1st / 3rd person perspective?

[yowser]

3rd Person Omniscient leaves much less margin for error for an author, it demands decisive meticulous control. You really are God, knowing everything, working the strings, and all sorts of minor errors of the craft that might be excusable (or less obvious) in other perspectives can grow large in 3rd Omniscient.

When done well, a well-paced controlled 3rd Omniscient story lets you into the minds and scene of creation itself. Aspects such as suspense have to be handled carefully, and others have noted the 'head-hopping' perspective issues. Done badly, and even excellent commercially successful writers are eligible here, it can be a mess, and readers who aren't typically critical find themselves annoyed at the author's hubris or carelessness.

 

[KeithD]

As mentioned above, never use both first and third in the same story.
If using multiple first persons, have separate sections with the name of the person identified.
A nice compromise between first and third person is third person but in which we know the thoughts of one character.

I just used both first and third in a story, keeping them in separate sections, and I think it worked just fine.

 

[KeithD]

2nd person: I'm telling you what you did or what you're going to do.

And what you think.

Where most think they are writing second person but aren't go off the rails in something like:

"You walk over to me and lean down for a kiss. Your mind is in a muddle, having been alone all day and you are craving company."

This gets into the mind of the "you," so some think it's second person, but the "me" in the first sentence gives it away as first person--the perspective isn't wholly from the "you."

 

[jaF0]

See, I still get confused ....

"You walk over and lean down for a kiss. Your mind is in a muddle, having been alone all day and you are craving company."

"She walks over and leans down for a kiss. Her mind is in a muddle, having been alone all day and she is craving company."

 

[KeithD]

See, I still get confused ....

"You walk over and lean down for a kiss. Your mind is in a muddle, having been alone all day and you are craving company."

"She walks over and leans down for a kiss. Her mind is in a muddle, having been alone all day and she are craving company."

The first is in second person and the second is in third person. What's the problem?

(what you gave in the first example, using most of the words I gave in a muddled second person that really was first person, is different from what I posted. You made it fully second person by taking out the "me" perspective.)

 

[BuckyDuckman]

The first is in second person and the second is in third person. What's the problem?

(what you gave in the first example, using most of the words I gave in a muddled second person that really was first person, is different from what I posted. You made it fully second person by taking out the "me" perspective.)

Help me out here, are you saying the narrator cannot reference themselves within a 2nd person story?

 

[KeithD]

Help me out here, are you saying the narrator cannot reference themselves within a 2nd person story?

In a second-person voice, EVERYTHING is from the "you" perspective. There is no narrator's voice inside the text. So, no, once the narrator references him/herself in the text, it's slipped into the first person. Which, yes, means that second person is very belabored--which is why it becomes tedious.

 

[jaF0]

I'm curious now, so I took the first couple of paragraphs from a story I put up a while back and tried to play with it.



Had it really been a year? The calendar said so, but it didn't seem possible. Yet, here you were again in a hotel in a distant city for your annual weekend away. The plan as usual was to visit an up-scale shopping mall and indulge in things you couldn't the rest of the year. You'd shop and eat in those types of places that didn't exist at home. Yesterday was a day for the spa and all the things that went with it, the primping, the waxing, the extra treatments. Today, you shop.

After a relaxing breakfast you'd spent time taking a little extra effort on your make-up and hair than was normal for shopping. You selected a simple wrap dress knowing you'd be in and out of it several times in dressing rooms trying on other outfits. Stepping into a pair of simple heels knowing there would be a lot of walking, you planned on buying another pair of higher heels to carry and wear while trying on some outfits. These would not be heels one could walk in for long. You added a basic choker style necklace and a nondescript bracelet and nothing else. Nothing else at all. Walking to the car, the gentle breeze swirling under your dress made you grateful for that decision.

The first hours in the stores were more or less uneventful as you looked at clothes and trinkets that didn't really catch your interest. A few dress stores found you nude in the dressing rooms trying on dresses, skirts and gowns of all sorts while your husband stood outside waiting. You could tell he was trying to sneak some glimpses through the doors however. Before long, the bags were piling up and you realized you may be close to going over budget for this trip. Two pair of multi-hundred dollar shoes didn't help. The visit to the shoe store had been a bit different than you were used to. The salesgirl seemed to want to spend an inordinate amount of time helping you in and out of those extra high spike heels. You're not really sure who enjoyed the experience more, she or your husband who stood by watching her caress your ankles and legs.

 

[SimonDoom]

I'm curious now, so I took the first couple of paragraphs from a story I put up a while back and tried to play with it.



