# Is This a New Trend?



## Guy (Jun 5, 2016)

Because if it is, I'm scared (warning - slight rant ahead).

I'm reading and reviewing books for bookvetter in hopes of getting feedback from them on my writing. The book I'm reading now uses multiple first person POV. This is the fourth book I'm reading for them and it's the second book in a row that has that POV, and I freaking hate it. After all the griping I've heard about head hopping with third person omniscient, how can anybody think multiple first person is a good idea? With every chapter opening I have no idea whose head I'm in and it drives me absolutely crazy. It's hard to imagine a better way to jerk your reader out of the story then to put them in a character's head but give them no idea which character it is. I can figure it out after a few lines, but for those opening lines instead of enjoying the story I'm going, "Who the hell is this?" The one I'm reading now opens with a female character's first person POV. Okay, fine. Then the next chapter opens with first person POV and I naturally think it's the same character, but then someone addresses this character as Henry. And I'm thinking, "Henry? Wasn't this a girl?" I flip back a few pages and, yep, no question, it's a girl. A girl named Henry? Henrietta? No, further on it's made clear this is a new character and he's a guy. Okay... I give a sigh and forge on. Next chapter and we're back to female first person POV... but then it's a different female from the first one, thus evoking a high decibel, Gene Wilder-like cry of frustration. And I'm already frustrated because the book is averaging about one grammatical error per page, which is low grade torture for a grammar nazi. 

The fact that it's happened with two consecutive books worries me. So is this some horrible trend I was unaware of, or was it just a horrible coincidence?


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Jun 5, 2016)

Is it cinematic or epistolary.


----------



## troynos (Jun 5, 2016)

Multiple first person POV?  No thanks.

I've noticed in a couple books that are first person, when they switch to a new POV it becomes third person.


----------



## Reilith (Jun 5, 2016)

I still haven't found my way to one of those... Thankfully. If that is the new trend, I am very old-fashioned.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jun 5, 2016)

troynos said:


> I've noticed in a couple books that are first person, when they switch to a new POV it becomes third person.


^^ This, yes.

Multi 1st person POV? No thanks.


----------



## Ireth (Jun 5, 2016)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Multi 1st person POV? No thanks.



Seconded. I tried to beta read a novel that was written in multi 1st person, and it was just jarring and weird to read. I never did make it all the way through. The one way I could see that being salvageable is if the chapters are titled after the POV character to make things easier on the reader, but not everyone does that.


----------



## Penpilot (Jun 5, 2016)

I'm not so sure it's a trend. To my recollection, I've only ever read one book with multi-first person POVs, and that only had two, and they alternated chapters. It was easy to tell who's head I was in. 

In my opinion, which is worth what you pay, this is something that newer authors do without realizing the consequences, which is exactly what you experienced. 

There are many ways to mitigate confusion, from simply putting character names as chapter headings to making sure to ID the character within the first paragraph of the chapter.

Multi-first person, isn't something I'd recommend, but aside from the confusion, how was the writing/story itself?


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Jun 5, 2016)

Dracula is a multi first person, but it is in epistolary format so that makes it easier to know who's head we are on.


----------



## TWErvin2 (Jun 5, 2016)

I've come across only one multiple first person POV series, and that is Kevin Hearne's Iron Druid Chronicles.

The first five novels in the series are exclusively from Atticus O'Sullivan's POV (first person past tense). Then, in the 6th novel, he shifts to a 2nd First Person POV (present tense). The reason within the context of the story makes sense. In the 7th and 8th he employs 3 first person POV characters (two present, the original past tense). It works okay, but I (and my family) are not enamored with one of the new POVs, and that grates on us. My guess is that if he started off the series that way, I would've been less likely to continue. The third added POV does seem to have more added value, and isn't as detracting from the story.

With the novels, he puts the emblem (picture) of one of their animals the druids can bind to (transform into), so the reader right off knows the POV. With the audiobook, it's easy because the narrator has different voices and cadence and such for the different characters.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 5, 2016)

I avoid 1st POV in general, let alone multi-1st. With the trendiness of 1st it's inevitable a bunch of young writers would throw out a wave of multi. Hopefully that never catches on, although it's easy enough to avoid, heh heh.


