Related to Format

[Makai_Lightning]

Warning: this will be a rather long winded question.

The simple question is; can I get away safely deleting my prologue/preface? It's not quite that simple, because otherwise I wouldn't need to ask. Onto the explaination.

The format of my book is not traditional. It was mostly written so I could experiment with things I haven't tried doing before. I never really wrote in 1st person before, so that's what I used for the majority of it. The thing is though, I have a section that was an honest narrator in 3rd person.

I know, you're supposed to pick one POV and stick to it. Changing from 1st person into 3rd person is somewhat jarring, and is more likely to remind the reader that their reading than going straight through in something constant. Well, I am experimenting, so I'm going with it anyway and trying to make it work. I've disscussed it, and the thing is, that section is practically it's own story arc, and it takes place in the past, dealing with things that my narrator does know about, but wouldn't likely mention, especially given his tendancy to lie (or generally be misleading). The response I got after sharing some of my work was that the 3rd person sections were done really well, and they were really enlightening. I also got that it was a nice break from my narrator. Still though, I broke one of the rules: don't change perspective.

Here's how it was explained to me, in a way I can generally agree with. The reader and the author have a contract, and the reader comes into a book expecting certain things. Break the contract, and the reader won't be happy. What I got from the author that was helping me edit some of this was that the 3rd person part was well done, and it fit well, but because there's no way the reader would really expect that sort of shift, it's still most likely going to be jarring. So the solution she suggested (or I think it was her) was to have a small piece in 3rd person at the beginning, so that when I delve into it later it's not a complete surprise. Since the 3rd person section basically takes place in the past, dealing with things that actually matter in the present, I have no need for a formal prologue anyway. I start exactly where I need to start, on the edge of tension and where the action starts, though enough before it I can introduce a few things. The solution I had was to take a piece of the 3rd person section, fix it up a little, then move it as a sort of preface to the whole thing. At most it would be a page double spaced.

I don't really like the preface as it is. Personally, I think it doesn't make much sense and could just cause confusion. Actually, one of my friends that got sucked into reading it told me she thought it was interesting, but she had no idea what was going on. I also got that it was interesting and ended on a great line.


So basically, I have one wild mess of manuscript that needs fixing. I think I can pull breaking a few rules, but I have to do it right, or else there's no point. I'm not a literary god, which means I have to be careful.

I'm open to doing almost anything at this point, since I'm still editing, but I honestly want to try it out without having to do that.



Really, what I want to know more than anything else is if I can get away with deleting my preface. I might be able to get away with it and try to make it less confusing, but I honestly thing the beginning of chapter 1 is still the best starting place, and the most interesting place to start.

Any comment on how not to screw up on the formating would be nice too, though. I know I broke the rules. It seemed like fun at the time. At least I did it on purpose.

Hugs and cookies to everyone who reads all that. Chocolate for all who manage to help me. Then more hugs.

[blacbird]

For starters, I didn't read this whole post, because it's just plain too long. Secondly, there's no way to answer your question without reading the work itself. You need a trustworthy beta reader.

caw

[Makai_Lightning]

For starters, I didn't read this whole post, because it's just plain too long. Secondly, there's no way to answer your question without reading the work itself. You need a trustworthy beta reader.

caw
Thanks anyway. Sorry, I probably did overexplain that a bit. I'll try to fix it.

[Clarec]

Well, I think you've answered your own question, tbh. You don't want it, you don't think it adds anything and it's not particularly needed other than as a tool to facilitate the later change in POV. If I were you, I'd ditch it. I agree you should, in general, stick to one perspective but you can change if you want to and your story supports it. Other people have done it.

The best example I can think of is James Patterson. Way back when he was good (miow), one of the Alex Cross books changed from 1st person (Alex) to 3rd person (I think, that or 1st again) to another FBI agent (he *was* FBI, wasn't he? It's been a while since I read him). Anyway, I don't want to spoil the story but it was for a good reason and was convincing at the time because as a reader, I was hugely invested in the story and POV change made me desperate to keep reading to see what happened.

