I'm reading a book that...okay, I'll admit it: I bought it STRICTLY from the title: Carpe Demon, by Julie Kenner. I thought, Hey! Demons! Because I am a total SPN dork
( Read more... )
I like my fiction to be written in Third Person Limited/Omniscient and Past Tense. Any deviation from that makes me hyper-aware of the writing in a way I'd rather not be.
In fan fiction, I find that most first person stories fail at characterization quite a lot. In a third person POV story there's more flexibility on characterization because we're not right inside the character's head.
In third person, I can be 'talked into' accepting a characterization that I don't find entirely consistent with the show. In first person, it's too abrupt a change.
And don't get me started on Second Person POV and present tense. :)
Heee! I quite like present tense, although some authors do a better job of it than others, of course. Second person depends entirely upon the skill of the author -- it works only when...well, I have a few criteria, but they're not that important here.
Very interesting point -- quite right -- about the intimacy of first person.
Well, there are exceptions to all of this. Sometimes present tense is vital and creates a sense of urgency that simply can't be done any other way. And sometimes second person is able to suck me into the emotions of a character, again like can be done in no other way. And that intimacy of first person, sometimes it makes for a brilliant story.
But all those? Those are the exceptions that prove the rule that third person/past is the way fiction should be written. :D IMO, of course.
If the writing is good enough, I don't even notice second-person POV. Seriously.
The parentheticals seem to be a cheap way for the author to convey a familiarity with the reader, a "gossipy" tone to me turns too flippant and shallow.
I read this book--or should I say, I tried reading this book, and I don't think I even got halfway. Most of the reason is due to one small aside, when the character seriously worries that that her son is turning gay, which turned me off to such a degree that I just had close the book and mull it over. I mean, the writing and characterization hadn't exactly been stellar before the point I felt so turned off: do I really care if she really *can* get that demon blood off the carpet before her dinner guests arrive? *rolls eyes*
I noticed that same comment in the book -- it shook me up, but I guess living in West Texas, I could shrug it off. Bugged me, as well.
Flippant and shallow -- YES YES YES. This book DOES strike me that way, or rather the protagonist. I don't...LIKE her. I think she should be brought down a peg or five. And a big part of that is the content of those parenthetical intrusions. Feh.
The only stories that I'll read first person for are Kurt Vonnegut's. Anything else, I hit the back button (or, you know, put down the book) immediately, no matter how highly recommended it's come to me. I think you've nailed it on the head - it just feels too obviously the writer, and it's tough to create a character voice that feels distinct as a character and is interesting, to boot. It just feels too obvious, you know?
Heee -- I'm reading Slaughterhouse Five right now. Co-inky-dink!
That authorial intrusion element -- I KNOW it cannot be a foregone conclusion, or I'd dislike Vonnegut, too. So. That's VERY interesting. I suspect that it's simply much, much harder to prevent that problem from occurring in first-person narrative. *nodnod* Eeeeeeeeenterestink.
I've never really found first-person to be exactly a problem in fiction--but there certainly have been times I've sat back and thought, "I usually think of first-person as a sort of diary, the narrator writing things down each night after they happen, or maybe six months after a Major Event. But this--this is really not what--or how--a person is going to write in their journal." And there's also the issue of recall--if it's being written after the fact, does the narrator really remember every single thing everybody said in a conversation? This, of course, leads into questions of bias, which is maybe the point of first-person.
First-person seems to work just fine if there's a reflective tone to the story--and have to be telling you a story. Maybe that novel you're reading isn't so much an actual story, as this girl's life
( ... )
There IS an element of hearkening-back in a lot (majority?) of first-person tales that may be one of the most workable ways to approach the POV. Thinking of Slaughterhouse Five, which I'm reading right now -- of course there are temporal anomalies all over the place, but still -- it's framed in a reminiscent fashion, so.
Reflective. Yes. After all, by the time the person's telling the story, he/she is the only one who knows how it all turns OUT. It's new for us, but not for them. So it must take a delicate hand to combine not telegraphing the results too early, and yet maintaining tension, interest, and so on.
Seriously, it simply must boil down to authorial skillsets, you know? Because there's enough variety in successful first-person narrative that it isn't only subject matter, or time, or so on. Like second person, a talented author can sweep me up no matter what they do. Sans such a talent, it just doesn't work. Tenses are tools -- not good or bad in and of themselves, only in how they are used, the skill of the user, and so on. *nodnod*
Comments 27
In fan fiction, I find that most first person stories fail at characterization quite a lot. In a third person POV story there's more flexibility on characterization because we're not right inside the character's head.
In third person, I can be 'talked into' accepting a characterization that I don't find entirely consistent with the show. In first person, it's too abrupt a change.
And don't get me started on Second Person POV and present tense. :)
Reply
Very interesting point -- quite right -- about the intimacy of first person.
Reply
But all those? Those are the exceptions that prove the rule that third person/past is the way fiction should be written. :D IMO, of course.
Reply
The parentheticals seem to be a cheap way for the author to convey a familiarity with the reader, a "gossipy" tone to me turns too flippant and shallow.
I read this book--or should I say, I tried reading this book, and I don't think I even got halfway. Most of the reason is due to one small aside, when the character seriously worries that that her son is turning gay, which turned me off to such a degree that I just had close the book and mull it over. I mean, the writing and characterization hadn't exactly been stellar before the point I felt so turned off: do I really care if she really *can* get that demon blood off the carpet before her dinner guests arrive? *rolls eyes*
Reply
Flippant and shallow -- YES YES YES. This book DOES strike me that way, or rather the protagonist. I don't...LIKE her. I think she should be brought down a peg or five. And a big part of that is the content of those parenthetical intrusions. Feh.
Reply
Reply
That authorial intrusion element -- I KNOW it cannot be a foregone conclusion, or I'd dislike Vonnegut, too. So. That's VERY interesting. I suspect that it's simply much, much harder to prevent that problem from occurring in first-person narrative. *nodnod* Eeeeeeeeenterestink.
Reply
First-person seems to work just fine if there's a reflective tone to the story--and have to be telling you a story. Maybe that novel you're reading isn't so much an actual story, as this girl's life ( ... )
Reply
Reflective. Yes. After all, by the time the person's telling the story, he/she is the only one who knows how it all turns OUT. It's new for us, but not for them. So it must take a delicate hand to combine not telegraphing the results too early, and yet maintaining tension, interest, and so on.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Leave a comment