Had it really been a year? The calendar said so, but it didn't seem possible. Yet, here you were again in a hotel in a distant city for your annual weekend away. The plan as usual was to visit an up-scale shopping mall and indulge in things you couldn't the rest of the year. You'd shop and eat in those types of places that didn't exist at home. Yesterday was a day for the spa and all the things that went with it, the primping, the waxing, the extra treatments. Today, you shop.

After a relaxing breakfast you'd spent time taking a little extra effort on your make-up and hair than was normal for shopping. You selected a simple wrap dress knowing you'd be in and out of it several times in dressing rooms trying on other outfits. Stepping into a pair of simple heels knowing there would be a lot of walking, you planned on buying another pair of higher heels to carry and wear while trying on some outfits. These would not be heels one could walk in for long. You added a basic choker style necklace and a nondescript bracelet and nothing else. Nothing else at all. Walking to the car, the gentle breeze swirling under your dress made you grateful for that decision.

The first hours in the stores were more or less uneventful as you looked at clothes and trinkets that didn't really catch your interest. A few dress stores found you nude in the dressing rooms trying on dresses, skirts and gowns of all sorts while your husband stood outside waiting. You could tell he was trying to sneak some glimpses through the doors however. Before long, the bags were piling up and you realized you may be close to going over budget for this trip. Two pair of multi-hundred dollar shoes didn't help. The visit to the shoe store had been a bit different than you were used to. The salesgirl seemed to want to spend an inordinate amount of time helping you in and out of those extra high spike heels. You're not really sure who enjoyed the experience more, she or your husband who stood by watching her caress your ankles and legs.

What are you curious about?

This is second person POV. Nowhere in the narrative is the first-person POV invoked. So this is second person POV. I checked out your story, which is in first person, and you modified it.

The difference is obvious, isn't it? Second person POV is weird and counterintuitive because the use of second person by its nature implies the existence of an "I" who is addressing a "you", yet the "I" purports to know what the "you" is thinking and the "I" remains invisible. It's contrived. It's forced.

 

[jaF0]

Yes, but this is only a couple of paragraphs with no dialog. How would more involved scenes play out, especially those with dialog? How would the characters talk to each other? Or is that not done?

 

[jaF0]

The difference is obvious, isn't it? Second person POV is weird and counterintuitive because the use of second person by its nature implies the existence of an "I" who is addressing a "you", yet the "I" purports to know what the "you" is thinking and the "I" remains invisible. It's contrived. It's forced.

It almost seems like the director or acting coach telling the actors what their motivation for a scene is.

Almost.

 

[UtherVierDragon]

Yes, but this is only a couple of paragraphs with no dialog. How would more involved scenes play out, especially those with dialog? How would the characters talk to each other? Or is that not done?

The same. Replace 'me' and 'I' in the dialogue tags with 'you' and done. Less flippantly, I would argue that 2nd person evokes a style somewhere between first and third person narration. The (implied) narrator tells 'you' what 'you' do or feel with (I feel) more insight and authority than a third person narrator would. 'You' are also marked out against the 'they/she/he/it's of random side characters. But there is probably some more distance than first person narration would allow (maybe).

[As an aside there is always an narrator implied by the text. Sometimes they come to the fore as with first person narration, or some forms of omniscient narration. And sometimes they fade into the background and are easy to read over as with many third person limited narrations.]

Second-Person narration is actually semi-common in a game context where a real (think a Dungeonmaster in a table top game) or implied (at least some narrative-based video-games; see my example further down) storyteller shares control of a character with a player. And I think the importance of share can not be overstated. In a game context this then entails an acknowledgment of the fundamental principles of play i.e. that playing is always a shared experience. And if you wanted to go reeal philosophical you could interpret a lot into the difference between of 'you' and 'I' in our hypothetical D&D game.

If second person narration is then in fact a marker of shared experience (and it may have additional meanings I am not aware of) it might have some literary use. The equally pretentious and obvious answer would be that reading is in fact an activity shared between author and (an implied) reader. Though I feel that would be a lot of effort and possible reader alienation to make a rather trite point.

More salient for erotica purposes might be the reverse effect - the reader does not expect to share a point of view with anyone, yet has the narrator suddenly encroach on their space. For stories about loss of control -erotic or otherwise - it may actually be an interesting idea.

Finally, a look at second person narration in the wild may be helpful. Take this snippet from Fallen London - a browser game I happen to play:

The Ambassador's official address is modest, though the decor is tasteful and there is a permanent catering staff. The Ministry for Public Decency argued that, as the Ambassador's residence should be in Arbor, expense should be spared.

