[n9zee]

Many novels are written from a 3rd person POV. Some are written from a 1st person perspective. A few are even written using both. I, personally, like the 3rd person. It is the most familiar to me, and I like being able to "watch" over a character's shoulder. I also tend to find 1st person a bit jarring, at least at first. It is true that I'll get into the story and no longer notice, but it takes a bit. Of course, 1st person offers a closer connection to the protagonist, and 3rd can be a bit detached. Each have their merits and each have their flaws. Now, what do you prefer? Feel free to discuss it here.

I haven't included any cop-out options like "both, of course!" or "spoon!" because I would like you to seriously think about this. Take all day if you need to. I'll leave the poll up until next Thursday.



P.S. I'm still working on how to turn my work here into a 5-days-a-week thing, so I thought I'd try a question today. Remember, if you have any ideas for possible posts, pm me or leave a message in the Rabbit Room.

[gylbert]

I generally prefer third person, but it's a verrry close consideration

First gives the reader a more personal sense of the action, since it's coming from the character's point of view, as they experience things. First works well for mystery and suspense stories, because of the necessity of keeping certain details hidden until just the right time. It's much more believable (to me) to be finding out the facts and following the reasoning concurrently with the investigator

Third person, however, enables much more flexibility in how the story can be told. One of the more memorable books I've read was Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Café, and not only does Fannie Flagg bounce between the modern-day nursing home visits and 30's/40's era Whistle Stop, AL, she's also able to throw in events occurring to characters in Birmingham, Valdosta, random places on the rails, and even various newspaper snippets


Finally, threesomes are much more enjoyable than "authoring a solo work" :-D

[DIV]

It definitely depends on the work. Some things lend themselves to either form.

Generally, I like 3rd person, non-omniscient. However, I love David Sedaris books, and they are all 1st person (obviously autobiography lends it self to 1st person). And the narnian chronicles were my first favorite series and they are 3rd person omniscient. Really, if 1st person is leaving a bad taste in my mouth, it's probably just a shitty job by the author. 3rd person omniscient has to be done with a really light touch that I sincerely doubt most modern authors can grasp the subtlety of.

[Apostasy]

I tend to prefer third person. First person, when well done, can make the book/story really suck you in, but when badly done.... ugh.

[digitalbecks]

2nd person! As in, "you find the door ajar and step in. What will you do next? turn on the light, pg 52. Say 'hello?' pg 46"

Just kidding. I prefer 1st person. I'm a succer for character analysis and I think 1st person lends itself to more character depth.

[Sam]

pg 46... you've been eaten by a grue!

Sam prefers 1st person, but Sam will read just about anything Sam thinks is good!!

[Lars]

I can't honestly say I prefer one over the other.
Both have their glories and downs. First person can easily become extreamly bad if the author doesn't know what he or she is doing, but if it works out you usually get alot deeper into the story. You feel more apart of it, instead of being a spectaror of it.
While third person in most cases is easier too write in, and has alot of magic of its own, you can't gain the depth in the same way you do with first person.
Both can be fantastic, and both can be horrible, and as for which I prefer, I don't. I love both when used to their full potential, for reasons that make it so I can't pick on.

[The Illusionist]

I prefer 3rd Person, but I'll freely admit that is ONLY because I've read precious few 1st Person stories, and of those only a fraction were any good.

For example; Ciaphas Cain, as written by Sandy Mitchell, is a cowardly, snarky and self-preserving soldier who just keeps getting into more and more ridiculous encounters, and his genre-saviness is done really well. Then there's the short story Flowers For Algernon which is genuinely heart breaking, almost entirely due to the manipulation of the protagonist's viewpoint as the story goes on and ends.

Any more, and I'd be extremely hard pressed to think of them.

[Gyrick]

I'd rather read a story in 3rd than 1st. In 1st person, I feel more like the author is talking at me, where as in 3rd s/he seems to be telling me a story.

[Toreshi]

I enjoy both, as long as the story material is good, but I do prefer 3rd. While 1st can give you a real connection to the character and make you feel like you're IN the story, I prefer how in 3rd the author can give the most intricate details about any aspect of the story...things that wouldn't even be mentionable in a 1st person because no one person can notice that much, you know what I mean? I'm sure I'm not describing this properly, but...

