Seanan McGuire (seanan_mcguire) wrote,
Seanan McGuire
seanan_mcguire

  • Mood:
  • Music:

Points of view and why they matter.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I read a lot of urban fantasy/paranormal romance. I mean a lot. Given that I read fast enough to get through a 300-page novel in a day, easily, and am currently trying to race through my to-be-read shelf like I'm being pursued by wolves, I'm basically binging on the stuff. I'm going to need to spend six months on Urban Fantasy Weight Watchers after I finish my current read-through, during which I'll be allowed nothing but bad mystery novels and non-fiction about things that make you die (diseases, parasites, Australia). This means that I am sensitive to tropes in UF/PR the way I'm sensitive to tropes in lousy horror movies.*

The majority of urban fantasy is written in the first person. I fight the monster, I open the door to the creepy crypt at the bottom of the hill, I try not to summon a snake god to Thanksgiving dinner. This creates a feeling of absolute immediacy, while also creating a feeling of safety, since most first person narrators are reasonably guaranteed to survive their stories. (I consider, say, Rose Marshall an exception, since she's already dead. Maybe this explains why she gets shot so much.) It also limits the perspective of the books. When you're reading a Toby book, the only information you'll get is what Toby has to give, and that information will always be filtered through her particularly Toby-esque way of seeing the world.

Third person gives you more leeway on the will she/won't she question where surviving is concerned, and also creates the option to provide the reader with additional information. Sure, the protagonist is bound by their own perceptions, but the author gets to play with omniscience. This is both good and bad, and the varying degrees of third person omniscience is a topic for another day. Suffice to say that sometimes this distancing serves the story very, very well.

I have just finished reading two third person urban fantasies, neither of which will be named here, because I'm looking critically at structure, not trying to compare-and-contrast their plots or the quality of their writing. In the first, the author took advantage of the third person structure and hopped from place to place, now following the villain, now following a secondary character, now returning to the primary protagonist. The omniscience was kept to a minimum, since otherwise, the plot would have turned boring for the reader; this is obviously pretty tricky, but the writer handled it well. I don't think this book could have been written in first person, and the tense never bothered me. It was a third person book because it needed to be.

The second third person urban fantasy stuck to an extremely limited perspective, following the protagonist at the exclusion of all else. At no point, did we get information that she didn't have, which made waiting for her to catch up occasionally a lot more frustrating than I expected it to be. I'm used to being forgiving when my UF/PR protagonists are a little slow, because I'm used to being so deep in their heads that I can see why they're not making the intuitive jumps that I can make. I know how they think. In the absence of that knowledge, I kept waiting for the heroine to be smarter than I was, and I kept being disappointed. It honestly left me wondering why the author didn't stick with the first person perspective that's standard in the genre. It would have been the same story; it would even have been a stronger story, because the immersion in the heroine would have made it much more urgent.

Choosing a story's point of view can be difficult, but I find that usually, I can tell which they need to be by looking at whether the story would even be possible in a tighter perspective. And I try to keep things as tight as possible, for the immediacy. Your mileage may, and probably will, vary.

So how do you feel about perspective? Does first person keep it tight and immersive, or is it off-putting and overly familiar? Does third person make things mysterious and flexible, or is it distancing and remote? Or does it even matter if the story's good?

Thoughts?

(*If the movie starts with people in the water, it's either an evil sharks movie, an evil alligator movie, or a sea monster movie. If you see a shark within the first five minutes, it's not an evil sharks movie. Etc.)
Tags: contemplation, literary critique, reading things
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 217 comments
Previous
← Ctrl ← Alt
Next
Ctrl → Alt →

Deleted comment

It's difficult when the voices aren't sufficiently distinct. It gives me headaches, a bit.

tiferet

6 years ago

Deleted comment

black_faery

June 21 2011, 14:58:36 UTC 6 years ago Edited:  June 21 2011, 14:59:24 UTC

I started writing my UF in third person, then switched about halfway through to first person because it felt *right*. (Why yes, it does require a rewrite...why do you ask? :-P)

I prefer first person for "throw self in and devour as fast as possible to the exclusion of all else" books: Dresden files, Toby, Among Thieves by Douglas Hulick (my most recent 'devour' purchase and a big thumbs up to anyone looking for a fun read)...anything that I read to immerse myself and hide away from the world. I like the familiarity in that, and it makes it good cheering up material. I like my snark, and you don't get good snarkage out of a third person perspective.

