The Mystery, Crime, and Thriller Group discussion

Does anyone else have a problem with mystery or thriller writers who switch back and forth between first person and third person narratives? I think it's lazy writing. When the story is told by the protagonist, he or she can only say what he or she has personally seen, heard, read or felt. To go outside of the protagonist to give the reader some extrinsic information is a lot easier, but a writer ought to be able to figure out a way to do it without switching point of view.

I have no problem with it.

In a first person POV, as you say, we can only get the information the protagonist gets. Sometimes, it's nice to see 'the other side of the coin,' if you will, especially when what we get are the antagonist's thoughts or motivations. That's something we could not get otherwise without that old saw of the antagonist ready to kill the protagonist but first revealing that information.

I recommend reading Violet Dawn by Bradilynn Collins, this book switches perspectives, each chapter, but it is wonderfully written, and still extremely suspenseful. You know what us happening with a handful of characters, yet you're never really sure what's going to happen next. After reading this book, I had a new respect for switching point of views.

There's great examples from either side of this divide; to support either preference. You couldn't have a book like The Day of the Jackal written in first-person POV. But then you also couldn't have Raymond Chandler's or Dash Hammett's works either.

For modern thrillers, I'm ambivalent; it can be either/or; but what I really want to see is a lot more dialog. Elmore Leonard style. When the dialog is vivid, it doesn't matter what POV is used.

Old-time radio shows do this quite effectively. Dialog is used to propel the story. There's no narrator in a series like 'Gunsmoke'. We may get a sprinkling of occasional inner-monologue from Matt Dillon; but otherwise its 90% "in-character voice".

I agree with Feliks about dialogue. My novels are all first-person protagonist narrations, and I find that I can use dialogue to convey a lot of information to the readers without ever having to leave the room. My romantic thrillers, COMMON ENEMY and COMMON GROUND (soon to be followed by COMMON PLACE)- all of which are heavy with dialogue - are available at www.richarddavidbach.com.

Well dun!
:)

The human voice is the most expressive instrument of communication. You convey tons more info from a human voice than from an omniscient narrator.

Its well worth the loss of the 'authorial' vocabulary. Sharp dialog (complete with slang) is a freight train right to our brains.

Feliks wrote: "Well dun!
:)

The human voice is the most expressive instrument of communication..."

I wrote a quasi-sequel to The Maltese Falcon titled: Return of the Falcon. I wanted to keep the feel of the original, and I had multiple locations around the world as the story unfolded. So I used a laconic narrator. I had dialogue drive the story beats, though. Feliks is so right there. (For a "Look Inside" click here.)

I'm reluctant to use first person, because in real life there is always much more going on than can be perceived by the narrator. People's lives intertwine. I prefer to follow different characters to see what they're up to.

Don, did you get permission from the Hammett estate, and if so, how? I want to use some Hammett characters for a story, but they never get back to me.

John O'Hara is another American author who was exemplary in his use of dialog. Was acclaimed among the authors of his generation, for having this 'ear' and using character-speak to handle various tasks he was trying to accomplish in his stories.

Stephen wrote: "Don, did you get permission from the Hammett estate...."

My story is not "really" a sequel in that sense, nothing like Joe Gore's Sapde & Archer, which borrowed heavily from the original material. I follow the falcon (the art object) and the greed it foments in men's hearts.

I believe once an author starts in first person, the book should remain in first person. I don't mind switching POV in third person, but prefer limited changes, preferably only with a new chapter. First person, however, is a commitment to the reader that should be honored.

James: That's what I say. It's a personal relationship that's broken every time the author switches POV out of the first person .. and I contend that it's not necessary.

I think it depends on the kind of novel, but I need to admit up front that I have written both ways.

In a traditional who-done-it following the protagonist in first person is fair--the reader and main character are presented with the same information at the same time and it is a race between the two to see who can figure it out first.

When multiple POVs are used, however, often the reader already knows (or thinks (s)he knows) who the perpetrator is. The writer's task is to build suspense and have the protagonist overcome obstacles, some of which the reader is aware even when the protagonist is not.