----------



## Chessie (Jun 5, 2016)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> Dracula is a multi first person, but it is in epistolary format so that makes it easier to know who's head we are on.


And this is why it's one of the most horrible books I've read in my entire life. I hated that novel.

But moving on...yes OP, I'm not sure if it's a trend but I've noticed a lot of books lately with present tense and 1st person. UGH. I can't do either. They'll immediately make me put a story down.  And multiple 1st person POV? Nope. 

What's interesting is that we're told to not use adverbs, was, it was, cliche phrases, omnisc, etc but 1st person multiple pov is okay? -_- Although I've come across many readers that prefer first person because it allows the to get inside the characters heads. So maybe this is why there's a rise in novels written this way.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Jun 5, 2016)

Chesterama said:


> And this is why it's one of the most horrible books I've read in my entire life. I hated that novel.
> 
> But moving on...yes OP, I'm not sure if it's a trend but I've noticed a lot of books lately with present tense and 1st person. UGH. I can't do either. They'll immediately make me put a story down.  And multiple 1st person POV? Nope.
> 
> What's interesting is that we're told to not use adverbs, was, it was, cliche phrases, omnisc, etc but 1st person multiple pov is okay? -_- Although I've come across many readers that prefer first person because it allows the to get inside the characters heads. So maybe this is why there's a rise in novels written this way.



I will have to disagree with you about Dracula. It's one of my favorites. But I do agree that multi first is difficult on the reader. Further, to your point about first being easier to get in a person's head, I think that's because most writers, my self included, underestimate the power of 3d person close.


----------



## Chessie (Jun 5, 2016)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> Further, to your point about first being easier to get in a person's head, I think that's because most writers, my self included, underestimate the power of 3d person close.


Yes. Absolutely. I know one young writer (very young, we're talking still in her late teens here) who will only write in first person because it allows her to think properly. I've read some of her work and while it's creative, I can't get past the tense. There's just this...aroma of conceit that comes with first person if done wrong. But that's one measly person's opinion. 

Btw...Dracula the movie was fantastic. But I was also in high school when I read Dracula so maybe that's where the lack of appreciation came from.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Jun 5, 2016)

Chesterama said:


> Yes. Absolutely. I know one young writer (very young, we're talking still in her late teens here) who will only write in first person because it allows her to think properly. I've read some of her work and while it's creative, I can't get past the tense. There's just this...aroma of conceit that comes with first person if done wrong. But that's one measly person's opinion.
> 
> Btw...Dracula the movie was fantastic. But I was also in high school when I read Dracula so maybe that's where the lack of appreciation came from.



I think that aroma of conceit, and this is just me BTW, comes from the fact that for young authors it is easier to self-insert with first person. That isn't to say that it's not a problem with early 3d person works, but it's just much, much easier to do when it comes to 1st person. Kind of like when method actors get a bit too...method.


----------



## Guy (Jun 5, 2016)

Penpilot said:


> I'm not so sure it's a trend. To my recollection, I've only ever read one book with multi-first person POVs, and that only had two, and they alternated chapters. It was easy to tell who's head I was in.
> 
> In my opinion, which is worth what you pay, this is something that newer authors do without realizing the consequences, which is exactly what you experienced.
> 
> ...


The first book I read with this issue was (this issue aside) quite good and I actually enjoyed the story. My only real criticism of it was the multi-first person. The one I'm reading now is difficult. I'm about halfway through it and I think they may have introduced a fourth person's POV. There are grammar issues on every page, which I simply cannot abide. I can understand a few slipping through, but this is ridiculous. It's very shoddy craftsmanship. The author does things I consider redundant for first person, such as writing something like:  
The woman gave me a strange look. "Why did she do that," I asked myself.

To me, writing in first person means being in the character's head with their thoughts, so it would make a lot more sense if they wrote something like:  

The woman gave me a strange look. Wonder what her problem is? Aw, hell, who cares? I've got plenty of other things to worry about.

Author uses the occasional present tense mixed in with past tense, something I was taught you NEVER do. Pick a tense and stick with it, although I find the parts in present tense feel odd. It just seems to make the story a little... I don't know. Off kilter, maybe? I'm not really sure how to articulate it. The world building is a bit confusing. One of the characters goes to a blacksmith in a town to have some throwing knives forged to compliment the knives she already carries. Maps are primitive and everything appears to be your typical Medieval-esque world. But then the character hops on a train. Shejumps on a boxcar on a slow moving train and rides it to town, leaving me going, "Wait... what?" With that my understanding of the world was completely shot to hell. The plot and characters aren't bad, but the POV thing is such a glaring issue that I just can't get past it. It blots everything else out, and it's going to be difficult for me to find anything positive to say.

