The Sword and Laser discussion

So just starting the book myself, but I can already see myself struggling to stick with it a bit. I've never been a fan of reading a first person perspective myself. I've seen it done well a few times, but it's usually pretty jarring to me. It only works when you and the narrator are fairly similar. In general I prefer a third person omniscient perspective.

Does POV affect how anyone else sees a story? Or am I alone in this?

I like third person subjective - GRRM uses it and so did Robert Jordan.

I'd say that's my favorite because it allows for a good amount of flexibility and character growth.

I agree with you the the less similar I am to the narrator in a first person narrative will damage my perception of the book.

Maybe doubly so for an audio book. I'm afraid I'm already bored with 100KK because I find I can't relate to Yaena (sp? I'm audibling it).

I tend to prefer the first-person myself. I think it puts the reader into the story rather than watching it from afar. I generally have no problems adapting to the protagonist. An audiobook changes things slightly in this case, however, since the narrator is the intermediary between you and the book. I have no problems with third-person either most of the time, but it always feels less personal to me after I'm done with it.

Tamahome is ok with the 1st person point of view.

Tamahome wrote: "Tamahome is ok with the 1st person point of view."

You are also ok with the 2nd person point of view. If you choose to continue reading in 2nd person, turn to page 45, if you choose to eat the ogre's cake, turn to page 67.

Tamahome will eat the ogre's cake, as long as it's not made of the same thing as the coins from Orc Stain:

[image error]

Veronica is also a fan of first-person narrative, she finds it to be more engaging!

Veronica wrote: "Veronica is also a fan of first-person narrative, she finds it to be more engaging!"

Wait... that's third person. FRAK.

You sit at your computer and type, "Veronica is also a fan of first-person narrative, she finds it to be more engaging." You hit "post," then realize you were writing in third person. Frak, you think, but at least I wasn't doing anything pretentious like writing in second person.

1st person is fabulous! If done well. So far so good. Love the opportunity to see through another's eyes. I already know how I see the world.

Normally I don't like the first person narrative much. Third person narrative normally feels more natural, less stilted.

However, I thought that it was very effective (and fun) in The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms. Especially how the author used it add depth to Yeine's personality.

I think it was the 3rd person subjective I was thinking of when I said omniscient.

One problem many authors run into when they use first person is that they forget the writing rule "show, don't tell" It all too often feels like they're explaining the world instead of bringing it to life.

And yes, I did enjoy the old 2nd person choose your own adventures when I was a kid.

I think "show, don't tell" is mostly in film. In fiction it's very rare, especially in the age of the 1000+ page epic fantasy.

Robin Hobb wrote her Assassin trilogy in the first person and that was very well done. Show don't tell is the golden rule, but in the Assassin books that was followed--because the lead character had so many mysteries about his world to uncover.

I really got into the 1st person/audible combination. i liked the contemporary/urban patois used by Casaundra Freeman when voicing the dialogue. Although i am seeing one huge disadvantage of the audio-book - that being i don't have a clue how to spell any of the character's names.

My favorite 1st person story - tie between flowers for algernon and the chronicles of amber.

I enjoy first person narrative for literary fiction and some science fiction, but fantasy works best for me in third person. I think that's because I like fantasy that switches perspectives a lot, to show more of the setting, and switching perspectives is always jarring in first person.

For an example of jarring perspective switching, just think about how much trouble people had with the perspective switches in the beginning of Blindsight. Another example is The Time Traveler's Wife, which is first person, but keeps switching perspectives between the two main characters. The audiobook had to use two different narrators, because it would have been impossible to follow otherwise. Even with two narrators, many of the comments on Audible were about how hard it was to follow.

Richard wrote: "Robin Hobb wrote her Assassin trilogy in the first person and that was very well done. Show don't tell is the golden rule, but in the Assassin books that was followed--because the l..."
I hadn't even thought of the Assasin trilogy, I did like that one. And much of the Kingkiller Chronicles is first person too and I enjoyed it. Must be something else that I find jarring about the Hundred Thousand Kingdoms. Maybe the "show, don't tell" thing.