Okay, for example, I'm writing this fanfic right? The main character is Remus, so the story follows him around, sees what he sees, feels what he feels, etc. But then at one point, the secondary character, Sirius, realizes something important that Remus doesn't, so the story follows him for a little while. If the story were written in 1st person, that whole section of the story wouldn't sound right because how could Remus know what Sirius was doing/thinking/feeling during that time?

I still don't know if I'm getting that idea across right, but basically, I like both but prefer 3rd.

[Scarlet Speedster]

I don't prefer either one. Whichever one is the most appropriate for the story at hand. It seems like a really odd thing to have a favorite for, to me anyway. It's just as alien to me as the people who are genre devotees. I love a great crime story, or good fantasy, or even romantic drama, but I can never simply read a crime story because it's a crime story, fantasy because it's fantasy, etc. The only thing I prefer is quality.

1st or 3rd person, it just depends what best serves that specific story.

[Lars]

Okay, for example, I'm writing this fanfic right? The main character is Remus, so the story follows him around, sees what he sees, feels what he feels, etc. But then at one point, the secondary character, Sirius, realizes something important that Remus doesn't, so the story follows him for a little while. If the story were written in 1st person, that whole section of the story wouldn't sound right because how could Remus know what Sirius was doing/thinking/feeling during that time?

Your example is actually one of the small things that can make first person telling great. Not that you let the character magically know, but just because he at that point don't know, but either won't learn of it yet, or won't at all. But, depending on how the thing that Sirius would find out plays out, it doesn't mean that the reader can have figured out the same thing, without getting it told outright. Unless it was figured out without any real good basis too think on.
If Remus and Sirius where in different places, then what Sirius would find out wouldn't matter at the time in a firstperson story. Either the reader (and Remus ofcourse) would find out what happened with Sirius later during a conversation, or it would be kept in the dark.

[EPhear]

I choose first person, just because the feeling of the characters are easy to know, without the author having to make a character throw a tempertantrum, if they are in first-person. I tend to enjoy any and all. And a question to you, is Robert Jordans Wheel of Time First- or Third-person? Because he is good at bouncing around in perspective.

This post has been edited by EPhear: 24 June 2008 - 11:54 PM

[Maelgwyn]

Both. Thats my final offer. But 1st is more intimate and usually makes it so I dont put down the book.

[Grimm]

First person for me. Catcher in the Rye, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird are probably the best examples of it, at least in my humble opinion. They are probably three of my favourite books of all time.

There are so many other classics that use first person though such as Jane Eyre. Moby Dick. Great Expectations. Gulliver's Travels. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

Third person is definitely more common though.

[Katesickle]

I generally prefer third person, because it is the most familiar to me, and first person always seems a little akward (at least to begin with). First person never really seems natural to me (if that makes sense) but I don't really mind it, so long as the author is consistent (unlike, say, Wuthering Heights where you start off with one character telling a story, and then within his story another character begins telling a seperate story, all in first person).

[dreamchaser]

I choose first person, just because the feeling of the characters are easy to know, without the author having to make a character throw a tempertantrum, if they are in first-person. I tend to enjoy any and all. And a question to you, is Robert Jordans Wheel of Time First- or Third-person? Because he is good at bouncing around in perspective.

If you can't tell, you can't really prefer one over the other, can you? (p.s. it's 3rd person - and that's what makes the feelings of all the characters "easy to know" as you say. First person is told as an internal narrative of the protagonist only.)

I agree with SS, it's the quality that counts. I just find that it's hard to enjoy 1st person if I don't really connect with the main character and their ideals. I also prefer 3rd person in the sense that you know more than all the characters do. It's a little more holistic in terms of the story itself.

Great first person series? Jack Whyte's Dream of Eagles. (The Skystone, Singing Sword, The Eagles Brood....and so on...)

[Arindian]

I'm generally one for third person narratives, but every now and then I find a first person novel that feels "right." World War Z is my most recent venture into the first person world of literature