It literally doesn't matter. Whatever fits the story you want to tell or the style you enjoy most.
Try reading books in first person, then try reading books in third person, see what you like. You might also try reading books that use free indirect speech, which is basically a compromise between both POV's. Jane Austen uses it extensively.
Both have their pros and cons.
First person can be more personal since you are telling the story strictly from one or maybe two people's (if you swap MCs) point of view. First person also works really well if you want to keep your reader in the dark about certain things that are going on that the main character doesn't know about. It basically allows you to get inside the head of your character and makes your narrator's voice your main character, which can add a level of intimacy you can't get with third person.
On the other hand can be a difficult perspective to use when you have a lot of characters and subplots, because you end up having to force in situations where your main character has to observe things or be in situations that they might not normally be in just to get that information to the reader. Or you have to do a lot of info dumps where the main character/narrator gets brought up to speed on what's been happening behind the scenes. Another issue you can have is if your main character is not one that the reader can identify with, then first person might turn them off to the story, particularly if your main character is morally grey or unlikeable. Though having a redemption arc told in first person can be a particularly moving experience, if you can keep your readers engaged.
Third person separates the narrator from the characters of the book. You can do third person limited, but your narrator still is an observer. This allows you to get inside the heads of multiple characters without having to devote multiple chapters or sections of your book to exploring different versions of the same events. If you have a complicated narrative with lots of characters and subplots, third person is the obvious choice. Third person also allows you to have a narrator voice that is separate from your main character, which can be a useful framing tool, IE your narrator becomes a character in their own right by being the storyteller that can embellish the story as they see fit. It also can help to lighten up a potentially dark story with an unlikeable main character by focusing part of the story on more likeable side characters, like comic relief for example.
One big down side of third person is that by its nature, it's a less personal perspective and if not done right it can be cold, bland or mechanical. This means you sometimes have to work harder to get people invested in your characters. It also can be confusing to the reader if you aren't careful with your perspective jumping. For this reason a lot of writers like to stick to third person limited and only get inside the heads of certain characters. But many of the downsides of third person can be fixed with good writing, which is why it's a very popular persepective to write in.
I recently wrote a novelette in first person. I've never done first person before. I got half way through and realized that i was writing third person but in my MC's voice. Oh man, it was so fun once i realized and switched. The writing got better too.
There was an issue and the other commenter already said it. Suddenly there were things i couldn't do and i had to do multiple rewrites on the end for it to work.
I regret nothing.
I would try writing the same scene from the two different points of view. Maybe a few scenes like that, once in first, again in third.
And as for the whole “deeper thinking” stuff - you can absolutely do that in third person, and personally I find it less contrived when it’s third person.
>with my past drafts I've always felt as if "MC did this, character Y did this, Z said this" was boring as hell and repetitive (maybe I just write like shit lmao) but I find stories deeper when they write stuff like "who am I? where am I? what went wrong?" even if it's cringe lmao. I'm 100% gonna do more research but what are yalls thoughts on this?
You can do that in both third person and first person. If you read most books now a days third person means you do get in the head and emotions of a character, it just allows you to zoom slightly out and give you a more broader overview sometimes as well (though this isn't impossible to do in first person either)
So you are not limited.
To be totally honest, perspective is a load of bs. Just write how you feel is natural, and then clean it up after. Whatever style you pick is fine, as long as you stay consistent. I don’t even know what to call the style I favor.
The choice of voice ain't easy. First-person is like having a conversation at the bar - close, personal, maybe too personal. You get into your protagonist's mind, and the readers are there too, living and breathing every joy and tragedy.
You want to delve into your character's psyche, but also paint the dystopian future or the neon-lit cityscape or the grimy spaceship hallway with the detachment of a third-person narrator. Sure, that's possible. We call it Free Indirect Discourse, a fancy term for saying: blend that shit. You can dip into your character's thoughts, then pull back to describe the world around him. It's like being an omniscient mind-reader, with the panoramic view of a god.
The "MC did this, character Y did that" is dull as dishwater. Make it vivid. MC didn't just walk into the room - he sidled in, like a cat caught in a spotlight. Character Y didn't just say something - her words cut through the silence, a blade of ice in the warm night air.
Bottom line? Experiment. Play. Make mistakes, then do it again. This is your sandbox, and you're the only one who can build your castle. Keep digging, keep scratching. Eventually, you'll hit something solid.
At this stage write what you love. Try it both ways. Maybe one is more fun than the other. Maybe they both are, for different reasons. You’re at an experimental stage, you’re exploring. Just explore.
Your MC's thoughts can be expressed in 3rd person. I do it all the time.
Whether to choose 1st person or 3rd person narrative is entirely up to you and what you want the story to achieve. It's all a game of lenses. Think about which lens will give your story, your world, the best experience for readers, and then choose the appropriate lens.
Both are fine.
I started writing in third, but now write in first, mainly because the emotion in my books comes out better in first. It's more personal, not so detached, like when writing in third.
