The Place For My Writers Notes

First posted 3 April 2007

Without getting into the issue of whether first-person is a good choice or not, let's take a look at what James Scott Bell has to say in Writers Digest June 2004 on pages 21 and 22. The basic problem that James tackles is simple -- when I talk from my first-person point of view, I may have difficulty getting around the limitation of being stuck in my own perspective. So he proposes four different ways to stretch the first-person point of view.

First, to replace the cut to a different scene which raises readers wonderment about what happened in the original scene which is left usually at a cliffhanger, James proposes time delay. Simply end one chapter on a note of high tension, then let the first-person narrator start the next chapter with a digression, flashback, or some such delaying tactic. Then get back to what happened next. For example, James suggests:

I heard a shot. And a jolt to my chest. Hot blood stained my shirt.
[next chapter]
When I was six, my father taught me a valuable lesson. "Son, " he said . . .

Second, you can replace third person description with first-person imagination. "I can picture them . . . " or even "in my imagination . . ." easily introduces a bit of description.

Third, the ever popular dreams can help reveal the narrator's mind and the stakes that he/she confronts. Don't overdo them, but they're another tool in your toolbox.

Fourth, and final, as you know, Bob, you can have another character tell the first-person narrator about events. This may be a monologue or dialogue, but be careful about sudden momentary shift in points of view. It is very easy to have this slip over, and you need to be in control of the sliding.

So if you want the immediacy, empathy, intimacy and so forth that a first-person account brings with it, go ahead and try it. You can use these methods to help deal with the limitations that the first-person point of view also has. Use time delay to build suspense. Use imagination to describe a person can't see. Use dreams as a way to bring out the narrators inner concerns. Use those secondhand reports from other characters as a way to fill in. Some great detectives have depended on the reports of their assistants!

And, of course,if you need to, you can always go back and rewrite it in third person.

Write?

Chapter 22: Multiple Points of View

We're coming up on the end of Make a Scene by Jordan Rosenfeld. Chapter 22 is the first chapter in part four, which looks at other scene considerations. Multiple points of view, the protagonist's emotional thread, secondary and minor characters, scene transitions, and scene assessment and revision are all we have left to meander through. So let's get started.

Point-of-view or POV is one of the defining characteristics of narrative. It's really very simple, who is the character or camera that is looking at the fictional action, characters, etc.? Selecting a point of view influences tone, mood, pace -- just about everything in a scene. Probably the key to point of view is integrity and consistency -- making sure that the reader is never confused about POV.

One of the critical points to understand about POV is that it only defines what you show the reader, it also helps determine the distance between the reader and the characters. The intimacy, if you will. The story and content can help you decide how-up-close-and-personal to make the POV.

First person is the most intimate. I stabbed him -- it's immediate, emotional involvement. Inside the first person head. The flipside is that sometimes readers need some distance. Suffering, pain, crises -- third person limited can help with objectivity and intensity. When combined with present tense -- which makes it very immediate -- it's tight and hot for the reader. Past tense gives a little bit more distance.

Second person? I'm going to skip this section, because I really don't think new writers are likely to need to use second person.

Third person. This is the "she's" and "he's" that we are pretty familiar with. There are at least two major forms, with some gradations. Rosenfeld talks about omniscient and limited. He also describes two flavors of omniscient.

Third person limited is probably the most widely used POV. Basically, each scene, and often entire books, are written from one character's point of view, with some insights into that one character's thoughts, and no one else's.

Omniscient jumps across characters thoughts, gleefully dipping into whichever head happens to be handy. This is where Rosenfeld differentiates between continuous -- which never stop hopping -- and instants which are omniscient bits scattered into a predominantly third person limited point of view.

A scene involves significant action with the protagonist charging towards some intention, running into some conflicts, concluding a climax and change. Point of view is how the events are shown to the reader. With a single protagonist and point of view, the world is simple. Decide how much intimacy you want, consider that third person limited is the most popular approach, and decide what you're going to do. However, with multiple protagonists or some other reason to switch points of view within a scene, you may need to change points of view. Omniscient point of view lets you tackle complex or comprehensive looks at big situations and issues. When you do this, make sure that the very beginning of the scene makes it clear to the reader what's happening.

