First Person or Third Person?

[sirhugs]

I don’t understand; it’s a matter of form, not substance. If we compare it to cinema, you choose between a panoramic view (omniscient), a POV shot (first), or an over-the-shoulder shot (close third). In any case, the rendering method shouldn't create a conflict. A skilled director will produce a good movie regardless.

Ouch. Thanks for the offhanded insult, and invaldating my entire being, writing career and feelings. Really helpful.

What have you written lately?

My analogy would be more like the difference betwen a single camera television comedy versus a mutli-camera comedy. Entirely different tone and effect.

 

[consistentlyrepudiated]

Ouch. Thanks for the offhanded insult, and invaldating my entire being, writing career and feelings. Really helpful.

What have you written lately?

My analogy would be more like the difference betwen a single camera television comedy versus a mutli-camera comedy. Entirely different tone and effect.

Hmm. I can't put you on ignore, which is a blatant violation of my constitutional rights.

 

[anthrodisiac]

Choosing a POV happens intuitively (or maybe randomly) at the birth of the tale. Changing it afterward would be like a gender reassignment surgery. My excuse for the first person is that whatever happens in the protagonist's head--the way they perceive things--is more intriguing than the happenings themselves, but that is usually just a post-hoc rationalization.

Sometimes a story seems like it ought to be one POV, but then you get into it and you realize the POV doesn't work. Sometimes it's intuition, sometimes it's a conscious choice.

That gender reassignment surgery doesn't really make sense. You're saying POV is basically chance, which, uh, not even a little bit. Maybe it would make sense if someone had no control over the story, or flipped a coin, but these are all conscious decisions by the author about how they want to frame the story. Like @sirhugs mentioned, different POVs provide different tones and effects. Those effects aren't always something the reader is conscious of, but they do provide implicit cues and framings to the reader that alter how they take in the story.

Any story could be told with any POV, and it's up to the execution about how successful it is, but I still think picking the right POV for the type of story, the effect, the focus, all of that is still important. Not as important as how well it's written and executed, but still important choices nonetheless.

Let's take your own example:

If we compare it to cinema, you choose between a panoramic view (omniscient), a POV shot (first), or an over-the-shoulder shot (close third). In any case, the rendering method shouldn't create a conflict. A skilled director will produce a good movie regardless.

You want to shoot a big, grand war movie. You decide to shoot the whole thing with the focus on a single soldier the whole time. You dig into their life, their background, you only ever focus on them. Is that then a movie about the whole war? Or is a movie about a soldier in a war?

You want to create an intimate rom-com. Do you just do big, sweeping cinematic shots and never do close-ups of the characters?

Probably not. Instead, you tailor your shot to the mood and feel of what you're going for. In a movie, that varies by scene, and even within the scene, because at different times you want to impart different effects and vibes to the viewer. In a story, we do much the same thing; rarely with the same level of variability and changes of focus as a movie, but we tailor our POV to get the "shot" we want because the shot is what frames the scene for the reader.

 

[NaughteeDragon]

i think that it is Mom who is the cross dresser, but haven't figured out how this fits.

Make the daughters twins, one is super popular the other one is a recluse with severe social anxiety. She starts cross dressing so that people will stop mistaking her for her sister. She’s the one that discovers the tentacle monster.

 

[sirhugs]

At the risk of stirring up the tempest over whther choice of POV is instinctual or deliberate:

I was reading the Wikiedia page for John Irving's 2005 novel Until I Find You. Noted the following :

"The novel was originally written in first person and only changed 10 months before publication. After realizing that so much of the material—childhood sexual abuse and a long-lost father who eventually ends up in a mental institution—was too close to his own experiences, Irving postponed publication of the novel while he rewrote it entirely in third person."

Irving is one of my favourite writers (perhaps my all around favourite), so if he thinks POV is important, and changing it can have worthwhile impact, who am I to disagree?

and even if you aren't an Irving fan (and you should be), you can't argue with his success.

(and, yes, I did read the part of the page that talks about the poor reception of this novel, described as being considered by some as his worst. But the worst novel of a great writer is still better than anything most of us could write. I did find it dark, and at times hard to read, but IMHO, that is what made it powerful. Still, I'd start with Garp, my alltime favourite read).

 

[SimonDoom]

At the risk of stirring up the tempest over whther choice of POV is instinctual or deliberate:

I was reading the Wikiedia page for John Irving's 2005 novel Until I Find You. Noted the following :

"The novel was originally written in first person and only changed 10 months before publication. After realizing that so much of the material—childhood sexual abuse and a long-lost father who eventually ends up in a mental institution—was too close to his own experiences, Irving postponed publication of the novel while he rewrote it entirely in third person."

Irving is one of my favourite writers (perhaps my all around favourite), so if he thinks POV is important, and changing it can have worthwhile impact, who am I to disagree?

and even if you aren't an Irving fan (and you should be), you can't argue with his success.