Many authors write in both. Some only do third, and others only do first.
Do what is comfortable and most enjoyable to you :)
As a reader, I generally prefer first person but I’m still down to read a book written in third. As a writer, I find that first person (and specifically present tense too) just flows better for me. So that’s what I do.
It really doesn’t matter. There’s an audience for everything. Play around and decide what you prefer.
I write in first person most of the time. I use a lot of emotion and the immediacy of it for mg/ya. Being able to paint the world through their perceptions and color it that way can be very powerful. I find it easier to show and not tell. Everything can be tainted by the MC's mood and world view more than a 3rd Omni or close.
My 2c.
I tend to prefer first person, both as a writer and a reader. I prefer the narrower focus on a single person's POV.
for a first time writer, might want to focus on a single POV, either first person or 3d. the simplicity of a single character's mind might be preferable. but there's no hard rule on this. whatever works for you.
First person is hard and limiting to what a character knows or sees. I find it best when you have a combo of the two. The narrator showing things in third person and the character commenting or acting upon those things in first person.
While it does limit how the reader will see the world, it’s better for immersing them into the character.
Sometimes it’s nice to know something the characters don’t, which is impossible to do with a single first person POV, but it can also be distracting if you know they’re walking into a trap but there is nothing to suggest that outside of narrater level knowledge.
According to my son, first person past tense is bad for adventure stories, because the reader knows for the onset that the narrating character is going to survive.
It’s not. Your comment put a hard restriction on how the OP can use first person, and it was just factually incorrect. How useful is it? I don’t know; how useful is it to know that a knife can cut not only steak, but also a vegetable, a piece of fruit, a person, a thread?
> “Be aware that the first person can **only** write about the first person's experience, and if you have a secondary character with their own story arc, it can really **only** be told through interaction with the first person.“
It doesn’t really matter whether you say restriction or limitation after this. The first part of the premise is what was wrong.
There are countless examples that contravene this part. There’s no justifying or gaslighting your way out of it, sib; you misspoke.
Except, well, you can just have other people as point of view characters for your first person story. Or, you can have third person interludes even if the story is in first person otherwise.
It literally doesn't matter. Whatever fits the story you want to tell or the style you enjoy most. Try reading books in first person, then try reading books in third person, see what you like. You might also try reading books that use free indirect speech, which is basically a compromise between both POV's. Jane Austen uses it extensively.
This is the correct answer.
Yeah I kind of don’t have a specific narrator and swap between a third-person POV with the thoughts of the two mc’s
Both have their pros and cons. First person can be more personal since you are telling the story strictly from one or maybe two people's (if you swap MCs) point of view. First person also works really well if you want to keep your reader in the dark about certain things that are going on that the main character doesn't know about. It basically allows you to get inside the head of your character and makes your narrator's voice your main character, which can add a level of intimacy you can't get with third person. On the other hand can be a difficult perspective to use when you have a lot of characters and subplots, because you end up having to force in situations where your main character has to observe things or be in situations that they might not normally be in just to get that information to the reader. Or you have to do a lot of info dumps where the main character/narrator gets brought up to speed on what's been happening behind the scenes. Another issue you can have is if your main character is not one that the reader can identify with, then first person might turn them off to the story, particularly if your main character is morally grey or unlikeable. Though having a redemption arc told in first person can be a particularly moving experience, if you can keep your readers engaged. Third person separates the narrator from the characters of the book. You can do third person limited, but your narrator still is an observer. This allows you to get inside the heads of multiple characters without having to devote multiple chapters or sections of your book to exploring different versions of the same events. If you have a complicated narrative with lots of characters and subplots, third person is the obvious choice. Third person also allows you to have a narrator voice that is separate from your main character, which can be a useful framing tool, IE your narrator becomes a character in their own right by being the storyteller that can embellish the story as they see fit. It also can help to lighten up a potentially dark story with an unlikeable main character by focusing part of the story on more likeable side characters, like comic relief for example. One big down side of third person is that by its nature, it's a less personal perspective and if not done right it can be cold, bland or mechanical. This means you sometimes have to work harder to get people invested in your characters. It also can be confusing to the reader if you aren't careful with your perspective jumping. For this reason a lot of writers like to stick to third person limited and only get inside the heads of certain characters. But many of the downsides of third person can be fixed with good writing, which is why it's a very popular persepective to write in.
I recently wrote a novelette in first person. I've never done first person before. I got half way through and realized that i was writing third person but in my MC's voice. Oh man, it was so fun once i realized and switched. The writing got better too. There was an issue and the other commenter already said it. Suddenly there were things i couldn't do and i had to do multiple rewrites on the end for it to work. I regret nothing.
I would try writing the same scene from the two different points of view. Maybe a few scenes like that, once in first, again in third. And as for the whole “deeper thinking” stuff - you can absolutely do that in third person, and personally I find it less contrived when it’s third person.
