| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Valondil the Ranger |
Posted - 06 Sep 2004 : 06:26:19
Hey, Mr. Leeder. I'm reading Realms of Shadow at the moment and I was flipping through and found out that your story is in first person. No offense, but I've never really found first person appropriate for fantasy, but to each his own. I still might enjoy it. Anyway, I was wondering if you plan on writing all your later novels and stories, including Son of Thunder, in first person? |
| 22 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Myrddin |
Posted - 17 Sep 2004 : 20:47:40
On of my favorite authors writes mostly in first person, Stephen Lawhead.
Check out Paradise War, book one in the Song of Albion trilogy. Easily one of the best under-rated series out there.
He occasionally does POV shifts, but only with whole sections of the book (parts one and three will be from X character's POV, and part 2 through Y character's eyes), not chapter to chapter.
I'm trying to remember which book Lawhead does it in, but he once used a blind man for a first person narrator during a whole chunk of a book. And it was fantastic. The chraracter "saw" the scenes through his other senses (smell, touch, sound, and taste), though he occasionally asked a friend to describe a scene. It made me feel like I had been there.
Myrddin |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 13 Sep 2004 : 00:39:01
I'm not a huge fan of the first person perspective, myself. But I will comment on a non-FR book that pulled it off in an interesting way: Wolf Pack, from the BattleTech series. The narrator, Brian Cameron, explains right at the beginning that he is telling the story, and that he spoke to all but one of the major participants. So much of the tale is indeed told from his point of view, but there is also a significant chunk that is in third person.
Since we know that Brian actually spoke with everyone after the fighting was over, we know that the parts that are in third person are still accurate. That particular methodology also allows for both perspectives to be used to tell one story. |
| Lina |
Posted - 11 Sep 2004 : 08:19:09
Oh I get what you were saying now. Sorry I misunderstood Winterfox.  Yeah I'd have to agree with you on that one. If the book is written based completely on a first-person narration where the narrator is not on the same level as the reader (like you just want to strangle the life out of him/her) then it'd be a challenge to finish the novel. However, the use of multiple first-person narration can also be very confusing (I have a very short/selective memory) when the author chooses to include almost every single character in the story, ie one of Harry Turtledove's novels (I forget which one but it's something I'm not going to miss). I think he used omnipotent third person though, but it would be the same as using first-person except the narrator does not use I, etc. In my opinion, if the author does not want to loose the reader, then s/he should limit the use of multiple first-person or third-person narration to major plot characters (around 5 to 8, no more). |
| Winterfox |
Posted - 10 Sep 2004 : 12:23:47
quote:
Originally posted by Lina
You seem to overlook the fact that some FR novels story plots are usually one booklength, not over a series of books. Therefore the first-person can be successfully implemented without the loss of reader intrigue into the storyline.
Huh?
Uhm, no. I was talking about being stuck with a single narrator -- most books that use the first-person style have only one narrator (although some do switch between multiple first-person narrators, in which case I will wonder if there's any good reason the author's not using the limited third-person instead). If the narrator happens to grate on me or annoy me, my enjoyment of the book in question would be lessended by a great deal (or I'd simply drop the book, period), even if I find the rest of it -- plot, setting, other characters -- to my liking. I'm puzzled as to why you think my post had anything to do with reader's intrigue concerning plotline at all.
I don't mind first-person if done well, but all too often, it's not. There are thoughts that go through a narrator's mind that would normally not go through a real person's head. It's also tempting for an author to dump a whole package of ridiculous angst internal monologue that will go on -- and on, and on. (*shudders* Bad memories of godawful young adult books and fantasy novels here. Yuck.) Not to mention that, for some (myself, for example) unconsciously project too much of themselves into their writing when using the pronoun "I."
On the whole, I consider limited third-person much more to my liking. It's also much easier to do well, IMO. |
| Lina |
Posted - 10 Sep 2004 : 11:04:54
quote:
Originally posted by Winterfox
I have a major gripe, among other numerous gripes, with first-person in anything longer than a short story -- assuming that it's a conventional first-person that has a single narrator throughout the story, I'm pretty screwed if it so happens that I can't stand the narrator. There are books, after all, that I read for the secondary and tertiary characters, and there are books that would have been so much better -- in my opinion -- if the lead character was killed off or had never been born. But at least, if it's in limited third-person and the viewpoint switches sometimes, it's bearable.
