Whenever I try to write a story in first person, I often experience a major backlash over it. My sister in particular hates it, mainly giving the reason that most of the books that she has hated have all been written in first person. The other two arguments I hear against first person stories is that A) parts of the story may be missed because we only get to look at the situation from that characters perspective. B) We're stuck with one character and if they're annoying than it can make it hard to read without wanting to punch the main character in the face, so to speak anyway. The character in question may focus on really trivial stuff that no one actually cares about. For instance, narrating about making a sandwich more than say a battle scene or whatever OR they talk about making a sandwich DURING a battle scene. :roflmao: So do you think a first person narrative can work? Do you prefer books/stories written in first/second/third person? Why? Or do you not have a preference?
Oh, absolutely a first person narrative can work, as long as the character whose perspective its from isn't extremely boring, 2D or whatever, which seems to be common in first person literature. At the same time, while one character might be more interesting, you need to think about whether or not they'd make a good narrator. Some characters might be thrilling. But as a narrator? Awful. As for the disadvantage of only seeing things from one perspective, I don't really see that as a flaw if its done correctly. The limited perspective is a great way to build suspense. Limited perspective is also used in third person, because, technically there are two ways that I know of to use third person--"third person limited" and "third person omniscient", the former focusing on only one or some perspectives of characters, while the latter shows all perspectives. So, by some ways of writing, there's not much difference between third person limited and first person besides pronouns. Personally, I prefer a third person story. Simply because I don't always have to put myself into the shoes of the same character, and a lot of my dreams are in third person as...weird as that might be. And honestly, I have a better time visualizing things in third person. So...yup. Third person is the life for me.
Of course first person can work. There are plenty of books written in first person. As with most things in writing, the important thing isn't what, it's how you execute it. First person can be done well or it can be bad. The same applies to third person. It doesn't matter if you're “missing parts of the story.” That's part of the point of writing in first person. The reader sees the world through the character's eyes. They learn information together. There are misunderstandings and missed opportunities. You can only say what the character knows about. Technically, this could also hold true for third person if the perspective is limited. As for being stuck with a character who's annoying, if that happens you either have an unlikeable main character (if them being annoying was the point) or a problem with your main character. If the character is focused on trivial things that no one cares about and that quality isn't a fundamental piece of who they are, that's sloppy writing. You could also spend more time narrating your main character making a sandwich than on a battle scene in third. Point of view doesn't change that. I write both and read both. If I had to choose, I'd say first for both writing and reading, but there are some stories that have to be written in third for whatever reason. (The only exception being fanfiction, which I will only read and write in third.) You're never going to be able to please anyone. If someone said, “I hate high fantasy” I wouldn't immediately scrap my current work in progress. Don't let someone else's personal preferences dictate the choices that you are making for your book.
Done well, of course, anything can work. First person narrative also allow for rather interesting techniques, such as unreliable narrator, who is deluding themselves, and let you peer deeper into the thought of the character. You can use this to set up twists where the character themselves would never see it coming, but everyone else know. For example, a deeply in denial character who can't get over a death of a love one might, to their own mind, hallucinate that their love one still alive, or simply constantly keep an excuse to explain their disappearance. But the interactions of that character and others around them will show some hint of the truth instead, because others do not see what they see, even if they are playing along with the delusion to soften the mental stress on the character. It would also work in limited third person, but with lesser of an impact when the twist is revealed.
Umm, yeah? Obviously it can't be written like a third-person omniscient perspective, but absolutely. The story just has to focus more on what the protagonist does and doesn't know, and how s/he deals with that. They tend to be much more focused stories. You can't exactly do Game of Thrones through the eyes of one person, but you can always set the story in that kind of scenario and follow a smaller-scale plot. What immediately comes to mind talking about annoying first-person protagonists: Holden Caulfield in The Catcher in the Rye. SPOILER: Even the title refers to his misunderstanding of the world. I like to write in third person limited because I tend to make my stories like written movies. With the exception of Hardcore Henry, they are from the perspective of a disembodied camera following a protagonist, and may or may not skip to other scenes where the main/s are absent. It's likely a symptom of my greater experience with movies than books.
David Copperfield by Charles Dickens is a first person retrospective and that's written extremely well. My favourite novel, The Kite Runner, by Khaled Hosseini, is a first person narrative. So yeah, they can work.
It may not be exactly common or proper. And some might find it confusing, but why stick to just one persons point of view?
There are fics (and books as well) where each chapter is labelled as a different person's first person pov. It can be enlightening when an event is told more than once and the reader gets to see differences and disortions in perception and thinking. That can get tedious if there's too much repetition tho (the dialogue would be the same usually)...
Of course. The vast majority (if not all) of the great writer John Buchan's books are in the first person. If you haven't read any of his books I would thoroughly recommend them.
Personally I tend to prefer third person, just because it allows you to see things from the perspectives of different characters, and you can also read about events and situations that are fundamental to the story, yet that may not have involved the main protagonist. For example, I'm reading 'The Godfather' at the moment and that constantly switches view points, which for that kind of book is good because you can see the experiences of each character, also, third person gives you as the writer an easier way to develop ALL of your characters rather than just your main protagonist. However, 'Frankenstein', which I LOVE for some reason, is written in first person (even if it does have three different narrators) and manages to keep the plot interesting and developed, so I think that it really depends on the story itself as well as your characters. If, like in 'Frankenstein', the entire story revolves around your main character, then first person works really well. Meanwhile, if you want to develop several characters, and there is no single "pivotal" character that the entire story revolves around, then third person probably works best, I think.
Of course it can work, but I personally find it to be terribly limiting and there's very little reason to ever do it.
