| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Afetbinttuzani |
Posted - 02 Apr 2008 : 13:41:41
Well met, all.
Are there any FR novels with first person person narrators? Everything I've read so far, which isn't much, has had the usual anonymous, all seeing third person narrator who describes the action and jumps from head to head, giving us the thoughts of the various main characters. Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever read a Fantasy novel with a first person narrator. What would the benefits and limitations of a first person narrative be? I would be curious to have authors weigh in on this one.
Cheers,
Afet
Mod Edit: Found this scroll floating in the ether. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Afetbinttuzani |
Posted - 14 Apr 2008 : 19:07:07
Sounds interesting. I'll make that my next FR read. Hopefully enough people will buy it to send WotC the message that Experimentation can be profitable. At the risk of asking a indelicate question, how has Evermeet done in terms of sales and fandom response?
Cheers,
Afet |
| ElaineCunningham |
Posted - 14 Apr 2008 : 13:45:29
Orson Scott Card's excellent book Characters & Viewpoint discusses some of the uses, strengths, and weaknesses of the various POV. Quoting briefly from page 162:
quote:
1. First-person and omniscient narrations are by nature more presentational than limited third-person--readers will notice the narrator more. If your goal is to get your readers emotionally involved with your main characters, with minimal distraction from their belief in the story, then the limited third-person narrator is your best choice.
2. If you're writing humor, however, first-person or omniscient narration can help you create comic distance. These intrusive narrators can make wry comments or write with the kind of wit that calls attention to itself, without jarring or surprising a reader who is deeply involved with the characters.
3. If you want brevity, covering great spans of time and space or many characyters without writing hundreds or thousands of pages to do it, the omniscient narrator may be your best choice.
4. If you want the sense of truth that comes from an eyewitness account, first person usually feels less fictional, more factual.
5. If you're uncertain of your ability as a writer, while you're quite confident of the strength of the story, the limited third-person narration invites a clean, unobstrusive writing style--a plain tale plainly told. You can still write beautifully using the limited third person, but your writing is more likely to be ignored--thus covering a multitude of sins.
Karzak mentioned Evermeet, which was an experiment in terms of POV. The huge time span covered in the book necessitated an omniscient narrator. This sprawling history is framed by not one but TWO framing stories: the present-day invasion of Evermeet, and an exchange of letters between the narrator, Danilo Thann, and various people with whom he corresponded. In the outer layer of the frame, the limitations, scope, and focus of the story are defined: Danilo is explaining the invasion of Evermeet by telling historical events leading up to it, and he is also creating a gift for Arilyn--the history of her elven family, the lore and legends of her people. A certain narrative distance is created by suggesting Dan, while not a traditional unreliable narrator, is not without bias. The third-person limited POV is employed to give immediacy to the small vignettes, and to attempt to give Arilyn a more personal understanding of Queen Amlaruil--the grandmother she knows only through legends and political news. In terms of POV, the book was a juggling act, quite unlike anything else I've written in the Realms.
|
| The Hooded One |
Posted - 14 Apr 2008 : 01:33:22
Quite true. Case in point: the difficulty the director of SIN CITY had, in getting Miller aboard as co-director (had to resign from his director's union). He wanted Miller aboard to try to preserve the storytelling flavour of the original comic (graphic novel, if you prefer) version, when retelling the tale cinematically.
There have been a recent spate of YA and childrens' fantasy pirate novels (piratical novels where the ships can fly, there are dragons, aquatic undead, and other overtly fantastic elements) wherein first-person narrators appear and then recede into the background, only to move into the foreground again.
There's also Goldman's classic THE PRINCESS BRIDE and his later "by Morgenstern" novel as playful first-person narration by an author 'big enough' to get published just what he wants to get published, and Lin Carter's attempts to make his Callisto fantasy pulps seem manuscripts from a "real" narrator, sent through a fantasy gate (a conceit that extended to putting himself through the gate and writing a novel as "Lankar of Callisto," that was extended by other writers republishing some of these novels after Carter's death, who continued the "this is real" framing conceit.