Eric wrote: And yes, I did enjoy the old 2nd person choose your own adventures when I was a kid. "

Old? Oh my friend, what is old is new again:

http://tinmangames.com.au/blog/

Have you an iPad or an iPad Nano (aka iPhone)? ;-)

They are a big fan of fourth person.

Tamahome wrote: "I think "show, don't tell" is mostly in film. In fiction it's very rare, especially in the age of the 1000+ page epic fantasy."

There's a problem somewhere in the idea that the publisher is paying on a word count contract, maybe that's why we get paragraph-long descriptions of things like how the wine tastes or the horse manure stinks, and 1200 pages with no meaningful resolution so the author can get paid for a sequel.

But the purpose of the thread is POV discussion. I actually prefer 1st person because I feel closer to the character, more in tune with what he or she is feeling and thinking. I find third person can easily get stilted and disconnected, though usually that's in those massive epoch-length epics.

Tom wrote: "They are a big fan of fourth person."

But what do we think of fifth person?

Tim wrote: "There's a problem somewhere in the idea that the publisher is paying on a word count contract, maybe that's why we get paragraph-long descriptions of things like how the wine tastes or the horse manure stinks, and 1200 pages with no meaningful resolution so the author can get paid for a sequel."

Could be worse.

They could do like 19th Century French publishers.

They paid by the line.

So authors wrote in many small paragraphs.

Sort of like this.

Alexandre Dumas, I'm looking at you.

Using the first person in a novel makes it easier for the author to keep the reader in the dark. Third person subjective can do this as well, but it imposes more remove from the character. When there is only one character being observed using first person makes more sense.

Also, because the cast is so small in this book there isn't anyone else to use for a POV without giving some part of the plot away, so using first person runs much less risk of confusing the reader with a single POV.

Finally, (view spoiler)[ the entire book takes place as Yeine tries to remember herself. This happens sometime after she was stabbed and the end of the book. Most likely at the end of the book since the past tense was kept through the end. Personally, I would have liked it to have happened in the end of Chapter 28 and for Chapter 29 forward to have been in the present tense, but it is a minor quibble. (hide spoiler)]

Oh and can I vote for third declension dative plural? Anything that ends in -ibus is cool.

Skip wrote: "Oh and can I vote for third declension dative plural? Anything that ends in -ibus is cool."

I believe I speak for many when I say: WTF?

Give us a grammar lesson PLEASE. Google didn't find an instance of that entire phrase in any kind of handy dandy place.

Latin nouns are grouped by declensions. Different declensions have different endings attached to them. Unlike English, Latin nouns change form depending on the part of speech they are used for. This allows you to structure a Latin sentence in almost any way and still have it mean the same thing.

A third declension noun, used to decribe multiple indirect objects of a verb would end in "ibus".

Wikipedia has it all here.

Unfortunately "Colossus" is a second declension noun, so when you play StarCraft II it is incorrect to shout "Coloxibus! Coloxibus!" about a bunch of Colossi about to mow you down. (Yes, this is a bit of an inside joke).

Sean wrote: "Tom wrote: "They are a big fan of fourth person."

But what do we think of fifth person?"

What about 0 person narrative. They're very short.;)

Third person omniscient is kind of rare these days and was far more prevalent in the 19th century. I think first person works beautifully in this story. It puts the reader squarely in Yeine's shoes (is she wearing shoes?), that is completely lost as to what's going on and why anything is happening. Third person limited in this case would reveal far too much about what Dekarta and the other two heirs are thinking.

I vote for 3rd person cinematic (The Maltese Falcon).

I guess it depends. If it's something that I wanna be, then it's first person perspective. When I read the vampire chronicles, I wanna be lestat, so it's like the story is about me.

However, you can't jump around when in first person and I always like it when the story switches to the bad guy and we see what he's up to. 3rd person is handy then.

But to many people wanna take the Crash route and have all these different 3rd party story lines that don't really have anything to do with each other till the end. Which is cool, if you have three different story lines going at once and they are all banging.

However, what happens is usually two vantage points are really good, while the third vantage point sucks and I'm forced to read it, when I really just wanna get back to the other two vantage points.