Jodi Picoult changes characters too, all first person and while it does work, I usually end up liking one character the most and speed reading the other characters to get back to my favourite.

So yeah, it's unusual and an agent might not like it so you might end up not keeping it but write the story the best you can and keep true to what you want.

Clare

[t0neg0d]

I hope someone actually reads this, because it may answer a few questions for me as well.

I despise 1st Person POV. I get a chuckle (and by no means is this at your expense) every time I see this, or similar circumstances, come up (here and other forums). Inevitably, everyone who writes a story in 1st person hits a point in their book where they are unsure how to proceed without changing perspectives and then decide to change perspective and explain why "this time" it's ok. They do this KNOWING that everyone else who has done this before them has hit the same issue, and I assume they are fairly confident that everyone after them will as well.

In AA (this is second hand info... so correct me if I am not stating this properly), this would be defined as INSANITY:
Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

To borrow the soapbox for a moment...

This brings up a question I have had for... well... ever. If 1st person POV has extreme limitations (which I am sorry to say, it does. You will never hear someone writing a novel in 3rd person "limited" say, 'I just could find a way of expressing my characters thoughts into/about a situation' or 'I hit a place in the story where I just can't see how the unlimited range of ANY character and setting will be enough to explain all that is needed to make this book enjoyable and understandable.'), then why do people bother?

Is it for the personal challenge?

To me, I liken it to building a mansion, and then...
Moving into the closet. >.<

Help!

Hmmm.... I get a hug, but no chocolate =(

[Toothpaste]

Well maybe some people do 1st person POV because it suits the story best, suits the tone of the story best, and can be done to very clever effect. I find your post a bit strange, t0neg0d. You seem to suggest because it is difficult there is no point in trying. Some people find the limitations of 1st person a brilliant way of exploring the world through a very narrow and subjective perspective. That alone can change the nature of an entire book.

Obviously you don't like it, but just because you don't like it and find it too challenging to try, doesn't mean that it can't be effective, and a valid literary form.

[t0neg0d]

Well maybe some people do 1st person POV because it suits the story best, suits the tone of the story best, and can be done to very clever effect. I find your post a bit strange, t0neg0d. You seem to suggest because it is difficult there is no point in trying. Some people find the limitations of 1st person a brilliant way of exploring the world through a very narrow and subjective perspective. That alone can change the nature of an entire book.

Obviously you don't like it, but just because you don't like it and find it too challenging to try, doesn't mean that it can't be effective, and a valid literary form.

I think you attempted to give an answer in this insult! I'll try and find it ;)

I did say I don't like it, I never said I found it too challenging. Don't take personal offense to my opinion. And please, no need for the interjected insults.

Thanks for the answer either way.

[Alon]

Orhan Pamuk's My Name is Red changes narrator every chapter. His narrators include a corpse, a dog, and a coin, though most are (human) main characters.

But then again, it depends on what you're writing. There has to be a literary reason for the shift in narration. I don't know if "The narrator wouldn't mention it" is a good enough reason. You could always turn it into a subtext that the reader has to figure out despite the unreliable narrator.

[blacbird]

Obviously you don't like it, but just because you don't like it and find it too challenging to try, doesn't mean that it can't be effective, and a valid literary form.

Naaaah. Ya think?:

Oliver Twist, Charles Dickens
To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee
A Clockwork Orange, Anthony Burgess
The Catcher in the Rye, J.D. Salinger
I Am Legend, Richard Matheson
Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, that guy . . . oh, what was his hame? . . . oh . . . oh . . . Twain! Twain! Something Twain!
all the Nero Wolfe mysteries, Rex Stout
all the Travis McGee thrillers, John D. Macdonald
all the Flashman adventure satires, George Macdonald Fraser

caw

[t0neg0d]

There has to be a literary reason for the shift in narration.

Can you expand on this a bit? Examples of 'literary reason'(s)?