By the way, these first-person narrative techniques are common in Cthulthu and Dreamlands HPL pastiches (by modern writers), and their intersection with Sherlock Holmes pastiches (such as the lighthearted Zelazny work I mentioned in an earlier post, but there are many, many shorter fiction examples). Ed Greenwood has come across far more than I have, and shared them with me. He's constantly finding little gems (like "Scream For Jeeves") and tossing them my way.
love,
THO |
| Afetbinttuzani |
Posted - 13 Apr 2008 : 17:48:07
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
It can be done, and done well [...], but [it is] increasingly less to the taste of modern readers [...], and more importantly, to the taste of modern editors, who often throw fits when an author tries this, and make sure it gets "fixed" before seeing print.
(I say this as a sometime editor.  Who has heard a lot of "inside" industry stories at conventions and in the office and while drinking with colleagues, over the years.)
Thanks for that THO. I suspected that this would be the case. I imagine the commercial publishing juggernaut is a lot like Hollywood in that it plays to a homogenized consumer and is resistant to novelty where it thinks the the bottom line might be effected. Innovative unconventional writers and directors, unless they have superstar status, have a hell of time finding venues for their work. |
| The Hooded One |
Posted - 13 Apr 2008 : 16:09:57
Hi, all.
Steve Brust did it in his Khaavren Romances (The Phoenix Guards, et al) as an intentional homage to Alexandre Dumas, and it worked.
However, the reader has to buy into the more leisurely pace of a narrator making comments while presenting action sequences.
It can be done, and done well (the classic early Charteris Saint stories prove this), but are increasingly less to the taste of modern readers (who want the action faster and the presentation more direct), and more importantly, to the taste of modern editors, who often throw fits when an author tries this, and make sure it gets "fixed" before seeing print.
(I say this as a sometime editor. Who has heard a lot of "inside" industry stories at conventions and in the office and while drinking with colleagues, over the years.)
love to all,
THO |
| Karzak |
Posted - 13 Apr 2008 : 15:44:04
Hmm, I don't think I've seen too many fantasy novels done in that faux-historical style, though of course you've got Evermeet that's sort of like that, except not first person. Oh, and - yes, yes, you're getting tired of it now, but it's relevant - in the Fitz books, each chapter is prefaced with a bit of historical commentary. The protagonist himself attempts several times to write a history of the Six Duchies, though he's impeded by the fact that he feels he lets in too many personal elements. So you could view the novels in that light.
I've also seen some non-professional writers attempt it, and the potential pitfalls become abundantly clear: a historian/scholarly commentator is more likely than not going to be unbearably pretentious. In fact, it'd be first person with all the effects of third person omniscient, which I'm not sure will mix too well. |
| ShadezofDis |
Posted - 13 Apr 2008 : 07:11:25
quote:
Originally posted by Afetbinttuzani
The result of all this is a pseudo-historical account narrated by a first person narrator, who is not the protagonist, through a third person limited narrator who privileges the protagonist's perspective.
So, my question is: has a technique like this been used in any FR novels or other modern fantasy novels?; and, if not, what do people think might be the advantages and disadvantages of this technique?
Cheers,
Afet
Cut out a lot but these are the key parts for what this made me think of.
This pretty much describes how I learned about the Realms.
Ed Greenwood giving an account of what Elminster the Sage told him.
I think that one of the advantages of this technique, especially in the Realms (particularly with the current set up), is that you can tell a large arch of time to create a more "epic" feel. (my wording isn't exactly correct, but it's as close as I've got at 2:10  )
A sort of memoir story that, after a series of books, culminates in the present day for the narrator. Especially if you could create the illusion that the narrator was the protagonist of the story but in the end reveal that it was a secondary character in the story (finds some diaries that reveal the protagonists thoughts during particular parts of the story or what have you).
It could be some good stuff. But it could also go terribly wrong. |
| Afetbinttuzani |
Posted - 12 Apr 2008 : 21:40:43
Just to be clear, I don't think the tactic has anything to do with having the reader genuinely believe the narrative is true. It has to do with tone.