I like third person for big epicness...any time I want the equivalent of Lord of the Rings or The Stand - something that will take me more than a couple of days to get through and will last a bit longer.

So...depends on the novel and what I'm 'using' it for. :-) No easy answers to this one!
No, there aren't, but it's an interesting thing to think about, isn't it?
This creates a feeling of absolute immediacy, while also creating a feeling of safety, since most first person narrators are reasonably guaranteed to survive their stories.

I was about to point out an exception, except you should know it, because you wrote it. Then again, Rose wouldn't be the only urban fantasy* hero who doesn't stay gone when they die, which comes to mind as look Ghost Story will be released soon.

As for me, perspective comes with the scope and inclinations of the author. In other words, can the writer put hirself enough into the character's head to not feel like every other snarky urban fantasy hero, and make the story matter to this person? And, also, is there information that needs to be conveyed that hero can't see, or would suspend my disbelief if sie is always there to eavesdrop? I think it's probably why a lot of the traditional epic fantasy is in third-person, so you can see the scope of the conflict without having Hero McHero meddling in everything. If you have a conflict that isn't The End of the World making it deeply personal (and first person) can make it have meaning -- it's not the End of the World, but it might be the End of Someone's World.

(Then again, I've seen some truly awful third-person villainous pieces where I wonder if this person really thinks human beings** act like that. If you cannot write a villain who is either believable as what sie is, or just so damn fun that I don't care if sie's torturing small animals, then perhaps it's better to edit those scenes out and leave the villain a bit more ambiguous.)

* Rose is a weird case, since she's clearly in the modern the-myths-are-true fantasy, but she's the opposite of urban. Oh, genre names.

** Or things close to them,
I appreciate you not pointing out the exception, since I would have had to delete your comment as spoilery, and that always makes me feel funny. ;)

Rose is urban in her way. Roads are a sign of urban sprawl, and she's an urban legend.

beccastareyes

6 years ago

bunsen_h

6 years ago

tiferet

6 years ago

tiferet

6 years ago

I have the exact same issue with third-person perspective. It definitely can go too far with omniscience, but if the entire book is so focused on the protagonist that it's basically first-person written in third-person, it really drives me crazy. Especially when the protagonist is constantly doing stupid or illogical things.

However, I can think of a few first-person books that I wish had been written in third-person (or had a whole other person as the narrator) because that particular perspective was such an off-putting head to be in. One in particular that comes to mind is told from the point of view of a demon and while he is thus understandably (within the mythology of the book) unfeeling, it was the most bizarre read because every time he should have had an emotional response and didn't I was completely pulled out of the story.

I will say, for me, good writing goes a long way for me and can often be the deciding point of whether I like a book or not. (Really poor writing sets my teeth on edge.)
Yes! If I'm not getting anything outside your head, why am I not all the way inside your head?

tiferet

6 years ago

tiferet

6 years ago

Perspective to me is irrelevant as long as it's a good story and well written. Honestly I never stopped to consider it.

When I read anything, at some point I cease to perceive that I'm reading words and it becomes a movie in my head whether it's written in third or first person. Maybe that's why it doesn't matter to me.
I do have to wonder how you'd react to a story that was written in the "wrong" perspective for the story it was telling.

jenjen4280

6 years ago

seanan_mcguire

6 years ago

jenjen4280

6 years ago

There's very little done with point of view that will really throw me out of a story or seem odd/unusual. I prefer working with third-person as a writer because I like having a large cast and following two or three of them around primarily, but this is a personal preference only. As a reader, I find it rarely matters. A lone exception might be first person present tense stories, which seem very odd and disconnected to me at first. I had to struggle through the first few chapters of The Hunger Games because of that.