(and, yes, i did read the part of the page that talks about the poor recption of this novel, described as being considered by some as his worst. But the worst novel of a great writer is still better than anything most of us could write. I did find it dark, and at times hard to read, but IMHO, that is what made it powerful. Still, I'd start with Garp, my alltime favourite read).

I read Garp a long, long time ago, and thoroughly enjoyed it. I'm drawn to the dark comic sensibility. This passage from Garp's letter to a critical reader, Mrs. Poole, captures it well:

Dear Mrs. Poole:
The world is a bed of pain, people suffer terribly, few of us believe in God or bring up our children very well; you’re right about that. It is also true that people who have problems do not, as a rule, think their problems are “funny.” Horace Walpole once said that the world is comic to those who think and tragic to those who feel. I hope you’ll agree with me that Horace Walpole somewhat simplifies the world by saying this. Surely both of us think and feel; in regard to what’s comic and what’s tragic, Mrs. Poole, the world is all mixed up. For this reason I have never understood why “serious” and “funny” are thought to be opposites. It is simply a truthful contradiction to me that people’s problems are often funny and that the people are often and nonetheless sad. I am ashamed, however, that you think I am laughing at people, or making fun of them. I take people very seriously. People are all I take seriously, in fact. Therefore, I have nothing but sympathy for how people behave—and nothing but laughter to console them with.

Mrs. Poole, of course, responds to Garp's letter by doubling down on calling him a "shithead."


Garp was written in the third person POV. It wouldn't have worked otherwise, because some of the story has to be told from the point of view of others, like his mother Jenny and his wife Helen.

 

[yowser]

I read Garp a long, long time ago, and thoroughly enjoyed it. I'm drawn to the dark comic sensibility. This passage from Garp's letter to a critical reader, Mrs. Poole, captures it well:

Horace Walpole once said that the world is comic to those who think and tragic to those who feel.

I don't know if it was intentional or not by Irving but the quote attributed to Horace Walpole 'the world is comic to those who think and tragic to those who feel' is a paraphrase of an earlier observation from the French playwright Jean Racine.

The original (English translation obviously): Life is a comedy to those who think, a tragedy to those who feel.

Witty quotations tend to migrate around and first utterances are often difficult to pin down.

 

[sirhugs]

I read Garp a long, long time ago, and thoroughly enjoyed it. I'm drawn to the dark comic sensibility. This passage from Garp's letter to a critical reader, Mrs. Poole, captures it well:




Mrs. Poole, of course, responds to Garp's letter by doubling down on calling him a "shithead."


Garp was written in the third person POV. It wouldn't have worked otherwise, because some of the story has to be told from the point of view of others, like his mother Jenny and his wife Helen.

I first read Garp on the journey back from university to home after my final year. that expeience alone made it memorable.I was struck by the wizardry of the writing then, and find myself drawn back to read it again every few years.

 

[BeechLeaf]

Walpole wrote, 'The world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel' in an August 1776 letter to the Countess of Upper Ossory (Penguin Dictionary of Quotations). I'd be sure he knew his Racine. (The Dictionary doesn't have Racine's version.) I'm not sure whether an Irish noblewoman of the time would have known enough French to understand the original. I would have thought yes, but he knew her better than I do. Great title.

 

[SimonDoom]

Choosing a POV happens intuitively (or maybe randomly) at the birth of the tale. Changing it afterward would be like a gender reassignment surgery.

For you, perhaps, but you can't impose a one-size-fits-all rule for every author. This doesn't work for me. I was once two-thirds of the way through a story in first person POV when I decided to redo it in third person POV, and I'm glad I did. I think it turned out being a better story as a result.

 

[SimonDoom]

I first read Garp on the journey back from university to home after my final year. that expeience alone made it memorable.I was struck by the wizardry of the writing then, and find myself drawn back to read it again every few years.

I liked the humanity of the novel, combined with its humor. Irving could make fun of human foibles while fully empathizing with the people who were responsible for them.

 

[sirhugs]

I liked the humanity of the novel, combined with its humor. Irving could make fun of human foibles while fully empathizing with the people who were responsible for them.

I particularly appreciate his compassion for the fact tht all humans are imperfect.

I also agree that most of his novels suceed because they balance drama (even tragedy) with humur.

 

[consistentlyrepudiated]

For you, perhaps, but you can't impose a one-size-fits-all rule for every author. This doesn't work for me. I was once two-thirds of the way through a story in first person POV when I decided to redo it in third person POV, and I'm glad I did. I think it turned out being a better story as a result.

So because of one rare instance, you make a general case? What's the next step, gender reassignment surgery? Don't answer.

Writing, like any creative process, is in essence intuitive, almost trancelike. Any post-hoc rationalization is little more than cerebral pretense. I know it's a hard concept to swallow, insidious even, and could lead some to an existential crisis, but we are not rational creatures.

 

[SimonDoom]

So because of one rare instance, you make a general case? What's the next step, gender reassignment surgery? Don't answer.

Writing, like any creative process, is in essence intuitive, almost trancelike. Any post-hoc rationalization is little more than cerebral pretense. I know it's a hard concept to swallow, insidious even, and could lead some to an existential crisis, but we are not rational creatures.

