Crime, Mysteries & Thrillers discussion

Hi Everyone,
One reason that I joined this group was to get your input on a nagging question: whether mystery, thriller, or combo, do you prefer first person to third? I'm talking to readers here (authors might be biased by their own writing). What do you think of combining the two--sort of the narrator/storyline dichotomy like Watson/Holmes?
This isn't a burning discussion question, but it's a nagging one, and I'll bet group members have a strong opinion.
r/Steve
PS. I do have an ulterior motive. ;-)

I like to read 1st person POV because it makes me feel more like I am the main character - seeing what he sees, feeling what he feels.

However, a well-written 3rd person POV can do the same.

The only 1st/3rd person combination I like is when the first person POV is the main character's. When they're reversed (like when the hero detective's POV is third and the killer's is first), I feel like everything is 'off' in the narrative.

And though you didn't ask, I do write primarily in 1st person. It seems more natural to me. Although I have written in third when that seemed the best way to tell the story. And I'm working on one that uses the 1st/3rd combination.

They can both be used to great effect.

One example of very masterful usage of the first person is GONE GIRL in which Gillian Flynn superbly narrates in 2 separate first person POVs in alternate chapters.

Most writers use the third person and you can have about 3 third person POVs in a book, sometimes combined with 2 more occasional minor POVs to great effect. I think the third person is the "safe" option because you have to vary the voice in the first person for different characters.

If you are following only one character then the first person is really great.

One thing that I really need is that you don't mix the 2 - i.e. have some of the chapters in the 3rd person POV with some of the characters in the 1st person POV.

Janet,
Even if the first person POV is the MC's, like Quillracer says? Patterson often does that (at least he did until I stopped reading him).
You mentioned Gone Girl--isn't multiple 1st persons more confusing than one 1st and the rest 3rd?
"...following only one character"? That often happens in mysteries, as the case is solved, but they're still often written in 3rd person.
Sounds like you're all authors. Let's hear from some more readers.
r/Steve
PS. I see some members here who are in other groups. Great to see you again!

I use both --3rd and 1st. When I write in the first person, I also write in the present tense. The latter gives one character pov but can add a lot of drama.
Read Agatha Christie's The Murder of Roger Ackroyd to that instance. It was voted the best mystery ever written, and I happen to agree.

The third person opens up to a variety of pov's as well as to more complexity in the plot. This said, it can also be more "diluted" than the first, but it has brought masterpieces as well. My advice: Go where writing takes you, where it makes you feel like a fish in clear waters.

P.S. As a reader, frankly my dear, I don't give a damn whether a mystery or thriller or any book is written under the first or third. I read reviews, then grab a sample, then decide.

I really don't like 1st person unless the writer is extremely talented such in the book, THE BOAT by L.-G. Buchheim. It is very limiting for the most part, and somewhat grating such as in cozy mysteries which are supposed to give the reader the illusion that the heroine is in danger, but you know she really isn't because she is writing about it.
Now that would be a great ending--the heroine is killed and the book just stops.

I do NOT like to read a book in the first person. I stay away from them. The only ones I do read are the ones written by Linda Castillo.

Steven wrote: "Janet,
You mentioned Gone Girl--isn't multiple 1st persons more confusing than one 1st and the rest 3rd?..."

That is why I said, to use multiple POVs in the first person:
(1) You can have only 2 POVs, or it is too confusing.
(2) You have to be very skilled at varying the 'voice' of the 2 characters such that you can 'hear' one person from the other clearly, and you have to be a very skilled writer to be able to do this. Not everyone can achieve this successfully. To Gillian Flynn's credit she does this very masterfully in GONE GIRL.

As for one 1st and the rest 3rd, if you have this your editor should make you convert the one first person POV to the third person, if you have an editor.

To me it depends how the book reads, both can be good reads.

Janet wrote: "Steven wrote: "Janet,
You mentioned Gone Girl--isn't multiple 1st persons more confusing than one 1st and the rest 3rd?..."

That is why I said, to use multiple POVs in the first person:
(1) You ca..."