Thanks in advance.

[ORION]

I dunno people seemed to like it when I did it in my book...

[Emily Winslow]

Makai Lightning, it sounds like the prologue isn't necessary. You say you don't like it, and I wouldn't expect it to do the job you created it for. Reading a short snippet of third person at the beginning wouldn't help me as a reader make a transition halfway through the rest of the book--I might not even remember it! Of course, I haven't read your manuscript, but that's my feeling from what you described.

T0neg0d, I adore the limitations of 1st person. For me, they're part of the point of the story. Each of my five narrators (six, if you count the epilogue) has an incomplete and inaccurate view of the plot. These differing views and wrong interpretations are much of what *drive* the plot. As for "moving into the closet," I think of it more as: "So this guy sits down in a restaurant that has like fifty different things on the menu, and he orders only *one* meal!" Limitation is often entirely appropriate.

[WordlyVision]

Whoever said it had to be a rule never to change perspectives? If it were law, I'd be arrested on multiple counts.

I was in your very same situation when starting to write my novel. I had a prologue planned, but didn't know whether first-person POV or a Third-Person omniscient would work the best when actually portraying it. The rest of my novel for certain was in third-person POV. There was also the issue -- if I indeed chose first-person for the prologue -- of how to transition from first-person to third-person.

My prologue ended up being written entirely in first-person POV, mostly because of the style of it -- what I was telling in the prologue and how I was telling it. Basically, my prologue was written in the form of a personal account of events that had previously transpired (taken place) long before the current setting in the novel. These events would later be brought up in the main conflict and climax of the novel, going from past to present. It was written much like a journal entry, and what are journal entries written like? They use "I" and "we" and "they" and are written generally by one person. So naturally, given what I wanted to write about in the prologue, the prologue was best written from a first-person POV.

But I still had the issue of transitioning like you do. For me, I found it easy to solve eventually because journal entries usually have a natural beginning and end, and since the events described have taken place long before the current setting, I actually found I could choose between continuing in first-person or third-person for the rest of the book.

For you, it's an interesting situation. The thing is it all depends on what you want to introduce or convey in this section that uses third-person POV and compare it with other chapters and events that have been written in them. Does it accomplish what you want it to better than if it were written from another POV? Notice the style. Ask yourself questions like,
"What does the last few previous chapters before that section talk about?"
"What am I introducing in this section/chapter?"
"What am I introducing after this third-person section?"
"Is there anything I can use from these chapters/sections to transition to this different POV?"
Experiment with different "mediums" or objects introduced in the previous chapters or sections. A memory, for example, can be written in first-person or third-person POV -- depending on what was introduced before it, what is introduced after it, and how they all relate to this memory. It could be as simple as a recap of events that have already happened, or something more complex such as someone telling a story, literally. It all depends on what the section is all about and how it relates to other parts of the writing.

As others have already said, if it doesn't perform its job as you intend it to, and it sounds confusing to you and others, it's probably best to get rid of it and keep the rest in the same POV.

[Alon]

Can you expand on this a bit? Examples of 'literary reason'(s)?

Thanks in advance.

For example, you could do it in order to make a point about there being multiple points of view from which to approach a subject. I've heard that Salman Rushdie uses this technique in Midnight's Children, though personally I had to stop reading the book about a third of the way through because the prose drove me nuts. I'm not completely sure why Pamuk does it. It's probably for the same reason: to show multiple characters' takes on the major conflicts. He has a general postmodern take on the world, but you don't need to be a postmodernist to do that.

[Willowmound]

I hope someone actually reads this, because it may answer a few questions for me as well.

I despise 1st Person POV. I get a chuckle...[etc][

This entire post is baffling to me. Literally nothing rings true here.

everyone who writes a story in 1st person hits a point in their book where they are unsure how to proceed without changing perspectives

WTF? Everyone? Really?

And then there's the "extreme limitations". As with any POV, 1st person has its own limitations and its own possibilities, and it's own effect on how a story reads.