In "Don Quixote", Cervantes was explicitly parodying novels of Chivalry that proliferated in the 16th Cent., which used the Medieval tactic of trying to gain credibility by presenting a false historical source. His readers at the beginning of the 17th century were fully aware that he was exposing and playing with a literary convention.
Ever since Cervantes, the technique has been used by authors and perceived by readers for what it is, a literary conceit; just one more tool in the writers toolbox. Having said this, disingenuous readers even today are sometimes taken in by the trick, particularly if the author craftily mixes references to fictional events and sources with references to real texts and historical events, as we've seen with the "Davinci Code" fiasco.
I agree with Richard Lee Byers that in the fantasy genre it could add an old fashioned feel to the story. Still, it could be lend an air of richness and depth to the narrative, particularly for young readers who have not read Burroughs or other early 20th Century fiction.
Cheers,
Afet |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 12 Apr 2008 : 20:33:50
The nearest thing I can think of at the moment is Michael Shae's Nifft-tales where Shag Margold is written as the presenter of the tales of the now dead Nifft the Lean. The stories vary in viewpoint as they have been told by Nifft to others that have written them down before Shag presents them to he reader.
You also have old Burroughs stories such as the Barsoom tales and the Venus series, but to a lesser degree.
Most of the books I can remember are not fantasy though.There are others, but I am a bit tired at the moment, so that's all I can come up with. |
| Richard Lee Byers |
Posted - 12 Apr 2008 : 20:27:24
Edgar Rice Burroughs used the framing technique of claiming that the story he was about to share was one the hero had told him, or the substance of a manuscript found in unusual circumstances, or whatever. Other writers from the same era ( the pulp era, give or take) used it, too. The point is indeed to lend an air of credibility to an unlikely tale. In our time, the genre conventions of fantasy and science fiction are so firmly established that writers may feel this is unnecessary, and perhaps for that reason, we don't see this device used as often as we once did. I think that when you do see it used today, it probably won't be to lend that air of plausibility. Rather, it will be to give the story an old-time-y feel, or because the narrator is going to offer commentary that will enhance the story. |
| Afetbinttuzani |
Posted - 12 Apr 2008 : 17:30:14
Since we now have authors weighing in, I'd like to suggest a slight change of focus for the discussion. We'll stay with first person narrators, but move to a more complex form.
Up to now, we've talked about first person narrators who describe what they see from their own experience. But there are other types.
Cervantes used a first person narrator in DON QUIXOTE (1605), which begins: "In a town in la Mancha, whose name I choose not to remember, there lived not long a ago a nobleman..." (rough translation). But it is far more than a simple first person account. At no point does the narrator claim to have actually witnessed the events in the story.
At first, He claims to have assembled the story from combination of archival records and local heresay. Then, in the eighth chapter, in the middle of a battle, the narrator says he has run out of material and apologizes for having to end the story.
But then, in chapter nine, he says that he was out walking and ran across a young man selling odd and ends. Among these the narrator finds a bundle of papers written in Arabic. He asks a young moor to read/translate a few lines for him. He is surprised to find that the papers appear to about Don Quixote. Excited, the narrator pays the young moor to translate the rest of the papers. It turns out that they are an account of the life Don Quixote written by an arab historian, Cide Hamet Benengeli. The rest of the novel is the translated third person account of Benengeli's history, interspersed with critical comments from the original first person narrator and sometimes from Don Quixote himself, who complains that both narrators are messing up his story.
The result of all this is a pseudo-historical account narrated by a first person narrator, who is not the protagonist, through a third person limited narrator who privileges the protagonist's perspective.
The narrative technique of creating an air of legitimacy by claiming to have found a true historical account is found in medieval texts and particularly novels of chivalry, both of which were often fantastical. In the prologue, Cervantes the narrator states that his goal is to tell the true story of Don Quixote and to parody chivalric novels.
So, my question is: has a technique like this been used in any FR novels or other modern fantasy novels?; and, if not, what do people think might be the advantages and disadvantages of this technique?