You're the one making the general case, not me. I reject generalizations like "the creative process is intuitive and trancelike." Not for me, it isn't. Not for others. That generalization may apply to you, and that's great. But it doesn't work for me and you should be accepting of the idea that the creative process may be completely different for others.

 

[consistentlyrepudiated]

You're the one making the general case, not me. I reject generalizations like "the creative process is intuitive and trancelike." Not for me, it isn't. Not for others. That generalization may apply to you, and that's great. But it doesn't work for me and you should be accepting of the idea that the creative process may be completely different for others.

So your favorite aria, "Mild und leise," was written through some cold, mathematical process? Pfft. You get points for pulling me in, though.

 

[Britva415]

So your favorite aria, "Mild und leise," was written through some cold, mathematical process?

Simon wasn't there and didn't write it, so, no points scored there.

Do you doubt that there are creative people whose process is at least sometimes cold and mathematical? I don't. But it's also a part of a larger process: Sometimes we have to do soulless grunt work to complete a project. That doesn't make the entire project soulless.

I agree: You're the one who's generalizing. And then resisting attempts to point it out as a generalization rather than as a rule. It isn't a rule. Every artist is different and works differently, so, even as a generalization, it fails.

 

[sirhugs]

So your favorite aria, "Mild und leise," was written through some cold, mathematical process? Pfft. You get points for pulling me in, though.

we can't say about that specific piece but here is what google AI has to say about mathematics and music:

"Composing music and mathematics are deeply intertwined, with composers using mathematical concepts to structure, generate, and organize musical ideas throughout history. The connection ranges from basic fractions and ratios in rhythm to complex geometric transformations and probability models in modern, avant-garde, and "math rock" compositions."

It then goes on to link to a music theory video called "maths behind the music".

Freeform improvisational jazz and rock jams prove that this is not universal.

 

[SimonDoom]

So your favorite aria, "Mild und leise," was written through some cold, mathematical process? Pfft. You get points for pulling me in, though.

That is a wonderful aria, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were written much in the manner you describe. But not everybody writes erotica the way Wagner wrote operas, nor should anyone feel obligated to. I would feel foolish trying.

The broader point, which others are making as well, is that it's horse-pucky to say that the creative process is "trancelike" for everyone. It isn't for me. If it works for you and Wagner, my hat is off to you and I wish you the best of luck in your method.

 

[sirhugs]

That is a wonderful aria, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were written much in the manner you describe. But not everybody writes erotica the way Wagner wrote operas, nor should anyone feel obligated to. I would feel foolish trying.

The broader point, which others are making as well, is that it's horse-pucky to say that the creative process is "trancelike" for everyone. It isn't for me. If it works for you and Wagner, my hat is off to you and I wish you the best of luck in your method.

And apparently Mozart played biliards while composing. He would find himself humming a tune while playing, and jot it down.

But I'm no Mozart.

 

[consistentlyrepudiated]

It then goes on to link to a music theory video called "maths behind the music".

Freeform improvisational jazz and rock jams prove that this is not universal.

I don't know how familiar you are with jazz, but only 20 to 30% of it is improvised.

Yes, there is math everywhere. Harmony and chord progressions obey the laws of wave interference. Michelangelo’s David must be balanced and proportionate simply to stand. A story needs structure; each sentence must follow its predecessor with some logic. There is logic in madness, order in chaos - but it is madness and chaos nonetheless. Creation and inspiration are not mechanical elements.

While every molecule of water in the ocean obeys the laws of physics, the foam of waves on a stormy shore is not mathematics. You will never truly know why you do things the way you do, or what motivated you to create this in particular and not something else.

 

[consistentlyrepudiated]

That is a wonderful aria, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were written much in the manner you describe. But not everybody writes erotica the way Wagner wrote operas, nor should anyone feel obligated to. I would feel foolish trying.

The broader point, which others are making as well, is that it's horse-pucky to say that the creative process is "trancelike" for everyone. It isn't for me. If it works for you and Wagner, my hat is off to you and I wish you the best of luck in your method.

How many times have you scratched your nose or your head for no reason? How many times have you absentmindedly run your tongue across your teeth and palate? How many times have you stood staring into the fridge, only to realize you aren't actually hungry? How many times has a sudden craving for something sour or sweet just... surfaced?

Hundreds of trillions of synapses, tens of billions of neural firings, turn your brain into a constant electrical storm. Some of it is functional; some of it isn’t. We are wired to find meaning in everything; it’s hard to function in the world otherwise. We assign meaning to dreams just as we assign meaning to almost everything we do, even when it’s entirely random. And yes, we project meaning and intent onto our stories even when we don't have a damn clue what we were doing, or why we wrote them in the first place.

We enjoy doing things that are utterly irrational, including destroying and hurting -- even ourselves. But we always find a convenient excuse.

We can be cruel one moment and full of compassion the next. We help and hinder by turns. Like I said, we aren’t truly rational creatures, but not all of us are strong enough to face that.