Again, I must say, bizarre post. I don't get any of it.

[Bufty]

Your original post was not at all clear to understand, tOnegod, and I for one found nothing whatsoever insulting in Toothpaste's reply.

I think you attempted to give an answer in this insult! I'll try and find it ;)

I did say I don't like it, I never said I found it too challenging. Don't take personal offense to my opinion. And please, no need for the interjected insults.

Thanks for the answer either way.

[t0neg0d]

Makai Lightning, it sounds like the prologue isn't necessary. You say you don't like it, and I wouldn't expect it to do the job you created it for. Reading a short snippet of third person at the beginning wouldn't help me as a reader make a transition halfway through the rest of the book--I might not even remember it! Of course, I haven't read your manuscript, but that's my feeling from what you described.

T0neg0d, I adore the limitations of 1st person. For me, they're part of the point of the story. Each of my five narrators (six, if you count the epilogue) has an incomplete and inaccurate view of the plot. These differing views and wrong interpretations are much of what *drive* the plot. As for "moving into the closet," I think of it more as: "So this guy sits down in a restaurant that has like fifty different things on the menu, and he orders only *one* meal!" Limitation is often entirely appropriate.

Thank you, Winslow.

I do believe you are the first person (no pun intended) to answer the question without taking personal offense to it. Most appreciated. Thanks for the insightful analogy.

[Willowmound]

There was a question?

[t0neg0d]

There was a question?

Enough, thanks!

[Willowmound]

I still don't get it, but hey.

[t0neg0d]

Actually, since so many were confused by the post, I'll restate the question. I think I see where it comes across in a way I didn't intend.

I know, you're supposed to pick one POV and stick to it. Changing from 1st person into 3rd person is somewhat jarring, and is more likely to remind the reader that their reading than going straight through in something constant.

And then, comes the but...

This question has been asked many times before and inevitably receives the same answer from the same people.

I then asked why "people" bother to write in first person POV. This is where I painted a huge target on myself.

People = (or was meant to =) The people that hit this stumbling block and then don't bother to use the provided search function to see what has been said about the subject before.

So, I asked (here is the question... the ? should have been a hint) Why do people bother to write in this perspective? Is it for the personal challenge?

Then I was told it was too challenging for me! And then someone was kind enough to list a slew of authors that have written books from this POV (who I am fairly sure never asked this question on this or any other forum). After this, it continued to go down hill.

My personal opinion of 1st person POV aside, the question is still valid. Though, obviously frowned upon. >.<

[Pup]

So, I asked (here is the question... the ? should have been a hint) Why do people bother to write in this perspective? Is it for the personal challenge?

One could say that about any facet of writing. Why do people bother to write novels, because look at all the questions about trying to cut 150,000 words down to 90,000? Or bother to write fantasy, because of the problems inherent in world building? And so forth.

First person seems the easiest and most natural story-telling form to me, because it mimics the way we each experience life. We don't know what's going on outside our own viewpoint, nor do we need to, to describe what's happening to us.

If it feels limiting when writing, I think it's because the author has envisioned a story where the reader needs to know things the main character doesn't. And yes, a story like that is probably best told in a viewpoint other than first. But in a story structured differently, where the reader doesn't need to know anything before the narrator finds out, it doesn't seem to me like a problem at all.

What one doesn't read, of course, are the posts from writers who don't run into problems with first person and therefore don't post questions about it. Those stories work just fine.

[Neurotic]

So, I asked (here is the question... the ? should have been a hint) Why do people bother to write in this perspective? Is it for the personal challenge?

Short answer, why not?

There's no way to know if something's too hard unless you try it. It'd get boring, telling the same story in the same way every time I wrote anything. I like to try new things and sometimes they work and sometimes they don't. Whether they work or not, I always learn something from it.