Then, of course, there's second person, which should be reserved exclusively for "Choose Your Own Adventure" books.
Word.

jenrose1

6 years ago

Really depends, I agree, on who is going to see what the reader needs to know, and how important the primary character's voice is to making the whole thing gel. If Jim Bob sees something utterly plot important that the reader has to know about, but he's not your main character, you've got a problem if your main character doesn't happen to be with Jim Bob at the time, particularly if Jim Bob buys the farm before he can tell Protagonist about it. I guess you can do the "one time perspective"...but I usually hate that, when the rest of the book is entirely from another viewpoint.

At the same time you don't want your POV character to 1. know things that will just destroy the suspense of the book or 2. play "I know something you don't know!" with the reader (I HATE THIS. HATE HATE HATE.) I think George RR Martin's the master of this in the Song of Ice and Fire--with one notable exception in the first book, none of his POV characters know things the reader can't know and none of them know the plot.

I've noticed that urban fantasy tends towards the first person. I think this often works well for the genre, particularly when we have a POV who knows how his/her world works, or more specifically, how it works differently from the world the reader inhabits.
Right. It lets you data dump a lot more naturally.

beable

6 years ago

beccastareyes

6 years ago

aliciaaudrey

6 years ago

drcpunk

6 years ago

Deleted comment

I don't know. Sometimes I wish I didn't.

I like all POVs, but only when they're right for the story. I think knowing which one to use is a hugely important part of the outlining process.

Deleted comment

jenrose1

6 years ago

Perspective doesn't matter as much as whether and how the protagonist is a sympathetic character, at least to me.
Fair.

drcpunk

6 years ago

I grew up reading a lot of traditional High fantasy, and so third person just became ingrained as to how books should be. It was weird and bizarre to 13yo me when I first discovered books that were written in first person - it seemed like the easy way out, because obviously (my tiny know-it-all brain claimed) anyone can write a diary, right? It also seemed like it led to a lot of different books sounding the same, and as I was used to getting bits and pieces from all over the place and trying to pick up the plot from that, the tight perspective was really frustrating. I percieved only knowing what the one character did as well limiting, and if exposition was dropped in found it disappointing, because clearly we were only being told that piece of information because it was relevant, so now we knew what was going to happen, how dull.


...My opinion on the matter has changed, obviously. I still think first person can be unweildy in the wrong hands, but having read a lot more of it I know just how hard it can be to create unique, complete characters when the reader gets to live inside their head, and damn do I respect it more. First person looks like it's hard to write, making things come natural takes effort. So. I tend to go more for the quality of the book than the perspective these days, though it's taken a lot of training. And at times there's still that automatic flinch of surprise when something's in first and not third person, because tiny!me is still in there somewhere going 'but that's not how books ought to be.' Thankfully tiny!me isn't the one with the wallet.
I also grew up mostly on third person, although, for me, discovering first person was sort of a revelation. It was like a campfire story that I could take to bed with me. Best. Thing. EVER.

alexwearspants

6 years ago

seanan_mcguire

6 years ago

drcpunk

6 years ago

I used to have a problem with first-person narrative, in that I considered that narrator to be 'me' and if they were a lot different from me (being, say, a girl and I'm not) it broke that. I think that I evolved my reading style so that I now treat it as someone else telling me the story (which, as you say, in most cases means that they survive, but I'm not usually too bothered about knowing that).

In third-person narrative I do prefer that the majority of the time it's still from a perspective of what that person knows. Not totally, but if it gets too 'omniscient' I lose interest, and jumping around between viewpoint characters needs to be very well signalled otherwise I lose whole chunks ("Wait, why's he doing that? Oh shit, this is /her/, when did that start?").

But the 'person' bothers me a lot less than the tense. There are few books where I actually like the use of present tense (Neal Stephenson's "Snow Crash" is one of them), it's hard to do without sounding like a screenplay (NS managed, but he seems to keep getting into my head and finding a style I dislike and then using it and making me like it!). Occasional use can work, though, as in Roger Zelazny's 'hell-rides' which switch into present tense for immediacy and then switch back afterwards.

As for future tense, I don't want it. Things like "Little did he know that he would lose it all in the nxet week", and chapter headings like "In which the hero finds out that the Daft Wader was his father", which were common in Victorian writing.

