# 3rd person vs. 1st person—which do you like more and why?



## Writer’s_Magic (Jun 17, 2018)

I don’t know if you have this feeling, too. But I get eye sore if I read the 3rd person with simple past. Dude! That style is so overused and sucks. If it would be a book genre, then it was vampire stories. (Ok. Except, _Vampire Academy_. That saga is awesome.) I prefer the 1st person POV. Ok?! There doesn’t matter, which tense you use. However, that’s just my opinion. So, what do _you _prefer. Let’s discuss!


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Jun 17, 2018)

Writer’s_Magic said:


> I don’t know if you have this feeling, too. But I get eye sore if I read the 3rd person with simple past. Dude! That style is so overused and sucks. If it would be a book genre, then it was vampire stories. (Ok. Except, _Vampire Academy_. That saga is awesome.) I prefer the 1st person POV. Ok?! There doesn’t matter, which tense you use. However, that’s just my opinion. So, what do _you _prefer. Let’s discuss!



Depends very much on the story. I prefer both 3rd omniscient and 1st person to a basic 3rd limited any day in my own writing. But which one depends a lot on the individual story. 

I like first person when I really want to connect to the character. My current WIP is in first. It's just fun to play with your character's own voice. 

Third person omniscient is what i'll use for some of my upcoming works because I want a misty, distant and folkloric kind of tone and that's easier with third person. 

I'll read anything but 3rd limited tends to be boring.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Jun 17, 2018)

I propose something new: 3rd confused. Your narrator has no idea what is going on and is just plopped into the story, as disoriented as you are.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 17, 2018)

First. I write in first, I read whatever, but I write in first. I've started to wonder if I have multiple personality disorder. I hear voices.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (Jun 17, 2018)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> I propose something new: 3rd confused. Your narrator has no idea what is going on and is just plopped into the story, as disoriented as you are.



That sounds like a great idea.


----------



## Orc Knight (Jun 17, 2018)

I tend to jump between 3rd limited and omniscient, depending on how much needs describing or if it's from the characters view. I can jump into 1st p.o.v. but I find it kind of limiting with descriptions. Especially if I have to try to put it in the head of a character who likely has no idea what certain things are and the like. Plus, I like playing narrator.

_Once Upon A Time..._and depending on the voice it can go different directions. From _Arrested Development_ and _Bard's Tale_ snark to the Classic narration styles.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 17, 2018)

I love Arrested Development. Great narration.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Jun 17, 2018)

TheCrystallineEntity said:


> That sounds like a great idea.



You know, I kinda meant that as a joke but now I am thinking i would totally read such a book.


----------



## kennyc (Jun 18, 2018)

Either can work, but I think first person (if it is appropriate for the story) is more engaging and intimate.


----------



## Firefly (Jun 18, 2018)

My favorite to read is definitely first, but I don't always use it in my own writing, mostly because it's difficult to use more than two  POV characters without it getting confusing. I just love how close it is to the character. You get an amount of voice from first person  that's difficult to achieve otherwise. To me, it often feels like a waste of potential when I read an entire story written in Limited Third from a single character's perspective.

That said, I still think I disagree with the OP. I think the idea that Third Past is terrible because it's overused and boring is kind of missing the point. One of the benefits of it is that readers are so used to it. It's supposed to be invisible, so the idea of it being an eyesore is kind of weird to me.
There are a lot of benefits to being one step removed from a character's head. First person can be kind of limiting that way. Limited third gives you a lot of those benefits with out having to go all the the way to Omniscent. (Omniscent is my personal least favorite. It's difficult to write and can feel distant on the page, even when done well.)

The tense thing is a whole new bottle of worms. 
I'm not sure what you mean when you say tense doesn't matter in first. It makes a big difference to the writer especially because it's so much in the character's head. Whether the character's telling you what's happening as it happens or after the fact makes a huge difference in their perspective. It also makes things extra trippy in past tense because you have to worry about exactly how much time has passed. 
I also want to mention that I much prefer present tense in first person. The immediacy present gives just seems to come across better that way, for me, at least. It feels weird in third.

