1st Person Vs. 3rd Person

[JANE007]

I have been writing my current ms in the 1st person, however I am wondering how the tone of the story would change if I were to write it in 3rd person instead. Does 1st person draw the reader in more than 3rd person? My story is very much about the life of one character, so throughout the story you hear her voice and get her perspective.

I think in some situations it is definitely more personal to write in 1st person so that the reader will become more attached to the MC. On the other hand, I think that 3rd person stories offer greater range in perspective on the thoughts and actions of the characters involved.

Which is your preference and why? Have you ever done a re-write in 1st or 3rd person? Are 1st person stories easier or harder to pitch?

 

[scarletpeaches]

My own preference is for third person limited. I found that naturally, I used to write third person omniscient, but drifted a lot, strayed from what was essential to the story and jumped in and out of people's head. So I tried first person and found it too restrictive; I was spending too much time in one person's mind and the page was littered with I's and Me's. I have settled into third person limited as it enables you to describe various things that wouldn't occur to the character - to be simplistic about it, why would someone writing a book tell you the colour of their own eyes?

And the whole tone of first person is more conversational than I would like. At least in 3rd-limited you can go inside your heroine's head but still describe other things happening around her that perhaps SHE wouldn't notice, but a silent bystander would.

It's a bit Goldilocks for me. First person is too limiting, third person is too loose, but third-limited is just right.

 

[stormie]

For me it depends on how I feel the story needs to be told. I tend toward first person, and yes, it seems more personal. But then there are stories where I need to tell it in third person omniscient. It's just the way it formulates in my head. One time I did try switching the story from first person to third person limited, and it came out sounding stilted. Think about it: You have a sentence in third person that reads "Her tear-stained face looked haggard." When switching to first person, she doesn't know she lookes haggard, unless she's looking in the mirror. So it would become "I cried for so long, my hair stuck to my cheeks." (Or some such sentence--you get the drift!)

 

[maestrowork]

If you find yourself focusing on just one character and going inside the character's head all the time, 1st person might be good. It's more intimate and you can experiment with a unique voice for your character.

 

[maestrowork]

You have a sentence in third person that reads "Her tear-stained face looked haggard." When switching to first person, she doesn't know she lookes haggard, unless she's looking in the mirror. So it would become "I cried for so long, my hair stuck to my cheeks." (Or some such sentence--you get the drift!)

Umm, just because you're in 3rd person limited doesn't mean you can break POV. You still can't observe what your character can't see or hear or smell... I think people are confusing 3rd person limited to omniscient.

 

[scarletpeaches]

In 3rd person limited you're not breaking point of view if you describe the way your main character looks. You're writing he/she/it/they, which is third person, and making your MC your focal point, which is limited. Of course, they wouldn't see that unless they are looking in a mirror but to say 3rd-limited means you can't describe what the MC can't see is to say it's exactly the same as 1st person, which is untrue.

I would describe the way my MC looks without having them look in a mirror, for instance, but I'm not inside their head, using I/me/us, so it's still third person, only I choose to restrict myself by using limited viewpoint. It makes my writing tighter, but still has a little leeway, such as in the situations I've just mentioned.

 

[dawinsor]

Why not try converting a bit of your story to first person and see what it gives you? I've done that and been startled by how it shifts my voice. I don't want to use first person all the time because I find it difficult to keep sounding like the character rather than my narrator, but it was a useful exercise. I got to know my character better.

 

[maestrowork]

but to say 3rd-limited means you can't describe what the MC can't see is to say it's exactly the same as 1st person, which is untrue.

3rd limited is like first person. The only difference is, the MC is not the same as the narrator, and also, you can rotate POV characters.

