Dual Perspectives within Same Story

[THBGato]

You are completely glossing over the millennia of existence of the medium of theater and performance. Watching acted-out stories from a third person perspective has much, much longer history than cinematography alone.

No I'm not. Most pre-Shakespearean theatre (and even Shakespeare) is framed as if we are being told the story. The idea of the prologue, the soliloquys to the audience, the comic asides, the chorus: what are they if not first person narrators? It was only with invention of the proscenium arc and the "fourth wall" that dramatists began to pretend the audience wasn't there.

First person narrator doesn't mean we aren't watching the story.

 

[TheLobster]

No I'm not. Most pre-Shakespearean theatre (and even Shakespeare) is framed as if we are being told the story. The idea of the prologue, the soliloquys to the audience, the comic asides, the chorus: what are they if not first person narrators? It was only with invention of the proscenium arc and the "fourth wall" that dramatists began to pretend the audience wasn't there.

But the mere presence of an audience that's explicitly addressed, and the breaking of fourth wall or even taking it down entirely that this entails, doesn't suddenly make any story a first-person perspective one. I'm really puzzled why those two things would be so related as so one automatically implying the other, when most of the examples you cite are of non-characters speaking during a play, and sometimes (often?) not even using the pronoun 'I' as they do.

 

[BlueZen]

My writing experience is limited to what you can see in my story list. I write in third person, and I think it’s close third. My editor kept talking to me about voice and point of view. So taking his advice combined with some stuff I read on the internet, if you’re going to use multiple POVs, then it’s good form to keep it to only one per chapter or chapter break.

 

[Britva415]

So as to the why, how and to whom questions, that for me is the answer. Why? Well, why do couples tell other people how they met or got together? They just do! How? Turn-taking. To whom? Our nearest and dearest? New Friends?

I used to feel that way, until I encountered way way way too many 1p stories where there were problems with just assuming that the telling was like this. And I'm not just talking about the "dual" ones. Even stories with just one 1p voice can be written in a way (plot wise) that contradicts the whole "I'm telling you a story!" assumed pseudo-frame.

When that happens, I notice it. And it happens so often, and when it does happen it pegs the bullshit meter so hard, that - well, I guess you could say that it ruins it for all the other 1p authors who do write consistently with the "recorded autobiographical" frame in mind but don't bother to actually say so in the story.

They used to be able to get away with it. But I've seen too many of them that hit like "fucking come on now..." to not spot the absence of frame when the frame is absent.

It doesn't usually make me hate the story. But sometimes it really is that bad.

Two 1p POVs cannot fail to make this worse. Especially when the events of the story wind up completely precluding your "default" assumed frame of "We're telling you a story! Together!"

So, we have a continuum:

• There are stories which explicitly provide the frame. "This is my autobiography."
  There are stories which kinda allude to it without spelling it out explicitly. "If you find this manuscript..."
  
  
• There are stories which don't include any framing content at all, yet they CAN get by with that default assumed frame, because they don't contradict the possibility of it.
  
  
• Then there are stories which, because of the plot, simply could not have been recorded and delivered, simply could not have been heard as a verbal retelling, simply could not have been anything other than the internal stream-of-consciousness of the POV character as they experienced it.
  
  Which, okay, that IS a frame, but only if the story makes clear that that's what you're supposed to presume it to be. Absent this, it's just wtf
  
  Additionally, with or without a stated frame to that effect, when that IS the conceit (that we're just somehow supposed to be supernaturally privy to the character's internal stream of consciousness), writing style can fuck it up. And it seems like it usually does.

Same with the dinner-table retelling conceit. If that really is supposed to be the default assumed frame, a writing style which yields words that wouldn't ever come out of an oral storyteller's mouth makes me cringe.

Especially one telling their own story in 1p voice. An oral storyteller telling a 3p story can get away with "literary" or otherwise excessively-formal style, but when a 1p narrator does it without making clear that they're writing instead of just telling or just experiencing, then, it creates a cognitive dissonance. And if they are writing, that's when all those other questions pop up.

Those questions usually do have "default" answers, like you said. My problem is when the story contradicts the plausibility of any of those defaults.

Two 1p voices requires a LOT more effort on the author's part to avoid all these potential problems. The author has to either make damn good and sure that none of them come up, OR, they have to include one or more frames so that they aren't problems when they do happen.

I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong. In fact, I agree with you nearly 100% about how default frame can totally nullify any need for explicit frame. Yes, that can happen.

My problem is when it doesn't. And it's a big enough problem that I spot the absence of frame - or, you could say, I spot the presumption of default frame - even in stories which do turn out to be consistent with the unstated default frame. Don't presume default frame and then contradict it with the wrong writing style or a plot impossibility.

Even in stories which don't contradict it, I still like frame to be at least whispered at, in the story, but as long as the story doesn't actively fuck up the default frame without providing even a whiff of an alternative frame that makes sense, then I'm fine.

Too many of them do, though.

Especially the multiple POV ones. I'm sure you can see how, when the problem exists, this multiplies it, exponentiates it.

I'm not saying it's wrong to write one 1 1p POV or multiple 1p POVs. I'm saying, if you do, make it make sense. If you can't, then choosing 3p instead of 1p would totally remove any need to even consider any of the above concerns at all.