I'm very leery toward omniscient third-person, because authors seem to get it in their heads that "omniscient third-person == my coy foreshadowing iz pastede on yay!" If I see phrases like "But fate had other ideas..." and "Little did he/she/it know..." one more time, I'll scream. Dammit, foreshadow subtly, or foreshadow not at all! Not to mention that, when using omniscient third-person, authors seem quite prone to dumping large blocks of textbook information (who founded this, this is located there, magic works like this, this race's culture is like that -- all told in clinical, academic details that I simply end up skipping).
So yes, I don't care if it's "overused" or what, I personally prefer limited third-person. It strikes a good balance between the intimacy of first-person and the distance of omniscient third-person.
You seem to overlook the fact that some FR novels story plots are usually one booklength, not over a series of books. Therefore the first-person can be successfully implemented without the loss of reader intrigue into the storyline. |
| Winterfox |
Posted - 10 Sep 2004 : 01:24:16
I have a major gripe, among other numerous gripes, with first-person in anything longer than a short story -- assuming that it's a conventional first-person that has a single narrator throughout the story, I'm pretty screwed if it so happens that I can't stand the narrator. There are books, after all, that I read for the secondary and tertiary characters, and there are books that would have been so much better -- in my opinion -- if the lead character was killed off or had never been born. But at least, if it's in limited third-person and the viewpoint switches sometimes, it's bearable.
I'm very leery toward omniscient third-person, because authors seem to get it in their heads that "omniscient third-person == my coy foreshadowing iz pastede on yay!" If I see phrases like "But fate had other ideas..." and "Little did he/she/it know..." one more time, I'll scream. Dammit, foreshadow subtly, or foreshadow not at all! Not to mention that, when using omniscient third-person, authors seem quite prone to dumping large blocks of textbook information (who founded this, this is located there, magic works like this, this race's culture is like that -- all told in clinical, academic details that I simply end up skipping).
So yes, I don't care if it's "overused" or what, I personally prefer limited third-person. It strikes a good balance between the intimacy of first-person and the distance of omniscient third-person. |
| Lina |
Posted - 09 Sep 2004 : 14:00:07
I prefer fantasy novels that aren't in first person as you get more detailed description of other characters and their world. Most fantasy novels I have come across are rarely written in first person, as it's easier to show the reader major life-changing events, intrigue, schemes and plots between characters when written in the other styles. However, I find that first person novels are suited to storylines which are centered on the life of one character. |
| Richard Lee Byers |
Posted - 09 Sep 2004 : 03:59:01
Zyx: No problem. When I'm feeling grumpy (and having just experienced one hurricane and hearing that another may be on its way will do that to you), the term "literary fiction" annoys me a little. But I know it's standard usage, and I didn't think you were being pretentious when you used it. |
| Erin Tettensor |
Posted - 08 Sep 2004 : 18:59:38
quote:
Originally posted by PaulSKemp
I take your point also, Zyx. "Gimmicky" was an overstatment. My exposure to first person in the fantasy context is limited and has always struck me as gimmicky. In other genres, it works well. Hell, perhaps it can be made to work well in a fantasy novel. I just haven't yet read such a novel.
See, now everyone here is going to go on a mission to find just such a novel -- myself included.
It occurs to me that what a reader prefers may be deeply influenced by who their favourite authors are, and what style those authors prefer. The first novels I really fell in love with were written in first-person (such as the already-mentioned "To Kill a Mockingbird"; "The Catcher in the Rye" also springs to mind...) Having said that, my affection for Terry Pratchett does nothing to change my view that omniscient narrators can be terribly confusing and downright annoying. |
| The Cardinal |
Posted - 08 Sep 2004 : 18:59:09
When first reading this scroll, we were inclined to agree that first person perspective twas not a writing style that would do a book that much of justice. Then, we were reminded thanks to some of the posts about a story the tome "Realms of Mystery". The tales was very goon and in the end left us with a feeling of foreboding with it's close. The Story was called "The Rose Window" By Monte Cook, and never had a first person story enthralled us so. Without wanting to give anything away, we shall merely say the story twas a welcome surprise at the end, and not at all what we had expected.
So We now remember and think that First person and Third person stories each hath a place in the Realms. After all even in Fantasy there still is mystery  |
| PaulSKemp |
Posted - 08 Sep 2004 : 18:34:05
quote:
Originally posted by Zyx
I have to disagree with you on the "gimmicky" point. Anything can be gimmicky if its primary purpose is to be a show-off stunt. Maybe second-person future-tense is inherently gimmicky, but other than that I can't really think of a perspective that isn't just right under certain circumstances. Whether first person comes off as gimmicky probably reflects the skill and intent of the author. If the author is writing in first-person just to prove he or she can, then yes, it will probably sound gimmicky. But if the story dictates that first-person is how it ought to be told, then I don't see anything gimmicky or show-off about it.
