Short and simple: there are two main types of narrators. One is the first-person narrator, who tells his/her own story, supposedly speaking directly to the reader/viewer. The other is the omniscient third-person narrator, who does not actively take part in the story, but acts as a detached observer. There are all kinds of variations, but these two are the most common. I’ve noticed that many writers – including myself – have a natural tendency toward some form of narration. A story can be told in many different ways, but out of habit, we avoid exploring other possibilities.
First-Person Narrator. Usually the most appealing to write because of being able to address the reader directly. Main advantage: direct access to what the character thinks and feels, and in the character’s own words. Main disadvantage: the character does not logically have direct access to the other character’s thoughts and feelings, which means the character’s information and thus the story’s point of view is automatically limited. The usual solution for this is simply to have the character say, “I could see they thought…”, “I suppose she wanted…”, and so on. After all, people do this all the time in real life, so it doesn’t stretch credibility. Another typical solution is to have the character narrate in retrospect, like, “Later I found out that…” There’s also the good old Eavesdropping Device, wherein a character gains information they wouldn’t normally have by overhearing it. I’d also put in this category The Note They Weren’t Supposed to Find, etc. These last two options, while possible, are not always plausible – especially if used more than once in the same story – so they should be used sparingly.
Multiple First-Person Narrators. Another solution for widening the story’s scope. Added advantage: lets you portray the same characters from conflicting points of view and tell different versions of the same events. Main disadvantage: it can be hard enough handling one storyteller and one story, so multiple ones and multiple stories increase the probability of losing your focus.
Stream-of-Consciousness. Technically, this is as first-person as you can get, because the general idea is to feel like you’re inside the character’s brain, getting a more or less unedited look at the world through their eyes. You can jump from character to character, even to utterly marginal figures, and get as wide a scope as you choose. Disadvantage: hard to write and hard to read as well.
Secondary/Marginal Character as First-Person Narrator. Yet another solution for giving the story broader perspective. There’s no law that says the main character absolutely has to narrate. Advantage: inside information, a kind of double-agent – part of the story, yet can function as a detached observer. Disadvantage: honestly, I can’t think of anything. I suppose this type can be considered to have the best of both worlds.
But whichever form of first-person narrator, the language should reflect the character in terms of personality traits, interests, intelligence, education, profession, past experience, etc. Not everyone speaks in well-turned phrases or flowery figurative language. Furthermore, different people notice and are concerned with different things. You have to remember that a first-person narrator isn’t simply describing the events, but describing them in his or her own way.
Omniscient Third-Person Narrator. Knows everything and everyone. Comes in two varieties: partial and impartial. A partial one informs the readers who they’re supposed to like/dislike or what they’re supposed to think, whereas an impartial one supposedly tells the story objectively. In both cases, the obvious advantage is absolute authority (mwah ha ha) over the story, as well as being able to constantly change point of view. The main disadvantage is a kind of detachment from the events and characters. For all the knowledge and authority of a third-person narrator, the first-person “I” gives an immediate, personal impression. It’s the same as describing what happened to someone else as opposed to what happened to you. I’d also say that when you use a third-person narrator, particularly a partial one, it is very easy to get side-tracked in musings which, though perhaps relevant to the issue, belong in an essay. Third-person narrators can also be obtrusive, halting dialogue and scenes for information that can be concluded just as well from what the characters are saying and doing.
Mix-and-Match. There’s no law that says you can’t combine narrators, especially if your story is structured as separate parts, such as frame story and embedded story. However, if you keep changing narrators, your writing will probably be incoherent.
Since I’ve been told my posts can get a little too long for comfort, I’ll post more about this next Saturday, even though there isn’t supposed to be a Tech post. The focus will be screenwriting, since the option of dispensing with the narrator means there are different possibilities to explore.
First-Person Narrator. Usually the most appealing to write because of being able to address the reader directly. Main advantage: direct access to what the character thinks and feels, and in the character’s own words. Main disadvantage: the character does not logically have direct access to the other character’s thoughts and feelings, which means the character’s information and thus the story’s point of view is automatically limited. The usual solution for this is simply to have the character say, “I could see they thought…”, “I suppose she wanted…”, and so on. After all, people do this all the time in real life, so it doesn’t stretch credibility. Another typical solution is to have the character narrate in retrospect, like, “Later I found out that…” There’s also the good old Eavesdropping Device, wherein a character gains information they wouldn’t normally have by overhearing it. I’d also put in this category The Note They Weren’t Supposed to Find, etc. These last two options, while possible, are not always plausible – especially if used more than once in the same story – so they should be used sparingly.