 

[Britva415]

choosing 3p instead of 1p would totally remove any need to even consider any of the above concerns at all

Well, usually There's a way to fuck that up, too! And in almost exactly the same way!

How's that? By making the 3p narrator an ostensible in-universe character.

 

[Britva415]

to me Dual First Person narration can seem very natural. If it doesn't to you, I guess you don't share story-telling duties with your partner very often!

It isn't that it doesn't seem natural. I think "seeming natural" is 100% why some authors do sometimes fuck it up (by introducing any of the contradictions I spelled out, before).

It seems so natural that they forget to make it make narrative sense. Like, they have a blind spot.

They'll choose a 1p perspective because it seems so natural, and then write a story which really could only have been told from a 3p perspective.

 

[THBGato]

They'll choose a 1p perspective because it seems so natural, and then write a story which really could only have been told from a 3p perspective.

I take all your points - which seem to me to amount to just bad writing.

However, I feel - as you acknowledge - all of these can be issues with 3rd person. Most obviously: how the fuck does this narrator know what the hell these people were thinking, feeling and doing at this point? Did they interview them all?

Third person stories for me are just... well, there's no effort to pretend they are anything other than something the author invented. That's fine. We can suspend our disbelief. I just find it odd that you can do that for 3rd person but you seem to be saying you can't do that for 1st, when to my mind it is far easier to suspend disbelief for a 1st person narrator than a 3rd person one.

But each to their own. I do wonder how much cinema had to do with that; there's a PHD thesis there, I'm sure.

@TheLobster I'm not completing ignoring your argument, but I've decided that theatre is kind of irrelevant. I go to the theatre maybe two, three times year; in contrast I read around 60 novels a year and watch TV series/films most weeks. I suspect that is most people's experience of the three forms. Thus theatre is by far the least influential medium on how readers imagine narratives.

 

[Britva415]

I take all your points - which seem to me to amount to just bad writing.

Precisely! Bad writing IS what makes too many 1p stories bad stories.

all of these can be issues with 3rd person. Most obviously: how the fuck does this narrator know what the hell these people were thinking, feeling and doing at this point? Did they interview them all?

Well, I did allude to this.

Other than when they're an in-universe character, a 3p narrator normally does not have to jump any of those hurdles. Even in "close 3p," the narrator can still be taken to be omniscient unless they're framed as an in-universe character.

The choice to tell a 3p story in a close fashion instead of a cosmically detached fashion is not because of any in-universe constraint, and readers know this.

 

[Britva415]

We can suspend our disbelief. I just find it odd that you can do that for 3rd person but you seem to be saying you can't do that for 1st, when to my mind it is far easier to suspend disbelief for a 1st person narrator than a 3rd person one.

I'm not saying I can't, I'm saying bad writing makes it harder hard to. Or, if it's bad enough, impossible to. The 3p POV simply doesn't risk any of the particular pitfalls I mentioned.

 

[Britva415]

Third person stories for me are just... well, there's no effort to pretend they are anything other than something the author invented.

To me, this is just saying you like 1p better than 3p. Because you like a sense of verisimilitude or immersion you feel is present in 1p but not in 3p.

Yes, that's me putting words in your mouth, I'm not saying this is what you're saying. But it's what it seems like to me.

You put this in terms of "making an effort." Well, an effort to not-get-caught-making-shit-up is exactly what I expect from a 1p story: Make it make sense. A 3p story doesn't fail to make sense when you know the author made it up, so, one effort is not like the other.

 

[THBGato]

Other than when they're an in-universe character, a 3p narrator normally does not have to jump any of those hurdles. Even in "close 3p," the narrator can still be taken to be omniscient unless they're framed as an in-universe character.

But that was my point: how can there be an omniscient narrator? How can anyone know all of this? This is where I disagree with you: all those hurdles and pitfalls are still there to be jumped with a 3p narrator, but just... more so. I really struggle with 3 person narrators except for sci fi and fantasy, in which case I'm already suspending my disbelief.

To me, this is just saying you like 1p better than 3p. Because you like a sense of verisimilitude or immersion you feel is present in 1p but not in 3p.

Yes, that's me putting words in your mouth, I'm not saying this is what you're saying. But it's what it seems like to me.

No, that's exactly what I'm saying! Thanks!

A 3p story doesn't fail to make sense when you know the author made it up, so, one effort is not like the other.

Yes, but because as a reader I cannot pretend that it is true, that sense of immersion is far harder (for me) to achieve with 3rd person.

But I think this fundamentally comes down to personal taste, which comes down to what we're used to. I think all we're doing here is (respectfully) outlining why we both have different preferences. Which is fine. But it's unlikely to get us anywhere.

 

[Britva415]

how can there be an omniscient narrator?

I mean, that isn't a question for me. That's a question for many generations of writers, readers and critics who take it for granted.

 

[Britva415]

as a reader I cannot pretend that it is true

I get you. You just aren't getting what you want from the story.

That's different from the story being an impossible or inconsistent story!

 

[EmilyMiller]

Dual Perspectives within Same Story​

I do this frequently. I don’t understand writing off a perfectly valid and oft employed literary technique. It’s like anything else, you can do it well and enhance your story. You can do it badly and distract the reader.

It requires skill and clarity to make the transitions obvious without being jarring. There needs to be some organic reason for the shift in POV, that makes the change flow naturally. But done well, it’s a useful tool.