I take your point also, Zyx. "Gimmicky" was an overstatment. My exposure to first person in the fantasy context is limited and has always struck me as gimmicky. In other genres, it works well. Hell, perhaps it can be made to work well in a fantasy novel. I just haven't yet read such a novel. |
| Erin Tettensor |
Posted - 08 Sep 2004 : 17:24:23
Point taken, Paul; I should retract my statement, as it was imprecise. I quite agree that whether or not a novel presents an engaging character is a function of the skill of the author -- I think that goes without saying. I was painting in broad strokes, expressing generalities rather than commenting on a particular perspective as being inherently better regardless of author.
Aside from genre, lots of things can affect my preference as a reader, and one of them is the author. Some authors are simply lousy at first person, and others have mastered it. Try to imagine "To Kill a Mockingbird" or "The Sound and the Fury" from third person, and the magic is gone.
I have to disagree with you on the "gimmicky" point. Anything can be gimmicky if its primary purpose is to be a show-off stunt. Maybe second-person future-tense is inherently gimmicky, but other than that I can't really think of a perspective that isn't just right under certain circumstances. Whether first person comes off as gimmicky probably reflects the skill and intent of the author. If the author is writing in first-person just to prove he or she can, then yes, it will probably sound gimmicky. But if the story dictates that first-person is how it ought to be told, then I don't see anything gimmicky or show-off about it.
ps -- Richard, in case you thought I was being pretentious by calling it "literary fiction," let me assure you the term isn't mine. They seem to insist on calling it that in Publisher's Weekly and the various agent listings I have, and it always makes me smirk. As though genre fiction ought to be relegated to the fringes of the civilized world. |
| PaulSKemp |
Posted - 08 Sep 2004 : 16:00:30
quote:
Originally posted by Zyx
I think first person much more suited to literary fiction, which is probably where you're most likely to find it. In my opinion, character novels written in third person limited are impersonal and never let you delve deeply enough into the psyche of the main character to really feel his or her joys and pains.
I disagree wholeheartedly. In my view, the question of whether or not a novel delves deeply into the psyche of the characters is entirely a function of the skill of the author, not the nature of the narrative. Steinbeck's "Grapes of Wrath," Kafka's "The Trial," Hemingway's, "For Whom the Bell Tolls," are all, if I remember correctly, third person limited, and each delves plenty deeply into the psyche of the protagonists (perhaps too deeply, in Kafka's case).
I'm entirely with Richard on this: Novels (as opposed to short stories) in first person, unless done very, very well (see, e.g., "The Great Gatsby") may risk striking a reader as gimmicky. |
| Richard Lee Byers |
Posted - 08 Sep 2004 : 14:54:14
First person may be well-suited to "literary fiction," but you get a whole heck of a lot of it in detective fiction, so it obviously works well there, also. |
| The Wanderer |
Posted - 08 Sep 2004 : 14:53:49
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
There is another consideration that can play into the writer's choice of third vs. first person. First person can bleed off a bit of the suspense the story might otherwise generate, because it makes it fairly clear that whatever may happen over the course of the tale, the narrator at least survives. Because otherwise, how could he be telling us all this crap?
I have one possible counter example for that point. There is a story (the stained window I believe... I do not have the book with me ATM)in the new Best of the Realms anthology where the point of view is in first person, yet at the end of the story you find out that the narrator does not survive. One is reqading a letter which is only supposed to be read is the author is killed. I would say though that this technique works only for short stories and not for more drawn out epics. |
| Erin Tettensor |
Posted - 08 Sep 2004 : 14:29:57
I agree with you, Murray, about first person generally being more suited to other genres. My personal preference is to write in first person, but I've never done it for fantasy (except once in a prologue). I think first person much more suited to literary fiction, which is probably where you're most likely to find it. In my opinion, character novels written in third person limited are impersonal and never let you delve deeply enough into the psyche of the main character to really feel his or her joys and pains. In these types of novels, when "action" usually constitutes nothing more physically stressful than having an argument, third person's "bird's eye view" is really not necessary, and in fact can be quite distracting.
I liken it to close-ups in the movies. In most action films, there are few if any close-ups on the actors, and when there are it's for that moment of jaw-slackened horror or some such -- something really obvious. Whereas in a character movie, like a Woody Allen film or a John Steinbeck adaptation, we spend a lot of time witnessing understated, complex emotions. That, to me, is the difference between first person narration and third person, and my preference for it has everything to do with genre.