I liked Dracula, but Stoker structured it in such a way that the whole POV thing was a total non-issue for me. I had no trouble knowing whose head I was in.


----------



## Guy (Jun 5, 2016)

Chesterama said:


> What's interesting is that we're told to not use adverbs, was, it was, cliche phrases, omnisc, etc but 1st person multiple pov is okay? -_-


Yes, exactly! Ex-freakin'-actly! But don't get me started on one of my rants about common writer advice...


> Although I've come across many readers that prefer first person because it allows the to get inside the characters heads. So maybe this is why there's a rise in novels written this way.


I suspect it also might be a by-product of social media. Young writers likely got most of their writing experience from tweeting, FB posting, and texting where they're writing a real time conversation. I bet when some of them undertake creative writing they just naturally write in that particular style out of habit.


----------



## Russ (Jun 6, 2016)

Guy said:


> Yes, exactly! Ex-freakin'-actly! But don't get me started on one of my rants about common writer advice...
> 
> I suspect it also might be a by-product of social media. Young writers likely got most of their writing experience from tweeting, FB posting, and texting where they're writing a real time conversation. I bet when some of them undertake creative writing they just naturally write in that particular style out of habit.



I have yet to read a book that is multiple 1st person POV.  Hopefully this means that it is not a trend.  I have recently read a great book that was 1st/multiple third, but the mere thought of multiple first makes me a little ill.

If does does become a trend, lets hope it is a short one.


----------



## Holoman (Jun 6, 2016)

I dislike first person in general, I find it very hard to empathise with the MC or feel any reverence for them. Any hint of arrogance or even confidence and I quickly dislike the character. I am too critical of their thoughts and just cannot put myself in their position. I also feel it reads like a diary which means for me it isn't 'happening now' it feels more like it's being told in hindsight which loses tension.

The closest thing to multi first person I've read was by Bernard Cornwell, the prologue was in first person POV by a guy who talked about his father. Then in Chapter one you become the father and it is his first person POV for the rest of the book. I remember thinking it worked very well because it avoided my usual objection to first person in that I formed an opinion of the MC before I was actually put in his head.

I didn't even make it all the way through Dracula, started a year ago, but for me the whole diary format just totally lacked tension. It was intriguing but just didn't have that live action feel were you feel tense and as if something dangerous could happen any moment. I was about halfway through when I took a couple of days break from it. I have a rule when I read books, if I am past halfway and I don't actively *want *to keep reading it (i.e. I feel like I'm forcing myself to read) then it has failed and gets left unread.


----------



## FifthView (Jun 6, 2016)

Robin Hobb's latest Farseer trilogy has two first-person narrators, although she only switches views between chapters.  Sometimes multiple chapters for one before the other.  It works fine, no confusion whatsoever about whose head we are in at the beginning of each new section for a character.  Reference points, signals of the change in character are well handled and organic.   The trilogy has other problems, mostly in pacing and in Fitz's unending whining, but the dual first-person POV approach is not one of them.


----------



## FifthView (Jun 6, 2016)

I would add that Robin Hobb's effort is helped in multiple ways.

The two characters are wildly different in age — one old, one very young — and in personality, and most of the time (particularly as the trilogy progresses), they are geographically separated and are undergoing different trials, conflicts.  These things allow all sorts of signposting, from references to the geography, to the different sets of other characters around them and to different situations, as well as obvious changes in tone/outlook due to personality differences.  I can just imagine a less experienced writer trying to switch between two or more 1st person narrators of similar age, position, personality and intermixed in the same milieu/locality and similar ongoing events—and failing.


----------



## Miskatonic (Jun 6, 2016)

Are we talking about each chapter having a different first person POV based on selecting from a group of characters? Or first person POV changing between characters within the chapter itself?


----------



## FifthView (Jun 6, 2016)

Miskatonic said:


> Are we talking about each chapter having a different first person POV based on selecting from a group of characters? Or first person POV changing between characters within the chapter itself?