[Makai_Lightning]

There has to be a literary reason for the shift in narration. I don't know if "The narrator wouldn't mention it" is a good enough reason. You could always turn it into a subtext that the reader has to figure out despite the unreliable narrator.
No, it's not the only reason. Though it is nice. Honestly, I think it's kinda obvious where my narrator is lying, and from the context of everything else, what he's lying about. It really wouldn't be too just flat out delete the 3rd person part.

One reason I want to leave it in there is because it has it's own story arc that wouldn't make sense to go back into with the 1st person narrator. It's enlightening to know before continueing, because it comes at a natural break in the main story, and after the break things in general get more screwed up, so I thought it'd be nice to have a deeper understanding of character. My narrator is telling the story flat straight, so it just wouldn't make sense for him to tell it. I could work it in there, if I really needed too, and I marked the places I could put in the important information if I cut it out.
Also, it's supposed to mark a change in my MC. He changes a lot from section to section, and there's a change of urgency (if I'm wording that right), and I was trying to mirror that and his state of mind. I remember I had another reason when I did it, but I forgot, so I guess it wasn't important enough.


I then asked why "people" bother to write in first person POV. This is where I painted a huge target on myself.

People = (or was meant to =) The people that hit this stumbling block and then don't bother to use the provided search function to see what has been said about the subject before.Sorry if it's been asked before. I did search few a few things, and nothing had the answer I was looking for. My main question was whether or not I really needed the prologue to back up the style I was using, because against other advice I got I wanted to delete it, but not for a reason that really had to do with whether or not I needed a "warning" about a shift in persective. And I would just like to say; yeah, for me it's harder to get everything down in 1st person than 3rd, but it's not as if I couldn't continue without digressing into 3rd. I'd written out scenes I knew my narrator would lie about in 3rd, just for me, and I wrote out a few other things, and got the idea I could write out a 3rd person arc separetly. Like I said, I'm pretty sure it's obvious what my character isn't being straight about, and I'd bet most people can guess what's going on. Even if they couldn't, they could tell he was lying, so I could leave it alone and it'd be fine.

So, I asked (here is the question... the ? should have been a hint) Why do people bother to write in this perspective? Is it for the personal challenge?
I personally wrote in it because I hadn't before, and I thought it'd be fun to experiment with doing new things. Why write the same way I have been for years when there's something else I could try instead that might expand my ability? That's also why I was playing with perspective changes and the format. It's also good fun to completely be in this character while writing. There are things I need to fix about it, from lack of experience, but I can do that. 1st person makes it easier to delve deeper into the actual mind of a character, and playing with subjectivity is fun. It's a different kind of writing than 3rd, and that's a good thing. I like using the character's voice. You can do that in 3rd, but it's not quite the same. There are lots of reasons to use 1st person, it just depends on what you're going for.

[Clarec]

t0neg0d, I think the reason you feel you were jumped on is because you sounded (IMO) quite snide and scornful of 1st person POV. Fair enough if you don't like it, either to read or write it, and it naturally follows this dislike means you can't comprehend why people would choose to write in 1st person. But your queries might have been better received if you'd been a bit nicer about it. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion and that equally applies to people who *like* 1st person, even with all its limitations.

As for being more specific, I can only tell you what I like about 1st person. As far as reading goes, I prefer to read 1st person POV because I like to feel connected to a character, it gets me emotionally involved especially if it's a series and creates a sense of intimacy. I don't need to know what every character is thinking - if the story is told well, we find out what the author wants us to know from what the character is thinking or what he/she observes. Sometimes it's fun to find out things later on - think of the film The Usual Suspects. I love the way that film plays with us, the viewers, tricking us, lying to us and then shoving the truth in our faces at the end. Books can do that too, mislead, trick and play with us. I don't need to know what the author is thinking, I need to know what the MC is thinking.

And as for writing, I prefer to write in 1st person which is probably a natural extension of preferring to read 1st person. I like the challenge of conveying the story through my MC. I like to describe her feelings and reactions to the world I've created around her. Yes, there are limitations in not using multiple characters but that just provides a challenge - to filter everything through one character in a way that makes sense to the reader.