Multiple First-Person Narrators. Another solution for widening the story’s scope. Added advantage: lets you portray the same characters from conflicting points of view and tell different versions of the same events. Main disadvantage: it can be hard enough handling one storyteller and one story, so multiple ones and multiple stories increase the probability of losing your focus.
Stream-of-Consciousness. Technically, this is as first-person as you can get, because the general idea is to feel like you’re inside the character’s brain, getting a more or less unedited look at the world through their eyes. You can jump from character to character, even to utterly marginal figures, and get as wide a scope as you choose. Disadvantage: hard to write and hard to read as well.
Secondary/Marginal Character as First-Person Narrator. Yet another solution for giving the story broader perspective. There’s no law that says the main character absolutely has to narrate. Advantage: inside information, a kind of double-agent – part of the story, yet can function as a detached observer. Disadvantage: honestly, I can’t think of anything. I suppose this type can be considered to have the best of both worlds.
But whichever form of first-person narrator, the language should reflect the character in terms of personality traits, interests, intelligence, education, profession, past experience, etc. Not everyone speaks in well-turned phrases or flowery figurative language. Furthermore, different people notice and are concerned with different things. You have to remember that a first-person narrator isn’t simply describing the events, but describing them in his or her own way.
Omniscient Third-Person Narrator. Knows everything and everyone. Comes in two varieties: partial and impartial. A partial one informs the readers who they’re supposed to like/dislike or what they’re supposed to think, whereas an impartial one supposedly tells the story objectively. In both cases, the obvious advantage is absolute authority (mwah ha ha) over the story, as well as being able to constantly change point of view. The main disadvantage is a kind of detachment from the events and characters. For all the knowledge and authority of a third-person narrator, the first-person “I” gives an immediate, personal impression. It’s the same as describing what happened to someone else as opposed to what happened to you. I’d also say that when you use a third-person narrator, particularly a partial one, it is very easy to get side-tracked in musings which, though perhaps relevant to the issue, belong in an essay. Third-person narrators can also be obtrusive, halting dialogue and scenes for information that can be concluded just as well from what the characters are saying and doing.
Mix-and-Match. There’s no law that says you can’t combine narrators, especially if your story is structured as separate parts, such as frame story and embedded story. However, if you keep changing narrators, your writing will probably be incoherent.
Since I’ve been told my posts can get a little too long for comfort, I’ll post more about this next Saturday, even though there isn’t supposed to be a Tech post. The focus will be screenwriting, since the option of dispensing with the narrator means there are different possibilities to explore.
7 comments:
Stella, great post! I prefer the story told with the same narrator approach from the beginning to end but I love different POVs. It throws me otherwise. Mostly I write in third person but also write first.
It's great talking about this. :DRight now I'm writing a mainstream novel and hope to submit early spring.
Hugs, JJ
I think I prefer third-person, because first-person seems to end up being too direct, like I'm writing one long monologue. I suppose I just need a lot more practice...
Good luck with the novel! Can't wait to read it :) I've never been able to sustain a narrative for as long as that, so I applaud you. *applauds*
You've made some valid points there and I have to say that the third person is my regular choice. I find the first person limited and the second person (Cocteau will have to forgive me) quite unnatural.
As for alternating narrators, if you make sure to be very consistent and provide the reader with solid and intersting characters, it can work very well.
In any case, my point would be that you have to know what you're doing and why you're doing it to make any type of narrator work.
Good luck with the novel, JJ!
"...my point would be that you have to know what you're doing and why you're doing it to make any type of narrator work."
I actually used to have "Do you know what you're doing?" on a little note by my computer screen so I'd always check if my writing was coherent.
Sounds perfectly torturous. I love it!
I prefer third person, mostly because a first person often sounds either too heroic and bragging or just plain confused.
And I have to say that as I was reading, I was just waiting for examples, such as Dr. Watson for your secondary character in first person, or David Copperfield for the essential first person narrator. Or, you know, things I don't know that I ought to rush over to the library and read.
Alina - well self-torture is one of my specialties :)
HP - I know, I know. I keep trying so hard to keep my posts at a readable length...
Slaughterhouse V by Kurt Vonnegut is a perfect example for complex use of narrators/POV. The narrator is a marginal figure, ostensibly Vonnegut himself, who actually breaks third-person narration to say, "I said that. That was me. I was there." in the one or two scenes where he appears. I wrote a short paper about it. (Guess it shows, huh?)
Post a Comment