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 →
I prefer third person as a writer and a reader. Even if it isn't an omniscient third person, I have to get over a gut-level balk I have at first person narrative. Authors like you make it worth it, but I have trouble with most first person fanfic.

ESPECIALLY with established fandom characters, first person seems presumptuous at some level. Which is not entirely logical (after all, just about all fanfic is presumptuous at some level...) but that's just what it feels like to me.

I have similar issues with tense. I see a lot of fanfic written in the present tense (and don't get me started on those that mix tense) that really shouldn't be. I only generally use present tense for very short things, for that sense of immediacy. Reading very long works in present tense makes me tired, but that may just be an oddity on my part.
See, with fanfic, I generally really want it to be third person. Those aren't your characters, your understanding of them isn't deeper than mine. I can be guided past that, but oh, it takes some work.

jenrose1

6 years ago

tiferet

6 years ago

graycardinal

6 years ago

tiferet

6 years ago

I prefer fourth person perspective, telling a whole story through the use of news report clippings, gossip column entries, and friend-of-a-cousin retellings. "So then my friend says that her cousin totally saw this glowing saucer beam up this couple making out in a car at an abandoned drive-in! And you know it happened, cause my friend wouldn't lie to me and her cousin is on a low-dosage of sodium pentathol at all times due to that court order! Oh m'god, totally!"

Kidding.
A story entirely in newspaper clippings and, I dunno, diary entries of people observing the protagonist and such, seems like it could be pretty cool. Probably difficult to pull off, but cool.

seanan_mcguire

6 years ago

tiferet

6 years ago

paradisacorbasi

6 years ago

archangelbeth

6 years ago

When I am writing UF, I tend to default to first person. Even when I begin writing in third person, I will suddenly notice a few pages in that I have switched over.

In a story I wrote recently, though, I had to take into account that there is a point later on where my protagonist is out of commission, and I need someone else to tell that chapter or chapters. I wrote the story in third person in order to be able to make that switch later on.

I find, though, that when I write in third person, it's almost as if I am writing in first person, as if that character is still telling the story, even though it says "she" instead of "I."

Of course, that may be precisely the sort of thing that bugs you.
Maybe it is! I don't know. I'd have to read a piece, in contrast to a less focused third person, to know.

djonn

6 years ago

I like limited third-person because then I can have a narrative voice that is different from the character's. Also, in my experience, some characters Will Not Do first-person. They do not talk like that. There is nobody they would conceivably tell this story to, no possible set of circumstances in which they would just spill all that out.

I like first-person a lot both as a writer and as a reader, but if there's any kind of minor glitch in it, I get very literal-minded and start wondering, when and where and to whom is the narrator telling this story? Sometimes that works out and sometimes it means I don't read more. One could get equally if not more literal-minded about third-person narration, but just because of my reading experience, it seems like the default to me, the transparent unmarked kind of narration, so I'm less likely to stumble in that direction.

P.
Two of my favorite books of all time have that sort of limited third, Fire and Hemlock and Tam Lin. In both cases, I honestly don't see how the story could have worked in the first, both for reasons of needing a certain tone, and for reasons of creating distance and mystery for the reader. My issue is more with books that use the limited third and then write a book that's still structured exactly like a first person narrative, if that makes sense.

I get the "there are things they would not tell." One of the things that bothers me most about modern urban fantasy first person is the amount of narrated first person sex from narrators who, quite frankly, shouldn't want me to know that much of their business!

pameladean

6 years ago

seanan_mcguire

6 years ago

tiferet

6 years ago

azurelunatic

6 years ago

(*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.)

Exception: Deep Blue Sea, which pulls an entirely different trick in its first five minutes.

Also, I have read some stories that were told first-person and end with the narrator's death. It's so jarring that it ruins what might be a good story otherwise.
I've encountered it as jarring, and as amazing. I think it depends on the writer at that point.
To be honest, before Rosemary and Rue, I usually avoided first-person books. I think my feeling was that with first-person, the readers didn't get an accurate portrait of the protagonist. Most of the romance novels I read are third-person, but the best ones are able to toggle between the two leads' perspective.

I think you write first-person very well, better than most authors I've seen. Toby doesn't intentionally keep anything from the readers, and she is certainly honest with herself.