I think the OP specifically referenced switching between chapters:



Guy said:


> With every chapter opening I have no idea whose head I'm in and it drives me absolutely crazy. It's hard to imagine a better way to jerk your reader out of the story then to put them in a character's head but give them no idea which character it is. I can figure it out after a few lines, but for those opening lines instead of enjoying the story I'm going, "Who the hell is this?" The one I'm reading now opens with a female character's first person POV. Okay, fine. Then the next chapter opens with first person POV and I naturally think it's the same character, but then someone addresses this character as Henry. And I'm thinking, "Henry? Wasn't this a girl?"



I honestly doubt that switching between scenes _within_ a chapter can be done effectively.  I normally don't like to rule anything out, absolutely, but given the potential for confusion, I'd think that a chapter break between POVs when handling more than one 1st person POV is a very good idea...


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jun 6, 2016)

Miskatonic said:


> Are we talking about each chapter having a different first person POV based on selecting from a group of characters? Or first person POV changing between characters within the chapter itself?


I think the OP means each chapter is a potentially different 1st person POV where it takes a while to figure out whose head your in as the reader.



Holoman said:


> I dislike first person in general, I find it very hard to empathise with the MC or feel any reverence for them. Any hint of arrogance or even confidence and I quickly dislike the character. I am too critical of their thoughts and just cannot put myself in their position. I also feel it reads like a diary which means for me it isn't 'happening now' it feels more like it's being told in hindsight which loses tension.


At risk of thread derailment, I understand that personal preference is what it is, but there are so many good books out there written in 1st Person. I get the desire to avoid confusion in multiple 1st Person, and that can likely be attributed to an author's skill, but to shut oneself off from a POV style seems myopic. 

Here's just a few great novels written in 1st Person POV: 
To Kill a Mockingbird
The Great Gatsby
The Sun Also Rises
Lolita
The Color Purple
Fight Club
All Quiet on the Western Front
Huckleberry Finn
Breakfast at Tiffany's
The Catcher in the Rye
The Name of the Wind
The Handmaid's Tale
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
A Clockwork Orange


----------



## Trick (Jun 6, 2016)

FifthView said:


> Robin Hobb's latest Farseer trilogy has two first-person narrators, although she only switches views between chapters.  Sometimes multiple chapters for one before the other.  It works fine, no confusion whatsoever about whose head we are in at the beginning of each new section for a character.  Reference points, signals of the change in character are well handled and organic.   The trilogy has other problems, mostly in pacing and in Fitz's unending whining, but the dual first-person POV approach is not one of them.



Couldn't agree more. Robin Hobb handles POV beautifully but Fitz is a whiny little baby. Can't even bring myself to read further because I want to slap him so bad. 



T.Allen.Smith said:


> to shut oneself off from a POV style seems myopic.
> 
> Here's just a few great novels written in 1st Person POV:
> *To Kill a Mockingbird*
> ...



Bolding Mine. Just want to second all of these and add that anything other than 1stPPOV in these greats would have been detrimental. 


I'd also like to add that the cockiness/bravado/overconfidence that is sometimes present in 1stPPOV is usually a conscious choice by the author. It's often part of an unreliable narrator setup and can be intended to let you see the actual truth of what happened through another, less cocky POV or simply by realizing that the narrator/MC is leaving out or adding things to make them look better. It's sort of like a fish story, you listen and laugh when you are told one but you know the fish wasn't quite that big or at least that your (insert male relative) didn't do quite that well when they caught it. 

In one of my WsIP, which is 1stPPOV (my other WIP is not, so people can do both) I have the MC for the majority of the book but there are other chapters, clearly delineated as the journal of another character, that grant insight to what's going on in the wider world and also let us see the villain(s) side of things. This setup can really add to the overall tension because it is a promise to the reader that the MC and the villain will clash at some point, even though they have yet to meet and are even unaware of each other. Setting them up as, opposites is the wrong word.... opposing forces? can make things very interesting. 

And Dracula stinks.. slowest book I've ever read (listened to in this case, with an all-star cast and I still played it at 1.25 speed; I had to finish it just for the sake of finishing an iconic book)

I immediately followed it by listening to Fred Saberhagen's _The Dracula Tape_, which is a wonderful way to follow Dracula, IMO. Totally turns the story on it's head. Although, there's a lot of quoting (I assume to refresh reader memories, which I didn't yet need) so that was annoying.