That said, this is just my opinion. I don't think that the POV  you choose is really all that important to the final story, as long as you do it well


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Jun 18, 2018)

A word of warning about tense: Its very hard to switch between writing in one tense to the other. Try to move from a project in past to one in present and back to one in past and you will spend at least a year switching tenses at random in everything you write. Trust me, I've been through it. It's trippy to read an old draft and have it suddenly lapse into present tense for two sentences, back into past, back into present, back into past, and then have the final three paragraphs of the chapter in present. Also that's tedious to edit out.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 18, 2018)

POV doesn’t matter if done well, but seeing as I like multi-POV books... 1st just doesn’t work. 3rd om, limited, intimate fits my tastes of story better.

I don’t think 1st is any stronger for character connection than 3rd intimate. And of course there are different types of 1st person... I like the more classic Name of the Rose narrative 1st... reading I, I, I, I over and over irritates the shit out of me for some reason.


----------



## TheNecroFaerie (Jun 18, 2018)

Demesnedenoir said:


> POV doesn’t matter if done well, but seeing as I like multi-POV books... 1st just doesn’t work. 3rd om, limited, intimate fits my tastes of story better.
> 
> I don’t think 1st is any stronger for character connection than 3rd intimate. And of course there are different types of 1st person... I like the more classic Name of the Rose narrative 1st... reading I, I, I, I over and over irritates the shit out of me for some reason.



That’s why you have to vary your sentence structure.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 18, 2018)

It’s more narrative style than simply varying sentence structure. I prefer a 1st person narrator more than a 1st person actor, so to speak. Watson narrating Holmes, Adso of Melk narrating Wiiliam of Baskerville... the supporting character POV rather than the Lead. Once you reach 1st present, then it just feels flat out hokey to me.


----------



## rktho (Jun 19, 2018)

I prefer third person. I wouldn't be opposed to trying my hand at writing 1st person someday (I've done it occasionally but not for a major project) but I need to find the right story first. My stories tend to rely on multiple POV and I don't like 1st person for multiple POV.


----------



## Yora (Jun 19, 2018)

Third person, because I feel that it's the only proper way. First person feels wrong.


----------



## Consultant_Timelord (Jun 19, 2018)

I like playing around with all the writing styles, but I mostly write 3rd limited. Something I love experimenting in is tense, but I've only ever written short stories in present tense, mostly I stick to past tense because I'm more comfortable there.


----------



## Tom (Jun 19, 2018)

I work in 1st person or limited 3rd person, with a definite preference for 1st person. Because of how character-driven most of my writing is, I connect very deeply to the viewpoint character when I'm working. The most POV characters I've worked with in one project is three, I think. Everything I write is framed in the past tense. I can't stand present tense--it comes across as stilted and gimmicky, even in the hands of someone familiar with its use.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 19, 2018)

A lot of my favourite novels and short stories are written in present tense. I don't find it annoying at all. I wonder, do those who criticize it _actually _dislike it? Or have you been told, by some "how to write" article, to dislike it and avoid it?


----------



## Miles Lacey (Jun 19, 2018)

I prefer the third person in both writing and in what I read.  To me first person seems to strike me as either pretentious or intended for young adults.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 19, 2018)

I dislike present tense, period. It doesn't work for me, it feels fake. I was plenty used to it in screenwriting (for those who don't know, screenplays are always... or better be... written in present tense) and it was actually a bitch trying to flip back to past tense writing after years of screenwriting. And it's limiting to the story and doesn't fit stories I want to read. Nope, no thanks. If your story needs 1st present to be engaging, you might want to rethink your story, heh heh.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (Jun 19, 2018)

I like present tense a lot, though I also write in past. It mainly depends on the story and the point of view character-s whether I use third or first.


----------



## Chessie2 (Jun 19, 2018)

Just my opinion but...

-Present tense seems like lazy writing to me. It's hard to get into the story, characters, and any context because to me, stories are something that has already happened, not something that is happening.

-First person is too intimate for my liking. I like space between myself and others (just who I am as a person) and first person is like a person I just recently met trying to get cozy with me right off the bat. Nope, not happening.

-I love love love writing in omniscient even though the readers in my audience of books don't prefer it. So I write in a mixture of third past & omniscient, which is probably the reason why readers either love or hate my work.

