled stories.

 

[llyralen]

When it comes to reading, it doesn't matter, but when it comes to writing, I tend to use third person unless it's something where I feel first person would be warranted, such as hardboiled stories.

I’d like to understand this better. What’s a hardboiled story? And I just do you think first person would be better? I’m picturing a sleuth, maybe? A “who done it” detective story where usually they are in first-person?

 

[krawriter]

For reading, anything goes. I recently read The Gone World, a sci-fi novel that's single POV but alternates between both first-person and third person. Very unique book, highly recommend.

For writing, I prefer first-person. I find it significantly easier for the words to flow onto the page.

 

[Iustefan]

For fiction I prefer the first person for both writing and reading. But I enjoy third person very nearly as much. When I am in a rut writing something, I often find that the words flow more easily when written in the third person. Second person can be brilliant when done right as well, but feels more precious.

Also, weirdly enough, I prefer writing journals/diary entries in the third person. I guess it gives me perspective on myself, and enough space to write down what really happened, and what I am really thinking.

Something I don't like so much, and one of the reasons I dislike third person, is multiple close third POV characters. One is enough for me. Either that or an omniscient narrator. There are exceptions to this though, as I love Bolano, short story collections, and the Sheltering Sky.

 

[DarkWriter223]

I prefer First and Third, second person is too hilarious to write, would make me laugh more than writing it down.

 

[KayHooper]

Since we all view the world from a single perspective, I believe that stories written in the first person create a more relatable experience for the reader. What are your thoughts?

As a reader, I generally prefer third-person, though first-person is fine if the narrator is a strong, interesting character. As a writer, I've written almost exclusively in third-person, with only two books written in first-person. I considered the latter an interesting exercise.

 

[ChaseJxyz]

My sister is currently reading a book that's in second person and she just can't stand it. Picking one pov over another (should) be chosen based on what best serves the story. First person gets you very in the head of the character and also works for stories told via letters/diaries. Third person is the norm for most stories and allows the narrator to speak in a way that doesn't match the way the MC talks. But I've only ever really seen second person in self-insert fanfictions (You walk up to the steps of the X-Men Academy, you just can't wait to smooch Magneto!) or in "gimmick" stories where the narrator is more like a dungeon/game master (like a chooe your own adventure novel). So would there be a way to do second pov where the "you" is a character that is very separate from the reader? And have it work?

I also wondered what a "fourth person" pov would be. Perhaps one/oneself in the hypothetical to refer to the MC?

 

[TStarnes]

I write in both, depending on the story I'm telling.

If the character arc is the most important thing (such as in Coming of Age stories) I use 1st person to get the reader as close to the main character as person. If the story arc is the most important thing, say in a mystery or thriller, I use the third person (although I tend to still have it be limited, following the main character's POV)