----------



## JCFarnham (Jun 6, 2016)

I'm going to throw a spanner in here and say I've got no problem with 1st person, or multi 1st (though to a lesser degree).

I've only read books where it was done right. Strict PoV A then PoV B and switching back and forth from then, was one technique. I've also seen a couple of times what someone else mentioned before: chapter titles headed with character names, or specific symbols. 

It is more jarring, granted. But for many so is finishing and hopping straight from reading a 3rd person novel to a 1st person novel. I'm not sure its as easy as saying multi 1st is horrible and should never be done. When done well, with actual knowledge and skill, it's absolutely fine. Takes a couple of chapters to get used to, but there you go. 

And besides some books with multi 3rd person aren't always that clear from the get go either so, ymmv I guess.


----------



## Ruby (Jun 6, 2016)

The worst book I've ever read (or partly read as I gave up, screaming "Aaagh!" halfway through) that does this, was ghost written for a famous supermodel many years ago. Each chapter was written in either 1st person or 3rd person POV and was about a different model. After a while I worked out that certain characters were always written in 1st person and others were in 3rd, but then a character that had been in 1st suddenly appeared in 3rd and vice versa; I gave up and had to go and lie down for a week. Actually, it's famous for being a terrible book and has probably sold very well as it has curiousity value. I still have a copy somewhere, but then I can never throw books away.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Jun 6, 2016)

Trick said:


> And Dracula stinks.. slowest book I've ever read (listened to in this case, with an all-star cast and I still played it at 1.25 speed; I had to finish it just for the sake of finishing an iconic book)



Thems fighting words.


----------



## Trick (Jun 6, 2016)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> Thems fighting words.



Duel accepted. I shall choose our weapons in the spirit of Alfred Hitchcock.

For you, I have chosen a fine, English long sword. 

For myself, I have a chosen a hand grenade. 

Let the best writer win.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Jun 6, 2016)

Trick said:


> Duel accepted. I shall choose our weapons in the spirit of Alfred Hitchcock.
> 
> For you, I have chosen a fine, English long sword.
> 
> ...



Wehawken, dawn, weapons drawn. 

I remain your obedient servant B [dot] All.


----------



## Trick (Jun 6, 2016)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> Wehawken, dawn, weapons drawn.
> 
> I remain your obedient servant B [dot] All.



Can we go for like noon? I'm not as much of a morning person as Burr. Or would I be Hamilton, since you issued the challenge?... hmm... that doesn't bode well


----------



## Guy (Jun 6, 2016)

The author keeps it to one person's POV per chapter, she just doesn't give the reader any clue who that character is in the opening. It takes a few lines (or, in the case of the last chapter I read, a few paragraphs) before you know who it is, and it is beyond maddening. I have to post a review of it, though, so I have to finish it. Fortunately it's only 111 pages long and I'm on page 60 or so, but dear gods, why in the name of Shakespeare's quill would anyone think this format was a good idea?


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Jun 6, 2016)

Trick said:


> Can we go for like noon? I'm not as much of a morning person as Burr. Or would I be Hamilton, since you issued the challenge?... hmm... that doesn't bode well



*sigh fine. But you're bringing lunch and I'll bring the drinks. Cant fight on an empty stomach.


----------



## Chessie (Jun 6, 2016)

Guy said:


> The author keeps it to one person's POV per chapter, she just doesn't give the reader any clue who that character is in the opening. It takes a few lines (or, in the case of the last chapter I read, a few paragraphs) before you know who it is, and it is beyond maddening. I have to post a review of it, though, so I have to finish it. Fortunately it's only 111 pages long and I'm on page 60 or so, but dear gods, why in the name of Shakespeare's quill would anyone think this format was a good idea?


Not sure what kind of relationship you have with this particular author but I'd make sure to let her know your struggles and issue with the structure of her novel. It would be an important detail for her to know that the way she has structured the perspectives is confusing.


----------



## Trick (Jun 6, 2016)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> *sigh fine. But you're bringing lunch and I'll bring the drinks. Cant fight on an empty stomach.