To each their own though. <3


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jun 19, 2018)

I don't write first person, because it doesn't come naturally to me. I do mix past and present tense quite a bit though. The majority of the story is in past tense, but now and then I will swap to present tense for a scene. Usually when describing something that isn't too closely tied to the pow character - or when I need a different kind of vibe/feel to the prose.


----------



## Hallen (Jun 19, 2018)

Heliotrope said:


> A lot of my favourite novels and short stories are written in present tense. I don't find it annoying at all. I wonder, do those who criticize it _actually _dislike it? Or have you been told, by some "how to write" article, to dislike it and avoid it?


If it's done really well, then I can deal with it. I still prefer past. Maybe it's because it's what I am mostly used to, but present feels contrived to me.
It has nothing to do with being told "how to write".

I prefer 3rd limited or whatever other terms you want to use with it.

Omniscient can be OK, but it takes a really good writer to pull it off well. I have never been more confused while reading when the writer jumps heads too often in Omniscient mode. Omniscient is also very easy to abuse and find yourself narrating a story rather than allowing the reader to live the story.

First person is also fine. I enjoy it, but find it limiting. You are only allowed one perspective -- that of your POV character.


----------



## Rkcapps (Jun 20, 2018)

My preference is third, but I'll read anything. Present tense is trippy!


----------



## Chessie2 (Jun 20, 2018)

Hallen said:


> Omniscient can be OK, but it takes a really good writer to pull it off well. I have never been more confused while reading when the writer jumps heads too often in Omniscient mode. Omniscient is also very easy to abuse and find yourself narrating a story rather than allowing the reader to live the story.


Omniscient is so much more than head hopping though. In fact, to be done correctly, head hopping should be a smooth transition between characters. It shouldn't confuse readers. It is hard to do well, but that's why writers ought to be encouraged to write in omniscient if they wish to be good at it. Any tense is easy to abuse and do incorrectly. Omniscient is probably the hardest of all to master and it's evident that a writer who does it well definitely has major skill. Lastly, omniscient *does *allow the reader to live the story. Tolkien was a master of omniscient and I'm pretty sure many of us here can agree we enjoyed the heck out of his stories and lived it well as children (or thereafter). The whole point of that POV is to provide the reader with a sense of being told a story. The author SHOULD be narrating in whatever voice best fits the story. The whole point is narration.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 20, 2018)

I think the reason 3rd Om is getting more difficult is because people are reading less of it in pop culture, literary or genre. I don't think any POV is technically more difficult than another. I used to write 3rd om all the time but then my reading habits changed... 20+ years ago, and going back to it would feel more unnatural.

Also... As Chessie said, it's more than head hopping... in fact, it's not head hopping at all in my opinion.

Head hopping is unintentional POV "dohs!" in 3rd Limited, sometimes extremely subtle.


----------



## Chessie2 (Jun 20, 2018)

Demesnedenoir said:


> I think the reason 3rd Om is getting more difficult is because people are reading less of it in pop culture, literary or genre. I don't think any POV is technically more difficult than another. I used to write 3rd om all the time but then my reading habits changed... 20+ years ago, and going back to it would feel more unnatural.


Things change. Omniscient was super popular back in the olden days and now it's first person or third limited. Honestly though, writers should write in whatever tense and style suits them the most. Some people can tell really good stories in first, others in 3rd limited, others in omni, etc. Writing to your strengths is key. I love writing in omniscient but, since romance readers do not prefer that it seems, I mix it up with 3rd. Although I simply cannot do 3rd limited. It freezes me up and frustrates me. I am the storyteller and my narration depends on the story. My 1940's romance series is written in omniscient with a narrator voice that is sarcastic and judgemental of the characters. I thought it fit well in the scope of the story and somehow, those books were much easier to write than the ones I have narrated in third.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 20, 2018)

I like pulling in and out from a third intimate for what I'm doing now. When I write my vampire comedy it will (probably) be from 3rd Om with a distinctive narrator's voice. But, without being able to get into the heads of secondary characters the humor wouldn't be nearly as fun.


----------



## Tom (Jun 20, 2018)

Heliotrope said:


> A lot of my favourite novels and short stories are written in present tense. I don't find it annoying at all. I wonder, do those who criticize it _actually _dislike it? Or have you been told, by some "how to write" article, to dislike it and avoid it?


