A question on POV

[Steerpike]

Devor, I do not think one is meant to feel like the character in a second person POV story. That may be true of the choose your own adventure books, but in general I think it is a mistake for the reader to think that "you" in the second person story refers literally to the reader, and that mistake in interpretation may be why so many people find the POV to be jarring.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

I don't see many of the distinctive elements you'd expect to see in a 2nd person work

...

There's never exhortation, you never properly feel like a character in the story, and the full potential of the 2nd Person POV has just never been reached in a novel, in my opinion.

You're making it sound like it's actually impossible to do this. Can you give an example of what a "proper" 2nd-person story would look like? An example sentence or paragraph? I'm not sure what I would "expect" to see beyond the narrator being given as "you" rather than "he" or "I."

I mean, the Wikipedia entry on narrative mode seems to think that the 2nd-person mode is a rare thing, but it has been done. It notes both Stross novels as well as Bright Lights, Big City. I guess I'm not sure why you don't consider it "proper" 2nd-person mode just because it's not engaging enough. Why is the level of engagement necessary for it to qualify as proper 2nd person, any more than a story in first or third person? The narrative mode has nothing to do with how good it is, just whether or not the person engaging in the action is specified as you.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

2nd person that worked (for teenage me) = "Choose Your Own Adventure" books.

I was into those back in the 80s!

I've read other works of fiction in which the narrator is "talking to" the reader as if he's having (and monopolizing) a conversation with the reader. Those stories tend to read like third-person narration (or first- if the narrator is telling you his story), but with a bit of second-preson sentences thrown in to make you feel like you're there. (Yes, like Link... you're mute, but the narrator may "respond" to you.)

I'm a teacher--I see a lot of short stories like this in textbooks. But off the top of my head, I can only think of Dr. Seuss ending The Cat in the Hat with a question to the reader/listener and Shel Silverstein's "Invitation" poem at the start of the Anniversary edition of Where the Sidewalk Ends.

 

[Ravana]

You're making it sound like it's actually impossible to do this.

I would have argued it's pretty close–in that it should not be possible to replace "you" with "he" (or "I") and have the same story. That having been said, the quote in the Wikipedia article from the McInerney novel does seem to fit that criterion, if he manages to sustain it (which I'm assuming he does).

To give a more detailed version of what I'd expect would be necessary for second person to work: it should be as inescapably personal and immediate as first person–in other words, it has to make the reader feel like an actual "I" in the situation, not like a mere witness to what's being related (as with third person narrative), but with the reader's entire access to the story being dictated by a single PoV narrator–the one who is the actual "first" person. By "dictated," I intend a very strong sense: the "you" character cannot have independent reactions, emotions or thoughts within the story–all that is imposed by the narrator: there's no access to the "you" character's own internal mechanisms. At the same time, the reader cannot have direct access to what's going on in the narrator's mind; nor can the reader be given access to any other information apart from what the narrator chooses to convey, not even if it's something a character might reasonably be expected to notice on his own in the circumstances the narration places him in. Which usually isn't a problem, as this can also take place in other narrative modes… but consider the possibilities of a narrator who is deaf: he may neglect to mention such minor details as shots ringing out. (Come to think of it, that could be incredibly cool.…) More broadly, the narrator will only mention those things that catch his attention–including, possibly, ones that wouldn't be noticed by others–whereas in third person, at least, the author may mention a great many things that escape the immediate attention of his characters.

Consider the following from the McInerney quote:

"All might become clear if you could just slip into the bathroom and do a little more Bolivian Marching Powder. Then again, it might not. A small voice inside you insists that this epidemic lack of clarity is a result of too much of that already."

The "you" character is being told what he is thinking and feeling… even what he might feel. The character has no ability to respond to this, either to confirm or deny.

-

The above definition also suggests that there should be a distinct difference between first and third person narratives… and there should. (Anybody who doesn't get this: consider which of these you prefer to read… and why. How often can your objections be traced to a failure of that distinction being made by the author, where the one you don't care for could have easily been written as the other? This may not work if you have no strong preferences, of course–though it might still be the reason you didn't like a particular story, even if you don't normally prefer one PoV over another.) Point of view should always involve more than simply changing pronouns around.

 

[Devor]

You're making it sound like it's actually impossible to do this. Can you give an example of what a "proper" 2nd-person story would look like? An example sentence or paragraph? I'm not sure what I would "expect" to see beyond the narrator being given as "you" rather than "he" or "I."

I mean, the Wikipedia entry on narrative mode seems to think that the 2nd-person mode is a rare thing, but it has been done. It notes both Stross novels as well as Bright Lights, Big City. I guess I'm not sure why you don't consider it "proper" 2nd-person mode just because it's not engaging enough. Why is the level of engagement necessary for it to qualify as proper 2nd person, any more than a story in first or third person? The narrative mode has nothing to do with how good it is, just whether or not the person engaging in the action is specified as you.