Some POV characters may not be reliable; others may be two-faced. Employed well, the multiple POV technique can have us rooting for the first-person POV wondering how they are going to avoid the trouble we forsee, when we can't figure it out even when we know what the trouble is.

Using dialogue well is independent of whether there is one or multiple POVs.

~ Jim

Barry Eisler, the John Rain series, switches between first person and a third person narrator. It's actually not that bothersome.

Well, anything probably goes nowadays; its a free for all. Books about vampires and zombies rule the market. But if we're obeying traditional benchmarks for the genre; I would say I find it pretty jarring to have 3rd person suddenly emerge from the page. The change in voice, altered vocabulary, tone..being addressed directly..eh, consistency: not breaking up the flow works best for me.

I thought that too, Feliks; but Eisler pulls it off. Give one of his early books a "LOOK INSIDE" on Amazon.

I wrote my first novel, POWER IN THE BLOOD, in first person because I did not feel comfortable telling my protagonist's story for him. I am writing the sequel, as yet untitled, in first person also. However, I do sometimes feel frustrated that i can't show what is going on in the minds of other characters. I'll save third person for my third novel, also untitled.

Switching POV is nothing new. The oldest example I know of is BLEAK HOUSE by Charles Dickens. He switches not only POV but also his entire sound between his female protagonist and himself. Read BLEAK HOUSE, and you'll know why Dickens is my favorite writer.

My Hitchcock Brown series is written in first person. I actually find it entertaining to use this as a tool as the story progresses. As a PI, Hitchcock is forced to make some assumptions on behalf of the other characters. Correct or incorrect, it leaves the reader wondering. I think it gives the reader an opportunity to agree or disagree with the main character. Then I turn around and make the right things wrong, and the wrong things right.

I've just stumbled upon an extremely rare example of an 'exception to the rule'.

Its John Updike's The Coup. Of course, only a writer of this stature could pull off a feat like this. I should've known.

Updike changes narrative-voice from '1rst' to 'omniscient' back-and-forth right in the same chapter, sometimes right on the same page. Its a display of a veteran writer's technical competency I haven't seen, maybe ever. Not in just this way. No one does this. Last time I saw anything remotely like it was in Charles Dickens 'Little Dorritt'--and that, only sparingly. Dickens would never have taken this kind of outright risk with a narrative.

It makes the work very slow going as you try to keep track; but that's probably also just as much due to Updike's incredible vocabulary and descriptive detail. What a novel. Richly imagined and articulated; character psychology + violent intrigue + foreign culture + international politics. Wow.

Feliks wrote: "I've just stumbled upon an extremely rare example of an 'exception to the rule'.

Its John Updike's The Coup. Of course, only a writer of this stature could pull off a feat like this. I should've k..."

It's a while since I read Updike, and I never read The Coup so I'll get hold of it - it sounds really good! And another book that changes perspective from 1st person to omniscient really well is Gillian Flynn's Dark Places. I think in the crime/thriller genres the pay-off for such a technique is that the reader can then gain insights or a different perspective to the same crime/event that the 1st person narration is experiencing...

When I do first person, I am writing a Sherlock Holmes story as Dr. Watson. I just don't see it for my other characters.

My mystery series is in a tight third person. I've written a couple of other novels in 1st, and I actually prefer doing that. I generally prefer first person narrators in the books I read, too; I like the intimacy, and when I'm writing, I like the challenge of how to show things the narrator isn't directly involved with. Sometimes I wish I could go back and change the three novels in my series to first person. They might as well be in first person, as the POV never deviates from the mc. I wrote the first in the series before I'd determined which POV I preferred, though, and I won't take the time to go back, mainly because I've seen that there are readers who really do prefer third person. One man who read all of my books liked the third person better, so there's that. My series is unusual, though, because my mc is psychic, so I get to show things she never could have seen otherwise. It's actually one of the main reasons I gave her that attribute, other than the fact that I loved the TV show Medium.