I hope this helps a little but if you really despise 1st person POV then nothing we say will persuade you of its merit. That's fine though, if we all wrote the same way, libraries would be dull.

For the OP, here is a Wiki entry that includes a section on multiple POVs which might help you decide what to do with your work.

Clare

[Toothpaste]

t0neg0d -

I apologise if you found my response offensive. I went back to read it and this is the only bit I could think could be misconstrued as such: "Obviously you don't like it, but just because you don't like it and find it too challenging to try, doesn't mean that it can't be effective, and a valid literary form."

I suppose the "too challenging" thing could be construed as an insult towards your writing abilities, and I am sorry for that. But I truly was simply working off of what YOU wrote. Which was: "If 1st person POV has extreme limitations . . . then why do people bother?" This was followed by "Is it for the personal challenge? To me, I liken it to building a mansion, and then... Moving into the closet."

These two thoughts combined together suggested to me that if something is very difficult, has extreme limitations, why would one bother? Your second phrase mentioned the word challenge and then suggested that taking on said challenge was ridiculous, a bit like, as you said, "building a mansion and then moving into the closet" (a simile I must admit I just don't understand).

You seemed to dismiss all of 1st POV because it was hard. I suppose though I did make a leap in assuming it was too challenging for you, but surely you can see how I could have made that logistical leap after you spent an entire post asking what is the point of writing it since it is so challenging? It implied to me you had tried it, found it challenging, and so stopped. How else would you know it was challenging without having tried it? Observing others certainly isn't enough, as everyone is different, and some in fact find 1st person easier than 3rd.

I too also found your post very dismissive of the artform, when it has been used to brilliant effect (you have now been given a few lists of authors). This could have been me reading into your post and I am sorry for that too.

I also found your post an insincere question asking why 1st POV works. Considering you began the thing with "I despise 1st POV" and ended with that mansion/closet simile, it appeared to me you were phrasing your opinion in the style of a rhetorical question. Thus I didn't think that you cared too much about the answer. Again, I guess I was wrong in that interpretation. Yet another apology from me for that.

Lastly, please re-read the first half of my post which read:

"Well maybe some people do 1st person POV because it suits the story best, suits the tone of the story best, and can be done to very clever effect. I find your post a bit strange, t0neg0d. You seem to suggest because it is difficult there is no point in trying. Some people find the limitations of 1st person a brilliant way of exploring the world through a very narrow and subjective perspective. That alone can change the nature of an entire book."

I defy you to tell me what is insulting in that. It seems pretty obvious, to me at least, where the answer to your question is that you implied was hidden deep behind my insulting post. I would suggest that your response post to me was just as insulting.

And for the record, I don't even write in 1st POV, but I have read books that are and think they are wonderful. (ORION's comes to mind!) So I am certainly not on the defensive, nor did I find what you wrote a personal attack.

[t0neg0d]

I hope this helps a little but if you really despise 1st person POV then nothing we say will persuade you of its merit.

This is truly getting worse by the moment. What on God's green earth makes you say I have an opinion about its merit? /boggle I despise spiders, I DO however understand and even agree they have merit--I can go as far as to comprehend that some people even like them >.<

I am surprised that so many can't put a distinction between these two different concepts. It seems quite a few (since the original post) have made the assumption that I am questioning its worth (merit) by saying I despise reading stories in first person. I am not in any way, shape or form saying anything about the value of the perspective, the story or the author by saying this. I wouldn't be if I sang it. I wouldn't, couldn't on a boat. I wouldn't, couldn't with a goat. I do not like them Sam-I-Am, I do not like green eggs and 1st person POV. =(

[Willowmound]

People = (or was meant to =) The people that hit this stumbling block and then don't bother to use the provided search function to see what has been said about the subject before.

So, I asked (here is the question... the ? should have been a hint) Why do people bother to write in this perspective? Is it for the personal challenge?