And then there's Charlie Stross's "Halting State" written in present tense SECOND person! I never thought that could work (for anything apart from computer games: "You are in a room. There is a troll here. What do you want to do?"), but he actually did it well. I think the sequel is due out fairly soon...
It's amazing what can be done, if you're good. Dark Harvest is another second person that worked.

ladymondegreen

6 years ago

tiferet

6 years ago

drcpunk

6 years ago

I very often don't like first person in novels, because it can easily feel overly familiar - and most especially if I don't like the POV character. (I can count the exceptions to that on one hand. You make the list of "first person done right." Others include The Name of the Wind and I, Jedi.) However, even if the first person perspective annoys me (for instance, the Tawny Man trilogy, which I otherwise love to bits, I really don't like the POV character and find myself constantly trying to read out of his point of view to get what's -really- going on) I'll still stick with a book or series for its plot, supporting characters, or world. (Or, heck, embedded poetry, for which I have an unreasonable love.) Rather than being immediate, I find first person to remove me from the story - I am reading a story someone else is telling me ("and then I did this, and then I did that") rather than being able to immerse myself in it the way I can with third person.

I am a big fan of third-person POV hopping - putting together a story from lots of little disparate bits, especially if those bits don't immediately mesh, is one of my favorite ways to read, if the world is solid enough to do it. But that's a personal taste, and hard to pull off, and it doesn't always suit a story; it too can be incredibly jarring when done badly, especially if characters fail to act and react like people.

It's definitely fun to think about. :)
Absolutely!

Deleted comment

Personal issues make sense, and wow, you must hate unreliable narrators. I try not to have my narrators outright lie. It seems...tacky.

Deleted comment

seanan_mcguire

6 years ago

drcpunk

6 years ago

seanan_mcguire

6 years ago

tiferet

6 years ago

tiferet

6 years ago

Deleted comment

tiferet

6 years ago

Deleted comment

tiferet

6 years ago

I originally wrote Spellbent in third person limited ... back when I began the book (and before I had either the notion I was writing specifically an urban fantasy or significant familiarity with the conventions of the subgenre) I briefly considered writing it in first person. But I discarded that as being simultaneously too easy somehow and also too limiting.

Of course, my first editor advised me to re-write the novel in first person (and it was implied it might be a dealbreaker if I didn't). A bit of angst on my part ensued, because I had some crucial scenes where the protagonist is off-stage, but I got it sorted out. There have been times in the subsequent novels where I've wished I could use third person -- there's a lot of stuff happening offstage in Switchblade Goddess, for instance. But at least it gives me material for short stories etc.

As a reader, I've seen plenty of books written in third person that have seemed just as immediate as first person. It does take a bit more to keep it as immersive, I think, but good writers can do it. And for authors who have various series in first person, I think there's a greater challenge to keep the different narrative voices distinct.
Good writers can definitely do it. I definitely read, and love, a lot of third person. The trouble is that sometimes, that's not where a writer's strengths lie, and you wind up with something awkward.

las

6 years ago

seanan_mcguire

6 years ago

las

6 years ago

The novel I'm currently working on is a first-person immediate UF. (Well, it's not really UF in that the setting is an otherworldly citystate with modern-equivalent technology run off crystals and magic rather than present-day Earth, but whatevs.) And over the course of writing it, I've wrestled a lot with using such an immediate voice. One reason I think first person works so well with UF is that there's usually some sort of crime, puzzle or mystery to be solved, and if the narrator is getting all the relevant info at the same time as the reader, it helps keep the suspense up, as both are, as it were, solving the case synonymously. On the other hand, the law of conservation of detail can really erase that advantage, because with such an immediate POV, there's less impetus to include (or, as a reader, to assume the presence of) gribblies, making it easier to guess the intended plot trajectory. Or, put another way: any seemingly extraneous detail about the worldbuilding mentioned early in a UF plot is probably some species of Chekhov's Lecture.

Lots of times, I've wondered whether this particular story would be better off in the third person, so I can jump to other character POVs. But in the end, I've kept it as is, because changing would inevitably require spoilers I want to use for later books in this series; that, and I really love the voice of my narrator. I'd hate to lose that by writing her from third rather than first. So, yeah. It's definitely an interesting question!