I personally just find it grating. The way sentences have to be phrased in present tense doesn't appeal to me. Just like any other narrative tool, I think it can be used well in the right hands, but it's one of those things that I avoid in reading and writing.


----------



## SithLord (Jun 20, 2018)

I prefer to write in omniscient third.  In my WIP that is a three part, three novel series, I have created one chapter in each book that happens to switch to first POV only the one chapter and one time.  First book is POV for my male lead protag, second book has my female lead protag, and third and final part is my male lead antag.


----------



## Malik (Jun 20, 2018)

Hallen said:


> I have never been more confused while reading when the writer jumps heads too often in Omniscient mode.



If the writer is just jumping heads and calling it "omniscient," they're doing it wrong. Just, so wrong. Omniscient third is not a license to do whatever the hell you want. That's not writing; that's art.


----------



## Malik (Jun 20, 2018)

Hallen said:


> Omniscient is also very easy to abuse and find yourself narrating a story rather than allowing the reader to live the story.



Actually, that's exactly what omniscient is. Omniscient is the story told to the reader by a fictional narrator, who is an additional character in the story. (The narrator is _not the author_, either. Readers will know if the narrator is you, because you're not clever enough to be a narrator. Yes, you, reading this. The narrator has to be wittier and more articulate than you are, which is why omniscient is so bang-your-head-on-your-desk-at-regular-intervals hard. More on that in a minute.)

Think of omniscient as the author sitting in your living room with a drink in his hand, telling you a story. Now think of someone telling you a story and doing spot-on impressions. That skill with impressions is the author's skill at separating and delivering character voice, which is the key to omniscient third. If the author doesn't have a knack for voice, reading omniscient becomes basically listening to a long story told by someone who sucks at impressions. (If the person telling the story doesn't know how to tell a story very well, and/or they misuse words all the time, _and_ they suck at impressions . . . hoo, boy.)

The narrator can be _opaque_, in which case the book might read almost like a first-person account--the narrator in _The Princess Bride_ is so opaque that he breaks the Fourth Wall and speaks directly to the reader--or _transparent_, in which case the author is just barely tinting the story through a narrative lens; or any degree in between. _The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy _series has a narrator who's pretty tightly constrained at the halfway point, injecting humor into the story by selectively revealing information, but otherwise not interfering with the reader's perception. A common point where fledgling authors get wrapped around the axle with omniscient is by not choosing the left and right limits for the opacity that they want, and/or they don't practice writing enough to know when they're working outside those limits.

Any good writing is hard.








This never gets easy. Omniscient, though, is _painstaking,_ which is a different kind of hard. This is why the stereotype omniscient writer is a furrow-browed "serious author" who takes half an hour to remove a comma. And there's a reason this stereotype exists: it takes a lot of reading, a lot of writing, and a lot of deconstructing and reworking to get a feel for it. And even then, it takes hours if not years of fiddling and teeth-grinding to get it dialed in for each book. It's the ship-in-a-bottle of writing techniques.

There's a lot of bad omniscient out there, but then, there's a lot of bad writing out there. There's also some magnificent omniscient fantasy out there. I'd love to see omniscient come back into vogue.


----------



## Chessie2 (Jun 20, 2018)

You and me both, Malik. It is very frustrating to write in omniscient but it can be so beautifully done. What sucks is that most readers don't have a flavor for it anymore, and they complain. 

Just throwing this in for fun: the omniscient narrator can totally be judgemental, irritating, conceited, yet they must be eloquent, interesting, and engaging. Malik is right though; the voice needs to sound different than your author voice. That's very, very, very hard to do. I struggle with it immensely yet I keep going back to omniscient determined to master it someday.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 20, 2018)

Here's another point... IMO... Multi-POV 3rd limited is basically (not exactly) 3rd OM only limited by chapter/section. GRRM is, in essence, writing as an omniscient but in any one chapter he is limited. I think he mentioned it taking him days to get back into the head of character.

All good writing is hard... I'm down with that, but different people will have different levels of struggle with varying POV's and their intricacies. But I will contend that exposure is the biggest reason for writers struggling with... lots of things. And these days, lots of the exposure is to things successful... but poorly written.