So, in other words, why do people who have trouble with this POV continue to use it?

That I cannot answer. (But maybe "they" ( ;) ) can).

[Clarec]

oops

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_of_view_(literature)

Clare

[WordlyVision]

oops

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_of_view_(literature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_of_view_%28literature))


It seems you're missing the last bracket on that URL; it's not hyperlinked as the rest of the text is (which sent me to a 404 page when I tried the link).

[Clarec]

You're right, that's wierd. It won't connect to the page but it's definitely there. If you type 'Point of view (literature)' into the Wiki front page, it finds it. Hopefully...

[Makai_Lightning]

oops

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_of_view_(literature)

Clare

The link's not complete, but I found the page anyway.

Thanks, but I do already know what each is used for (or at least I seriously hope so, because even when I was a kid I read writing textbooks for fun). The piece about other works that change POV was sort of nice, but I guess other than explaining that you don't have to strictly follow one POV it doesn't say much. (Not very uplifting though, because I didn't particularly love Dracula or Ethan Frome.)

What I'm getting is that I should just do what I think makes sense, as long as there's a reason for what I'm doing.

[Dreamer3702]

My current WIP utilizes both 1st and 3rd POVs. From the very beginning the MC is always done in 1st and two other minor characters are done in 3rd limited. However, the last scene of the book is in 3rd from the MC's prospective.

I did this not because I screwed myself by using 1st, but because the story required it. At the end, the reader discovers the MC was telling her story (thus the earlier 1st pov) to a counsel as a testimony for a friend. If the story went on past that last scene, it would all be in 3rd.

My point: You can use 1st and 3rd together, but make sure it is logical. Postcards from No Man's Land by Aiden Chambers (http://www.amazon.com/Postcards-Mans-Land-Aidan-Chambers/dp/0142401455/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215183232&sr=8-2) is a good example. Chambers uses 3rd for one character who is in the present and then uses 1st for a different character, who tells a story about the past (which of course has a lot to do with the present).

My suggest to the OP: read books that use multiple POV's like Postcards and see how other writers handled it. I can't remember if you said or not, but when does the first shift to 3rd happen? If it's within the 1st 3 chapters, I would say you're okay, but if it doesn't happen until half way through the book... then you have a problem. That can be easily remedied by reformatting or writing a 3rd POV scene to show up earlier in the book.

Good luck!

[Makai_Lightning]

Yeah, the problem was that the shift was a lot later. I was thinking of reformating it and moving it all around and interspacing the 3rd person scenes between chapters, but the problem I might run into there is that people might not care about any of it until later, or wouldn't care as much if it were closer to the front. I might be worrying for nothing there, because I did show the scenes out of order when I was looking for a response from some people, and they still said it was fine. My chapters are pretty long, which is where I might run into a problem too, depending on how long I wait to start interspacing things. So I guess what I need is to bribe about 5 people to beta it once I've done the major editing and try it formated a few ways and see what people say.

I could suck it up and just delete it too. I do think it works better if I leave it, if for no other reason than because in some ways it connects the past and the present and can make it seem like these characters had lives before the main story started. The 3rd person part includes one character that's dead at the time the main story starts, though he gets mentioned a few times. I think it develops a few of my slightly more neglected characters better too. I'm also reluctant to flat deleting it because of the responses I've gotten that said it was good, for one reason or another.

So anyway, I do have a few options.

And thank you for the book recomendations. Always looking for good stuff to read, and I've been going through more 1st person lately, though I hadn't run into much that changed perspectives. It sounds like I'm sort of just doing the opposite--using 1st for present and 3rd for past.

[gypsyscarlett]

There have been many novels where the author has switched from first to third person POV. It's never bothered me in the least. Other people may very well not like it. Everyone has their own tastes.

What matters is what you think. If you think that switching the POV is good for your novel- try it. Write it and see how it comes out. Maybe you'll love it. Maybe you'll hate it and decide to scrap the idea. But you'll never know unless you try.

