Writing Smut in First Person Present = Masochism

[Pureotica]

I think I can solve some of struggles in this story by starting later, and backfilling the set-up if I genuinely need to. I could probably just start in the studio with the other characters present. I could do a dialogue scene and avoid the many problems a "character alone thinking" scene creates. I can use the other characters to backfill the other set-up I've convinced myself I need to have. It also lets me put some of the ideas I was trying to work in a stronger context. I forgot the golden rule of short fiction. Start as close to the ending as possible. I'll experiment a bit.

 

[lustychimera]

My first three works here were first-person-present-tense, and I caught a lot of flak for it. I liked it because it made things feel immersive; but readers found it challenging.

Good luck!

Oh, that's quickly becoming my fav! It's scriptwriting tense because it is immersive and in the moment.

In first person, it writes so naturally, and I think reads that way, too. The only time that I really am put out by present tense is when the POV is really distant, like a 3rd person omniscient or even a far away limited. I think that's because those POV's are supposed to read like a narrator reciting a tale rather than a character reacting in the moment. People don't recite tales in the present tense.

But first person present, it's more of a stream of consciousness kind of thing. It's a lot of fun.

The reader rides around in the MCs head. you can do some thing you just can't with 3rd. Not every story needs those things, but when it's right, it's right.

A close 3rd person can damn near be indistinguishable from 1st person if the author uses a bunch of free indirect speech. The only real difference is the pronouns and those skim easily. There is a lot of freedom in 3rd person especially if you want to do multiple POV's.

 

[ElectricBlue]

A close 3rd person can damn near be indistinguishable from 1st person if the author uses a bunch of free indirect speech. The only real difference is the pronouns and those skim easily. There is a lot of freedom in 3rd person especially if you want to do multiple POV's.

Yes, absolutely. I'm a real fan of close third person narration, it can get in just as close as first person, I reckon.

 

[Demiurging]

Try second person, any tense.

Just don't try it for more than ten minutes, you'll want to shoot yourself in the head.

My first foray into the hobby was in second person, because I'm apparently a moron.

 

[Bramblethorn]

A close 3rd person can damn near be indistinguishable from 1st person if the author uses a bunch of free indirect speech. The only real difference is the pronouns and those skim easily. There is a lot of freedom in 3rd person especially if you want to do multiple POV's.

As a reader, I find them interchangeable for most purposes (give or take pronouns, which become more of a consideration when writing same-gender scenes) but there are cases where one works much better than the other.

First person narration is usually a guarantee that the POV character is going to survive to the end of the story, absent some sort of "all they found was his journal" framing device. That can be either good or bad, depending on the story.

Paradoxically, first person can also make it easier to conceal information about the protagonist. A famous example:

I was killing a minute with the paperbacks when I heard a soft voice say, 'Hello, Harry.' Now my name isn't Harry, but in this business it's hard to remember whether it ever had been.

Len Deighton wrote eight novels with that protagonist, without ever telling readers his real name - fitting, for stories about deception where nobody is what they seem. That gets very difficult to sustain in a third-person narration, where you either have to overuse "he" to the point where it becomes jarring, or give him a name and weaken the effect.

First person can also work better for things like unreliable narrator narratives. From one of mine:

It's funny, the things I've forgotten. I can't remember what Mel looked like. Not her eyes, her hair, her shape, not even the color of her skin. If I close my eyes I feel like I can visualize her perfectly, but when I try to write it down? Like grasping smoke. I've been to a specialist (I didn't tell him the real reasons) and he assures me my mental function is A-OK, that it's just understandable paranoia from what I do for a living. But I know I have gaps in my memory. There are patches in my recollection of last year that don't feel right. When I try to think back to that time it's like walking on carpet laid over spongy floorboards. So I want to write this down before I forget more than I already have.

* * * * *

I know I had a tremendous crush on Mel. She was attractive enough to make my "no co-workers" rule fly out the window. But the only thing I can say for sure about how she looked is the scarf she always wore, an eye-catching pattern of black and gray diamonds like a pantomime Harlequin's checks in monochrome.

Was it a scarf? I'm not sure it was. Could have been a jacket, or a skirt. But whatever it was, she always wore it. I remember the pattern, the way those dappled shapes slid around her as she moved. It made me think of cold evenings, of chessboards, of piano keys and the Moonlight Sonata.