Lunch it is. Raw anchovies for you, and a cheese-steak for me. Make sure your drinks are at least 70 proof. I won't have any but I think you should.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Jun 6, 2016)

Trick said:


> Lunch it is. Raw anchovies for you, and a cheese-steak for me. Make sure your drinks are at least 70 proof. I won't have any but I think you should.



You reject my slightly poisoned drinks!!! I call for another challenge!


----------



## Trick (Jun 6, 2016)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> You reject my slightly poisoned drinks!!! I call for another challenge!



Wouldn't have worked anyway, even if you switched glasses while my back was turned because I spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder. No classic blunders for me.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Jun 6, 2016)

Trick said:


> Wouldn't have worked anyway, even if you switched glasses while my back was turned because I spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder. No classic blunders for me.



You win this round. Now time to go find the descendant of Mina Harker!


----------



## Guy (Jun 6, 2016)

Chesterama said:


> Not sure what kind of relationship you have with this particular author but I'd make sure to let her know your struggles and issue with the structure of her novel. It would be an important detail for her to know that the way she has structured the perspectives is confusing.



I don't know her and she doesn't know me. Bookvetter puts out books to check out based on one's reading preferences. You read and post your review. I've finished the book and just posted my review and clearly stated this is a fatal flaw that desperately needs to be fixed and suggested how to fix it. I liked the characters and if she could restructure it so it wasn't so muddled, it would be a very enjoyable story (which I also made sure to say).


----------



## Trick (Jun 6, 2016)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> You win this round. Now time to go find the descendant of Mina Harker!



Concession accepted. Ah! So you have read The Dracula Tape.


----------



## Holoman (Jun 7, 2016)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I think the OP means each chapter is a potentially different 1st person POV where it takes a while to figure out whose head your in as the reader.
> 
> 
> At risk of thread derailment, I understand that personal preference is what it is, but there are so many good books out there written in 1st Person. I get the desire to avoid confusion in multiple 1st Person, and that can likely be attributed to an author's skill, but to shut oneself off from a POV style seems myopic.
> ...



I have only read Lolita in that list and wasn't impressed, though that wasn't just because of the 1st person POV.

I'll admit I haven't read many 1st person and none stood out for me as good, I don't specifically avoid them but just happens that most of the books I pick are 3rd person.  I think I would find it ok if the book didn't depend on me relating to the MC, so for example The Great Gatsby, I've only seen the film but for me the character that hooks is Gatsby not the MC, so it wouldn't bother me so much that it is in 1st person rather than 3rd.


----------



## La Volpe (Jun 7, 2016)

I haven't actually read a book that has multiple 1st person POV. But I think, like other people mentioned, the biggest problem is the confusion that results because of it. So if it is made very clear which bit is which character (chapter names with the character name, and the other things mentioned), then it shouldn't be too much of a big deal. Might still be a weird read though.

I read Dracula quite a while back, but I can't remember that I had any issues with the way the POVs were handled.

Off on a slight tangent: The matter of the 1st person POV books.

First off, I knew someone who completely refused to read 1st person books because of some issues with not identifying with the narrators. But I don't think that you have to. The point of the 1st person narrator is to give you a very close and personal look into that character's mind.

A good example of where first person worked really well for me is in the John Cleaver novels by Dan Wells. The main character is a sociopath fighting against his own nature, and I think 1st person worked perfectly in showing his train of thought. I suppose you could have done the same with a close 3rd person, but 3rd person automatically creates a bit of distance that you can avoid by using 1st person.


----------



## FifthView (Jun 7, 2016)

La Volpe said:


> I suppose you could have done the same with a close 3rd person, but 3rd person automatically creates a bit of distance that you can avoid by using 1st person.



You are probably right, although in my experience, it's easy to forget, while reading, that a well-written tight 3rd person POV is not 1st person.

Here's Robin Hobb's 1st person:  

_Oh. _ I withdrew.  Abruptly, I felt like a child who had interrupted the adults discussing important things.  Dragons.  An alliance against dragons.  Alliance with whom?  Bingtown?  And what could anyone hope to do against dragons, save bribe them with enough meat to stupefy them?  Would not befriending the arrogant carnivores be better than challenging them?  I felt unreasonably snubbed that my opinion had not been consulted.

