Is This a New Trend?

[La Volpe]

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]

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]

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

 

[La Volpe]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.