First person versus third

VVoltairx said:

It's just the difference of who's telling the story. The narrator is seperate from the character in the same way that I would be if I told a story about my friend -- which is what third person is. So if I were to tell a true story about my friend, I could embelish by adding something they didn't notice at the time. For instance, they were standing on a rug that they didn't know was covering a coffee stain. I am seperate from my friend's experience, thus I can tell the story how I want. I would be the narrator.

I used to write in third person only telling what the POV character noticed (somewhere slightly less than twenty novels). I started doing research and reading other books and I saw that you can do a lot more with third person than that and I was able to diversify my writing. Now I write by choice in first because I think it's fascinating see the story solely from the main character's flawed mind, especially when the main character is either crazy or going mad.

Click to expand...

Nope when you're in 3rd POV you only know what that character knows and notices. The narrator is not separate from the character. For example, if the MC in 3rd POV has their eyes closed you can't describe what's happening in the room because they're not seeing it.

If the narrator knows things the MC doesn't then it's an omniscient narrator, and yes they can move from one character to another from one scene to chapter to another.

VVoltairx said:

Third-person omniscient is when the narrator knows everything in the book. Limited is when they only know one character. At least, that's from my research.

Click to expand...

With limited third (or first, for that matter), one can have more than one viewpoint character, but the narrator typically limits it to one per story segment (whether it be a scene, a chapter or a stretch of chapters) and provide clear cues to the reader when switching.

Patty said:

Is close omniscience a thing? Put another way, is close third generally taken to mean a third limited narration style?

I'm now wondering (from this discussion) if an omniscient narrator is, almost by definition, more distant than a limited narrator.

Click to expand...

I don't know what it's called, but there is a style of omniscience where the narrator comes off as a storyteller, sitting in the room with the reader, sometimes addressing them directly or stepping out of the stories to make asides about the situation. Tolkien does this in The Hobbit, but not in LOTR so much.

But as far as the story events go, omniscient tends to keep a certain distance, maintaining control of the narrative perspective, even if they choose to focus on the perceptions of one character for a prolonged time within the story.

There is also a style where the narrator starts a scene or chapter or even (sometimes) just the novel itself in a very omniscient perspective, describing a situation and describing a character from without etc. But they eventually dip "deeper" and choose to write in something that "feels" more like limited third for a while. Technically, this is still omniscient, because having established themselves as a distinct presence in the story, the narrator has the power to zoom the narrative back out at some point.

It's also possible to have a novel where some chapters (or character arcs) are in one narrative viewpoint, and others are in another one. There really aren't any "rules" if the writer does it in a way that is engaging and doesn't confuse the reader.

Elle. said:

Nope when you're in 3rd POV you only know what that character knows and notices. The narrator is not separate from the character. .

Click to expand...

This is not necessarily true. It's very possible for a third-person narrative to utilize an omniscient narrator, or even a completely external or objective one. With limited (or subjective) third, the narrator is only relating the perspectives of a single character at a time and generally needs some kind of "break" if they are to shift.

Technically, the narrator is not the character, even in limited third, since the narrator is referring to them with their name and pronouns, not as "I," but limited third still creates the sense that one is seeing the story through a single character's eyes within a given scene (or for the whole story).

VVoltairx said:

Then what is the point in differing between them?

Click to expand...

As a reader, first and third "feel" different to me. As a writer, I find a story tells itself to me one way or another.

They're just tools, and I don't think there's any objective advantage to one or the other.

Then what is the point in differing between them?

Click to expand...

Definitely an omniscient narrator can do things like explain the symbolism in the tapestries (I think that was your example.). So that would be one reason to use an omniscient narrator--and I don't know if you can have an omniscient narrator in a first-person narrative.

Omniscience might be only used with third?

(I'm wondering if omniscience generally feels more distant then limited, too.)

VVoltairx said:

Then what is the point in differing between them?

Click to expand...

Because it creates a feel for a story. This really falls under the "art" part of storytelling. Why one story works better in first versus limited third may be in the eye of the beholder.

There can be technical reasons too. First might allow you to do something like hide the gender of the narrator (or write from the viewpoint of someone who isn't gendered or who doesn't identify on the binary) with less awkwardness, while third allows you to get the gender of a character out right away (if that is important).