If ever there was a conversation I was hoping to get out of, it's this one. I don't really mean to sound like I have such strong feelings about it, and once wikipedia seems to disagree with you, you know you're in trouble.

I haven't read Halting State, and I'm sorry that I mentioned it the first time, or at least for the wording I used. I was only reacting your statement that it didn't make a difference psychologically. If it's a truly different perspective, it should feel like one. But I've also asked (was I not clear enough?) how the 2nd Person narration is accomplished in Halting State, and it would really help me if someone answered that one.

For the most part, I don't think 2nd Narration really works in a story because in writing, "you" typically refers to the reader. If the reader, or a fictional character to whom the narration is addressed, is not actually supposed to be the subject of the story, then it's not, in my opinion, properly written in 2nd Person. Instead it falls into that category of writing and speaking which is seen in some languages and colloquialisms where the wrong tense and POV are used deliberately.

"So this morning, I'm walking through the grocery store, and I see someone chewing on a grape. And he spits it out, right back into the grape bin. And I'm like, 'What the heck, dude? Just seeing you do that is enough to make me stop buying fruit!'"

The present-tense here is being used as a gimmick to draw the listener in, and doesn't actually mean that the story is happening now. It's "fake," in that sense, and after a few sentences the reader or listener adjusts and the effect wears off. I think most stories which are credited as writing in the 2nd Person POV do the same. I was trying to suggest in my last post that 2nd Person POV should be split along the those lines. Is it a stylistic choice, or is "you" genuinely supposed to be "you."

I wasn't talking about the quality of the writing, but whether the 2nd Person POV is genuine. I'm only looking at the question of categorization, that's all.

In terms of achieving a "true" 2nd Person POV, I mentioned Dracula and the way that letters that devolve into long narrations which, genuinely, are no longer second person. I suggested a few posts before that, if the reader was already familiar with the world and the major events involved, as would happen in Historical Fiction (and possibly Fan Fiction), you could probably write in 2nd Person, as a series of letters, and avoid that narration. If every letter was addressed to the same person, the reader might genuinely be able to insert himself into the place of that character. It would be much the same way that "Link" never speaks in a video game for the express purpose of helping the player feel like the characters are talking directly to them.

Another possibility would be writing in the style of a manifesto. I will correct myself and add the adventure books, now that I've thought more about what I'm actually saying, but I want to highlight those which might begin with, "You're reading quietly to yourself, a little confused about what your reading, when all of a sudden a swirling vortex opens behind you and sucks you into a parallel world...." I do think a non-adventure book could begin the same way, and write in a similar style, but maintaining the effect over a great span of time would be extremely difficult.

I'm going to disagree with Ravana a little bit. I don't think a 2nd Person POV should really get inside your head. It might work well and even feel genuine for a short story or a quote, but as the writing progresses towards novel length the reader adjusts and the effect of the 2nd Person POV as a distinct POV will be lost. In that sense, I'm also disagreeing with Wikipedia, but I'll emphasize again that what I really think is that the POV should be divided based on how genuinely you are speaking to your reader (or a character in whose place the reader is standing proxy), not that nobody should ever call such a work 2nd Person POV.

I want to end there, but I think I'll say one more thing. As much as I've made it sound impossible, I think that I, as a writer, would rather write in 2nd Person POV than in 1st Person. Right now I'm very tempted to try it for a short story and post it. But I'm not pledging to do so, especially as I wouldn't be able to do so in a reasonably short amount of time.

 

[Steerpike]

If the reader, or a fictional character to whom the narration is addressed, is not actually supposed to be the subject of the story, then it's not, in my opinion, properly written in 2nd Person.

Devor - I hear what you're saying, but I do think this is overly limiting in terms of the definition of second person. From what I can tell, there is no such requirement within the definition of second person point of view itself. It may be the type of second person narrative you prefer, but to me there is no question but that the works that do not follow the idea that "you" is the reader are still in second person.

As I noted above, setting aside the choose your own adventure stories, I believe that in the vast majority of cases, the second person "you" is not the reader, and the reader's misunderstanding (in some cases) that "you" is meant to refer to them is part of why people have trouble with the point of view.

In Nick Sagan's book Edenborn, for example, the portions of the book written from the perspective of the character Deuce are in second person. There is no way to interpret that story such that the reader is meant to be the character Deuce. It is nevertheless a second person narrative. Also, in Halting State I believe names are provided for the characters who are referred to by "you" in the second person narrative. These characters are not the reader and are not intended to be.

The second person narrative is accomplished in that book as it is in others by the use of pronouns such as "you," "your," and the like, and other such grammatical differences.