Forgotten Future

I think that first person works in this book, being the the main characters head means that you feel her fears. The confined space of her head makes you feel slightly claustrophobic. I think that this feeling makes us understand the way that she feels. You are as confused as she is. I think that other POV might give you more information and make you more knowing than the main character. But, the author, I think, wants you to find things out at the same time as the main character. In doing so, the author makes this world as frightening to the reader as it is to the main character.

Skip wrote: "Using the first person in a novel makes it easier for the author to keep the reader in the dark."

Yeah, totally. In addition, I suspect Jemisin chose first-person subjective as a way to spice her otherwise dull prose with a dash of humanity. The narrator is often guilty of dry descriptions and clinical, mimetic passages. Jemisin is a competent worldbuilder, but there’s no poetry in her prose and it’s occasionally painfully boring. If Jemisin wrote this book in third-person, without a subjective narrative voice or a replacement for Yeine’s entertaining introspection…zzzzzzzz…I fall asleep just thinking about how mindnumbing the book would be.

I don't mind the first person. It does take a second to used to at first

Ah hah! The Female Man is from one point of view, I think. Wikipedia is wrong.

If Jemisin wrote more like Jeanette Winterson, I'd be all over first person narrative.

"Night. I logged on to the Net. There were no e-mails for me. You had run out on the story. Run out on me. Vanished.... Nothing. Here I am like a penitent in a confessional. I want to tell you how I feel, but there's nobody on the other side of the screen." - Jeanette Winterson, The Powerbook

It becomes more complicated when (view spoiler)[1st person is two souls, doesn't it? (hide spoiler)]

Tamahome wrote: ... I think. Wikipedia is wrong."

Can't be. Wikipedia is never wrong. ;)

Actually, they weren't.

I think in The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms, the first person view really enhances the confusion that Yeine is feeling at being thrown into an utterly strange political climate and asked to do something so out of the blue as she was. (Not calling this a spoiler since it happens RIGHT at the beginning) She had to learn the ropes just like we were.

I'm starting to feel that the first person narrative has become a bit overused in recent books. But I think this is a case where it's used effectively. and regarding book 2 (which I just finished)... (view spoiler)[the choice of a first person narrator who happens to be blind REALLY compliments the plotline, I thought. (hide spoiler)]

Tamahome wrote: "I think "show, don't tell" is mostly in film. In fiction it's very rare, especially in the age of the 1000+ page epic fantasy."

Back in ye ole under-grad creative writing days I put a lot of effort into showing and not telling. I ended up with stories that concentrated on dialogue and had very little exposition. As a reader I prefer a bit of balance between the two, especially with Fantasy/sci-fi.
First person vs third person doesn't make much difference to me as long as I'm able to figure out what's going on.

I don't really have a preferred point of view. First person sometimes is a bit harder when I have trouble relating to the character. On the other hand it makes it easier to sympathize at times, so I guess there are pros and cons. When I look at the books I've given five starts on goodreads I think the majority were 3rd person POV, but not all of them and I enjoyed them mostly because the story was so good.

In the end I'd say I really don't care. I just take the story as it comes.

I think that first person was the only way to really effectively write the dialogue between the two souls. It made it so the author could obfuscate whether or not the character was thinking two separate things, or if there was something going on there. (And I know I was totally pleased with myself when I figured out that there was something strange happening there). (view spoiler)[ I think that otherwise, it would have been too expository in explaing her dual nature. (hide spoiler)]

Is it possible to do a series of books and have book one in first person, book two in third person, book three in first person, then finish the series with book four in third person.

Can we as authors do that?

Or would the shift of perspective from book to book become to jarring for the reader?

The Female Man has shifts from 1st to 3rd person narration within the same chapter.

Oh wow...

It's just that I have a 1st person book and a 3rd person book. They both take place in the same world, share characters and themes and are both telling a different part of a whole story.

I was thinking of just doing the 1st person one as three books, then the 3rd person one as it's own three book series.

But to grasp the overall story, you would have to read them all in a certain order, which is why I kinda want them just all in the same series.

But they can also stand alone as well. If you don't read the 1st person books, just the 3rd person books, you would have you're own, beginning, middle and end to the story and it's all good, but if you read them all you get a better grasp of everything.

But I'm rambling now...