Me, myself, and I

[ann_leckie]

You can always tell when I have lots of things I'm supposed to be doing--that's when I write long LJ posts! I've got a long, long list of things to accomplish, subs that need reading, emails that need responses, household chores that are begging for my attention. So instead, I'm going to talk about first person.

This is partly triggered by the recent Mind Meld on POV over at SF signal, but not by anyone's particular response there. It just tripped over a sort of built-up annoyance over a few totally different discussions of first person POV.

So. I have already ranted over the "first person allows no suspense because we know the narrator has to have survived to literally tell this tale" thing. For convenience I will summarize my objections thus--life or death is not the only, or even necessarily the best, sort of suspense, and genre conventions mean the reader generally knows going in that the main character will live*, even though we all pretend we don't. And suspense isn't about not knowing what happens next, it's about caring what happens next and that's a totally different thing.

That disposed of. I have also recently seen it asserted that first person makes it difficult to depict any but the main character.

The first time I read that I boggled. Then I saw it pop up a few other places and boggled more.

First person doesn't make this any more difficult than tight third. And it's not really that difficult. I hesitate to ever say that any given writer is taking a "wrong" approach, because, you know, nine and sixty ways and the only thing that matters is if what you're doing works. But if you're seeing characterizing non-narrator characters as difficult or even impossible because of the inherent limitations of first person, I'd like to suggest you're looking at the problem from an unproductive angle.

It's true we only have access to the narrator's thoughts in first person. But unless that narrator is incredibly self-absorbed (a possibility, certainly), they're going to be seeing and noticing other people as they move through the narrative. And thoughts and emotions directly expressed are not the only way to give the reader access to character. Actions, the speed or hesitancy with which those actions are performed, small gestures, facial expressions, a few small, well-chosen details of dress or physical description, all these things and more add up to make a character solid in a reader's mind.

And it's the reader's mind that counts. The observed actions, that make for characterizing non-narrator characters, it's not for the narrator, it's for the reader. The narrator can think whatever she wants about the people around her, that won't necessarily match what you, as the writer, are meaning to convey to the reader about those other characters. The most obvious examples of this are those stories where the first person narrator is completely oblivious to what's actually happening, completely misinterprets what the other characters are doing and saying, but the reader can see what's really going on. You can get various levels of this, from flat out laughably unaware to mildly ironic. But the very fact that you can do that tells you right off that the characterization of non-narrator characters in first person isn't about what the narrator observes so much as it's how reporting what the narrator observes hits the mind of the reader.

Try looking at it that way. Not "I'm limited to the thoughts of the narrator!" but "How do I convey the thoughts and observations of the narrator in a way that's true to her character but tells the reader what I want them to know?" I suspect you'll get better results.

And don't forget that you actually don't need an internal monologue, or reporting of thoughts or feelings, to convey character. Yes, having that gives you a sense of intimacy and immediacy, yes that does make the job easier, but you can draw a convincing character with absolutely no information about that character's thoughts and emotions beyond what she says and does. Seriously, you can. And it's a skill worth having. If you're not sure how to do it, pay close attention to how non-POV characters are handled in almost anything you like--any story or novel that you really admire or love. Or try a "classic" that's in first person. Great Expectations, The Great Gatsby, there are more (even ones that don't have Great in the title!). Knowing how to do that will actually help you make even your POV characters more solid.

In short, I suggest that if your writing with first person narrators consistently comes off seeming like the narrator is completely self-absorbed and the other characters are hardly there, the problem is not the first person POV, but your not having paid enough attention to those other characters to begin with--and perhaps also not paid enough attention to how your narrator's character is going to affect how she sees those other characters. Working on that will, I'd bet, even vastly improve the characterization of your narrator, and that's all to the good, right?
____
*Except when the main character doesn't, in which case the reader is generally prepared for it in advance, very deliberately, by the writer. When this preparation is absent or insufficient, readers often react with feelings of anger and betrayal. Indeed, their expectations have been betrayed. That's not possible unless those are, in fact, default expectations.