Sounds fun!

archangelbeth

6 years ago

sysrae

6 years ago

archangelbeth

6 years ago

I think that, for a writer, the various perspectives are tools that you should bring out when they're most appropriate. As you observed, there are stories that really need a 3rd-person perspective to be told. There are stories that make the most sense in first-person. There are stories that only work with an outright stream-of-consciousness. Sometimes having a clear, distinct narrator telling the story is valuable; other times it gets in the way.

What does it come to?
Well, it's the author's choice, of course. Unfortunately, sometimes authors use the tool with which they're the most comfortable, not the tool that's the best for the job. But who am I to judge?

I think the second-worst sin, when it comes to perspective, is to carelessly transition between perspectives. To be giving a story in first person, and turn it into 3rd-person without giving a shift. This confuses the reader and is I think the sign of a careless author.

I think the worst sin about perspective is that schools do not, as a general rule, teach people how to use it at all. Whichever technique, it's a tool, and where would I go to learn these tools? But, at least from my own experience, whereas we were exposed to oodles of literature*, we didn't spend much, if any, time learning how to write fiction with any perspective. Lots and lots of time on essays, but not so much on formats, both fiction and non, which we'd actually use. And I'm of the opinion that is the biggest sin about perspective.


* what literature and why is a rant for another day; hits some important points in my opinion
I think you are very probably right.

tiferet

6 years ago

If you see a shark within the first five minutes, it's not an evil sharks movie

off topic
my first thought was I would totally watch a horror movie about evil humans from a sharks perspective.
I'm not sure how they would ever do it, but it could be up syfy's alley
Yes.

So would I.

jenrose1

6 years ago

tiferet

6 years ago

shadowkitty

6 years ago

seanan_mcguire

6 years ago

I must say, not interuppting family gatherings with a horrible demon monster is something I struggle with a lot.
Sad but true.

tiferet

6 years ago

taraljc

June 21 2011, 16:25:02 UTC 6 years ago Edited:  June 21 2011, 16:26:33 UTC

I am still weirded by the pervasive nature of 1st person narrative. prior to starting to read the current batch of YA/Paranormal novels, the only place I really had encountered it was in Raymond Chandler.

As a writer, I still prefer limited 3rd with a POV character. I choose the POV character based mainly on what I want the audience to know, and what I don't. And I tend to stick with that same POV all thr way through in shorter fiction (7000-10,000 words), and have a small number of multiple POV characters in long stories and novellas. But as a reader, with the exception of present tense and 2nd person, usually I'm pretty forgiving. And resent tense still kinda wigs me (except in Practical Magic where somehow it works).

But then, I'm weird.
Aren't we all?

taraljc

6 years ago

seanan_mcguire

6 years ago

taraljc

6 years ago

I just finished studying Jane Eyre for college, and the teacher pointed out some point of view stuff. Like, the book is written by the Jane Eyre of the last page, who sometimes passes judgement on the Jane Eyre of the page you're reading. Most of it is in past tense, but then it drops into present tense for really emotional moments, mostly to do with Rochester.

I've been reading some paranormal romance that seems to be very much in the tradition of Jane Eyre when it comes to choosing between the guys - restrictive-saint vs passionate-sinner, rejecting both until you can stand on your own anyway - so this is what sprang to mind on point of view.
also the 'paranormal' bit makes a lot of different thought processes accessible whatever point of view you start from. I've read bits that were like first person omniscient, they were in the minds of everyone in the room.

seanan_mcguire

6 years ago

I am starting to not be a fan of Third Person Omniscience, specifically in cases where we are looking over the villian's shoulder. I have seen it used to make the villian's actions plausible, and it is starting to feel a bit contrived.
Uck.

Yes.

drcpunk

6 years ago

maverick_weirdo

6 years ago

drcpunk

6 years ago

I remember this one fantasy book I read which was told in either first person or limited third person. In any case it stuck with one protagonist. During the plot the protagonist had to go off and do something while someone else had to go and get a unicorn hair. The protagonist finished his thing and all of a sudden the other person had come back with the hair. And I remember thinking the entire time "when am I going to see them getting the hair?" It startled me to find out it already happened and I didn't get to see it.