* * * * *

Sitting in my car, parked across the road from St. Judith's. The night was ice-cold and I had my window open, because otherwise it frosted up and I couldn't see out. Waiting, watching the entrance. I had a blanket and a thermos of coffee to keep me going through the empty hours, and a carving knife hidden under my seat. The cops came by, and I told them I was waiting for a co-worker who was supposed to be finishing up soon.

But that was much later. Just writing it down now so I don't forget. It's important that I come back to that.

In that story, I'm trying to evoke something like a fugue state, by limiting the information I give my readers and flagging that it might not be trustworthy. This works pretty naturally when the story is told from the perspective of a narrator who is in that fugue state. It's harder to do in third person; even in third person close, it's harder to establish that 'license to lie'.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Try second person, any tense.

Just don't try it for more than ten minutes, you'll want to shoot yourself in the head.

My first foray into the hobby was in second person, because I'm apparently a moron.

I've seen it used in published fiction effectively. Only once, though.

(Excepting interactive fiction, where it's commonplace and widely accepted.)

 

[Demiurging]

I've seen it used in published fiction effectively. Only once, though.

(Excepting interactive fiction, where it's commonplace and widely accepted.)

The last time I saw it personally was in one of the old Goosebumps interactive ones. I wasn't a fan, ended up flipping to the back, finding the best ending, and traced my way back to the first page. But then I was about ten at the time, not nearly as much patience.

It was nothing but a headache when I used it, didn't utilize any of its advantages for the story.

 

[Pureotica]

I agree 95% of the time. And third has the advantage that you can play with narrative distance. The difference is subtle, but a first person narrator is the narrator, while even in the closest 3rd, there will always be a sliver of daylight between narrator and character. 99% of the time, it becomes of matter of choice to be negotiated between writer and reader. Some people prefer one or the other, and I'm not out to convert anyone. But when a piece is more introspective or philosophical , and spends a lot a word count in the MCs head, first can do some things that third has trouble with. Note than introspective pieces are risky to begin with. They're begging to be niche out of the gate. Especially on an erotica site, because they aren't the most easily inspiring stroke material. Worth it to me for the right story.

Technically, it's cheating for a non-omniscient narrator to dip into a character's head in 3rd. Even a limited-omniscient is delivering the news of the character's thoughts, and is separate from the thinker. I no longer directly transcribe inner dialog in third, I tackle it obliquely. People cheat (I use the term loosely. It's not a dis) all the time, and if it's done well and they get away with it, I'm not the least bothered by it. I've done it myself many times, but I've reached a point where I try not to. I'm tough on my own writing, but not pedantic as a reader.

The other place where first can be stronger is when consciously writing an unreliable narrator. It can be powerful and fun, especially if the writer can leave subtle clues for the reader. Cases where the reader knows something the character doesn't. Hard to explain. Faulkner's "The Sound and the Fury," is a difficult book, but worth reading even if it takes a few passes. Hated it my fist time, but now I think its brilliant. It's a great example of unreliable narration. Not beach reading though. You have to really want to slog through a tough book to appreciate it. It's also not warm and fuzzy in tone. It's a dark book.

You can write unreliable third, but it requires a different approach. Your "Brooke Works at the Hardware Store' series is a well done example of subtle unreliability. One of my favorite series on the site. I plan to return to it in further depth at some point. Good work.

Third is more forgiving. POV violations in first are easier to spot, and stand out in a bad way. I think a lot of the hate against it comes from that, justifiably.
Not arguing. Just adding some perspective about the nit-picky differences between the two narrative choices.

 

[SimonDoom]

Try second person, any tense.

Just don't try it for more than ten minutes, you'll want to shoot yourself in the head.

My first foray into the hobby was in second person, because I'm apparently a moron.

To me, second-person POV almost always comes across as somewhat gimmicky and contrived. The best sustained example I can think of is Jay McInerny's 80s novel Bright Lights Big City. Here's an example of a passage from it:

“You have friends who actually care about you and speak the language of the inner self. You have avoided them of late. Your soul is as disheveled as your apartment, and until you can clean it up a little you don't want to invite anyone inside.”

I suppose it can be creatively justified by imagining the narrator being disassociated with himself, and narrating the story in the form of talking to himself. It conveys a sense of alienation from oneself. I find it just seems tedious after a while.