Cheers,
Afet |
| ElaineCunningham |
Posted - 12 Apr 2008 : 13:39:48
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
I'd just like to note that while it may be more difficult to write big action sequences first-person, it's not impossible. The Dresden books have big spectacular battles presented first-person, and so do a number of Bernard Cornwell's historical adventure novels
True. Perhaps a more accurate expression of first person POV limitation in battle scenes is that it limits the reader to what one person can see, do, and experience. When the narrator is at the center of the action, this viewpoint might be all you need.
|
| Richard Lee Byers |
Posted - 12 Apr 2008 : 00:36:13
I'd just like to note that while it may be more difficult to write big action sequences first-person, it's not impossible. The Dresden books have big spectacular battles presented first-person, and so do a number of Bernard Cornwell's historical adventure novels |
| ElaineCunningham |
Posted - 12 Apr 2008 : 00:34:02
quote:
Originally posted by Mkhaiwati
I do have this curious idea that what you describe could also be connected to the Humphrey Bogart detective movies with voiceover. In fact, I could almost hear Bogart talking over the action in the Dresden Files show.
Yes, precisely. That is the sort of thing I was referring to when I mentioned the noir, edgy tone. |
| ElaineCunningham |
Posted - 12 Apr 2008 : 00:32:19
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by ElaineCunningham
A first person POV limits the focus of a story. You'll frequently seen it employed in detective novels, so that the reader only knows what the detective knows. This enables the reader to solve the case along with the detective; indeed, one of the pleasures of this sort of book is the attempt to figure out the mystery before the detective. Being right is satisfying; being surprised in clever fashion, even more so.
Agreed, although I would like to mention (having more than a few mystery books), that it's not uncommon for an important clue the detective narrator uncovers to be deliberately (and some might say unfairly) hidden from the reader, just so the reader doesn't know about that important clue until the denouement and/or exposition scene.
One series that is infamous for this is Lawrence Block's Bernie Rhodenbarr books. Bernie gathers most of the vital clues and puts together the pieces off stage, then he gathers the suspects, Agatha Christy style, and tells them (and the reader) what he's been up to for the last 275 pages. |
| Aravine |
Posted - 11 Apr 2008 : 15:59:49
yes it was intersting. Not only was insightful, it was also the first time I've seen a scroll sealed and then unsealed. |
| Afetbinttuzani |
Posted - 11 Apr 2008 : 15:39:27
Yes, thanks to all of you. I didn´t anticipate that my original query would lead to such an interesting discussion.
Cheers,
Afet |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 11 Apr 2008 : 15:09:49
quote:
Originally posted by ElaineCunningham
A first person POV limits the focus of a story. You'll frequently seen it employed in detective novels, so that the reader only knows what the detective knows. This enables the reader to solve the case along with the detective; indeed, one of the pleasures of this sort of book is the attempt to figure out the mystery before the detective. Being right is satisfying; being surprised in clever fashion, even more so.
Agreed, although I would like to mention (having more than a few mystery books), that it's not uncommon for an important clue the detective narrator uncovers to be deliberately (and some might say unfairly) hidden from the reader, just so the reader doesn't know about that important clue until the denouement and/or exposition scene. To be fair, though, I've seen this done in third-person narratives, as well.
Thanks for your thoughts on why first-person narratives might not work as well in Forgotten Realms novels, or more generally in the fantasy genre. |
| Mkhaiwati |
Posted - 11 Apr 2008 : 04:46:15
quote:
Originally posted by ElaineCunningham
POV is more than a stylistic choice. It defines tone, focus, and scope. In some cases, it can also be a signifier of genre. Urban fantasy tends to employ first person narrative; in fact, urban fantasy that does NOT can sound somehow . . . off . . . to many readers. Urban fantasy offers a variation of the world we know, and the narrator serves as our guide to this slightly skewed new world. The immediacy of first person--the ability to see a familiar world in a different way--serves this purpose well.