I don't see second-person anywhere these days except for occasionally at Fanfiction.Net. Personally, I think second-person only belongs in the Choose Your Own Adventure books. I want to tell the second-person writers at FF.Net that unless they're giving me multiple paths to take, they need to take the time to make up a protagonist.
Good second-person has a protagonist who isn't the reader. I've read some. :)

ravenclawed

6 years ago

tiferet

6 years ago

ravenclawed

6 years ago

tiferet

6 years ago

ravenclawed

6 years ago

tiferet

6 years ago

ravenclawed

6 years ago

tiferet

6 years ago

ravenclawed

6 years ago

tiferet

6 years ago

ravenclawed

6 years ago

azurelunatic

6 years ago

azurelunatic

6 years ago

tiferet

6 years ago

azurelunatic

6 years ago

drcpunk

6 years ago

seanan_mcguire

6 years ago

seanan_mcguire

6 years ago

ravenclawed

6 years ago

Deleted comment

...I know you're not making that up, and it hurts my soul.

The "whiny" thing can be tricky. During one of the earliest drafts of Rosemary and Rue, I got a scene bounced back because Toby was too whiny. She said like six words in the scene, so I was confused...until I realized the reader was objecting to the narration.

stakebait

6 years ago

seanan_mcguire

6 years ago

drcpunk

6 years ago

Deleted comment

drcpunk

6 years ago

First or third only really matters when it comes to the style of the writer, or possibly the genre.

I find The Maltese Falcon to be a slightly frustrating read for this reason. We spend all our time with Sam Spade, we only really get his thoughts, and it reads like a first person book turned into third at a later stage. It would have fared better as a first person story. All of Hammett's best were first person.

Still though, one of the greatest detective stories ever written.
Agreed.
As long as it's well written I don't think it really registers with me. I didn't really think until I was halfway through Deadline that nearly everything of yours I've read was written in first person. Thinking back on it your point is also quite on the money in that most UF I've read has been first person. I tried writing a UF concept I had and while I normally write in third person this just naturally gravitated to be written in first person, so it may be as you say largely a genre specific thing.
I initially tried to write Discount Armageddon in third, because InCryptid short stories are always third. It didn't work.
It really depends on the story. I don't mind 1st or 3rd person as long as the story is good and it all works together.
Agreed.

Deleted comment

*nodnod*

Very good points, all.
I'm a fan of any perspective that is clear on who is talking. I kinda like knowing some of those secret things we are more like to hear in third person. Makes the story more interactive, to me, in the sense that my mind is often more engaged.
What sort of secret things are we more likely to hear in third person?

muddlewait

6 years ago

peachtales

6 years ago

peachtales

6 years ago

seanan_mcguire

6 years ago

peachtales

6 years ago

Would you mind sharing with us some of your favorite urban fantasy books/series? :)
Nope. I'll work on that.

calico_reaction

6 years ago

paradisacorbasi

6 years ago

Writing a novel in ridiculously close and limited third person was actually how I started to teach myself voice. Before that, I'd written in first by default, and was having trouble breaking out of a sort of generically sarcastic default and into an actual character. Trying third helped me actually get to know the character a little bit more instead of diving right into that one I was used to. I have no idea if the rambling limited 3rd person novel is actually readable to anyone else, but I'm fond of it. After that, I went back to writing mostly novels in first-person and mostly short stories in third. I'm usually not one for omniscient third, so I mostly use it if there's multiple narrators or I feel like the main character wouldn't be a very good storyteller.
But as far as reading goes, I honestly don't care, because I've seen both done forgettably and both done very well, and for me, it usually related back to how well-written the book was in general. I do love multiple narrators, though, and dislike overly omniscient third.

seanan_mcguire

6 years ago

It varies with the story. Some stories, though good, can't work with one or the other. Given a story that can work with either, I prefer third-person. It leaves the question of whether the protagonist lives more generally up-in-the-air and allows color and commentary that are not always possible in first-person. I do NOT generally like a highly-omniscient third person, however...they tend to be a bit overwhelming. (Which is not the same as a variable-viewpoint third person, as you note, which often works well. OTOH, variable-viewpoint can also be taken too far...if I get dizzy, that's too many.)

