Is 1st Person Ever an Excuse for Bad Grammar?

Michael Steven said:

Not really. Narrative is narrative and even in first person it's about the story, not just the character, otherwise there would be no need for narrative at all. You'd have dialogue and inner dialogue and nothing else. Narrative is a step back from the character -- imagine an action sequence purely in the character's voice. Perspective, yes. Voice? Hardly.

Click to expand...

Yes, really. Narrative in first person is most definitely NOT a step back from character. Narrative in first person is teh character telling us a story, exactly as we sit down and tell a story to our friends.

This is all first person is. It's someone who sits down across teh campfire from us, or across teh kitchen table, cup of coffee in hand, and who then tells us the story of what happened to him.

A first person character can be no one but himself, even in narrative. He cannot think, believe, act, or speak like anyone in the world other than who he is. If he does, then he is no longer speaking, the writer is, and this is always bad.

Poor grammar is sometimes necessary? Would you find a hillbilly speaking with perfect tenses and omitting prepositions at the end of sentences to be believable?

A broader question is what are the tradeoffs between clear communication and faithful representation of your character. The standard rules of grammar don't exist just as some sort of brain teaser for word nerds, they are there to establish an unambiguous interpretation of words. Not only grammar but sentence structure and word choice can help with that. In non-fiction, clear communication is the primary goal. In fiction, some level of clarity is required, or it's gibberish, but there are other considerations such as characterization and mood. These don't only apply in first person and dialogue. They apply in other POVs as well.

morngnstar said:

A broader question is what are the tradeoffs between clear communication and faithful representation of your character.

Click to expand...

i don't think there need be, or should be, any trade-off involved. Lots of fiction exists employing narrative characters who use other-than-formally-precise diction and grammar, and it can be as clear as anything else. Formally proper grammar does not equate to clarity or good writing. If you think it does, you need to delve into academic journals, or business memoranda.

It's the writer's job to communicate clearly, regardless of the grammatical style adopted for the narrative.

caw

Others have covered this very well. Bad grammar and colloquial grammar/usage aren't the same thing. For me, I find it easiest to get inside the perspective of characters who speak differently than I do if there are rules and patterns to how they use language. I think inconsistency is a common mistake less experienced writers make when they're trying to write colloquial speech.

blacbird said:

i don't think there need be, or should be, any trade-off involved. Lots of fiction exists employing narrative characters who use other-than-formally-precise diction and grammar, and it can be as clear as anything else.

Click to expand...

I think I can be clearer when I'm allowed to use complex sentence structures and advanced vocabulary. That doesn't mean I do so if the better choice is something simpler, it's just that I have more options.

Simple language can often be clear enough, but sometimes it can be just a bit better with some erudite diction.

Formally proper grammar does not equate to clarity or good writing. If you think it does, you need to delve into academic journals, or business memoranda.

Click to expand...

Formally proper grammar is not the only factor in clear writing, but it is a contributing factor.

Jamesaritchie said:

Have you ever read Huckleberry Finn? If not, go plant your butt and read it. Here's the first paragraph:

Click to expand...

I literally came here to say this. Hemingway said that it's the book from where all modern American literature sprouted and its grammar is absolutely poor. It's the only justification you need for having a character with bad grammar. Twain did it, why not you?

I think it's less to do with grammar as it is with the character's voice, as others have said.

For example, when I read the Hunger Games, I was really put off by the whole "first-person present tense" thing at first, especially when it came to filling in the readers on the backstory, which of course drives the action to a halt and takes the reader out of the moment. I nearly put the book down for that reason. It was such an odd stylistic choice that I couldn't get into it.

However, when it came to the part where Prim dies in book 3 I was glad Suzanne Collins did it, because it really helped to make that scene so much more visceral and gut-wrenching. As were countless other scenes throughout the series for the same reason.

So, all rambling aside, I think if you're going to go with an unusual voice for your character, it helps if there's a really big payoff for the reader because of it.