First person POV works when the narrator has an entertaining voice and a way of looking at the world that is interesting and occasionally unexpected. Harry Dresden sees Chicago in a way vastly different from your perspective or mine, because he's aware of the magical creatures busily at work. He also has a knack for a humorous turn of phrase. It's not uncommon for first person narrators to be witty, smartass, or amusingly inept, as in the case of Janet Evanovich's best-known character, Stephanie Plum. Some first person narrators have a hard, noir edge rather than one that's humorous, but again, this falls into the "entertaining voice" catagory. First person narrators tend to have certain personality traits in common: they tend to have a reasonable amount of self-knowledge, they are capable of insights, they often have clearly defined moral codes that inform their decisions. They have interesting histories; for example, Anita Blake carries some scars she got in encounters with vampires that occurred before her series started.
Interesting viewpoint. I do have this curious idea that what you describe could also be connected to the Humphrey Bogart detective movies with voiceover. In fact, I could almost hear Bogart talking over the action in the Dresden Files show. I agree it is something about the style involved. Good call. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 10 Apr 2008 : 19:21:39
quote:
Originally posted by ElaineCunningham
I've experimented with dualing first person POV in a short story ("Fire is Fire," REALMS OF THE DEEP), but I think it would be difficult to make that work over a novel-length story.
That is a great story, and I think mentioning it makes a good point in this discussion. Part of why I liked that story was because it was different, a change of pace from "normal" Realms stories.
While its an interesting story, I also think its a good example of why "traditional" novel length FR stories would have a hard time with first person POV. In the short story, for someone familiar with the setting, or at least with D&D conventions, its interesting to get inside the head of the sahauagin, since you have some idea of what the creature is and what it does, even if its from the perspective of them being "bad guys." But for someone that has never played D&D or read Realms fiction, it would be very easy to read about the sahaugin's POV and say "I don't get it."
On the other hand, someone that has never read a FR novel could pick up a story in third person that involves sahaugins, and if the author wanted the coastal villagers to be clueless, he could still explain the undersea cities, the raiding, the Sekolah worship, the whole she bang, but still not have the poor fisherman have any idea of what hit him when he got torn apart.
FR fiction actually requires a lot of conceits that general fantasy does not. If you jump straight into the POV of a (pre 4e) wizard, there is no reason for that wizard to wonder about how many spells he has left, but it could be jarring for a newcomer to the setting to read that this wizard that was just hurling lightning bolts and fireballs is now "out."
That same character, in third person, can be put in context of how magic and the Weave works in the setting, in ways that the character would take for granted.
As Elaine said, first person works a lot better when you have a setting that is similar, but different, rather than a whole new world. I'm not saying that some authors can't pull off "different paradigm" first person stories, but I think that they are uncommon for the very reasons that Elaine mentioned. |
| ElaineCunningham |
Posted - 10 Apr 2008 : 18:50:54
Here's a few thoughts on the matter from one writer's POV (heh), particularly as pertains to the nuts & bolts of story contruction. I just finished a meeting with a co-writer, and POV was one of the main issues on the table, so I'm newly reminded of just how important such decisions can be.
POV is more than a stylistic choice. It defines tone, focus, and scope. In some cases, it can also be a signifier of genre. Urban fantasy tends to employ first person narrative; in fact, urban fantasy that does NOT can sound somehow . . . off . . . to many readers. Urban fantasy offers a variation of the world we know, and the narrator serves as our guide to this slightly skewed new world. The immediacy of first person--the ability to see a familiar world in a different way--serves this purpose well.
First person POV works when the narrator has an entertaining voice and a way of looking at the world that is interesting and occasionally unexpected. Harry Dresden sees Chicago in a way vastly different from your perspective or mine, because he's aware of the magical creatures busily at work. He also has a knack for a humorous turn of phrase. It's not uncommon for first person narrators to be witty, smartass, or amusingly inept, as in the case of Janet Evanovich's best-known character, Stephanie Plum. Some first person narrators have a hard, noir edge rather than one that's humorous, but again, this falls into the "entertaining voice" catagory. First person narrators tend to have certain personality traits in common: they tend to have a reasonable amount of self-knowledge, they are capable of insights, they often have clearly defined moral codes that inform their decisions. They have interesting histories; for example, Anita Blake carries some scars she got in encounters with vampires that occurred before her series started.