[Dreamer3702]

Yeah, the problem was that the shift was a lot later. I was thinking of reformating it and moving it all around and interspacing the 3rd person scenes between chapters, but the problem I might run into there is that people might not care about any of it until later, or wouldn't care as much if it were closer to the front. I might be worrying for nothing there, because I did show the scenes out of order when I was looking for a response from some people, and they still said it was fine. My chapters are pretty long, which is where I might run into a problem too, depending on how long I wait to start interspacing things. So I guess what I need is to bribe about 5 people to beta it once I've done the major editing and try it formated a few ways and see what people say.

I could suck it up and just delete it too. I do think it works better if I leave it, if for no other reason than because in some ways it connects the past and the present and can make it seem like these characters had lives before the main story started. The 3rd person part includes one character that's dead at the time the main story starts, though he gets mentioned a few times. I think it develops a few of my slightly more neglected characters better too. I'm also reluctant to flat deleting it because of the responses I've gotten that said it was good, for one reason or another.

So anyway, I do have a few options.

And thank you for the book recomendations. Always looking for good stuff to read, and I've been going through more 1st person lately, though I hadn't run into much that changed perspectives. It sounds like I'm sort of just doing the opposite--using 1st for present and 3rd for past.

Welcome! :)

I wouldn't flat out delete it either especially if you feel like it needs to be there. You'll find a way to make it work. Another thing you might consider is writing a couple of new 3rd person scenes for the beginningish part of the book. They can be on the shorter side... you know, just something to take away the jar effect of having the 3rd show up around the middle.

Either way, I think you're on the right track. Good luck again!

[ORION]

As others have said it's hard to give advice on a work we haven't read. But here's my two cents.
There are times our vision of our book does not necessarily match our capabilities at that point in time or even our likes as a reader, but that doesn't mean we can't try it. If done well with a compelling story I think a variety of POVs are interesting. I would just power on- do what makes your story better and then let your beta readers decide. There are times I have "finished" a novel only to go back and completely change the POV.
You are afraid of "jarring" the reader? You can't tell if that will happen until you finish your book and who knows? Maybe a "jarring" affect will serve your story better and make your particular novel interesting and unique and not one of the pack...
It's hard to be in the middle of a project though and try to jump ship so to speak. First write it as your vision implies and then let it sit- have readers tell you what works for them and then revise if need be-
Look at "Only Revolutions" by Mark D... talk about a vision!
You ask what's best or good or possible?
Anything.

[Clair Dickson]

I don't know if this helps at all, but sometimes I have my MC (novel narrated in fist person) recall or think things without explain it. I can get in backstory or thinks she KNOWS but isn't necessarily going to spend a lot of time explaining or dealing with NOW. She might mention "I've done something like that before" to another character and think to herself 'But the results weren't as good. Especially the part with the gunshot and the hospital stay.' But I like backstory and history in snippets, best, rather than chunks.

I don't have a problem with changing POV. Enough authors have done it.

What I often find is that I end up thinking that many of those stories would be better if the author DIDN'T provide me that sneak peak (of, say, the killer at work or what the bad guy's doing) and left me in suspense as to what is really going on here. Then, when the time is right, the MC finds out and the reader knows.

[James D. Macdonald]

The simple question is; can I get away safely deleting my prologue/preface?
The simple answer: Yes.

In fact, you probably should.

[James D. Macdonald]

Novels that mix first and third person include:

Bleak House by Charles Dickens
The Alphabet Murders by Agatha Christie
Christine by Stephen King
The Apocalypse Door by me.

[Makai_Lightning]

Novels that mix first and third person include:

Bleak House by Charles Dickens
The Alphabet Murders by Agatha Christie
Christine by Stephen King
The Apocalypse Door by me.

Thank you! I've even read Christine, I forgot about that. Granted, I think I was 10, but that's really convinient since I still own it. Time for a good re-read.

And maybe off to the library...