You can't write:

Jack waited in the room, thinking to himself that he was trapped. He looked pale. Outside, the candles flickered. (Jack's POV)

But you can write:

Jack waited in the room, thinking to himself that he was trapped. (Jack's POV)

# (scene change)

Outside, the candles flickered. Jane grimmaced as she opened the door. She entered and saw Jack's pale face. (switched to Jane's POV)

 

[sunandshadow]

I think that which is the better choice depends on what you want to do in your book. If you want to explore one character's psychology, memories, emotions, sensory impressions, and unique way of looking at the world, 1st person is the way to go. But if you want to talk about the objective physical world and events happening in it, then 3rd person is better.

 

[scarletpeaches]

dawinsor, I've tried that, and it doesn't 'fit' me. When I try to write first person it's a chore and it seems stilted. I'm definitely a '3rd' writer.

maestrowork - I see your point. 3rd limited lends itself to intimacy/immediacy with your MC and yet enables you to head jump if you so choose (with a break for a change of scene or character of course), but something about it forces you to be aware of the show don't tell rule, which is why I like it.

 

[Sembre]

I prefer third person limited. I find it's easier to describe characters, settings, ect. than in first person.

IMO, first person only works well in diaries.

Sembre

 

[maestrowork]

1st person doesn't mean you can't describe people, settings, etc. and it doesn't mean "show, not tell" doesn't apply. I think most people fail with 1st person is because they become too internal. The trick to do 1st person well is to externalize feelings and emotions by showing, not telling. If done well, 1st person adds a level of intimacy that 3rd limited might not have. But by all means, don't start dwelling on inner turmoil and feelings and thoughts when you write in 1st person.

 

[Sembre]

Indeed, maestrowork. As you said, more often than not first person brings you closer to the character. (If it's done well, anyway. Sometimes the author just goes on and on about this and that and I can't connect with the character at all.) In my opinion, it's easier to describe everything in third person POV. Often the character's too busy to notice everything, and as you read only what he/she is telling you, you only get the basic setting. At least in third person you can describe a little bit around the character without the 'I noticed's and 'there was's.

Sembre

 

[Niesta]

I like first person because you can really create an idiosyncratic voice. Everything the narrator comments on becomes part of the characterization. That said, I think it's more difficult to be objective (which some stories need) and to avoid drifting from idiosyncratic into distracting. The character has to be interesting enough to be a narrator, but not so overbearing that the reader gets sick of her. That can be a tricky balance.

 

[cwfgal]

But you can write:

Jack waited in the room, thinking to himself that he was trapped. (Jack's POV)

Thinking to oneself implies a wholly different POV where mindreading and mental telepathy come into play.

I love first person because of the intimacy it brings to the story but it has to be done well. Most of what I write and read is in third person, sometimes limited, sometimes not, but I tend to recall and relate to first person works more. To me, the sentence, "Jack waited in the room, realizing he was trapped," doesn't have the same sense of immediacy as, "I looked around the room and realized I was trapped."

I think every story has its voice -- some may be better told in first person while others are better done in third. The trick is in figuring out what your story needs.

Beth

 

[stormie]

Umm, just because you're in 3rd person limited doesn't mean you can break POV. You still can't observe what your character can't see or hear or smell... I think people are confusing 3rd person limited to omniscient.

My mistake. Should have clarified.

 

[Danger Jane]

I've just lately become really comfortable with first person, and I've come to love it a lot, for different reasons. But third person can also be nice...however, it's harder to keep the reader guessing in some ways, especially if you start going off into tangents or being way-omniscient, ven if you don't want to reveal it all. There are pros and cons to each...as in a lot of circumstances.

It can be refreshing and helpful to describe a scene in a different person. You might get a different take of your characters or situations, and it makes their own view of events more potent to you, the writer.

It can be fun to switch between them, to some degree. The really major thing I'm working on is a novel in diary format--first person...lol--but being read by the MC's daughter. So there are very occasional third person...interludes...and they are somewhat intruiging to me, as the author. But too liberal, and they'd be gimmicky.

 

[JANE007]

Interesting perspectives... Thanks for your input. The more I thought about it, the more I decided that keeping it in 1st person was best. I took a couple of paragraphs and recited them in the 3rd person and it didn't quite have the same impact.