And in the next instant I chided myself. _ Let Chade and Dutiful and Elliania and Kettricken manage the dragons.  Walk away, Fitz._​
Changing the pronouns leads to this, which has pretty much the same feel, in a tight 3rd-person:

_Oh. _ He withdrew.  Abruptly, he felt like a child who had interrupted the adults discussing important things.  Dragons.  An alliance against dragons.  Alliance with whom?  Bingtown?  And what could anyone hope to do against dragons, save bribe them with enough meat to stupefy them?  Would not befriending the arrogant carnivores be better than challenging them?  He felt unreasonably snubbed that his opinion had not been consulted.

And in the next instant he chided himself. _ Let Chade and Dutiful and Elliania and Kettricken manage the dragons.  Walk away, Fitz._​
Robin Hobb also uses a lot of description of the environment, items, other characters, which can lead to a 1st person approach that feels, for stretches, like some tight 3rd person narratives.  

Then again, in some 1st person styles the narrator skimps on description, and they can take on an almost solipsistic feel or an entirely "in the head" feel; but there are some tight 3rd person styles that begin to feel the same, for mostly the same reasons.


----------



## Miskatonic (Jun 7, 2016)

I loved Dracula. It shouldn't be difficult to make the reader aware of who's POV it is.


----------



## La Volpe (Jun 8, 2016)

FifthView said:


> You are probably right, although in my experience, it's easy to forget, while reading, that a well-written tight 3rd person POV is not 1st person.
> ...
> Changing the pronouns leads to this, which has pretty much the same feel, in a tight 3rd-person



It's hard to argue with that example, I'll admit. So, for the most part, I think you're absolutely right. The two passages read pretty much exactly the same.

Though, perhaps the use of proper nouns is the issue. Pronouns are, I think, like 'said' and 'asked' in that they are _invisible_ type words (meaning that you don't really notice them when reading). Proper nouns, e.g. Fitz, call more attention to themselves.

With third person, the POV character will inevitably be called by his name. E.g. From your quoted text, we could have: "And in the next instant, Fitz chided himself." Now this sentence reads a bit different, since you are now very clearly outside of Fitz's head, looking in. While the first person POV always refers to himself with a pronoun.

That being said, your example very pointedly showed that the distinction is actually not that big, so I'm not sure if it would make a difference over the length of a novel.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 8, 2016)

Multiple first person point of view doesn't bother me, nor does any other particular approach to POV, provided that the author handles it skillfully. We're talking about an art form here. The idea that a particular approach should be deemed automatically off the table seems odd to me.


----------



## FifthView (Jun 8, 2016)

La Volpe said:


> Though, perhaps the use of proper nouns is the issue.



I'm not sure how clear the issue is.  A large part of the issue may simply be in the way engaging prose has the tendency to blur lines.  When we are fully engaged, we don't tend to notice some of the little things, and even the use of proper nouns for POV characters might not create that sense of separation you'd previously mentioned.  

Also, issues of style and variations in approach might make a difference on a reader by reader basis.  I'd mentioned a solipsistic feel for either 1st person or intimate 3rd person when description is skimpy.  Without more substance for attention, focus can be drawn to the "I" or to the 3rd person pronouns or to proper nouns, and the world can begin to seem like it doesn't exist but for the POV character's need to have something to think or feel about.  "I" this, "I" that; or "She" this and "She" that constantly, or "Sammy" this and "Sammy" that.  

Plus, maybe limited skill in handling the choices of whether to use pronouns or proper nouns in 3rd person, how often either is used, can create more distance?  1st person at least has the benefit of an extra pronoun, so scenes involving other characters of the same gender as the POV character may not be as cumbersome to write.



> That being said, your example very pointedly showed that the distinction is actually not that big, so I'm not sure if it would make a difference over the length of a novel.



There is one period in the first Farseer trilogy in which Fitz almost loses himself in the mind of his wolf companion in order to save his life and must relearn to be human, and this works very well in the 1st person and would not have seemed as immediate and vibrant in 3rd-person–probably.  So I think that even if an intimate 3rd person approach can begin to seem like 1st person, there are still strengths in either approach, differences between them.  I think it would be impossible to go through a whole Farseer novel and successfully turn it into 3rd person by merely replacing pronouns and using Fitz's name.  Some things would be lost.  Other things would need more revision than those mere substitutions.


