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
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!
Yes, that's a slightly curious choice; I will have to keep an eye out for limited-third books that could perfectly well have been first-person if the character was the right kind. The idea makes me kind of itchy, yes.

I have that problem with the sex in Sue Grafton's Kinsey Milhone books (the alphabet mysteries). She always starts with a precis of who she is and ends "respectfully submitted" as if she's reporting to an employer, and yet there are several fairly explicit sex scenes in some of the earlier books that really don't seem appropriate for that particular conceit.

P.
That's the sort of thing that chucks me straight out of a book. My suspension of disbelief simply doesn't stretch that far.
That's funny, but given the number of first-person narrators who turn out to be dead or are very different people at the end of a book than they were at the beginning, it doesn't usually occur to me to limit what characters say to things they'd be comfortable telling the world if they knew they were doing so. (Although I also wouldn't put those things inside of a case report format and end them with 'respectfully submitted', either.)

Which may be why I run across characters who won't tell ME things until they think I need to know them.

(I don't know if anyone else has ever had a character reveal their actual gender to them after 20-30000 words, but I really did not know that Lady Dracaena was Lady Dracaena and not the cross-dressing lord I thought she was until I got to the point where she told all of us, although I sometimes suspect that she didn't know, either.)
I find it also matters who the first person is speaking to. Mike tells me things that he totally would not tell anyone else, but he is enormously disinclined to be a first-person narrator. Connie might actually be a decent first-person narrator, because she's generally not chatting to me enough that her being chatty with me would get in the way of the story. (Mike would stop narrating and talk to me directly, and I have QUITE ENOUGH OF THAT without encouraging him. Besides, I asked him about first-person perspective, and I think he might do horrible things if I made him.)

Lovie has to be first-person, because she makes decisions that only make sense inside her head, and then she lies about them later. One can watch her do these things, and boggle and wonder how the fuck, or one can watch her narrate what she's done, and understand how the fuck, and still wonder how the fuck, but in new and exciting ways. One hopes that one does not want to punch her quite as badly after seeing the inside of her head. She is writing to her blog audience, I think.

If a character cannot convince me that they need to have first-person perspective, and they need to be the first person, then I don't tend to give it to them, on account of how they will RAMBLE ON about things that are important to no-one but them. I maintain that it takes a strong writer to be able to write strong characters first-person, and have been known to scream "WHY DID YOU LET HER NARRATE?!?! YOU'RE NOT LEVELED-UP ENOUGH FOR THAT!!!" at the page, where a character is rattling on at the expense of the plot structure.