Jamesaritchie said:

Yes, really. Narrative in first person is most definitely NOT a step back from character. Narrative in first person is teh character telling us a story, exactly as we sit down and tell a story to our friends.

This is all first person is. It's someone who sits down across teh campfire from us, or across teh kitchen table, cup of coffee in hand, and who then tells us the story of what happened to him.

A first person character can be no one but himself, even in narrative. He cannot think, believe, act, or speak like anyone in the world other than who he is. If he does, then he is no longer speaking, the writer is, and this is always bad.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but that is a very narrow definition of what first person perspective brings to your story. As the author you can, of course, do exactly that, but you're close to claiming that's how all novels written in first person should do it. You could make the same argument for close third person perspective by the way.

That's where I adamantly disagree, and I see you mention Huckleberry Finn. To me that's a great example of how not to write. For the time it was a novel approach (pun not intended). Doing that today would meet with well deserved criticism.

Narrative IS a step back from the character. It always has been and it always will be. Why? Because that's a tool where the story gets told, and while the perspective doesn't change it gives you, the author, some space to operate. You don't have to stay in close perspective to the character here. It's still something they can see/hear/sense, but as the author you can elaborate on what actually is happening (descriptive narrative) before you drop back into the character's mind. It's for the benefit of the audience ... your readers.

Keep the flavor of the character's voice, but I recommend that you don't handicap your story-telling to fit as constrictive of a mold as you've mentioned.

There are several books that use bad grammar in their first person narrative, and they were on my AP Reading list. Two of the ones I remember best were The Color Purple and Their Eyes Were Watching God. However, there was a good reason for the writer to choose this narrative style in both these books. Both stories were told from the point of view of black women living only one generation after slavery who were both very poorly educated, neither of them having gone to school.

I have seen it used in other books too, like Room, which is told from the POV of a four-year-old boy who had never been outside. I don't think it would be as profound if you were telling it from the POV of a modern day teenager, but as long as you can justify it, it can work.

And as long as you spend a long time researching and thinking about how the life they have lived would influence their grammar and how they spoke.

Michael Steven said:

I see you mention Huckleberry Finn. To me that's a great example of how not to write. For the time it was a novel approach (pun not intended). Doing that today would meet with well deserved criticism.

Click to expand...

Evidently you've not encountered A Clockwork Orange, or Trainspotting oar Lirrle Big Man. Nobody is going to like everything, but there remains a damn good reason Huck Finn continues to be widely read today. It received a lot of criticism from the literary establishment when it was first published, simply because of its "novel approach".


caw

If it's readable? Read Fox 8, it's a lovely book from the perspective of a fox. He has a very quirky idea of "hoomin" vocabulary, and yet the book is delightful and deep, especially because of the way the fox speaks!

ErezMA said:

Poor grammar is sometimes necessary? Would you find a hillbilly speaking with perfect tenses and omitting prepositions at the end of sentences to be believable?

Click to expand...

Yes, of course I would. I know a fair number of hillbillies who have a Ph. D, some in English. I'm more or less a hillbilly, too.

Michael Steven said:

Narrative IS a step back from the character. It always has been and it always will be. Why? Because that's a tool where the story gets told, and while the perspective doesn't change it gives you, the author, some space to operate. You don't have to stay in close perspective to the character here. It's still something they can see/hear/sense, but as the author you can elaborate on what actually is happening (descriptive narrative) before you drop back into the character's mind. It's for the benefit of the audience ... your readers.
.

Click to expand...

You can disagree all you like, but I've never met a selling first person writer on your side.

And this much I KNOW. When I write first person, the narrative most certain is NOT a step back from character. Ever, in any way, and it sells very, very well.

Quite frankly, I don't know how on earth you can read most of the first person novels out there and still believe as you do.

As the author, YOU can elaborate on anything YOU like. I believe that would be a truly lousy, artificial, pseudo-first person tale. I never leave the mind of teh character, and i write not one single word in narrative that the character wouldn't think or say. I simply don't.

To me, first person is exactly what it says it is, first person. It is not first person, plus the writer.