Addicted to YA discussion

Which do you prefer?
Here are the definitions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narration
Examples:
Hunger Games - First
Harry Potter - Third
Lord of the Rings - Omniscient (All knowing)
I'm curious to see the answers.
My fav is third.

I personally really like 1st person narrative, because it always feel more personal whilst third person narrative feels a little more distanced, but then again is just as good, because it allows us to see their actions and facial expressions and other things things that you otherwise wouldn't read about in a 1st person narrative. I feel like an omniscient narrator is really the most intriguing and so much can be achieved through using it. If done well, it can really create an incredible effect. All in all, I'd probably say that I like them all equally, although my favourite book of all time, Jane Eyre, was written in first person, so I'm tempted to like that style of narration a little more :)

Omniscient is generally frowned upon today by publishers so it's advised that modern writers avoid it. I don't mind it if it's done well but as a professional editor, I'd never advise one of my clients to use it.

Personally, I like first person the best, as sometimes I like to feel like I am the character and it's the best one for doing that. Third person is useful though, from an author's perspective, if you need to let the audience know what more than one character is thinking.

I prefer first person but I do like third person when it allows me to get into other character minds. First person makes it a lot easier for me to get invested into the story, especially when there's a lot of personality in the narration.

It's a tie between first and third person for me. But I like third person better because it's easier to perceive the character of the protagonists unbiased.

With first person, I get more engrossed into the story because of the personalized nature.

I enjoy first person because I feel more involved in the story, especially when it comes to mysteries. It also seems like I read them faster. When stories have many points of view, particularly with audiobooks, I feel like third person is the easiest to follow. I usually tend to dislike omniscient perspective though. I don't like knowing more than the character I'm reading about because it seems like I'm just waiting for them to catch up to me the whole time.

Farren wrote: "I enjoy first person because I feel more involved in the story, especially when it comes to mysteries. It also seems like I read them faster. When stories have many points of view, particularly wit..."

Good point. It does feel like cheating to know more than them

Great answers people!
Thank you, keep them coming.

I enjoy first person more simply because the majority of the books I have read in other POV's are not done correctly and it's jarring to read. It seems harder to mess up a POV when the author only has to focus telling the story from one person's knowledge.

First person! I'm most involved in that way, plus I'm learning information at the exact same time they are, unlike omniscient POV. I like third person best for differing perspectives then it's less confusing. But I like feeling invested in the story, and right there along with them. Omniscient POV feels removed to me personally.

I am not a fan of first person at all. It's like nails on a chalkboard. I get bored with first person. One person talking is nauseating. With one narrator it's more telling than showing and it seems that automatically the single narrator can tell you the other characters perspective as if they are inside their heads. Too weird and annoying. I like third person. I get to hear from the other characters not just one. With third person you have the freedom of diversity of hearing others thoughts, feelings and emotions not just one narrator dictating that to you. Plus there is the skewed point of view because a single narrator can be unreliable because you can only see things from their point of view only.

Again, thank you all for the continued feedback!
After thinking about it more, I couldn't really remember ever reading a first person novel. So I went to my bookshelf and found out a few of my favorites were indeed first person. I also realized that there were a few more variations that I had never seen before.
One example is a story where the main character was done in first person present and the rest of the characters were done on third person past. I didn't find it hard to follow, but I could understand where someone would.
I had someone read one of my novels a couple of weeks ago and they commented that I was mixing my perspectives. (They rudely suggested that I should pick a perspective and stick with it.) I couldn't figure out what they were talking about, until I realized they were referring to the way I portray thoughts in my third person narrative.
For me thoughts are always immediate and personal and therefore should be in first person present tense. Many of my favorite novels are written this way, and it wasn't until I did more research that I found out that I write in what's called third person privileged.
To further confuse some people, I also italicize the thoughts so that the reader will know that the point of view character is thinking without having to use thought tags all the time.
Example: Oh crap, not again, Chip Bowery frowned as he stumbled down the maintenance stairway to the subway tracks. I hate coming down here by myself, the place gives me the creeps.
To me this is a great way to be in each of the POV character's heads without doing the whole story in first person.
I would be curious to hear your thoughts on the matter (italicized or not.)
; )

Huh, there is currently another identical thread in this group. I'll copypaste:
idiffer | 2 comments
Ooh, I've been really thinking about this one. So definitely first person. Limited third person is okay, and second person is just plain weird and pretentious. Now the "why":
I read books to escape into another life, so the closer some aspects are to real life the deeper the immersion. "I thought" is closer to how we experience the world than "[my name] thought". The operative word being "closER". Third person is often used to share thoughts of other characters - we live only in our own heads. Also first person generally has more thoughts of the character included - in real life we think constantly.
This is why I don't like multiple pov and breaking the fourth wall.

@Greg

Interesting thing you did with mixing perspectives. Haven't seen that done before. I like it. And I vote for italics - otherwise sometimes it could be confusing. Like you read "He went..." and think "the main character went", but then as the sentence goes along you get that it's a thought.

idiffer wrote: "Huh, there is currently another identical thread in this group. I'll copypaste:
idiffer | 2 comments
Ooh, I've been really thinking about this one. So definitely first person. Limited third person ..."