In my first novel, I use exclusive first person, because I want the reader to experience the mystery of the case in the same way that the protagonist does. To unravel the clues along side him, and to gain the revelation of the conclusion at the same time.

In my second novel, I have four characters interacting in the same series of events, each of them gets a part to play in the story, and I use third person to convey their side of things as it's unfolding a piece at a time. I'm somewhat apathetic toward mixing voice/narratives. I don't do it because I don't read it.

When I sit down to write a story, I base the voice I'll use throughout—consistently—on the weight I feel the voice will bring more strongly to the body of work. If first person is the better choice for conveying the idea of the story to the reader, then so be it. But, I will never use second person. Don't ask me why, but it is a bane of my existence, and I want to kill it with fire.

I like different points of view if they are kept in separate sections or chapters. Sometimes omniscient can work as well but it has to be handled carefully and not just amount to head hopping.

Personally, I prefer third person from the POV of the main character (or characters but no more than two). I like to see a story unfold from that perspective. I can then follow along as they solve the mystery.

I especially dislike inner monologues from villains, a technique that seem to be increasing in popularity. It seems completely unrealistic.

Many of James hadley chase and Alistair maclean novels are written in first person but yet very suspenseful. But I read a very lengthy, yawn inducing first person narrative of a so-called FAMOUS author: Lee Child and it was not interesting( Gone Tomorrow)

My three Phil D'Amato (NYPD forensic detective) novels are written in first person - though, in the first, The Silk Code, I put in a few third person scenes. In retrospect, I think I should have figured out a way to keep it all first person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_D&#...

Steve Hamilton's Alex McKnight series is written in first person, and I really enjoy those.

Bernard wrote: "Switching POV is nothing new. The oldest example I know of is BLEAK HOUSE by Charles Dickens. He switches not only POV but also his entire sound between his female protagonist and himself. Read BLEAK HOUSE, and you'll know why Dickens is my favorite writer. ..."

Well its not precisely a question of how 'ancient' the device is. I fully agree that Dickens trots out fireworks like this quite readily--'Little Dorrit' is a showcase. But Dickens was Dickens. No author could easily match what he accomplished; and the 130 years interval between his greatness and our mediocrity attests to that. This specific, particular narrative trick--used well? Is still 'new' for us-- in the sense that its always been rarely attempted and even more rarely, brought off successfully.

(aside) I hope--since this thread is rife with aspiring writers--that most folks here have read 'Bleak House', ha :p

FD

p.s. by the way--just found another author--Wilson Harris--who switches POV even more swiftly than John Updike. 'Guyana Quartet' switches POV from one sentence or one paragraph to the next. Daring and audacious. But its a hallucinogenic novel; and frankly the work suffers. I don't rate it well (both books were discovered from the 'Burgess 99' list).

Robert B. Parker switched between first- and third-person narration in the Spenser novels Crimson Rose and Thin Air to poor effect, IMHO.

But I think multiple viewpoints & narrations worked very well for him in All Our Yesterdays.

So it's possible to bring the switches off. But to employ switching simply because you need to tell the audience things your first-person narrator can't see otherwise? Too bad--find another way to tell the story or tell another story. The transitions are almost always jarring.

I pick one or the other for my books, although I am going to write a novel next year where there will be two first-person narrators.

George wrote: I pick one or the other for my books, although I am going to write a novel next year where there will be two first-person narrators.

I read a book with several first-person narrators many years ago. The author confined each shift in POV to a chapter and identified the narrator by titling each chapter with the POV character's name. But I still found it hard to keep the narrators straight and often had to go back to the start of the chapter to be sure who was speaking.

First person has never been my favorite but it's grown on me quite a bit lately. It seems a lot of the more modern novels are written in that mode. I have just been reading quite a bit of Bernard Cornwell and he excels at switching between the first and third person. I think there is an art to doing it well. I don't feel like it take near the skill to write in third person omniscient mode, but that just my opinion.