If I remember correctly, Gillian Flynn cleverly makes a very neat separation between her story and his story, a la Rashomon, so to speak. It's like reading two separate little books. In that case, you can add up characters using the first person. You can also name a chapter after a specific character so that the reader understands who is telling the story.

Chris wrote: "To me it depends how the book reads, both can be good reads."

I totally agree with that. A good book is a good book.

First person has to be written very well to keep my interest.

I prefer third person, but it's not a deal breaker.

Marie-Jo wrote: "I use both --3rd and 1st. When I write in the first person, I also write in the present tense. The latter gives one character pov but can add a lot of drama.
Read Agatha Christie's The Murder of R..."

After reading Murder of Roger Ackroyd, I was so upset I couldn't read a book in the first person for YEARS! (I also would not consider it the best murder mystery ever. It's not even my favorite Agatha Christie!)

All,
I'm not counting opinions right now, but it seems there's a wide range of opinion. I'm always fascinated by that--just part of the celebration of wonderful human diversity! I'm not a fan of Gone Girl, by the way, either the book or the movie, but I'll admit a lot of authors jumped on that bandwagon--mysteries with the title Gone Something are almost as common as Girl Something. :-)
Marie-Jo,
Christie's Ackroyd showed the power of a first person mystery. Some think it's a cop out, though, because the reader is forced to discover the clues along with the MC. Same when there's a narrator who's not the MC.
I liked your PS and also comment in #11--whatever makes a good story is OK by me too. I think many authors go through the Hemingway syndrome (see his quote among those running on my website).
r/Steve

I defy the bandwagon always. It is my independent opinion that GONE GIRL is a superbly written, nicely plotted story.

Janet,
And my opinion is that it isn't. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. ;-)
r/Steve

Janet wrote: "I defy the bandwagon always. It is my independent opinion that GONE GIRL is a superbly written, nicely plotted story."

Ugh. Not criticizing you. Just can't stand the book. IMHO.

It seems most novels are written in third person yet I wrote mine in the first person. Everyone told me no and that it was an awful idea but I think some writers are just comfortable in a particular style.

M,
I'm comfortable in either, but I choose according to the story I'm telling. That's probably a pretty good rule for any author to follow, considering the wide range of responses I'm getting. Internal dialogue is easier in first person (all the prose is internal!), but it can be handled easily in third person too.
(Self-promo alert?) I was motivated to ask this question because I recently released the second edition of the first book in my detective series. One motivation for that was to bring both style and price in line with other books in the series. The first edition was all third person, but the other books in the series are mixed--Det. Castilblanco is in the first person; everyone else is third. A person wondered why I didn't match styles by making all the other books third person instead!
Bottom line: an author can never please all readers. S/he should just write what she or he's comfortable with.
All,
Keep the opinions coming, folks! I've been doing this for 10+ years and have always found there's more to learn.
r/Steve

M. wrote: "It seems most novels are written in third person yet I wrote mine in the first person. Everyone told me no and that it was an awful idea but I think some writers are just comfortable in a particula..."

Right, some people feel more comfortable with certain styles. I'm more of an explorer as far as reading is concerned, so I will read a book no matter the style or manner in which it was written. I can, and have enjoyed reading just about every style. Heck, I have read school text books. If subject matter is interesting to me, I'll read it.

Not a book writer, just an avid reader and I enjoy books in all different styles, as long as they are written well. The story has to be strong, the characters rich and clearly delineated, and the conclusion solid (notice not necessarily happily). I have to admit if the story is good, I would not be able to tell you just what style it is written in.

I loved Hannah Kent's Burial Rites, which I read earlier this month, and truly can't remember whether it was first person in some chapters (I suspect, but not sure) or third person. The language was rich in vivid description and the characters were fleshed out so I got lost in the story. Very satisfying.

Pamela wrote: "Not a book writer, just an avid reader and I enjoy books in all different styles, as long as they are written well. The story has to be strong, the characters rich and clearly delineated, and the c..."

Pamela, as long as you can sit and have a few hours of fun with a book, that's what matters in the end.