Limited third also allows the writer to keep the ultimate fate of a viewpoint character in the dark, if that is a source of tension in the story. If a person is narrating the story and is the sole narrator, the general expectation is they survive until the end, though there are ways to get around this. For whatever reason, though, having a first-person narrator narrate their own death scene (unless there is a life after death in the story world) tends to knock readers out of disbelief more than having even a very deep third person narrator do so. First person can also feel like a problematic narrative if loss of memory, or even loss of a particular memory, becomes a plot element.

And while a highly unreliable narrative can work in limited third, I think it tends to work better in first. Readers often have a harder time with third-person narrators who lie to them or omit important details the viewpoint character would definitely have noticed but chosen not to relate, even if it's done intentionally.

Also, I am finding I prefer first if writing in a fairly "deep" narrative. My reason (after writing an entire novel in a fairly deep, immediate third and not doing the best job with it), is first keeps me more in the actual voice of a given narrating character and deals with that annoying pronoun issue, when two people of the same gender are interacting closely in a scene where you don't want to keep repeating their names over and over (which makes the narrative sound much more distant and stilted than using pronouns).

The last paragraph says more about my limitations as a writer than about what might work for someone else.

If you are unsure which works best for a story, try writing a scene or two from different narrative viewpoints and decide which you like better (or ask for feedback from critting partners).

Roxxsmom said:

This is not necessarily true. It's very possible for a third-person narrative to utilize an omniscient narrator, or even a completely external or objective one. With limited (or subjective) third, the narrator is only relating the perspectives of a single character at a time and generally needs some kind of "break" if they are to shift.

Technically, the narrator is not the character, even in limited third, since the narrator is referring to them with their name and pronouns, not as "I," but limited third still creates the sense that one is seeing the story through a single character's eyes within a given scene (or for the whole story).

Click to expand...

We'll just have to agree to disagree. If you are 3rd omniscient with a separate narrator then for me it's not "just 3rd" POV. For me there is no relating which is why a 3rd POV carries the voice and observations of the MC and everything narrated is tainted with the views and feelings of the MC like in a 1st POV whereas an omni has the voice of the narrator and not the character.

Thank you.

Roxxsmom said:

There is also a style where the narrator starts a scene or chapter or even (sometimes) just the novel itself in a very omniscient perspective, describing a situation and describing a character from without etc. But they eventually dip "deeper" and choose to write in something that "feels" more like limited third for a while. Technically, this is still omniscient, because having established themselves as a distinct presence in the story, the narrator has the power to zoom the narrative back out at some point.

Click to expand...

As I've paid attention to this aspect over the months, I'd say (and I know others here have also mentioned in other threads) that zooming in and out is how limited third is handled more often than not--even within scenes one can zoom back and forth. From a perspective/viewpoint angle, it strikes me as analogous to operating at different levels of engagement with 'life' throughout the day. Sometimes we are intensely tuned in to our world, maybe even in a very immediate way, which can be exhausting, other times less so.

Roxxsmom said:

I don't know what it's called, but there is a style of omniscience where the narrator comes off as a storyteller, sitting in the room with the reader, sometimes addressing them directly or stepping out of the stories to make asides about the situation. Tolkien does this in The Hobbit, but not in LOTR so much.

But as far as the story events go, omniscient tends to keep a certain distance, maintaining control of the narrative perspective, even if they choose to focus on the perceptions of one character for a prolonged time within the story.

There is also a style where the narrator starts a scene or chapter or even (sometimes) just the novel itself in a very omniscient perspective, describing a situation and describing a character from without etc. But they eventually dip "deeper" and choose to write in something that "feels" more like limited third for a while. Technically, this is still omniscient, because having established themselves as a distinct presence in the story, the narrator has the power to zoom the narrative back out at some point.

Click to expand...

Zooming in and out in a narrative is what Emma Darwin call Psychic Distance and can be done in all POVs not just omniscient. For example zooming out is definitely recommended throughout a 1st POV story otherwise it could become very claustrophobic for the reader to spend too much time completely inside the character’s head.

Opinions on this change so much depending on the genre! I hate when these debates turn into "this one is SO much better".

