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
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!

gribblies??

(Context suggests: minor details that are worldbuilding-relevant, not plot relevant. But it's not a word I've heard before!)
Your context analysis is correct :) From memory, it's a word I stole from the DVD episode commentary/behind the scenes detail of Firefly - it's always struck me as being a very onomatopoeic and appropriate term, which is why I always forget that it doesn't appear to be in usage anywhere else. Alas!
Hee hee! It is a cute word, definitely! Thanks for the source-data on it!