As for first-person making it harder to separate the storyteller from the author, I think that's a good thing. It helps readers lose themselves in the story. Just as it's a testament to an actor's skill that you forget you're watching De Niro and think only of his character, I think it's a testament to a writer's skill when a reader feels they are interacting directly with the story. In my opinion, the reader should forget the author exists at all. When I read "She's Come Undone", even after all the hype about how a man could write a woman so well, I was aware of the clash for all of three minutes. The quality of the writing erased any notion of "author" and I thought only of the character. |
| Kameron M. Franklin |
Posted - 07 Sep 2004 : 20:15:12
I've found first person narrative often makes it hard to separate the author from the storyteller in the reader's mind. I wrote a short story (non-fantasy) for a workshop in college where the narrator was female and got a lot of comments back on how hard it was for the reader to visualize the character because they knew I was a man.
My personal preference for perspective is third person limited. |
| Richard Lee Byers |
Posted - 06 Sep 2004 : 22:48:50
Paul: You're right, of course, Multiple first-person can be made to work. In addition to the LeGuin novel, I can think of a Norman Spinrad novella that brought it off.
It is tricky, though. I know from having experimented with it myself (not in anything that ever saw print.) And even if you make it fly, many of your readers will be conscious of the fact that the author is attempting a literary stunt and being cute. I hope I won't seem to be taking an excessively lowbrow view of the sword-and-sorcery genre if I suggest that it may not be the best venue for such maneuvers.
There is another consideration that can play into the writer's choice of third vs. first person. First person can bleed off a bit of the suspense the story might otherwise generate, because it makes it fairly clear that whatever may happen over the course of the tale, the narrator at least survives. Because otherwise, how could he be telling us all this crap?
First person may even compromise surprise and suspense to a greater extent than that. Because the voice of a guy telling about events that ended well will likely be different than the voice of the same dude telling us about a ghastly tragedy. |
| PaulSKemp |
Posted - 06 Sep 2004 : 15:16:46
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
I like writing in the first person, but many long fantasy stories have different characters going off in different directions doing diffeent things at the same time (starting with The Two Towers, The Lord of the Rings is a good example.) If you've got a plot like this, first-person narration is usually precluded, because there's no one character who witnesses all the action. You generally have to go with multiple third-person point of view.
Ursula LeGuin used first person in the Left Hand of Darkness, even while having multiple (or at least two) protags. Multiple protags does not preclude first person narrative, though I concede it makes it more difficult.
For whatever reason, I've always found first person LESS intimate and involving as a reader, which is why I've never written a first person story as a writer. Still, I very much enjoyed Murray's first person story in Realms of Shadow.
Paul |
| Richard Lee Byers |
Posted - 06 Sep 2004 : 14:09:38
I like writing in the first person, but many long fantasy stories have different characters going off in different directions doing diffeent things at the same time (starting with The Two Towers, The Lord of the Rings is a good example.) If you've got a plot like this, first-person narration is usually precluded, because there's no one character who witnesses all the action. You generally have to go with multiple third-person point of view. |
| Kajehase |
Posted - 06 Sep 2004 : 13:00:07
In case anyone would be interested in reading a very good example of a story written in first-person that's still 'big' fantasy, let me recommend Robin Hobb's Farseer and Tawny Man trilogies. Stellar work that includes several of the usual clichéd figures in fantasy (the bastard son, the scheming younger prince, dragons and so forth) and somehow manages to use them in a whole new way. Furthermore (with all respect to the authors on these boards) it is quite possibly the best fantasy I've ever read. |
| Murray Leeder |
Posted - 06 Sep 2004 : 06:53:29
I always try to find the format most appropriate for the story. My story in Realms of the Dragons II isn't first person, nor is Son of Thunder. The only Realms novel I can recall in first person... sort of... is Crucible. However, I'm hardly the first author to use it in the anthologies. A few other examples come to mind, such as Richard Lee Byers' and Elaine Cunningham's tales in Realms of the Deep, Mark Anthony's in Realms of Magic and R.A. Salvatore's first person Drizzt tale "Dark Mirror" in Realms of Valour. There are probably others.
I wonder why first person is so rarely used in fantasy. Perhaps because so much of the appeal lies in description, which is better facilitated by third person. Also, first person is more intimate and designed for smaller storytelling, and therefore may not suit the "sweeping epic" so well.
Hope you like "The Fallen Lands." It will prove useful background for Son of Thunder. |
|
|