That said, if info is TRULY limited to what the protagonist perceives and knows and imparts, that is better accomplished by a first-person than third person narrative. And it is, as you note, immediate. (This is the reason why me being, even briefly, upset that George didn't tell us certain things had me laughing at myself for being silly, but a third-person authorial narrative closely following George and Shaun over the Feed storyline and leaving out the same details would have left me irritated, not laughing at myself. An 'impartial' authorial narrator creates expectations that normally a first-person narrator doesn't.)
Right.

drcpunk

6 years ago

For me as a reader, I feel like a narrator's effectiveness isn't so much about point-of-view. It's about how well the narrator knows why he or she is telling the story, and who that narrator thinks the story's audience is. Feed's narrator, for example, knows these things, and it shows.

If I may ask: when you're writing first-person narration, how much conscious thought do you give to the story's audience as imagined by the narrator, and about the circumstances under which the narrator is telling the story?
Quite a bit. The circumstance may be "after death, 'cause ain't no way this is getting said otherwise," but I generally know what it would have to be.
Neither option is necessarily better- if you're somebody who's intimate with the style. If you've practiced describing "yourself" in a non off-putting way, if you've practiced writing down everything that passes through "your" eyes because nothing else will see the paper, and oh- if you're willing to let "you" become a zombie. Only the top authors can pull this off, which is why I don't even consider it an option for 99.9% of us. Sorry to apparently flatter a certain someone, but it's true. I never write first person unless I wrote myself into a corner before I even started writing.
I don't think that first person is better, but in this case, it was just bizarre, because the book I was reading...it read like they'd written it in third just to be "different," and I don't think that's a reason to choose a POV.
I've only ever written two good stories in first person perspective. The first, the character was perfect for that perspective, as the character made a fascinating narrator. So much so, I plan to bring him into another story I'm working on.
The other was a case of "this story would benefit emotionally from this character narrating it from his perspective." And I was right.

Both stories were from the perspective of intelligent characters.

Otherwise, I always use third-person omniscient selective perspective. Sometimes I jump around, other times I follow a character. Depends on what the story needs. One thing I love most about TPOSP is I can dip into the characters' thoughts when I need to.

However, I like to experiment at times, and I have at least one other story planned which will utilize first person perspective, since the story would benefit from that perspective.
Awesomesauce.
I sometimes find with first person that i get dropped out of the story if they do / say something that I really wouldn't (I being the person-me, not the story-me). It doesn't happen a lot, but it's very distracting when it does as it takes a while to immerse myself back into the world again.

with third person, while it's not so immediate as first person, I find it easier to stay lost in the story / world as it's not "me" doing things *lol*
I can see that.
I tolerate first person perspective, but it is not, as a rule, my favourite. If the story/writing is good enough, the story will capture me and I won't even feel as much as it's done first person. The events as they happen will just carry me along.

I find it off-putting, but not overly familiar. It just bugs my sense of chronology that a story is being told by the person it happened to, particularly if it's written in "realtime" as if it's happening as it's being told.

I prefer third person omniscient because I like to know what the other characters are thinking and feeling too.

It kind of makes me sad, really, that first person seems to be the narrative style of choice for a lot of urban fantasy.
Eh. I like it.

paradisacorbasi

6 years ago

muddlewait

6 years ago

paradisacorbasi

6 years ago

muddlewait

6 years ago

If you'd have asked me this two years ago I would have said, "Third person all the way!!1!" But now I am older and wiser (marginally), and have read some really excellent books and online fiction that have used first person to great effect. Now I'm more inclined to say, "There are pros and cons to both. It really depends on what works for the story and what tone you're trying to set." Which...seems to be what everyone else is saying...haha.

Actually, in addition to what works for the story, I think it depends on the character doing the narration. For example, I can't imagine Shadow from "American Gods" doing first person narration. He just doesn't seem like he'd be comfortable with it, y'know?
Agreed with all points!
As a reader, I don't really have a POV preference. I'm pretty forgiving most of the time about POV unless something feels WRONG. For example, the the third-person limited you mentioned, the one that focused strictly on the protagonists' perspective, probably wouldn't bother me; I imagine it's easier for some authors to write from a third-person POV because, even when your focus is totally on the protagonist, third person still has a little more cognitive distance than first (and also doesn't have that obsessive quality that first person sometimes can). But by wrongness, I mean something like this: I read a book awhile ago that was a third-person omniscient perspective. I loved the book, and some of the characters were incredibly complex and well-developed. Yet some of the characters -- namely the villians -- were very one-dimensional compared to the rest of the cast, and it felt odd since we could, and did, get into their heads. It was my only complaint about the book, but it's a noteworthy one.