But, this is all getting into the weeds.


----------



## Hallen (Jun 21, 2018)

Chessie2 said:


> Omniscient is so much more than head hopping though...


I agree with everything you wrote. 
My point was that Omniscient is difficult and it is not uncommon to come across a novel in Omni that is poorly done. It can be a lazy way to write since the narrator knows everything and can just tell the reader instead of letting the reader experience it via the characters. But when it's done well it can be very powerful and immersive.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (Jun 22, 2018)

I'm going to take the leap and try omniscient, on the grounds that the narrator is an actual character in the series and is a natural storyteller [literally]. If I don't like how it feels or it ends up being too ambitious, I can always try something else.


----------



## Chessie2 (Jun 22, 2018)

TheCrystallineEntity said:


> I'm going to take the leap and try omniscient, on the grounds that the narrator is an actual character in the series and is a natural storyteller [literally]. If I don't like how it feels or it ends up being too ambitious, I can always try something else.


Try different voices and characters for your omniscient narrator. I agree with Malik in that it's kind of like--well, really more like acting out voices. 

I mentioned already that my 1940's romance series is written in omniscient. The same narrator tells the story, and I imagined them to be a voice over like in those black and white movies that were narrated back in the 50's. The narrator was highly critical of Lila, the actress, who was the villain in book 1 and the heroine in book 2. She (the narrator) tones it down some in book 2 but there are parts where she basically says, "well, there goes Lila again being her same conceited self" sort of attitude. It was super fun to write in that way and to give the audience a view into the narrator's mind, who she liked, who she disliked, and what her moral boundaries were because yes, Lila gets pregnant and the narrator becomes judgmental, since pregnancy outside of marriage was a humongous deal back in those days.


----------



## Firefly (Jun 22, 2018)

Chessie2 said:


> Try different voices and characters for your omniscient narrator. I agree with Malik in that it's kind of like--well, really more like acting out voices.
> 
> I mentioned already that my 1940's romance series is written in omniscient. The same narrator tells the story, and I imagined them to be a voice over like in those black and white movies that were narrated back in the 50's. The narrator was highly critical of Lila, the actress, who was the villain in book 1 and the heroine in book 2. She (the narrator) tones it down some in book 2 but there are parts where she basically says, "well, there goes Lila again being her same conceited self" sort of attitude. It was super fun to write in that way and to give the audience a view into the narrator's mind, who she liked, who she disliked, and what her moral boundaries were because yes, Lila gets pregnant and the narrator becomes judgmental, since pregnancy outside of marriage was a humongous deal back in those days.



That sounds aweesome. 1940's romance is not really my thing, but I especially like the idea of making the the narration echo the common views of the era. And snark is always fun 
Irony/dichotomy between narrator and character is really fun to write and to read, and it's one of the hardest things for me to give up when I write in first.  I wish it were utilized more often I the books I read. I think you can push it further in omniscent, but I've seen subtler versions work  excellently in third.

I think people's POV preferences are probably influenced by what they're used to. I read mostly YA, and so first person sounds natural to me. Omniscient feels alien and distant because I haven't read a lot of older books.
I guess that's one more benefit of third past; it exists in nearly every genre, so the chances of jarring your reader are much lower.


----------



## Xitra_Blud (Jun 23, 2018)

I don't have a preference. I used to prefer 1st person, but lately, I don't mind either way as long as it's well written.

I tend to prefer writing in either 1st person or third limited, though. I used to only write in 1st person, but then I started writing in 3rd limited because the story called for it and I'm a lot more comfortable with it now. I still have a hard time with omniscient though.


----------



## Skybreaker Sin K'al (Jun 23, 2018)

Prefer third person all the way. First person quickly becomes redundant when you put your character's thoughts in italics in third person, you can get brilliant levels of intimacy with the viewpoint character.

Pretty much the only thing that you can do in first person which you can't do in third person is give a narrative that lies.


----------



## FifthView (Jun 23, 2018)

Hallen said:


> My point was that Omniscient is difficult and it is not uncommon to come across a novel in Omni that is poorly done.



