We're all familiar with this one by default, because it's how a lot of popular paranormals are written. The first person narrative is telling the story from one, and only one character's point of view. It uses the pronouns 'I/me/us/we' instead of 'he/him/them/they'. You can shift from one character to another in first person, sort of like we did with third person restrictive, with one caveat - you MUST have a divider. Most likely, alternating chapters. But I have read stories that are accounts of the same events, told from two perspectives but smoothly woven together. It can be done, it's just difficult. The third person option is usually better in those cases.
The biggest thing you give up with first person narrative is omniscience, that's the 'all-knowing' bit that comes in quite handy when telling a story with a lot of characters in it. Basically, the only way you have to relate to the reader what is happening is by having the narrator experience it. Unless the narrator is a mind reader, this cuts out the inner thoughts and feelings of the other characters. It also does something to 'discredit' the narrator, because they are only seeing things from a limited perspective. They could be wrong. Whereas, an omniscient narrator is trust-worthy. Sometimes, this room for doubt is good - for example, if there is a mystery to be revealed, or a twist or sudden 'Ah-ha!' moment planned for the reader.
The bonus: With the first person narrative, there is generally no switching, so the writer does not need to be conscious of transitions, other than tense, location, and time. For the reader, the advantage is that they get to be very intimate with the narrator, and generally become more quickly attached to at least the main character. They are more immersed in the story from the beginning because they become the character. You, as the writer, also have more control over how the audience thinks things, because you control their perception. It might be hard to convince the audience that your villain in a really nasty guy if you are limited to only describing his actions, or even his thoughts. But if you can have an instant feeling of hatred or dread swell up in the narrator, the audience will generally go along with it.
When making your decision about whether to use the first or third person narrative, just consider the scope of your story. Is it more important for your reader to be really up-close and personal, totally immersed in the action and emotion of what is going on, or for them to get a broader (even if more shallow) perspective?
***
There are several types of first person narrative 'voices' (this is the technical term, not meaning the same thing as voice in my earlier posts, so I will refer to these 'voices' as 'styles' from here on, to avoid confusion), and many of them have to do with the tense you are using to tell the story (See the 'Tense About Tenses' thread).
One such relation is the use of active vs. passive style. In general, avoid the passive style, because it's not engaging at all. This is usually reserved for more dry, non-fiction writings and is a very bad habit if you're trying to write fiction. The passive style means that the subject of your sentence does not take action, but is acted upon.
Example:
The spilt milk was licked up by the cat. (Passive)
The cat licked up the spilt milk. (Active)
Not only is the second one more clear, but it's also more correct, especially if you are in active style for the rest of the writing around it. A passive sentence out of nowhere can really break up flow.
Example:
I jumped in surprise when he spoke and jammed my lower back against the edge of the counter. Spinning on my heel, I knocked over the milk and cereal to splatter across the kitchen floor. I whirled back on him with a wooden spoon held high, ready to defend myself. The spilt milk was licked up by the cat as Drake stepped out of the shadows.
See what I mean? Re-insert the active sentence there, and it just sounds better. Moving on . . .
The other types of 'styles' you can use with first person narrative are not common, but you've probably encountered them. The narrator can be speaking directly to the audience, as if recounting the story. "My story begins on the far shores of Ireland . . ." This is a more auto-biographical style - but it can work for a novel, like Memoirs of a Geisha. There can also be a 'framed' story within the story. This is where the narrator begins to tell another story, within the story. There are plenty of others, and they get sort of complex, so I'll let you research those on your own.
Now, all that being said, you would wonder why anyone would choose the first person narrative. Honestly, I find it easier to write in. You are not pressured to make transitions, cover your bases, or make sure all the details are pointed out. It is also MUCH easier to keep a consistent voice in the first person, because there is only one. You can mix action, description and dialogue and reflection however you want - so you have a degree of freedom. In another way, however, you are setting yourself up for a challenge.
The hardest part of maintaining an interesting first person narrative is making sure that the other characters around the narrator come to life. This might not seem difficult, but it is. You can't just tell the audience what the supporting cast is thinking or feeling. The characters have to say or do something that indicates this, and the narrator has to perceive it. It forces you to come up with creative ways to convey how the other characters in the story are reacting.
- Where?:Same as always.
- Feeling . . . :
calm - Listening to:Er....
Profile
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
gwen_mitchell- gwen_mitchell
- Gwen Mitchell Fiction