----------



## La Volpe (Jun 10, 2016)

FifthView said:


> I'm not sure how clear the issue is.  A large part of the issue may simply be in the way engaging prose has the tendency to blur lines.  When we are fully engaged, we don't tend to notice some of the little things, and even the use of proper nouns for POV characters might not create that sense of separation you'd previously mentioned.
> ...
> Plus, maybe limited skill in handling the choices of whether to use pronouns or proper nouns in 3rd person, how often either is used, can create more distance?  1st person at least has the benefit of an extra pronoun, so scenes involving other characters of the same gender as the POV character may not be as cumbersome to write.


Agreed. The skill of the writer probably has a much greater effect on the distance than the POV.




FifthView said:


> There is one period in the first Farseer trilogy in which Fitz almost loses himself in the mind of his wolf companion in order to save his life and must relearn to be human, and this works very well in the 1st person and would not have seemed as immediate and vibrant in 3rd-person–probably.  So I think that even if an intimate 3rd person approach can begin to seem like 1st person, there are still strengths in either approach, differences between them.  I think it would be impossible to go through a whole Farseer novel and successfully turn it into 3rd person by merely replacing pronouns and using Fitz's name.  Some things would be lost.  Other things would need more revision than those mere substitutions.


I agree with you here as well. And I would add that it is difficult to know how much of a difference it would make without having actual concrete texts to work off of (e.g. a Farseer novel written in 3rd person), and even that would need to be blind tested with multiple people to get a real answer.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Jun 10, 2016)

So, not to be an ass, but if you're on a site where you've had to read more than one super frustrating book...maybe it's time to rethink your commitment to the site. Even if you got reviews for your own book, or critique or whatever, that's the calibre of people doing the reviews. And since I already look like an ass, I might as well finish the thought and say that when crappy writers review both good and crappy work, they tent to align better with the other crappy work, praising it higher than a more polished and better-written piece. I can only assume that this happens because there's a level of comfort they experience in reading work that feels like their own? All I can say is that I've seen this thing happen for years, and it isn't all boiled down to a matter of taste. 

If you are trying to get reviews of your book, bite the bullet and ask some proper book reviewers for their time. Some folks pay for reviews, but loads of professional writers say it's not necessary to pay, but to just be patient and treat reviewers professionally and with compassion for their busy lives. 

You might also consider asking around here. We're all kinds of happy to help each other with promotion and reviews.


----------



## Guy (Jun 11, 2016)

Caged Maiden said:


> So, not to be an ass, but if you're on a site where you've had to read more than one super frustrating book...maybe it's time to rethink your commitment to the site. Even if you got reviews for your own book, or critique or whatever, that's the calibre of people doing the reviews. And since I already look like an ass, I might as well finish the thought and say that when crappy writers review both good and crappy work, they tent to align better with the other crappy work, praising it higher than a more polished and better-written piece. I can only assume that this happens because there's a level of comfort they experience in reading work that feels like their own? All I can say is that I've seen this thing happen for years, and it isn't all boiled down to a matter of taste.
> 
> If you are trying to get reviews of your book, bite the bullet and ask some proper book reviewers for their time. Some folks pay for reviews, but loads of professional writers say it's not necessary to pay, but to just be patient and treat reviewers professionally and with compassion for their busy lives.
> 
> You might also consider asking around here. We're all kinds of happy to help each other with promotion and reviews.



Not being an ass at all. I've only just started with the site. I'd sniffed around it for a long time, then decided nothing ventured, nothing gained and took the plunge. This is the fourth book I've reviewed for them and it's the only one that's frustrated me. The one prior to it had multiple first person, but once I figured it out I was all right, and that story was quite good. So I figure I'll give it a fair chance and see what happens. If it turns out like you say, I'll cut them loose. I'd said before I was looking to get reviews from them, but right now it's more like beta reading. I haven't had any luck getting beta readers here. If I do use them for reviews, they send vetted reviews to various sites, book clubs, etc., so it seemed like a good way to get word out. But, again, we'll see. I've got a couple of reviews pending with other reviews unaffiliated with this particular site, but one isn't scheduled until October. The other I submitted last year and the reviewer still hasn't gotten to it. Granted, she was kind enough to let everyone know she's been in a car accident and she's got good reason to be behind, but it's still frustrating.


----------