Comments

[asakiyume.livejournal.com]

And it's the reader's mind that counts. The observed actions, that make for characterizing non-narrator characters, it's not for the narrator, it's for the reader. The narrator can think whatever she wants about the people around her, that won't necessarily match what you, as the writer, are meaning to convey to the reader about those other characters.

Absolutely! The pleasures of the unreliable narrator.

In short, I suggest that if your writing with first person narrators consistently comes off seeming like the narrator is completely self-absorbed and the other characters are hardly there, the problem is not the first person POV, but your not having paid enough attention to those other characters to begin with

Yes: basically, they're NPCs to the lone player character. Stories written like this are scarily hollow.

[ann-leckie.livejournal.com]

They are that. Hollow is a good word.

It's kind of sad/frustrating because if there's anything that will reveal character, it's how someone interacts with other people, so you'd think stopping to make sure those other people are there and solid would be a very immediate concern.

[barbarienne.livejournal.com]

I'm fairly certain that all the readers of The Hunger Games got a very good understanding of Peeta and Gale despite (a) the books being told in the first person, and (b) Katniss being clueless about both boys.

*snort*

"difficult to depict any but the main character" - yeah, if you're only thinking about it in the abstract, and not actually, you know, looking at how scads and scads of real writers have accomplished it.

[ann-leckie.livejournal.com]

"difficult to depict any but the main character" - yeah, if you're only thinking about it in the abstract, and not actually, you know, looking at how scads and scads of real writers have accomplished it.

This is, of course, the main problem in my view. There are lots of lists of "rules" for "new writers" and lots of people grab onto them and make more new rules based off those, or come to conclusions based on their own conversations about rules, and they spread those around to newer writers as they join their communities, and then you get stuff like people saying The Fall of the House of Usher just isn't that good a story cause all it is, is a bunch of description.

Where, you know, if you start with the reading and assume Poe, and that story, is still being read for a reason and ask yourself why that is, you get very different results, don't you. Even if in the end you still don't like it that much, you've learned something, where comparing it to a list of rules (and not concluding that the rules are bunk) gets you nothing.

This is why "rules" drive me bonkers.

[asakiyume.livejournal.com]

Where, you know, if you start with the reading and assume Poe, and that story, is still being read for a reason and ask yourself why that is, you get very different results, don't you. Even if in the end you still don't like it that much

Exactly every part of this.

If something has a history of high regard, there's a reason for it. Why? Read looking for the answer, and you'll definitely learn something.

Wide reading of good literature is a much, much better way to improve your own writing than internalizing lists of rules.

[helivoy.livejournal.com]

Counter-exhibits abound for "first person means the protagonist lived to tell the tale" -- from Faulkner to Sebold's Lovely Bones. I couldn't agree more with you that first-person is formally equivalent to tight third-person. What we learn from these configurations depends entirely on the talent of the writer and the character's persona.

First person is my natural narrative mode. The genre dogma condemns it as "girly" and/or "Mary Suish" because Workshops 101 rule in lieu of basic literacy.

People often build their own prisons.

[ann-leckie.livejournal.com]

And you're one of the people I owe email to! Sorry! I'd love to be able to explain why I got nothing done for the past two weeks, but I can't just now.

And yeah, I'm kind of mystified by people setting themselves against what's kind of obviously the most basic, natural mode of storytelling. Though I think that's part of the prejudice--it's childish and unsophisticated, I guess. And then, yeah, the Workshops 101 thing just spreads this stuff around. The rules, all the rules! And if they'd only ditch the rules and crack open a book and really read it they'd do a lot better.

I like using first. I don't always use it, because not all projects strike me as best for it, but when I'm working on something that it suits, it's fun to do. I actually like some of the limitations--they can be a challenge, but anything worth doing takes effort, IMO.