Great answer.
The quoted line is actually the beginning of the first chapter from my new book.
Like I said I was really amazed what I found when I went back through my library. It's not as cut and dry as you would think. It's also interesting to see how authors bend the rules and not only get away with it, but they do it very well.

I originally wrote my first novel as omniscient, but a book publisher wrote in their rejection that it was a good story but they wouldn't touch it unless it was 3rd-person rotated or strictly 3rd or 1st person. For my book, 3rd person rotated did the trick, similarly to how Rick Riordan does his Heroes of Olympus series.

The next problem I ran into was trying to copy that process on my second novel. I had two main characters and two distinct timelines that didn't merge until the end. Jumping back and forth was confusing for my readers and made the book super long, so I split it into two books and had each book follow the perspective of a single protagonist.

Zoe wrote: "It's a tie between first and third person for me. But I like third person better because it's easier to perceive the character of the protagonists unbiased.

With first person, I get more engrosse..."

I agree--it's harder to see the bigger picture when it's in first. Maybe that's why first works so well in mystery novels--since you can't see what's around the corner until the protagonist does.

At the same time, however, you do lose some personal connection with characters when the narrative's in third, so I tend to enjoy third rotated. It's fascinating being able to see each character's thoughts and actions while maintaining an overarching viewpoint of my own. And when you get the perspectives of all different characters--the good, the bad, the grayed, and the frayed--the story becomes so much richer.

One of my favorite young adult series in third rotated is Falling Kingdoms by Morgan Rhodes.

I think it depends on how it's used. Most of the books I read are first-person, which I do really like, but I also find that it's pretty easy to do poorly. Like, there have been a lot of first-person books I've read where the main character knows about things that they shouldn't (seeing too deeply into another person's motivation or emotion, behaving strategically or cautiously in situations when they have no reason to, etc.).

I've read some really good third-person books, too, though I don't seem to come across them as often. I think the main con I've come across with those books is that sometimes the narrative feels too detached from the characters. As for omniscient, I haven't read much in that style, but I think Markus Zusak's "The Book Thief" probably counts. It's absolutely fantastic, especially because of the style of narration.

Third Person > Omniscient > First Person

I have my reasons, so allow me to list them. (They're based off my own experiences, though, and as such they may not be what the rest of you feel.)

Third Person
Pros:
* Easiest to write, but still challenging enough to present its fair share of difficulties (who said writing was supposed to be that easy?)
* Allows for the greatest and most reasonable amount of freedom in writing style
* No, or reduced, need to worry about "fake" inner dialogue
Cons:
* Readers may not be able to relate to a character as much since they don't quite know all of their inner workings

Omniscient
Pros:
* More than the main character(s) is covered
* Greater ability to world-build since you can go beyond the environment of the protagonist(s)
Cons:
* Writers may risk revealing too much too early on in the story

First Person
Pros:
* Readers, since they're able to know the protagonist's inner turmoil and thoughts, may be more able to relate to a character
Cons:
* Way too easy to butcher
* Overused to the point of being frowned upon

Also, don't even get me started on the mixing of POVs - it really annoys me when I'm reading a book in first person and the writing suddenly cuts to an omniscient narrator for...what, a single chapter? You might as well have not added that lone chapter and instead worked on fixing the plot holes that resulted in your book needing it in the first place. (Exceptions do exist, of course, but they're very rare.)



And that's all I have to say for now. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk!

*drops mic and runs off to go write a short story*

It depends: do you love the feeling of hearing a story or living it? I find third person to be entertaining, but it doesn’t draw me in like first person. In first person, I forget my surroundings and completely enter my new one. These are the books I finish in a day.

Omniscient is tiring to me, and difficult to believe. I don’t mind a switching perspective but I don’t like all of them at once. It ruins any sense of dramatic irony!

First person is pretty standard for YA and even NA books, and so I feel comfortable reading that view in those genres - I even expect it and am surprised when it's different.

In adult books, third person is the most popular, and authors who choose a different perspective tend to get bad reviews.

I admit, I prefer different perspectives depending on the age of the characters. I do like third person more than first in adult books.

Interestingly, Entangled Publishing has a YA line, and they specifically ask for third person only. I do wonder if it's because most people who read their books are older than the usual YA audience.

Interesting conversation (I wouldn't call it a debate--there's no real right or wrong). Point of view is one of the first things I think about when I'm ready to get started on the actual writing part of the writing process. It's a necessity (unless you want to go through a ton of unnecessary revision) to have it figured out before you write your first word. POV is a big part of what I call the "context" of a story, which includes setting (where's it take place?), verb tense (past vs present), and of course point of view itself. There are good reasons to give the POV question some good thought before setting off, because your choice isn't just arbitrary. Certain stories are better told in certain POVs, and it's up to the author to figure that out. First person? Closely-held third? Omniscient? Multiple third? Mixed? There have been books written in second person, and in some cases it's been effective, because it suited the story and the author worked to make it work. Me? I've done mostly closely-held third and some first. My forthcoming YA novel is written almost entirely in first person in the voice of the main character, but several chapters feature scenes where that character isn't present, and in those chapters I've gone to closely-held third. The story pretty much told me how to handle it, so the most important thing I did was listen.

I tend to prefer third person or third person mixed. I find all first person to be really difficult unless i really like the character (which is rare in YA books). Third person gives more variety I think and more ability for the reader to see the world and the story through more than one POV.