I don't see a reason to cast aside a distinction based solely on these grammatical differences. Ultimately, that's what you have in terms of differences between first and third person as well, and you can easily rewrite most first or third person narratives as the other by changing the pertinent grammatical elements. Taking a few sentences off the top of my head:

1st Person:

I grabbed my sword and headed out the door. The last time the outsiders attacked the village, I was a young child. They took my mother and my brother, destroyed my home and my life. This time I was determined to see them take far less.

3rd person:

Tanya grabbed her sword and headed out the door. The last time the outsiders attacked the village, she was a young child. They had taken her mother and her brother, destroyed her home and her life. This time she was determined to see them take far less.

2nd Person:

You grab your sword and head out the door. The last time the outsiders attacked the village, you were a young child. They took your mother and your brother, destroyed your village and your life. This time you are determined to see them take far less.

That's all there is to it. The "you" in the second person narrative may or may not be intended to be you, the reader.

 

[Devor]

I don't see a reason to cast aside a distinction based solely on these grammatical differences.

Why would you think I was talking about differences in grammar? I'm talking about the impact on a reader. And in an over-categorized world, what's the harm in drawing one more distinction? I've made a lot of points now and I don't know how much clearer I can be. I would just hope you understand the crux of what I'm trying to say.

 

[Steerpike]

Why would you think I was talking about differences in grammar? I'm talking about the impact on a reader. And in an over-categorized world, what's the harm in drawing one more distinction? I've made a lot of points now and I don't know how much clearer I can be. I would just hope you understand the crux of what I'm trying to say.

I do understand what you're saying. I'm the one talking about grammatical differences. Impact on the reader doesn't determine whether something is written in second person, first person, or third person. It may determine how effectively the POV is used, but not whether an author is actually using it or not.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

I haven't read Halting State, and I'm sorry that I mentioned it the first time, or at least for the wording I used. I was only reacting your statement that it didn't make a difference psychologically. If it's a truly different perspective, it should feel like one.

The issue isn't whether or not 2nd person has been done well, the issue is whether what's been done can reasonably be called "2nd person," and that's unarguably the case. I don't personally find 2nd person particularly distracting or enriching; 1st and 2nd and 3rd person all feel a bit different to me, but not radically so. I'm sure others have different experiences.

But I've also asked (was I not clear enough?) how the 2nd Person narration is accomplished in Halting State, and it would really help me if someone answered that one.

Sorry, here's an example passage from Rule 34 (I don't have Halting State at hand, but Rule 34 is set in the same universe):

You are not stupid: You aren't carrying anything illegal on your person–it's all in your head. Even your fall-guy phone is only guilty of behaving in a shifty manner. So you do not attempt to flee. Instead, you do as the uniformed gentleman requests and meekly step into the front hall to help him with his enquiries, whereupon you realize that something is very wrong indeed because the walls and ceiling and floor are covered in clear plastic anticontamination sheets, and there's a scene of crime officer in a bunny suit coming down the stairs. "Will a driving license do?" you ask the cop.

For the most part, I don't think 2nd Narration really works in a story because in writing, "you" typically refers to the reader.

I dunno. In my experience, it works just fine. It was a little hard to get used to at first, but then I got used to it and it wasn't distracting. I don't know why Stross decided to do it, but presumably he had some reason.

Look at it this way: role-playing games talk to "you" the player (either computer games or pen and paper games where a game master is talking to you), addressing you as a fictional character who you are not. Those seem to work perfectly fine. I don't know why it would be different between (e.g.) Deus Ex and Halting State, except that one of them there's choices you can make, and the other there aren't. Having played/read both, I can say that I didn't find Halting State to be any less engaging just because it was a static book rather than a dynamic video game.

If the reader, or a fictional character to whom the narration is addressed, is not actually supposed to be the subject of the story, then it's not, in my opinion, properly written in 2nd Person.

Okay. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then, but the term "2nd person narrative mode" is usually used to mean what I (and Wikipedia) use it to mean. You don't have to agree that that's what "2nd person narrative mode" should mean, but you're going to confuse people if you don't use it that way. ;-)

 

[Erica]

I'm a fan of tight or deep third person myself. That precludes switching povs in the middle of the scene. It also means you don't describe things that would likely be irrelevant to your pov character in a given scene. For instance, when a character walks into a room, he or she is most likely going to notice one or two important things about his or her surroundings and filter out the rest unless he or she has a good reason for attending to every little detail (like she's searching for clues at a crime scene or something).

It's a leaner style of writing. I enjoy stories where the writer doesn't tell me everything all at once about the characters and their motivations or bog me down with too many details. Of course, a story can be mainly in a tighter pov and zoom out into a more omniscient view for some scenes that are needed to establish setting or a particular mood.