If you look at the romance genre, teens and NA readers tend to go for first person - almost exclusively - while adult fiction readers tend to go for third.

Historical fiction is another one where people have strong feelings.

I write third most of the time. I have one NA manuscript I still don't know what to do with that's in first.

I use first person present for my main character and third person past for the other pov characters.
This way, the reader can see the 'big picture'.

Literary or genre? Discuss.

mccardey said:

Literary or genre? Discuss.

Click to expand...

I know what you're up to, you know.

mccardey said:

Literary or genre? Discuss.

Click to expand...

Some people really want to watch the world burn.

Patty said:

Omniscience might be only used with third?

Click to expand...

There are books with a first person omniscient narrator. The main example that springs to mind is The Book Thief by Markus Zusak - the narrator is Death.

There's also at least one David Walliams book that has an omniscient first person narrator. I can't remember which one it was though. And it might be more than one. (I've read a few but nowhere near all of them. I need to raid my kids' bookshelves a bit more often.)

neandermagnon said:

There are books with a first person omniscient narrator. The main example that springs to mind is The Book Thief by Markus Zusak - the narrator is Death.

There's also at least one David Walliams book that has an omniscient first person narrator. I can't remember which one it was though. And it might be more than one. (I've read a few but nowhere near all of them. I need to raid my kids' bookshelves a bit more often.)

Click to expand...

Yes, this does exist, though it's probably not as common as omniscient third or as a more limited first person narrator who is the story protagonist (or a character interacting directly with the protagonist, as in the Great Gatsby).

With omniscient first, for whatever reason, the first person narrator has all the relevant story information and is telling the tale from that perspective, even if they are only a peripheral character or observer within the story. Another example I can think of is Galapagos, by Kurt Vonnegut, where the narrator is a ghost haunting the ship on ill-fated expedition. He pretty much knows everything that led up to the events in the story, and is narrating it a million years in the future, so he knows everything that will come of it too, and shares the details when they become relevant. He also has opinions which are interjected into the tale.

This is something that can be a factor with omniscient narrators in general. They can have their own opinions about events and characters which are distinct from that of any of the characters. They can be quite judgmental. Omniscient narrators can also be nearly invisible, or they have a distinct and quirky voice that is not that of any of the characters, even if they don't overtly express their own opinions about matters.

So many ways to approach storytelling, even within a given narrative viewpoint.

Don't be afraid to experiment!

VVoltairx said:

Which do you all find easiest to write?

Click to expand...

Most beginning writers find first person perspective easiest to write but there's always the tendency to revel something the main charcater couldn't know. For that, you'll need third person. If you watch most writers careers, they switch to third person as they grow more confident.

That said, you need to write what works for your story.

Jeff

I'm of the opinion that ALL narration is ultimately done in the first person. Basically, even in third person, there is a narrator who is telling the story, and he/she/it is doing so in first person even if there is no pronoun reference made. The narrator gives voice to the story, and I think you must know who/what the narrator is as much as you know any other character. Even if the narrator is not a character in the story, he/she/it must be one in your head in order to tell the tale well and consistently.

Paul Lamb said:

I'm of the opinion that ALL narration is ultimately done in the first person. Basically, even in third person, there is a narrator who is telling the story, and he/she/it is doing so in first person even if there is no pronoun reference made. The narrator gives voice to the story, and I think you must know who/what the narrator is as much as you know any other character. Even if the narrator is not a character in the story, he/she/it must be one in your head in order to tell the tale well and consistently.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone would argue with this, and there are definitely different styles (and narrative depths) of third, first, second-person narration. But telling a story in third person does require some different techniques and approaches than telling it it first, and it goes beyond simply changing pronouns.

WeaselFire said:

Most beginning writers find first person perspective easiest to write but there's always the tendency to revel something the main charcater couldn't know. For that, you'll need third person. If you watch most writers careers, they switch to third person as they grow more confident.

That said, you need to write what works for your story.

Jeff

Click to expand...

Can you cite something to support this? I don't have any idea of how the absolute numbers play out, but I've certainly read plenty of debut novels written in various forms of third person (and not all third person narratives can reveal things the protagonist doesn't know). I've also read novels by established authors written in first when earlier novels were in third.