 

[Pureotica]

To me, second-person POV almost always comes across as somewhat gimmicky and contrived. The best sustained example I can think of is Jay McInerny's 80s novel Bright Lights Big City. Here's an example of a passage from it:



I suppose it can be creatively justified by imagining the narrator being disassociated with himself, and narrating the story in the form of talking to himself. It conveys a sense of alienation from oneself. I find it just seems tedious after a while.

2nd can work powerfully in limited cases. IMHO a novel's worth of it would be tiresome. I've read some short fiction, often dealing with somewhat universal themes, in somewhat abstracted terms, where it works. It also takes a writer who has the chops to pull it off. Most, including me, don't. I has to be executed perfectly, and in the perfect context. And some readers won't be open to it even then. No such thing as universal appeal in writing.

Some of my poems are addressed to 'you.' But I don't consider it 2nd person. It's more of an ambiguous third, where the addressee is off-screen, and not necessarily the reader. I don't think I have any of those poems on Lit, though.

I try to keep a never-say-never attitude about technique. There are things a writer shouldn't do in most cases, but must do if it serves the story an can be done well. Some writers do long flow-y descriptive exposition so well, they can make me forget I normally don't like it, for example.

 

[SimonDoom]

2nd can work powerfully in limited cases. IMHO a novel's worth of it would be tiresome. I've read some short fiction, often dealing with somewhat universal themes, in somewhat abstracted terms, where it works. It also takes a writer who has the chops to pull it off. Most, including me, don't. I has to be executed perfectly, and in the perfect context. And some readers won't be open to it even then. No such thing as universal appeal in writing.

Some of my poems are addressed to 'you.' But I don't consider it 2nd person. It's more of an ambiguous third, where the addressee is off-screen, and not necessarily the reader. I don't think I have any of those poems on Lit, though.

I try to keep a never-say-never attitude about technique. There are things a writer shouldn't do in most cases, but must do if it serves the story an can be done well. Some writers do long flow-y descriptive exposition so well, they can make me forget I normally don't like it, for example.

Absolutely. Nobody should ever feel they CAN'T try something. They should just be mindful of the strengths and weaknesses of each approach.

People often get confused about what 2d person POV is. It's NOT a POV in which a narrator who uses the pronoun "I" is addressing another person "you." That's first person, not second person.

Example:

First person: "I see you enter the room, staring at me with a look that says you want to seduce me."

Second person: "You enter the room, staring at her, and you want to seduce her."

 

[Pureotica]

Absolutely. Nobody should ever feel they CAN'T try something. They should just be mindful of the strengths and weaknesses of each approach.

People often get confused about what 2d person POV is. It's NOT a POV in which a narrator who uses the pronoun "I" is addressing another person "you." That's first person, not second person.

Example:

First person: "I see you enter the room, staring at me with a look that says you want to seduce me."

Second person: "You enter the room, staring at her, and you want to seduce her."

I understand what it is, and why it's so hard to execute well. FWIW, your example works, as a short snippet. Might be something you could build a prose poem around, should the urge to write one ever take you. It's not bad as it stands.

 

[Red_Owl]

It was a challenge for me recently. Think the biggest issue was keeping myself from slipping into a past-tense. Submitted my 1st first person story here, but it's yet to be published. I guess I'll see how I did once it starts getting read by a bigger audience, but at least for now my supporters seemed to enjoy it.

 

[SimonDoom]

Here's an example of a mistake people make with the present tense, apart from switching tenses. Suppose you're narrating in the present tense, and you narrate something that happened before the time of the main narration. Too often, I see authors use the past perfect tense, like this:

I walk to the store, smelling the roses along the way. In the past, I had always ignored the roses, but not now.

"Had" should be "have." Present perfect tense, as opposed to past perfect tense. It should be:

I walk to the store, smelling the roses along the way. In the past, I have always ignored the roses, but not now.

One should use past perfect when the main tense is past tense, like this:

I walked to the store, smelling the roses along the way. In the past, I had always ignored the roses, but not now.

It may sound insanely picky to some, but this is the right way to do it consistently with standard grammar guidelines. I notice that sort of thing. I saw this in a story by an author I like not long ago, and it stuck in my craw. It's why I think one should be careful about choosing the present tense unless one is confident about how to handle it.

 

[Pureotica]

Try second person, any tense.

Just don't try it for more than ten minutes, you'll want to shoot yourself in the head.