Sometimes I tell writers (authors), that I had fun with their book, and I really don't know what they think I mean with the term 'fun'. I look at it as fun when I can go by the lake, sit for two or three hours and delve into a book. I'm in my own world with the book, that's fun.

Steven wrote: "Janet,
And my opinion is that it isn't. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. ;-)
r/Steve"

Yes, that is why I did not comment on your opinion, but simply presented my own, while you commented on mine suggesting it was a 'bandwagon' idea and not my own.

Pamela,
Thanks for the reference to Kent's Burial Rites. I need a good R&R "fun read" (Chris' defintion) over the holidays. Generally I receive bios and non-fiction from friends and relatives as gifts (they haven't figured out how to use WhisperNet to give ebooks yet). There's nothing wrong with bios and non-fiction, but they're generally not as fun as a good mystery or thriller.
r/Steve

Hi All:

To me, it really depends on how the writer executes POV. I don't like first person narrators that might as well be third--a good first person has such a distinct sound to it that it can't be anything other than first.

I prefer writing in the close third first unless I hear a distinct voice. To me, a good first person is very difficult to get right. It's a more difficult technique.

Yeah, I like fiction better also. I think the authors embellish autobiographies a lot that much of it is fiction anyway. Also, fiction authors write a lot based on life experiences. So it all blends into each other.

I don't care as long as the story is good.

Janet wrote: "Yeah, I like fiction better also. I think the authors embellish autobiographies a lot that much of it is fiction anyway. Also, fiction authors write a lot based on life experiences. So it all blend..."

I'll tell you how I feel about autobiographies: "A lot of good things have been said about me, so what if I'm the one who said them?"

A friend wrote a best-selling bio in first person past. Works great. I use 3rd person for my mystery/thrillers. If I change to another character's POV, it's in a new chapter or after a break with a clear transition. Don't like "head hopping."

Autobiographies? As Winston Churchill once said, "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it." They have to be looked at as personal memories, not nonfiction (which may also emphasize the writer's agenda…OK bias)

Yes, I hate "head hopping" too! Never heard it put that way.

M.A.R. wrote: "A friend wrote a best-selling bio in first person past. Works great. I use 3rd person for my mystery/thrillers. If I change to another character's POV, it's in a new chapter or after a break with a..."

M.A.R. and J.,
POV changes in midstream without section or chapter breaks have been called head hopping. They're usually confusing as hell. That said, it shouldn't be confused with omniscient. A lot of sci-fi narrative (also called world building) is in the latter. Epic sci-fi often uses multiple POVs (a War and Peace cast of characters) and omniscient. It all works if handled carefully.
One of the best treatises on this subject is Card's Characters and Viewpoint. I can't remember if he expresses any preferences about first or third, but he doesn't write mystery and crime thrillers. I asked the question to get a feel for what people prefer. So far, it's all over the board. Interesting, to say the least. What's unanimous is that readers want it done well, but that's expected. Whatever an author chooses shouldn't get in the way of a story.
r/Steve

Steven,
Agreed. Card's book is excellent, but it is LONG. For a brief overview of POV, look at this. While it's for writers, it helps readers recognize elements that pull them into the story…or push them out.

http://theeditorsblog.net/2011/05/13/...

Mary wrote: "They're both good. I've read excellent books in both 1st and 3rd person."

Agree

Chris wrote: "JI'll tell you how I feel about autobiographies: "A lot of good things have been said about me, so what if I'm the one who said them?" ..."

LOL. So true. I think the only one I have read is Richard Branson's. Even that might have been a biography rather than an autobiography.

When a book is written well, I don't think whether its written in first person or third makes a bit of difference. I'm finishing up Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe and I understand everything that is happening despite the different time periods, which I know sometimes bugs people as well.

The third person POV is much more difficult to write. This POV has different variants itself.

* The third person omniscient POV (one external "being") who can see inside the heads of all the characters in a scene; also can see into the future and make predictions or warn of ominous events to come.

* Third person distant POV. This is again some external being who cannot see into the heads and thoughts of any one character in the scenes, but can observe wheat they all do externally.