I suspect which viewpoint is "easier" may depend on the type of story one wants to tell, and also on the narrative viewpoint one has read and enjoyed the most themselves. I've seen plenty of members here on AW say they "can't" write in first person, or that they find it really difficult. Beginner writers often find it hard to establish and consistently apply different narrative voices in first person when multiple viewpoints are required to tell a story, for instance. This can be an issue with limited third too, though, depending on the narrative depth one is shooting for.

Roxxsmom said:

Can you cite something to support this? I don't have any idea of how the absolute numbers play out, but I've certainly read plenty of debut novels written in various forms of third person (and not all third person narratives can reveal things the protagonist doesn't know). I've also read novels by established authors written in first when earlier novels were in third.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm always surprised to hear people talk about the prevalence of first person, because I actually don't encounter it all that often (maybe it's just what I'm reading). Personally, I almost never write in first, but my latest book is in first person present and it absolutely kicked my ass.

I have written in both but to be honest I now prefer third person limited (so no head hopping).

VVoltairx said:

It's just the difference of who's telling the story. The narrator is seperate from the character in the same way that I would be if I told a story about my friend -- which is what third person is. So if I were to tell a true story about my friend, I could embelish by adding something they didn't notice at the time. For instance, they were standing on a rug that they didn't know was covering a coffee stain. I am seperate from my friend's experience, thus I can tell the story how I want. I would be the narrator.

I used to write in third person only telling what the POV character noticed (somewhere slightly less than twenty novels). I started doing research and reading other books and I saw that you can do a lot more with third person than that and I was able to diversify my writing. Now I write by choice in first because I think it's fascinating see the story solely from the main character's flawed mind, especially when the main character is either crazy or going mad.

Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying, and I think it's never more noticeable than when you're listening to audio. In 1st person, all narration and dialogue are done in one voice: that of the main character. In 3rd limited, the dialogue will have the main character voice, but the narration can be done in a different voice: the narrator's. The narrator in 3rd limited can sometimes 'sit on the shoulder' of the main character, narrating the events, thoughts, feelings on behalf of that one main character, but he isn't that character.

Wiki is a dreadful source to quote, but even there it says the same:

In the third-person narrative mode, the narrator refers to all characters with third person pronouns like he, she, or they, and never first- or second-person pronouns. This makes it clear that the narrator is an unspecified entity or uninvolved person who conveys the story and is not a character of any kind within the story, or at least is not referred to as such

Click to expand...

I know with my series, three novels were in 1st person, which covered two of my main characters. But I also had a third MC who came into his pov in the fourth novel. Here I didn't want 1st pov, I wanted an unspecified narrator to follow him around. It wasn't his character type to let anyone really up close and personal, so I wanted a close shadow effect that 3rd limited gives. When it came to deciding the narration for that novel, my narrator went through several narration voices that are significantly different to my 3rd main character. The dialogue retained my mc's voice, but the narration belonged to my unspecified narrator, who isn't the main character, but who does sit on his shoulder, narrating the action, thoughts, and feelings of my MC. But he's definitely not the main character himself in this instance.

Even if you are writing in a really deep limited third, where the narrative is in the pov character's voice, it is really tricky to do a highly unreliable narrator in that viewpoint compared to first. It's easy enough to only present what the pov character knows and feels, even if it is incorrect, and to do it in their voice. But for the narrator to overtly lie to the reader in limited third tends to be more offputting than when it's done in first.

It is also much easier to hide certain things about the pov character, most especially their gender or name, if in first person. Conversely, it can be hard to get the gender and/or name of a first person character out there immediately in first person if you need to, though back cover copy often gives these kinds of things away. It can be more of an issue in a short story.

Note that first person isn't always narrated in the same voice the pov character has at the time of the story. For instance, if the narrator is an adult telling a story about their childhood, their narrating voice will be different from that of themselves as a child. Likewise if the first-person has changed in some significant way since the story happened.

I remember reading that this is one thing that is important to understand when writing fiction for teens or for older mid grade readers. The narrating voice is typically that of the teen at the time of the story, not a wiser adult being retrospective about their teen years. But there are other situations where it makes more sense to have a "current" voice and perspective for the narrating character as well.