It is, possibly, breaking the ambassadorial code of conduct to steal information for yourself, but your staff isn't up to the job. You'll make use of it at some point, but for now, remuneration for your efforts. What the Ambassador owns is yours, after all.

The first paragraph doesn't go for the 'you' at all. It might work just as well for generic first/third person narration. In fact it could be argued that the paragraph is in-fact focalised through 'the Ambassador' or 'The Ministry for Public Decency'.

And in the second paragraph we start to have fun. This is from mid- to late-game content of the game, and I (or my player character) is the Ambassador to Arbor - and this was determined by a choice I made in game. So here the narration can on the one hand acknowledge my contribution to the story told, and on the other poke gentle fun of the fact that I am trying to sell stolen information to myself.

 

[KeithD]

*sigh* So far that the example is third-person voice. It doesn't really get into the "you" perception at all.

The biggest argument not to write second person is that so many writers have no idea what second person voice is and how it's used. Just don't use it.

 

[UtherVierDragon]

*sigh* So far that the example is third-person voice.

I am sorry, but what? I am honestly not even sure if this is addressed at me. There are lots of 'you'-s in the second paragraph. I bolded them. I wrote about them. Are you arguing that 2nd person narration can not have any part that would also work in 3rd? Would this:

You see that the Ambassador's official address is modest, though the decor is tasteful and there is a permanent catering staff. As you know, the Ministry for Public Decency argued that, as the Ambassador's residence should be in Arbor, expense should be spared.

be better? And would you apply that standard to first person narration?

It doesn't really get into the "you" perception at all.

Or are you arguing that there needs some kind of high/increased internality to make it "proper" 2nd person narration? Because again I don't understand why that would apply to second, but not first.

The biggest argument not to write second person is that so many writers have no idea what second person voice is and how it's used. Just don't use it.

And here I think we really disagree.

For one - and I apologize if I did not make this sufficiently clear - while 2nd person is rare in literature, it is common or even standard for interactive media. The game I quoted, for example, is not my room-mate doing a weird, experimental twine adventure, but a well-reviewed, franchise spawning indie success story. Or I could have mentioned chose your own adventure or fighting fantasy books. And as far as I can tell all these are in fact considered paradigmatic examples of 2nd person narration.

And you can of course argue that the text snippet I quoted was ill-chosen. And that may be, but that also strongly argues against any stringent demands of purity.

And secondly, I honestly don't see the problem with attempting 2nd person and failing (whatever 'proper' second person narration is supposed to be); if my example were in fact 3rd person narration - so what? I don't think what I quoted is bad writing or works against itself in some way.

I am not even sure 100% consistency in narration is a worthwhile goal. To be clear, it does help to have a clear conception of protagonist and narrator/narrative voice, but the lines of internal/external especially tend to blur in a lot of even commercially and critically successful fiction.

 

[KeithD]

I am sorry, but what? I am honestly not even sure if this is addressed at me. There are lots of 'you'-s in the second paragraph. I bolded them. I wrote about them. Are you arguing that 2nd person narration can not have any part that would also work in 3rd? Would this:

Simply sprinkling the text with the word "you" doesn't make something second-person perspective. Everything in the context has to be perceived from the "you." And once you're fallen out of that, you've lost the second-person perspective.

There was nothing in your example that was second-person perspective. It could have developed into that, but it didn't.

Fine if we disagree. Feel free to actually look it up. Until then, I wouldn't suggest you write in what you think is second-person perspective. But, if you want to, have at.

 

[BuckyDuckman]

while 2nd person is rare in literature, it is common or even standard for interactive media.

Good additions, Uther, and I'm glad you brought up gaming as a place where we often encounter the use of the 2nd person POV, from D&D to video games.

I find the "Fallout" series use of the 3rd person voice interesting because it always felt like the game was talking "about" your character instead of talking to you as the character.

jaF0's comment about a director directing their actors made a lot of sense, too.

Additionally, I can see where the tiniest slip could break the illusion, too. A bit like when someone is telling a 1st person story, but then inserts a paragraph or two concerning what's happening in the other room or adds the unknowable thoughts & motivations of someone else.

 

[UtherVierDragon]

Feel free to actually look it up.

I did. I realize that Wikipedia is only Wikipedia, but I also don't think anybody (but you) has ever argued that such works are not 2nd Person narratives.

But fine. I am committed now.