I read one like this sometime in the last year or so. 1) The head-hop would happen randomly in the middle of a narrative scene, was very confusing, because I didn't always know I was in a new head until I'd read a few sentences, and 2) some of the "heads" chosen were basically throw-away characters unimportant to the narrative, presumably chosen by the writer to make explication of what was happening (elsewhere and elsewhen) easier for her.

I think there's a fair point when a general audience's unfamiliarity with omniscient approaches is used as a strike against omniscient narrative. That's an irritating point, but it seems to be true. Readers have been so tuned to a close, intimate style of narrative, some simply don't know how to relax into reading an omniscient third--depending on how that omni is presented. The idea of moving from head  to head can be jarring for them. I don't think this is a great reason for not using omniscient, except to the degree that an author might find the odds stacked against her.

I'm not a particular fan of one style of POV over another, as a reader. I just want the writing to be good.

As a writer, I have more difficulty with intimate limited third than anything else. I think the reason for this is that I naturally grow bored with such limitation. I can do it for small stretches—I could whip out a few paragraphs no problem, but a whole story? Or else, perhaps it's because I never seem able to develop a solid affinity for most characters I use; this could be a major flaw in me, generally speaking, heh.


----------



## Firefly (Jun 23, 2018)

Skybreaker Sin K'al said:


> Prefer third person all the way. First person quickly becomes redundant when you put your character's thoughts in italics in third person, you can get brilliant levels of intimacy with the viewpoint character.
> 
> Pretty much the only thing that you can do in first person which you can't do in third person is give a narrative that lies.



Not necessarily, though unreliable narrators _are _much easier in first.
One of the things people mention a lot when they’re talking about this is that infodumps and longer stretches of description are _way _easier to get away with in first than they are in third or omniscient. All you have to do to make it interesting is give your character a strong opinion on whatever it is they’re talking about.
You also don’t necessarily need italics to show character’s thoughts in third, It’s common, but it depends on the individual writer’s preference.

A lot of people have been mentioning that a close third can give you just as much intimacy as first, and I wanted to talk about that, because I both agree and disagree at the same time. I think it definetely can be, but in my experience, first usually does it better.
I don’t think it’s the actual words themselves though. I think it has more to do with the mindframe the author is in while writing. Personally, I find it a lot easier to skimp on voice and inner monologue when I’m using third, because I visualize the character from the outside rather than the inside. In first, I often end up with scenes that feel less grounded because I’m focused more on what the character’s saying and what’s going on inside their head.
I don’t know though, it could just be confirmation bias and my own experience making me see things that aren’t really there. I’m curious if something similar really does happen to other writers, and if it does, if it affects you the same way. Especially in omniscient, since I hardly ever use it myself.


----------



## Skybreaker Sin K'al (Jun 24, 2018)

I don't know if I've ever read many books written in omniscient; basically LOTR and that was it. Have you ready any others?
If so it would be really nice if you could give me the ins and outs of how it works?


----------



## Malik (Jun 24, 2018)

Skybreaker Sin K'al said:


> I don't know if I've ever read many books written in omniscient; basically LOTR and that was it. Have you ready any others?
> If so it would be really nice if you could give me the ins and outs of how it works?



3rd person vs. 1st person—which do you like more and why?


----------



## ArelEndan (Jul 16, 2018)

I like both, whether reading or writing. It depends on the story which one works better. I do tend to write more in first-person since I like getting into the characters' heads. But there are times it just doesn't fit the story (even without multiple characters) so I'll write close third.


----------



## Darkfantasy (Jul 17, 2018)

I don't really favour either because third person can make one book better and suck in another type of book.
I like first person for certain stories (especially children's) because I feel like someone is telling me a personal story about themselves. There are some pros for first. Like it's simpler, you can have an unreliable narrator, quicker to build an attachment between character and reader, you can info dump more easily, but you need a strong voice for it.
Third person - you can cater to a large cast of characters and so do things on a larger scope, it's easier to hide things from the readers, you canbe with that character and see through their eyes. Also, if you have a large cast and a reader isn't keen on your main character they can attach themselves to another character instead and this can keep them reading. In first if they dislike your character or can't relate to them there is no one else for them to hook on to so many put your book down.

So, I think it really depends on the story but also your intended target audience.


----------