Between scenes is a common place to change points of view. You still want to make sure at the beginning of each scene that the reader knows what the point of view is, but at least they're prepared for such changes.

One thing to consider is how much time each point of view gets. With multiple narrators, you need to be careful. Readers tend to think that narrators who get more time must be more important, or have something special to say.

Okay, that's enough from Rosenfeld. Basically, the question is what point of view is the scene and the story told from. Where are we perched as we watch the action? The most common choice is probably on the shoulder of the protagonist, third person limited. Mostly like a camera watching over the shoulder of the protagonist, with occasional dips into his or her thinking. Another approach is first person, not just on the shoulder of the protagonist, inside their head -- actually my head! But on occasion, you'll need to change points of view to sprinkle in some extra information or even keep the points of view moving in an omniscient overview. The question usually is what's the best way to get the reader involved and keep them involved.

Assignments? Well, as usual one good way to look at this is to pick up some of your favorite novels or stories and examine how point of view is used. Most of the time, most scenes are told from a single point of view -- first person or third limited. Sometimes the point of view changes between scenes or chapters, and look at how the story establishes what the new point of view is.

Another is to try taking a scene and changing the point of view. First person, third person limited, the protagonist's point of view, the antagonist's point of view, someone else -- see how the scene changes as you write it from different points of view. Or take something like the famous shower scene in Psycho -- imagine writing this in first person? Maybe that's a little too intimate, so you step back to third person limited. Orson Scott Card points out that even here, there are levels of distance that the writer needs to think about. A cinematic approach might only show things, without any of those little internal monologues that we all love so much. A somewhat closer approach might have some thoughts, but still mostly depend on showing external actions. And then there are third person limited write ups that are mostly inside the head of the protagonist, with a little bit of external vision. You might try adjusting your scene to have more or less of the protagonist's thoughts.

One of the fun parts here is that as writers, we can borrow terminology from the moviemakers. Establishing shots, wide-angle, close up -- we've got that whole bag of tricks that they use, plus the freedom to bring out the thoughts, emotions, beliefs and so forth inside the heads of our characters. Don't overdo it -- stories that are little more than an internal rant aren't too likely to be interesting to readers -- but we do have that spice of insight to help separate written from cinematic visions.

So, write! I write, you write, he writes, she writes, we all write! Conjugations in a writing mood?

"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results." Sir Winston Churchill
Which I guess means that it ain't enough to dance pretty, you need to bake some cookies, too.
(Don't you just love torturing metaphors?)

original posting: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 00:10:12 EST

On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 11:54:40 PST, Celia asked:
:)
:) Where on your scale do you put the first person story that is written
:) from the view of a Doctor Watson type character. This character is the
:) POV character, but everything is filtered through the perceptions and
:) activities of another character. Ergo, not really first person at all. Or
:) is it?

First off, thank you for the opportunity to drag out my Complete Sherlock Holmes and do some checking.
 
As you say, the stories are told from the first person POV (Dr. Watson). This is almost a cliche now in mystery stories (although still with lots of life in it)--telling the story from the POV of the "great detective's assistant" (or other sidekick). I consider them very much as first person POV tales.

A little different question might be why should the "first person" be the sidekick instead of the "great detective" himself (or herself)?

I think there are at least two reasons. First, this allows the "secret thinking" of the great detective to remain a mystery, making it easier for the reader to pummel their brains in competition with the detective. One of the great "tricks" of the Nero Wolfe series by Rex Stout was that the person who did all the running around was NOT the great detective, but the assistant. So we could be relatively sure that the detective did not have any knowledge except what "we" had reported to him--and he still out-thought us!

Second, I think it is a little easier for the reader to "imagine themselves" in the shoes of the sidekick. Watching the great detective lay down in the wet grass or otherwise surprise us, then eventually being surprised when they resolve the puzzle...being "Dr. Watson" is much easier for the reader than being "Sherlock Holmes."

Hum...you do bring up a point, though. The first person narrator may or may not be the protagonist--the primary actor around whom the story turns. So perhaps we should consider when it is useful for the narrator to also be the protagonist?

Could the narrator be the antagonist?

Incidentally, the first person narrator usually is a more rounded or full character than the third person narrator (who frequently is little more than a POV). So perhaps when the character of the narrator is important to the story, we should use first person?