Richardson defines second-person fiction as "any narration that designates its protagonist by a second-person pronoun. This protagonist will usually be the sole focalizer, and is generally the work's narratee as well" (311). Richardson's definition differs from Prince's (given earlier) in that Prince makes the protagonist's narrateehood the principle criterion of second-person fiction; Richardson, by contrast, sees reference to the protagonist as central and makes narrateehood a secondary criterion.

Again, I may just have snipped a poor example in my original post, but I think that the second paragraph I have given clearly marks the 'you' as the protagonist and as the narratee.

Everything in the context has to be perceived from the "you." And once you're fallen out of that, you've lost the second-person perspective.

What I think you are getting at, is that in my example given the 'you' is not clearly the sole focalizer. But this is the criterion that Richardson hedges (I my opinion quite rightly) down to "usually". One part of the problem is that I might have in fact chosen a snippet that had a stronger emphasis on such internality. But I also maintain that the overall analysis of a text can not and should not depend on shifts in focalisation for individual passages of text. (cf. also below.)


From what I have gleaned by scanning Fludernik, she also seems to be quite open about the possibility of having two narrative voices so

"You walk over to me and lean down for a kiss. Your mind is in a muddle, having been alone all day and you are craving company."

would for her be both second and first person narration.

Additionally, I can see where the tiniest slip could break the illusion, too. A bit like when someone is telling a 1st person story, but then inserts a paragraph or two concerning what's happening in the other room or adds the unknowable thoughts & motivations of someone else.

Yes. And it is a point worth keeping in mind. But: The overall narrative voice of the text influences our reading of each individual passage. So if in a 1st person narration the 'I' starts to suddenly ascribe thoughts or motivations to other characters then that can be read as a mistake - a destruction of the illusion. But it can also be read as conjecture of the 'I'. And the author could make it clear by hedging with e.g. "seems" or by stating that it is speculation of the 'I' e.g. "I could read her face, it betrayed her lust" - but I don't think that is always necessary - and I think lots of basic writing advice states that it is unnecessary, weak writing and should always be deleted. (My basic point and the reason for these walls of text is that same holds for 2nd person narration.)

Finally, 2nd person narration seems to be often employed by post-modernists and their ilk and the shattering of the narrative illusion is then rather the point of the exercise.

 

[UtherVierDragon]

The issue is in 'Point of View', meaning, literally, through whose eyes the story is seen, and who's telling what happens/happened.

In this example: [snipped]



it reads to me as if someone else (3rd POV) is telling another person (the 'you'; 2nd P, but not V) what he or she is going to find, what his or her actions are supposed to be, and why he or she deserves it. It never reads to me as if the 'you' are watching the scene; as if 'you' are telling me what's going on.

I see. This is a good objection and helps me understand where you (and I think Keith) are coming from.

The answer to this objection (and this comes obviously from a certain narratological framework which I certainly should not have supposed familiar to everyone. And which just may not be in common use outside of [certain strains of] literature studies or outside of ?Europe?) is that we are (or I am - but I genuinely think it is a useful mode of analysis) not talking about PoV but about narration. And in narration (which again here is technical jargon within a framework of scholarship) the narrator who "tells the story" (as implied or described by the text -NOT the actual flesh and blood author) and the focaliser (the point through which the story is told) can and frequently do come apart.

For most First Person Narration narrator and focaliser are the same. But in Third Person Narration they frequently are not. You could have a narrator who is not privy to the inner lives of any characters and only describes their actions ( or only the actions of a singular character). Or the narrator could focalise through a singular character and include their inner lives, but make clear through narration that the narrator does not identify with them ("Thus Alice became a murderer. She did not consider herself a murderer, but she did kill Bob in cold blood. Alice was now a vile murderer."). But even if the narrator does not indulge in clear opining we can not necessarily conclude that they are the same as the focaliser ("Alice killed Bob. She did not feel bad about it." - there is nothing here that suggests that Alice tells the story. And depending on other factors we could read some kind of judgement into the second sentence.)

. It never reads to me as if the 'you' are watching the scene; as if 'you' are telling me what's going on.

So 1) the 'you' does not need to "tell" anything. I am honestly not sure if it meaningfully could. But 2) you observing that the 'you' does not observe is interesting - I think- because here we get back to context. I have actually looked through my snippets of the game and there are a few (I think) which more clearly show 'you' doing stuff. But there are also quite a few which are "worse". I think I am that confident to call "sprinkling a few 'yous' over the text" 2nd Person Narration because the context - this being a game- makes it clear that 'you' is the protagonist and drives the action.

Edit: And I can of course not quote the context of gameplay. You will have to trust me that game mechanics exist and create meaning/context.