Vaginal Fantasy Book Club discussion

I thought this could be an interesting discussion on vaginal fantasy novels - and perhaps the romance and urban fantasy genre as a whole. I've noticed that urban fantasy tends to lean towards first-person narrative, whereas romance novels are often in third-person.

Personally, I dislike first-person stories...and it takes a highly recommended book to make me go out and read first-person. Which means that I haven't read as many books as I would like! Which is your preference? And why do you think first-person narrative is so popular for urban fantasy?

Urban Fantasy tends to be written from only one point of view, where the Paranormal Romance stories are usually told from two. It's much easier to change PoV in third person than first.

Like you, I tend to not like first person books as much, especially first person present tense. There are some good ones, but for me it's much more difficult to connect with the characters, especially when the character is doing things that *I* wouldn't do.

I do know lots of people like first person and prefer it to third, so I guess it just comes down to personal preference.

I agree. It has to be a spectacular first-person book for me to enjoy it. I just finished Hunger Games, and I got to say, I did not like the book (loved the movie) and I feel that alot of that has to do with the first-person aspect.

However, I do generally like the books to be from one persons PoV (with AGot being a wonderful exception). Especially in fantasy books with female heroines. I tend to identify with them enough that I want to hear their story through their eyes, just not written in first-person.

Lisa wrote: "I agree. It has to be a spectacular first-person book for me to enjoy it. I just finished Hunger Games, and I got to say, I did not like the book (loved the movie) and I feel that alot of that ha..."

I've started and stopped Hunger Games about four times now because of the PoV/tense. I just can't seem to get over it enough to enjoy the story.

The Hunger Games is the only first-person book I've read in a long time that worked for me. Katniss spends so much time alone in the first book it seems like no other way would have worked as well. But then the other books suffered because of the first person POV, the third book in particular.

The danger with first person for me is that the main character has to be likeable, 'cause you're stuck with them and only them for an entire book. So if the character doesn't work for me, the book quickly becomes tiresome. Sometimes I find myself wondering if I can follow another character instead of the main character, at least for a little while 'cause I find him or her more interesting.

So I prefer third person then.

I think the interesting thing about first-person narrative in terms of storytelling is you're obliged to stay with the narrator for the whole novel, so the reader can't find anything out that the protagonist doesn't know.

I read a book a while ago that had a second-person PoV (i.e. "You wake up in someone else's bed. You make tea...") and found that really difficult to read. Has anyone read one that they feel worked?

I really dislike 1stPov. Like Ashley, I have to really like the character and their voice. The only writer that makes me forget I'm in 1stPov is Ilona Andrews with her Kate Daniels series.

The problem I'm having with UF right now is that everything seems to be 1stPov and it's getting to the point where I can't differentiate between series. UF is starting to be like looking at a zebra herd.

I used to think that the only thing worse than 1stPov was alternating 1stPov but reading in present tense is horrid and I can't even imagine reading in second person.

Bright Lights, Big City was in the second person. It somewhat worked for me except sometimes when I read that "You snorted a line of coke.." or something of that nature, I thought, "No, I didn't!" I guess I just got used to it, but I couldn't read a lot of books like that.

Interesting comments. I don't really mind either way as long as the writing's good.

I agree that the benefit of third person is that you can get the perspectives of a lot of different characters and aren't kept in the dark as far as what the narrator knows and doesn't know. I think one reason romances generally use third person is because women like to read about the hero's feelings aka mad passion for the heroine. :)

A whole book written in second person? I've read a few short stories like that, but I think an entire novel of it would drive me insane.

I prefer 3rd person omniscient. First person can be a bit off-putting unless it's handled well. I love the changes in perspective with 3rd person, and the cinematic feel it lends.

I'm with Molly. I don't really mind either POV as long as the writing is good. I could see why omniscient third person would be the most desirable, since you aren't bound to only knowing events from a single character's point of view. Much more of a holistic view. Some books, first person works really well, but others leave me wanting to know more that a first person POV won't allow. Annoyance with POVs vary from book to book for me. For example, I was initially really bothered by the Iron Duke's POV switching. However, I wasn't particularly bugged by the Hunger Games first person POV (although sometimes I think that could have been a totally different book-possibly more intriguing-if third person omniscient was used).

I'm OK with either first person or third person, but I have a really hard time enjoying present tense. The Scarpetta books tend to be present tense, and well, they make me tense.

I had this problem with Hunger Games at first too, but then I realized the present tense actually worked here, because I should be tense/alert like Katniss was, ready for action. Once I accepted that, I was able to enjoy the book.