That being said, I can see why a lot of UF are written in first because they tend to be mystery-detective novels like the old Raymond Chandler books. Or even a bit like Perry Mason. (I would maybe like to see a few more less snarky types though.)

Personally I tend to go for 3rd person limited because I like jumping around to the different characters doing their things and seeing how they react to stuff.

And possibly because I think in third person. Well, at least, I sometimes feel that I have a narrator person narrating my life. Kinda like what happened in Stranger than Fiction - but without the "little did he know part".
Third person limited that doesn't stay tight on one character is cool. Third person limited that never wavers, no matter what, bugs me.

tiferet

6 years ago

A taxonomic note: it may be appropriate to distinguish, at least slightly, between "urban fantasy" and "modern paranormal fantasy" (particularly as the latter blurs and blends into "paranormal romance"). The first-person convention is considerably stronger on the paranormal/romance side of the playing field, I think -- when I use the phrase "urban fantasy", I'm looking at the category that largely originated from Emma Bull's War for the Oaks and Charles de Lint's Moonheart, both of which are written in third person. I also note before proceeding that I definitely characterize the Toby books as more properly "urban fantasy" than "paranormal" by this yardstick, first person narrator and all.

I like a good first-person narrator, and I enjoy writing first-person material. I do think that the modern-paranormal genre is a trifle top-heavy with snarky, wisecracking first-person heroines -- and I clearly haven't been reading enough to have found the third-person books mentioned above. But the first-person POV is enough of a genre convention that I can deal with it so long as the underlying plot logic holds up. At the same time -- and looking back, here, at both Bull and de Lint -- I think third-person narration is, at least sometimes, better positioned to convey the sheer sense of wonder/Otherness that I find compelling in the best urban fantasy. (And I add that the Toby books, for my money, do much better than most other first-person narratives at putting across just that wonder/Otherness.)

It is perhaps ironic that the urban/paranormal series I'm most annoyed with on narrative grounds is, in fact, a first-person series. My problem in the specific case is not strictly with the choice of viewpoint -- it's that the magic system the author postulates (which I found fascinating and original) creates some specific and very tricky challenges with respect to maintaining a first-person POV, and in the course of the first two books it seemed to me that the author failed to either properly exploit or abide by the strict terms of the system she'd established. Which was frustrating as h*ll, because I very much wanted to see the setup pulled off successfully, and it just didn't work for me. Like Our Hostess, I won't name that author or series here; other folks' mileage may vary, and it isn't necessary to name the work to make the particular point.

As an aside, the shift toward first-person narrators is by no means limited to fantasy. Genre mystery, most especially in the "cozy" subcategory, is tilting sharply toward first person narrators in my recent experience. Which is interesting in some respects given the particular plotting issues that arise in structuring mystery novels. Broadly speaking, I think I'm somewhat less tolerant of first person narrators in mystery (or at least of annoying first person narrators, which is a slightly different can of worms).
I don't think that's a necessary distinction. Urban fantasy has shifted and evolved, and is now a very large genre consisting of probably 80/20 first person/third person narrators. The older books were still working from epic fantasy conventions, and in epic fantasy, you almost never have anything but third. If we only let the first "type" of book to fall into a genre keep the label, we'd be running out of genre names by now.

Some very interesting points!

tiferet

6 years ago

seanan_mcguire

6 years ago

tiferet

6 years ago

I have a friend who keeps telling me "first person doesn't sell," and I think it's because she's getting her advice from people who aren't genre-specific; I'm writing young adult fantasy and I couldn't throw a dart blindfolded in a bookstore without hitting something in first person, at least as far as the YA shelves are concerned. Have you ever run into anyone who's seriously resisted that perspective, though? I've known a couple readers who do, but it seems like much less of a problem in SF/F than some other literary niches, which I do find interesting.
I have not. Then again, I largely read in-genre.

Deleted comment

*nodnod* All relevant factors.
Previous
← Ctrl ← Alt
Next
Ctrl → Alt →