First person narration also works when the writer wishes to employ the "unreliable narrator" device. Huckleberry Finn is the classic example of the unreliable narrator. For a writer, it is exceedingly difficult to pull off an unreliable narrator using third person limited, because most readers will assume that what the character observes and values, which of his thoughts we're privvy to and what conclusions he draws, reflect the writer's opinion and intent--unless, of course, the POV is that of a crazy and obviously evil antagonist.
A first person POV limits the focus of a story. You'll frequently seen it employed in detective novels, so that the reader only knows what the detective knows. This enables the reader to solve the case along with the detective; indeed, one of the pleasures of this sort of book is the attempt to figure out the mystery before the detective. Being right is satisfying; being surprised in clever fashion, even more so.
First person does NOT work as well in stories in which action is a major component of the story. A melee, or for that matter, a tavern brawl, is the sort of scene that benefits when the camera zooms back. Since the Forgotten Realms books are action/adventure novels, first person would be far too limiting. The scope of most Realms stories also makes first person difficult in that it limits the story to the places and events one person could experience. Forgotten Realms stories lean more toward "big" stories, including the love-em-or-hate-em RSE, not small, personal tales. But first person can be effective in small doses--again, when the POV depicted is different enough to warrant hearing that particular voice. Madness, for example, is difficult to describe from the outside.
Traditional fantasy, especially sword and sorcery novels, frequently focuses on the theme of good vs. evil. A well-developed, interesting villain is important, and that's difficult to achieve if the only POV is that of the hero. If the villain is vanquished at the end--which is, some argue, the definition of fantasy--telling the story from his/her POV is problematic. I've experimented with dualing first person POV in a short story ("Fire is Fire," REALMS OF THE DEEP), but I think it would be difficult to make that work over a novel-length story.
$.02,
ec
Mod edit: Language. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 10 Apr 2008 : 18:35:09
Karzak, thanks for sharing your thoughts, I found them interesting. |
| Karzak |
Posted - 10 Apr 2008 : 17:44:30
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
I guess my point is that I would think the pitfalls of first-person would apply equally to other fiction genres as well.
Definitely. It's not the technique, it's the execution.
With regards to pitfalls, though, the biggest weakness with first person, I feel, is that if you can't bear the narrator, that's it - the novel's all but unreadable. In books with multiple, shifting viewpoints (limited third person, say; think A Song of Ice and Fire), you might want the protagonist or some of the major characters to die of herpes or landslide, but if there're other characters you like, the book's still readable. You might even keep reading just for those characters while despising the rest. So in a way, it's safer for the writer.
There're exceptions, of course. With the aforementioned example of Robin Hobb's trilogies, I could barely stand Fitz. I read the books for the Fool, who always struck me as far more interesting and complex than the protagonist. I heard from somewhere that the Fool is meant to be the real protagonist, not Fitz. Which is entirely plausible, and it's an interesting technique. I always felt Hobb lavished far more attention and care on the Fool than on, oh, anyone else. I'm sure fans of the books in question will disagree, but I found characters like Civil, Molly, Berrich, et al to be little more than stock types. The only character relationship in these books that stands out is the Fool/Fitz one. Enough to make me keep reading, but it'd have been nice if the rest of the cast were a little less bland.
In contrast, there's Harry Potter, which is third person limited. I don't know about other people, but to me, Harry is an idiot, a brat, and one of the most painfully passive fantasy "heroes" ever there is to blight the genre. Because, apart from a select handful of chapters, the wizarding world is viewed through Harry's selfish, juvenile and myopic eyes alone, the HP books suffer from exactly the same problems a badly written first person narrative might. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 10 Apr 2008 : 15:28:45
The Dresden Files is told in first person... And though we have at least one poster that doesn't like those books, their commercial success (how many novel series actually get a TV show?) can not be overlooked.
Admittedly, the show only lasted a season, and the first person narrative does lend itself to mystery tales quite well, but still... |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 10 Apr 2008 : 15:05:09
I have to admit, I'm still not quite sure why the first-person narrative is somehow less suited to fantasy works in particular than it is to most other genres. Editorial preference aside (and the fact that it might be harder to use effectively, which would apply to all genres I would think), I don't see how first-person narratives would, without doubt, make a story less effective just because the story was a fantasy work. Am I missing something?