My other pet peeve: multi-first person POVs where EVERY CHARACTER SOUNDS THE SAME. Ugh.

As a writer, I have to consider POV a lot more carefully. I usually gravitate toward first person. I'm not sure why, but I've been that way for a long time; it probably has something to do with the immediacy, and being able to go deeply inside a character's head. That said, it's definitely limiting at times. While I was working on the first draft for my current work-in-progress, I realized that there was a TON of stuff going on that my narrator didn't know. It was frustrating because *I* knew what was going on, and I wanted to tell the reader, but I couldn't. However, it also meant that the story had a lot more suspense than it would have from a third-person POV, because the narrator is discovering these things as she goes along.
Excellent commentary!
I tend to prefer third over first because first tells me that the person survived at least long enough to tell the story, and thus removes suspense.

Also first basically means if I don't like the main character, I can't stomach the series. While that's probably always the way to bet, even a close third gives me at least a shot at sticking around if I like other parts of the ensemble. And a close third also for me is just as effective as first at removing the distance thing, though I know other people's MMV.

The other thing is that I find first person fail in the attempt to cram exposition or description into the framework particularly jarring. Perhaps because I am not a visual thinker I do not find the tradeoff worth while. (Not to say it can't be done well. Just that it's easy to do not so well, especially if you feel the info needs to be frontloaded, and it's a particular peeve of mine.)

That said, it's a mild preference and I totally get that some stories demand to be written in certain persons. And I do like the discipline that first or a close third provides in making the author get out of everyone else's head and show don't tell. I'm not as doctrinaire as some about never switching POV within a scene, but I do think it's an easy thing to do wrong or just too much.

The only one that's a dealbreaker for me is second person, which pisses me off to no end unless it's made immediately clear that "you" is a specific person that is not in any way intended to be me or any other real world reader. (Basically at that point it becomes a special case of the epistolary format). Fortunately second person is extremely rare.

These things make sense.

stakebait

6 years ago

seanan_mcguire

6 years ago

I used not like first person at all, but I realised that for me it depends on the main character. I have a tendency to love minor characters much more than main and I spent many first person novels going 'ugh, I don't want to read about you, I want to read about ___'.
That makes a lot of sense.
First reactions, before reading comment thread:

I am pondering whether my guess as to which the first book is happens to be correct. If so, I have some minor to middling issues with it, but the point of view is most emphatically not one of them.

I recall lots of 3rd person urban fantasy -- back when War for the Oaks and De Lint were at the center of the fuzzy set that was urban fantasy (credit to Atteberry for literary fuzzy set theory) -- but then, I'm talking UF, while you're talking UF/PR. So... I'm probably wrong about the first book.

First person can help when the protagonist is slow at picking up on things. But, here, length matters, as does writing skill, as does how fast the reader is.

So, in Late Eclipses, it's fine that what might be obvious to me isn't obvious to Toby. It isn't just that you're using first person. You're writing well enough that I know how freaked out Toby is by Oleander. You could do this third or first person, with the strength of your writing alone. First person makes more sense, sure, but if you'd been going third person limited to Toby's point of view all along, I doubt I'd mind.

But, it also matters that Late Eclipses is short enough that Toby being "slow" doesn't really last that long, either in subjective reading time or "objective" plot time. I recently read a duology where my issue wasn't that it was a third person narrative with multiple points of view and people who seemed slow on the uptake. The sheer length of the work meant that the slow-on-the-uptake trope, however well justified, got old. And, I had other issues with the work, but that's off topic here.

Subjective reading time may matter more. If I'm reading through slow moving chapters or even pages, I'll get more antsy. It's like subjective time in playing an RPG. I've had players in my email game get impatient at slow character improvement, and I've had to recalibrate. Even if something is taking only weeks or a month for the PCs, if it's taking years of player time, that is forever.

So, yes, point of view matters. But, it's only one of several things which matter.
The first book is one you have not read, since it isn't out yet, and I had no issues with the point of view.

A lot of things matter, yes. The point under discussion here was specifically the POV.

drcpunk

6 years ago

Previous
← Ctrl ← Alt
Next
Ctrl → Alt →