* The third person limited close POV: This is where the writer is following one single character in a scene. He may change whom he follows at chapter breaks or sometimes scene breaks (demarcated by a break line such as "***" ). If he is following more than one character, then there is usually a priority, and if more than one of the characters he is following are in the same in the scene, he follows the most important (priority) character.

In the close limited POV the chapter or section is grounded in the one single character the narrator is following and the narrator sees deeply into the thoughts and emotions of the protagonist he is following, and narrates these deep thoughts and feelings. Any other character in the scene, the narrator only sees and senses externally through the eyes and senses of the one character he is closely following.

If the book is written in the third person, I only enjoy if it is in a close limited third person POV (the third variant above).

I just started a book written in the distant POV (second option above) titled A Spool of Blue Thread and find myself missing the deeper emotions, deeper character development, and "hearing the voice" that comes from a close limited third person POV.

Pamela,
King goes after back story and flashbacks in his On Writing, but Fried Green Tomatoes, which alternates back story with the present all the way through, shows it can work. King, more than most, should know that there are no rules. A good writer can make anything work and readers will love it.
r/Steve

Janet,
I agree.
r/Steve

I, too, like back story when done properly. Characters are people with histories and back stories help paint a clearer picture and understand them better.

Peter May's books, for instance, are quite a lot about the back story and he makes it work really well. He likes to follow one of the characters in the present tense in the present day, so that he can use the past tense for most of the story in which this character lives his life in the past. Writers use techniques like following a character through his diaries or one character telling his story to another to take us back to the past.

In CASE HISTORIES Kate Atkinson jumped back and forth too much in a manner that was very unclear and jarring, but she has improved in the latter books. It gets very jarring if the writer goes back in time, then comes back to a point between now and the point in the past he started, and then jumps back further into the past again and so on.

It is better when, like in GONE GIRL, the writer starts her two characters at 2 different points in time and then progress each character linearly forward in his or her different timeline. The 2 POVs progress linearly forward from different time points at different speeds and then converge together in the present. That worked really well.

Good thread.

I love first person because it can heighten a mystery - if told through one person's viewpoint, there's so much to discover and surprise the reader with. Also it's a good way to fully get into a character's head.

Third person works too, it depends on the story and how the writer accomplishes it.

I hate heavily done head hopping though. That takes me out of a story.

First person is very personal. I like it too if well written and not mixed with the third person.

All,
I've heard about some weird other choices. Second person singular? Present tense? Anyone read books written this way? I can't imagine getting through something like that.
Another experiment I couldn't get through was reading Deaver's book he wrote in reverse. Huh? I started reading in reverse to compensate, but gave up after two chapters (the last two, of course).
Am I too old-fashioned as a reader?
r/Steve

Steven wrote: "All,
I've heard about some weird other choices. Second person singular? Present tense? Anyone read books written this way? I can't imagine getting through something like that.
Another experiment I ..."

Hi, Steven.

I don't think you're old-fashioned. When I first read a book written in present tense, I felt slightly disengaged. Now, I really appreciate a broader sense of "being there." Deaver's book sounds quite different. I will have to investigate it!

Hi MAYCEE,
I'd give you the title to Deaver's book, but like many other painful things, I put it out of my mind. It's one of the recent ones.
r/Steve

I don't care as the BOOK is GOOD!

Mara,
So give Maycee the title then.
r/Steve

Steven wrote: "All,
I've heard about some weird other choices. Second person singular? Present tense? Anyone read books written this way? I can't imagine getting through something like that.
Another experiment I ..."

Hillary Mantel's Mann Booker prize winning novels, the Wolf Hall novels, are all written in the present tense. And they are historical novels! Put me right off.

Janet,
I never would have guessed that. Historical novel and present tense seems like an elaborate oxymoron. The last prize winner I read, though, was Garcia Marquez (in the original Spanish), so what do I know. I think The Guardian had a spoof-listing on what it takes to win Mann Booker. They make a valid point: most contests are probably rigged by the very judges judging them--sort of like the Oscar nominees last year and this one.
r/Steve