I switch from 1st to third person in my 2nd Mike Gage Thriller. IMHO I think I pulled it off, but readers and reviewers will have the final say. If anyone reading this wants to review it, I'll send you a copy, print or Kindle only.

Hello William
I wd be interested in reviewing it and would like you to do same on my latest crime novel Complicit Witness which made it to no 4 on paid sellers list in Crime genre

William and Dan, I would be happy to review both of your books in Kindle edition . My email is [email protected]

Bernard

I could do with a couple of reviews, too. My novel is "Power in the Blood." I can send print or any eformat.

Thanks Bernard I will send kindle version if that is ok? pleae advise related email address
mine is [email protected]

I've written two crime thrillers using first person only and have utilized large sections with dialect (Cajun). With regard to both, readers either love it or hate it; editors either love it or hate it. I think it's effective and, contrary to an earlier comment, don't think it's "an easy way out."

Feliks wrote: "Well dun!
:)

The human voice is the most expressive instrument of communication. You convey tons more info from a human voice than from an omniscient narrator.

Its well worth the loss of the 'au..."

I have received a lot of push-back because I sometimes use a 1st person POV - but when I use it I have a reason.

For instance, when my book Enemy Combatant was a movie script people had a lot of difficulty relating to the central character and ended up relating most strongly to the primary supporting character. To correct this, when I made it into a novel I added several chapters at the beginning written in the central character's 1st person POV.

This not only did a terrific job of getting the readers to bond with the character, but will provide me a lot of latitude in sequels. There were there potentially interesting things going on she didn't know about, and anything she describes is colored by her personal psychological issues. For instance she talks a lot about her wonderful sister and terrible mother, but was the mother really terrible and did the sister even exist?

In my recently released mystery thriller Empty Places, I have a prologue written in the third person just to set up the crime. The rest of the book is written in the first person.

Empty Places

However, switching back and forth between first and third person was often used in the omniscient narrations of the 19th century and earlier. More recently, David Morrell uses this technique in his latest novel, Murder as a Fine Art. Most of the book is narrated in the third person, but large sections of it are narrated in the first person in the form of diary entries. The plot of the book takes place in Victorian London, and Morrell said he used this narrative technique to imitate writers of that era.

I did the same thing in my recently released Black Karma. No one's complained about it so far. I hope I pulled it off.

I hate it. I've never seen it done (need to keep reading, I guess) in a way that works. The switches, even if done at the chapter demarkation are jolting. Worst yet is first person/present tense switching to third person/past tense, and back and so on ad nauseum.

I do think it is lazy writing. Third person can be as intimate and inside the POV character's voice as first person. You go to first person when you want a character's voice to fully dominate the narrative, and you have no plotting problems with missing what lies outside that character's POV.

BTW, for what I think is a very good example of this "intimate" third person narrative and POV, check out Game of Thrones by GRR Martin, where every chapter is narrated from a different character's POV. And as strong as that is, you can take it even farther.

There's nothing wrong with switching. For one thing, that technique can be used to get other character's thoughts and feelings concerning the first-person narrator.

Don wrote: "Barry Eisler, the John Rain series, switches between first person and a third person narrator. It's actually not that bothersome."

Re: Zombies and vampires rule the market. Don't you mean teenage girls? Same thing, I guess.

I read the Barry Eiser series, but I do mind the shift from first to third in alternating chapters.

My Amsterdam Assassin Series is all in Third, but I'm working on a stand-alone novel that's not part of the series that will be in first person.

I'm reading an exceptional novel (Dark Places by Gillian Flynn) in which there's not only a switch from first to third person but also a twenty year switch in time period whenever the POV changes. She's a superb writer and it is a memorable story. Can't wait to write a review.

People, please continue on with your discussion, and ignore the poster who calls himself Reblast. Thank you.

Aaron{{REBLAST}} wrote: "Why read when you can ****?

Just to let you know, this kind of language isn't tolerated and I have taken action.

You can always read afterward.

Stephen wrote: "You can always read afterward."

When you're enjoying a post-coitus cigarette, you mean? Or instead of the cigarette? :)