There’s a recurring writing argument that revolves around which type(s) of viewpoint are “too easy” or “too hard” or problematic in some other way, such that writers (especially beginners, but when you look a little closer, it sounds a lot like “all writers”) should be discouraged from using whatever it is.
I’ve seen people say this about all viewpoint types—first-person, tight-third person, omniscient, second-person, plural viewpoints—and the argument always seems to me to boil down to “I don’t like writing or reading this viewpoint; I have trouble making it work; and I really like some other viewpoint, so everybody should use that instead of the viewpoint(s) I hate.”
What makes this kind of comment so insidious is that there is always a softball of truth somewhere in the large pile of argument. It is easy to slide into one’s own voice when writing first-person, instead of staying in character. It is tricky to keep a reader identified with a second-person narrator who does or thinks something that “you” wouldn’t, and it’s practically impossible to switch viewpoint characters without changing to first or third person. Third-person is more distancing, with omniscient-third being the most extreme example. And so on.
Since there is no type of viewpoint that doesn’t have drawbacks, the obvious conclusion should be that nobody should ever use any viewpoint at all, which is both absurd and impossible. However, people who make this particular argument are usually ranting about one particular viewpoint, rather than doing an overview of all of them, so they are at liberty to claim that some other viewpoint is easier or better than the one they’re ranting about. And for them, this is often true.
There are two main problems with this, however: First, every writer is different. And second, every book is different.
I personally find omniscient viewpoint difficult to write, so I don’t do it very often, and when I do, I struggle (and complain) mightily. However, I know several writers who seem to write omniscient as easily as breathing. I tend to stick to tight-third-person or first-person, but again, I know writers who happily (and successfully) mix things up to a much greater degree.
Different writers seem to gravitate toward different viewpoints. The only time this becomes a real problem is when a particular writer finds first-person (or tight-third, or whatever) totally natural and easy, but refuses to use it, either because it is “too easy, so I can’t be doing it right” or because they have been convinced that “only amateurs/poseurs/really-bad-writers use that viewpoint” or even “editors won’t buy stories in that viewpoint.” At best, these writers make their writing much harder to do than it needs to be; at worst, they can give themselves massive cases of writer’s block.
Because some stories need to be told in a particular viewpoint. An appealing main character with a distinctive mental voice can work much better in first-person than in third, while a slightly abrasive or obnoxious protagonist is usually more fun to watch from outside (i.e., tight-third or omniscient, or even through the eyes of a Dr. Watson). It’s easier to control the slow unfolding of plot information in a single first-person or tight-third-person viewpoint than in omniscient or in a multiple-viewpoint structure, while a wide-ranging plot may be clearer in multiple or omniscient. And sometimes a story needs something more experimental, like second-person or a plural viewpoint.
The mix between writer preference, the viewpoint character’s personality/voice, and the needs of the story means that the “right type of viewpoint” can vary from story to story even when the same writer is writing them. Some writers settle in to a consistent viewpoint type because the stories their backbrain hands them always suit that particular viewpoint. Other writers get bored by writing the same type of viewpoint, even if there’s a lot of variation in the personalities of their viewpoint characters. Still others just like to experiment. Any viewpoint can be “too hard” for some writers and “too easy” for others. There is no One True Way.
You’ve just inspired me to see if I can write something with a telepathic narrator, who is constantly picking up other people’s thoughts, slipping into their viewpoints almost effortlessly.
It sounds like a fun challenge. First, though…can I pull it off? Hm.
I would read that!!
Well, I just wrote the prologue. 🙂
I have a novel ahead of it waiting for revisions, but give me several months, and I hope to have a draft done, at least.
I did that in a book! It was a lot of fun (and relatively easy for me, since multiple-third comes naturally to me). Though since the telepathy isn’t explicitly mentioned until chapter 2 or 3, I expect I’ll get complaints about pov-violations from people who only read chapter 1.
I have one story that said it wanted to be written in first-person (present tense). Then, partway through, it said I needed to switch viewpoint characters–and along with that, switch to third-person (past tense) viewpoint, too. I promise it works out; the MC is telling/reliving the story after the fact, and throwing in information from the other characters, who she interviewed before starting on the project.
It’s going to be a rather weird story.
I’ve seen other stories pull that off, without the explanation.
It sounds half-way to epistolary, where the different points of view are documents assembled in some order.
The only time I’ve had problem with viewpoint was when I had an “abrasive or obnoxious protagonist” that had to be told from his perspective, because how he perceived his reality was important. It’s hard to write a story with an unlikeable and unsympathetic character that the reader isn’t going to want to set aside.
Some points of view are difficult to carry off, particularly for a beginner.
Multiple points of view require more juggling to keep straight.
First-person point of view from people who are very different from. Close third-person is similar but somewhat easier.
First-person point of view where the character does not know or realize things that you want to convey to the reader.
The novel I’m trying to revise has multiple points of view, and in the outline I note the POV of each scene. The plan was to make each scene tight-third from the POV of a different character, but some of the scenes may end up being omniscient, or camera-eye, or fly-on-the-wall.
Third-person is more distancing,
Just to throw another wrench into the works: I actually find first-person much more distancing than third. It seems… invasive, somehow, and I instinctively recoil from immersing in it. There are exceptions, of course, as there are to everything; there are first-person books that I adore. But as a general rule I settle into the world and mind-set of a third-person story much more easily.
I don’t know if this counts as being more distanced (because if it does than I agree with you), but I hate first-person stories where the main character does something stupid. Probably for the same reason I can’t handle most Hallmark movies… At any rate, it throws me thoroughly out of the story, and once I’m out, it’s tough to get back in. Third-person doesn’t have those problems.
I agree with you. Who wants to be in the head of someone who does stupid things?
Just to be clear, though, that’s not the same as a character who makes a mistake. If the author has set it up so I can see why they’re doing it, I’ll usually play along. (Who doesn’t like a little redemption in the third act?)
This is true. But if it’s something ridiculously thoughtless–like, as an example from a Hallmark I was watching recently, having a job interview over Skype and forgetting to hang up the call before badmouthing the boss to a friend–I’m not going to have a hint of sympathy for that character… probably ever again. At that point, the character is just being dumb.
Wow, no kidding. Yuck.
Well, I find it off-putting when a character does something stupid regardless of the pov — so I’m clearly not a good test case!
Me, too.
Even when the character delineation is such that I admit that the character would have done exactly that.
It’s all very subjective. I don’t find 1st, 2nd, or 3rd POV inherently more distancing. I find that a property of style or deliberate distance, e.g. omniscient or very externalized style. If the words disappear and I feel immersed, that’s all that matters to me as a reader.
As a writer though, the hard part is to make the words start to disappear. Finding the right POV character for a scene can be key to this (my current main novel in progress has 4 pov characters and it matters a lot actually), but I’ve for some reason never found whether it’s first or third very relevant to it. I do think 1st works best with only one main pov (secondaries in 3rd usually).
When you find yourself recoiling from invasive first-person in a story, do you feel that you’d like the story better if it were written in third person instead?
Frequently, yes.
The important thing is that this point of view, whatever it is, has to be able to tell the story.
A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur’s Court failed in its objective to satirize chivalry. At least, no reader I’ve ever heard from thought it was effective; many read it for the chivalry, being young and without choices. And this was a failure of the point of view. The narrator is so hard-headed and admiring of his own pragmatism that he could not appreciate Camelot if it were all its most starry-eyed admirers thought. An excellent gentleman with stars in his eyes, or a blockhead who sighs for days of old, would be far better, because we could believe them in their disillusionment.