I guess my point is that I would think the pitfalls of first-person would apply equally to other fiction genres as well. |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 08 Apr 2008 : 11:03:23
I haven't read that much 1st person narration, but I, Jedi by Michael Stackpole is fully 1st person, and one of my favorite books, one which I read almost every other year.
Not much more to say at this moment |
| The Sage |
Posted - 08 Apr 2008 : 06:34:37
Sage of Stars, Karzak... if you both wish to continue discussing this side-topic, I would recommend your taking it to PMs. Leave the rest of this scroll for the discussion of it's actual topic.
Thank you.
|
| Afetbinttuzani |
Posted - 08 Apr 2008 : 05:04:52
First, thanks to Aluando for reopening this discussion.
I am very fond of first person narrative. That´s why I brought it up. I like being unsure of whether or not the narrator is trustworthy and I like that fact that he or she is not privy to all the facts. I don't mind the claustrophobic narrative feel of first person. I find it far more intimate than third person, no matter how limited. Perhaps it is that claustrophobic quality that makes first person lend itself the mystery writing, but not to fantasy writing.
But first person narrative is more demanding on both the writer and the reader. The writer must find a convincing voice and a way to reveal information and other voices without betraying the verisimilitude of the narrator´s voice. For her part the reader has to constantly second guess the narrator and seek out tidbits of information that the narrator has "inadvertently" revealed. Because of this, I suspect that WotC or any publisher of highly commercial fiction, which seeks to reach a wide audience, would be very reticent to take a chance on a first person narrative.
Afet
|
| Karzak |
Posted - 08 Apr 2008 : 04:52:53
quote:
Originally posted by Sage of Stars
Just as it did during your previous incarnation in this forum.
My what?
quote:
The author you refrain from mentioning has twice been nominated for the Nebula Award by the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, Inc. (how do I know? I’m a member), which includes most of the foremost living sf and fantasy writers. Said author has also been lauded or honored by GAMA, the World Fantasy Association, the folks who hand out the ENNIES, and other critics, literary (!) associations, and “Year’s Best” anthologists.
Aha, see? Exactly. Now, weren't the mods telling us to keep to the topic? Did it not occur to you to contact me in private, hmm? |
| The Hooded One |
Posted - 08 Apr 2008 : 04:24:46
Heh. Well said, Sage of Stars.
Karzak has a . . . colorful turn of phrase. That carries over the line, all too often.
As a sometime editor in the field, "third person limited" is by far the most popular voice for frontlist fantasy novels. "Third person omniscient" works best for satire, farce, and other authorial commentary uses (q.v. Terry Pratchett, P.G. Wodehouse, Rudyard Kipling, some Lord Dunsany tales [all Ed Greenwood favourites, BTW]), and so was more popular in the past, in an era of more didactic authors.
First person is a hard row to hoe in most sf and fantasy tales, unless the narrator is an utter dunderhead or, as Roger had it with Corwin in NINE PRINCES IN AMBER, amnesiac. Otherwise, the narrator has to leave too much of what he/she knows out of the narrative to avoid slowing it to a crawl and destroying most of the dramatic impact of events. In other words, cheating the reader. ("I knew the key was down the well and the man with the purple beard was the villain, but I just didn't tell you for some reason...")
What is all too often forgotten in discussions in this forum and elsewhere, when posters are happily trashing Author X for doing this and Author Y for not doing that, is the fact that only writers wealthy enough to own their own publishing companies (L. Ron Hubbard, when he was still alive) have complete freedom to write what they want. Even if they don't encounter an editor who wants to make changes or control a book, they have to get their book accepted in the first place - - and most publishing houses have a narrow range of story formats, voices, and so on that they deem "acceptable." Don't fit the mold and you don't get published. That's why ELMINSTER IN HELL, successful or not, represents one of TSR's finest hours ("okay, we'll let the experiment proceed").
love to all,
THO |
|
|