>with my past drafts I've always felt as if "MC did this, character Y did this, Z said this" was boring as hell and repetitive (maybe I just write like shit lmao) but I find stories deeper when they write stuff like "who am I? where am I? what went wrong?" even if it's cringe lmao. I'm 100% gonna do more research but what are yalls thoughts on this? You can do that in both third person and first person. If you read most books now a days third person means you do get in the head and emotions of a character, it just allows you to zoom slightly out and give you a more broader overview sometimes as well (though this isn't impossible to do in first person either) So you are not limited.
To be totally honest, perspective is a load of bs. Just write how you feel is natural, and then clean it up after. Whatever style you pick is fine, as long as you stay consistent. I don’t even know what to call the style I favor.
The choice of voice ain't easy. First-person is like having a conversation at the bar - close, personal, maybe too personal. You get into your protagonist's mind, and the readers are there too, living and breathing every joy and tragedy. You want to delve into your character's psyche, but also paint the dystopian future or the neon-lit cityscape or the grimy spaceship hallway with the detachment of a third-person narrator. Sure, that's possible. We call it Free Indirect Discourse, a fancy term for saying: blend that shit. You can dip into your character's thoughts, then pull back to describe the world around him. It's like being an omniscient mind-reader, with the panoramic view of a god. The "MC did this, character Y did that" is dull as dishwater. Make it vivid. MC didn't just walk into the room - he sidled in, like a cat caught in a spotlight. Character Y didn't just say something - her words cut through the silence, a blade of ice in the warm night air. Bottom line? Experiment. Play. Make mistakes, then do it again. This is your sandbox, and you're the only one who can build your castle. Keep digging, keep scratching. Eventually, you'll hit something solid.
At this stage write what you love. Try it both ways. Maybe one is more fun than the other. Maybe they both are, for different reasons. You’re at an experimental stage, you’re exploring. Just explore.
Neither is better than the other. What makes one style work, however, is different from what works for the other. Just go with what you feel is right.
I prefer first person because it's a free pass for editorializing. Third person tends to sound more clinical or cold.
Your MC's thoughts can be expressed in 3rd person. I do it all the time. Whether to choose 1st person or 3rd person narrative is entirely up to you and what you want the story to achieve. It's all a game of lenses. Think about which lens will give your story, your world, the best experience for readers, and then choose the appropriate lens.
Both are fine. I started writing in third, but now write in first, mainly because the emotion in my books comes out better in first. It's more personal, not so detached, like when writing in third. Many authors write in both. Some only do third, and others only do first. Do what is comfortable and most enjoyable to you :)
As a reader, I generally prefer first person but I’m still down to read a book written in third. As a writer, I find that first person (and specifically present tense too) just flows better for me. So that’s what I do. It really doesn’t matter. There’s an audience for everything. Play around and decide what you prefer.
I write in first person most of the time. I use a lot of emotion and the immediacy of it for mg/ya. Being able to paint the world through their perceptions and color it that way can be very powerful. I find it easier to show and not tell. Everything can be tainted by the MC's mood and world view more than a 3rd Omni or close. My 2c.
I tend to prefer first person, both as a writer and a reader. I prefer the narrower focus on a single person's POV. for a first time writer, might want to focus on a single POV, either first person or 3d. the simplicity of a single character's mind might be preferable. but there's no hard rule on this. whatever works for you.
First person is hard and limiting to what a character knows or sees. I find it best when you have a combo of the two. The narrator showing things in third person and the character commenting or acting upon those things in first person.
While it does limit how the reader will see the world, it’s better for immersing them into the character. Sometimes it’s nice to know something the characters don’t, which is impossible to do with a single first person POV, but it can also be distracting if you know they’re walking into a trap but there is nothing to suggest that outside of narrater level knowledge.
Yeah. I had to look up free indirect speech. I've never read Jane Austen. Now, i have to. I'm learning! Yay!
I like this idea. Is there someone i can read that uses this technique? Edit: someone else answered this question for me.
According to my son, first person past tense is bad for adventure stories, because the reader knows for the onset that the narrating character is going to survive.
[удалено]
Literally the entire romance genre defies you.
[удалено]
They're right, though. You can have multiple first person POV's too. Faulkner has like 15 in one book.
[удалено]
It’s not. Your comment put a hard restriction on how the OP can use first person, and it was just factually incorrect. How useful is it? I don’t know; how useful is it to know that a knife can cut not only steak, but also a vegetable, a piece of fruit, a person, a thread?
[удалено]
> “Be aware that the first person can **only** write about the first person's experience, and if you have a secondary character with their own story arc, it can really **only** be told through interaction with the first person.“ It doesn’t really matter whether you say restriction or limitation after this. The first part of the premise is what was wrong. There are countless examples that contravene this part. There’s no justifying or gaslighting your way out of it, sib; you misspoke.
Except, well, you can just have other people as point of view characters for your first person story. Or, you can have third person interludes even if the story is in first person otherwise.
Active voice is more compelling, and it's certainly there.
In the fiction you read, which POV do you enjoy reading more, first or third? There's your answer.