My first foray into the hobby was in second person, because I'm apparently a moron.

2nd person is hard to do, easy to get wrong, and only effective in certain cases. But it can work in the right story, with an author who has the chops to accomplish it. I've only seen it work well a handful of times, but it can be used to powerful effect. I can't imagine a story where I'd want to use it, though. I could see it in a prose poem maybe. Something very short, with a very specific target.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Too often, I see authors use the past perfect tense, like this:
I walk to the store, smelling the roses along the way. In the past, I had always ignored the roses, but not now.

"Had" should be "have." Present perfect tense, as opposed to past perfect tense. It should be:
I walk to the store, smelling the roses along the way. In the past, I have always ignored the roses, but not now.

One should use past perfect when the main tense is past tense, like this:
I walked to the store, smelling the roses along the way. In the past, I had always ignored the roses, but not now.

I don't think that's a good example. If you say "I have always ignored the roses", that's present continuous - you ignored in the past and are still ignoring them in the present where you are speaking.
If you want to say that you ignored them in the past, but are no longer ignoring them, then you need the past perfect.

Different shades of meaning.

 

[SimonDoom]

I don't think that's a good example. If you say "I have always ignored the roses", that's present continuous - you ignored in the past and are still ignoring them in the present where you are speaking.
If you want to say that you ignored them in the past, but are no longer ignoring them, then you need the past perfect.

Different shades of meaning.

That's not correct. "I have always ignored" is not present continuous, but present perfect.

Present continuous, or present progressive (same thing), would be this:

"I am always ignoring the roses."

Past progressive/continuous is:

"I was always ignoring the roses."


The use of the verb "to be" combined with a verb in the participle form (using "ing") indicates that it's progressive/continuous ("am" + "ignoring" or "was" + "ignoring"). The use of the verb "to have" combined with a verb in the past tense (("have" or "had") + "ignored") indicates that it's perfect tense, and that the action has stopped as of the present narrative.

Chicago Manual of Style secs. 5.132-5.135.

 

[Syra_pan]

Not that I am all that much as a writer, but one approach that I like that can be an effective tool is a first person narrator talking directly to the reader, as if writing them a letter. At first blush this seems to trap you in past tense, but in common conversation people often switch to present tense, especially when describing exciting action such as sex of violence.

 

[XerXesXu]

but in common conversation people often switch to present tense, especially when describing exciting action such as sex of violence.

It's called the 'vivid present'. It's come up before. It's an intuitive and commonplace way of recounting events and storytelling orally, but less common in written storytelling, but, if you can carry it off ... anything goes.

 

[Syra_pan]

Thanks for letting me know the term.

 

[Britva415]

One of the problems with first-person narration is when the writer's narrating voice doesn't match the apparently narrating character. I just found one of these and noped out after just 5 lines. The narrator disclosed their age and education, then the writer wrote something in a voice which was extremely hard to align with the narrator's deets.

I know, it's just bad writing, not something unique to first-person, but if it hadn't been first person, this wouldn't have been a pitfall at all.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

One of the problems with first-person narration is when the writer's narrating voice doesn't match the apparently narrating character. I just found one of these and noped out after just 5 lines. The narrator disclosed their age and education, then the writer wrote something in a voice which was extremely hard to align with the narrator's deets.

I know, it's just bad writing, not something unique to first-person, but if it hadn't been first person, this wouldn't have been a pitfall at all.

Eh, I suspect the contrast between narrator and character would have still grated, just that you'd have wasted more time on the story before noping out.

I'm extrapolating from my own recent foray into Buffy fanfic - a large percentage reads as if written by excited teenage American girls. Which works fine for the Californian characters, but too often fails for the older characters (who are also English and Irish...) If the storytelling is going to fail to deliver, the faster I know it, the better.

 

[Britva415]

I suspect the contrast between narrator and character would have still grated

I suspect I would have noped out because there would have still been bad writing even if this particular author had done third person instead,

but a third-person, disembodied, omniscient narrator who's not a character in the story can have a voice which doesn't match any of the characters or the characters' speaking style. I suppose it's possible that a mismatch could be jarring, it all depends, but it's not an automatic given or a predictable rule.

I mean, if it were true, then no possible third-person story would ever be tolerable except those where the narrator and every single character all have the same voice.

But yeah, this particular author? Who knows what else they are capable of.