I also agree with molly and madison here. There is definitely value in both kinds of books. I do agree that 1st person is always a challenge because you have to stay with the one character. Sometimes I get pissed at female 1st person stories because they don't catch on to whats going on as quickly as I do. I find myself thinking: "What don't you understand about this! Come on!" But if the writing and characters and world building are all good I will eat that up (with the exception of 2nd person and present tense because that is just irritating).

You know, now that I think about it, I can not think of a first person pov that really knocked my socks off. Maybe I just can not remember it now, or I have not found one. hmmm.

Perhaps it's more of a challenge to write interesting first-person POV prose without making your character sound pretentious/anachronistic, whereas third person allows for more elegant description and textual flourishes. Could this be why a lot of people find first-person POV less satisfying to read, and third person more cinematic?

never been a fan of first person until i started reading Lee Child's Jack Reacher series. now, i'm completely ok with it.

first person is harder to pull off. third person gives the author "God's View", where they can tell the reader about anything. an author in first person can only tell the reader what that person experiences.

i believe the problem whith first person POV is that since it's the character speeking, it seems unnatural when he/she gives explanation about the world building or things that are natural for people that live in the book's world. And by doing so the reader might feel alienated

I usually only find 1st person POV viable if the author finds another way to illustrate how limited the character's understanding really is, the way we're all limited by our senses and perceptions.

I've enjoyed it when 1st person POV gets limited but deliberate use, like switching POVs with other characters or only using the 1st person voice for a single paragraph at the beginning of a chapter. I've also seen it used effectively in a way that only evokes mild irritation when a character's constant narration is of the "I did this, then we did that" variety, as opposed to "I thought this and she must have thought that". Authors seem to drift in & out of remembering that the narrator can't know the truth about another character's motivation (unless they're psychic and don't believe in privacy).

As others have mentioned, as a reader I start to feel claustrophobic being trapped inside Phedre's a character's head if I don't like them or understand them or don't feel their reactions are in line with my own.

Contemporary settings give 1st person POV such a boost by allowing characters to include an email or text message or blog to show their thoughts instead of 400pages of steady internal chatter that I don't understand why I don't see it more often.... but then I don't read many UFs so I might just not have been exposed to it to saturation point.

I generally don't have much of a preference. I generally prefer character-driven stories, and having a first person PoV helps drive the plot. I really like the Dresden Files, and it wouldn't be the same without being able to see what's going on inside Harry's head. I also like reading epistolary novels, like Dracula.

But then you have something like Game of Thrones, which works so well because it's third-person limited, but from the viewpoint of a whole cast of characters. And Butcher's Codex Alera was written in the third person, which worked - it would have been an entirely different story if told from Tavi's PoV.

When I write, I generally use first person because I find that to be easier; though I've got a couple short stories written in third.

I'm just recently coming to realize that I prefer third person narrative. I've been reading quite a lot of books lately in hopes of being completely absorbed in them, but none of them are really doing it for me. And the one thing I've noticed that they all had in common was first person narrative.

I didn't used to mind first person, but the more I read it, the more I feel I'm getting sick of it. It somehow feels...less intelligent and detailed than third person can potentially be. When you're speaking in first person, it's hard to really describe things, like setting for example, in a way that would seem natural...because who really just stands there and has an inner monologue about their surroundings? No one actually does that...so, your only options are to sound weird or lack detail.

You're also stuck with a certain type of vocabulary, I think. If you're writing from a first person view of a fourteen year old girl, you're probably going to sound a little uneducated and naive (which is where most young adult fantasy is losing me), simply because it would be strange for a young girl to have a vocabulary beyond her years. However, if you're writing from a third person point of view, your main character can be dumb as a rock, but you can still describe them in an intelligent WAY, because you're not THEM, you're the narrator. If that even makes sense. >.>

I prefer having multiple points of view rather than just first person.

I think one reason Urban Fantasy usually has a first person narrative would be to help build tension. We only know what the narrator knows, so if s/he is uncertain about something, then so are we.

I quite like both first and third-person views points. But I think first-person helps me get into the story more and makes it more real for me.

I like both, but I think some of my favorite, most immersive books, have been first person POV. It's a lot easier to believe the narrator knows what is going on if it's being told from their point of view. It's also convenient to some stories, such as mysteries, when they need to leave out important information that the main character couldn't possibly know until later.I digress, the thing that bothers me more than POV in a story has always been tense. First person present has always annoyed me to no end (the only exception I have found to this is the Sirantha Jax series). How can you write an entire book knowing only what you are doing right this minute?