[sinanju.livejournal.com]

"First person makes it difficult to depict any but the main character" fails the reality test. We all LIVE in a first-person POV. Are the adherents of this argument seriously going to tell us that they can't make value judgments about other people, or can't learn to understand them?

[ann-leckie.livejournal.com]

I hesitated to go in this direction, because I didn't want to say or imply that problems one might have with writing might display personal failings. I don't think that's generally true. But yeah, there's a failure to connect how one deals with "non narrator characters" in one's own life to how one puts them on the page, isn't there. I boggled when I read it, because this seemed so obvious--do most of us go through life oblivious to everyone around us? Some do, I'm sure, but for the most part I doubt it very much.

Well, and also, now I think about it, there's a failure to understand how those judgments and observations go down on the page. Maybe an assumption that in order to give us the characters, our narrator has to be all the time thinking about what those characters are like, so that the readers will know it. Which isn't the case, of course.

[sinanju.livejournal.com]

No, it isn't. Other people are part of your environment, or setting. And setting, as I was told once, is opinion. The world around you can look entirely different depending on your mood, or your opinion about the place in which you find yourself--and that includes the people occupying it. You don't have to be studying them like Sherlock Holmes to gather clues about them from their speech, dress, body language, and whatnot. You'll get first impressions, which may or may not be accurate, and refine them the longer you know someone. It doesn't require extended effort, nor a monologue to yourself. It's part of being a social creature.

[themachinestops.livejournal.com]

The problem I have with a lot of first person narration (both professionally written and amateur) is that often, the narrator is a cipher. A few stories I've read, the narrator doesn't need to be in the piece AT ALL, which begs the question of why we're spending umpteen pages in their head. (I blame this on fanfiction.) The narrator doesn't have to be the focal character or even the most interesting character in the story, in fact I think it's a lot more interesting when they're a sideline character (Great Gatsby, yes, and also One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and dozens of other novels you can think of), but there should at least be something there to care about.

Personally, I gravitate toward third person and always have. I find first person incredibly hard to write well but I think it's more impressive than other narrative styles when it IS done well.

[ann-leckie.livejournal.com]

The problem I have with a lot of first person narration (both professionally written and amateur) is that often, the narrator is a cipher. A few stories I've read, the narrator doesn't need to be in the piece AT ALL, which begs the question of why we're spending umpteen pages in their head.

Which is interesting, since the complaint involves the assumption that it's really easy to characterize the first person narrator. As you point out, that's not actually the default, that takes work of its own. And of course, choosing the wrong POV character to begin with is a problem, definitely, but not, I think, one confined to first person.


Personally, I gravitate toward third person and always have.

Which is fine. I actually like reading/hearing people talk about things they like or don't like when they write or read. I think it's interesting the way different people are more comfortable writing certain kinds of POVs. Personally I don't much care what POV a writer uses as long as it's used well. But I admit I get impatient with "But in First you can't..." or even "First person is always better for..." which I did see in that mind meld, and even though I enjoy writing in first person, that annoyed me.

[r0sew00d.livejournal.com]

"The problem I have with a lot of first person narration (both professionally written and amateur) is that often, the narrator is a cipher."

This seems more common than "first person makes it difficult to depict any but the main character" for me, too. I read a fantasy novel recently--which I won't name--where I had a very good sense of the characters our first-person narrator was observing, but not of the narrator herself. She lacked qualities to attach me to her in either a positive or negative sense. It's possible that authors deliberately avoid the pitfalls of fannish writing, but lose some emotional honesty along the way, leaving the cipher behind.

There are some things that could come across as peculiar in a first-person narrative, like a character's noting a good personality trait in themselves. But it seems like first person is a great place to explore things like a character's not realizing a good trait in themselves, or a hypocrisy. Things that would be apparent to other characters, and which they could respond to without the narrator's knowing where the response is coming from.

Like themachinestops, third person has always been most natural for me. The only first-person story that I recall writing was a short-short from college days that had a rock as a main character. Er... yeah.