1 vs. 3

Every so often I hear about the Pronouncements that we editors supposedly make.  The one I heard today from an aspiring writer is, "Publishers don't want books written in first person.  They prefer third person."

Where on earth do these ideas come from?

The folly of that statement is of course evident when you consider some of our best-selling writers, like Janet Evanovich and Sue Grafton, who write in first person. 

I wouldn't say that I prefer first person or third--merely that no one should ever write in second person (except maybe Tom Robbins).  I do think, though, that my preference for point of view depends on my mood.

For me, a first-person narrative is always an easier read.  I suspect from conversations with authors that it is a much easier write too.  There's really only one person's head to get into, which puts the writer in the position of coming up with an intriguing narrator and then channeling that person (or, in some case, living vicariously through the protag).  Most first-person narratives these days get by on charm and quirk, which tends to make for easy/breezy reads.  Contrast this to the old-time narratives, where the first-person narrator was the sleuth's aide de camp, a la Hastings and Poirot, or Holmes and Watson.  These narrators never made themselves a character in the story--they were too busy following the sleuth around, wondering what was going on.  Nowadays, a first-person narrator is "All me, all the time."  Which, if you think about it, does reflect our obsession with ourselves in the twenty-first century.

A good first-person narrative does impart almost a sense of friendship, and conversation, to the reader.  In essence, it turns the book into a monologue told by an engaging raconteur.  A lot of people (myself included) find that very appealing.  It takes the pressure off of us to be witty and entertaining and puts it solely onto the writer, whose job is to make us think we are listening to the words of a highly engaging and devoted old friend. 

And yet, when I think about it, I do sort of feel that the very best of the genre has been done in third person.  From an earlier period, think Dorothy Sayers, Josephine Tey, Ngaio Marsh...from our own period, think P.D. James, Minette Walters, Ruth Rendell, John Grisham, Scott Turow...  Third person is psychologically richer because it allows for more perspectives, more in-depth characterization, more moral ambiguity and shades of gray.  And for this reason, third person is a very different reading experience in many ways, but primarily (for me) it's just slower.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just a matter of expectations.  I think when I open a book or read a manuscript, the first page clues me into my pacing expectations.  If it's first, I unconsciously expect it to be fast.  If it's third person, I know I'll need to slow down.

So, is one better than the other?  No, though I do think each has its own challenges.  In a first-person narrative, that narrator had better be pretty damn engaging, or the whole book is going to fall apart.  And the key personality traits have been done to death in our first-person heroes and heroines (sass, spunk, depression, quirkiness, flippancy), which makes it hard to come up with something really unique and interesting.  Of course, the protag does become the basis on which an entire series can be built, so not only does s/he have to be really interesting from the get-go, s/he also has to have a lot of room to grow, which can be a tricky balance to pull off.  A first-person narrator has to be larger than life, an uber-person who knows better than to bore readers by talking about her trip to the supermarket or the meal she cooked for herself (unless she's a culinary specialist, of course, and the series is positioned as such).

But when the narrator works, the book takes off like a shot, and that's a good thing in our genre.  Third person, while richer in the medium and longer runs, can take longer to take off, which can lead to pacing problems.  I've also seen quite a bit of herky-jerky perspective changes in recent manuscripts, where chapters skip around locations and characters so quickly that the book feels disjointed for at least its first third.  But when third is done well, I feel more hooked and compelled than I do with just about any first-person narrative.

Then, too, we have to think not just about editors' tastes, but also readers' tastes.  Nobody can deny the fact that readers love first-person books, discovering an author they like and then quickly buying every other book in the series (consumer behavior that everyone in the industry loves).  For this reason alone I think we can't deny that, as of now at least, editors are still acquiring many first-person mysteries, and will continue to do so. 

Perhaps the "literary fiction" genre--in which I've never worked--prefers third person, for the reasons suggested above?  Any literary editors care to weigh in?

Comments

[Selene]

From a writerly POV, I would say that it is generally more difficult to write first person *well* than it is to write third person. You can be much sloppier with the POV in third person and still have the narrative sound pretty OK, because it is easier to zoom in and out, so to speak. With first person, you're always in the character's head and if you attempt to pull back, it will sound silly (e.g. the POV character making observations about his physical appearance or gestures).

If you consider one character POV versus many (though you could write third person from only one POV), it can be more difficult to plot a novel where the MC has to personally see every vital scene.

Selene

[Jersey Jack]

Even my POV characters who eventually appear in third are initially written in first person. I find it easier to know them, put words in their mouth, and thoughts in their head.

[Lorelei Armstrong]

Ah, but first person is not easier. It is deceptive. It merely seems easier. It is, in fact, much, much easier to screw up. I once read a short story that said "I let the pecan shells fall unnoticed into the grass." Well, no, they were not unnoticed. Think of all the first-person books you've read that include "I blinked, I shrugged, etc." Do you really remember doing those things? Probably not. First person also has implicit within the POV that the character will survive, which is a fair assumption in mystery series but can scuttle other books. A very difficult POV indeed.

[Pepper Smith]

Doing first person well is hard. I think one reason some readers shy away from first person is that they've read it done poorly and assume all first person is that way. In first person, you actually do a great deal more describing than you might imagine, since you're in that person's skin and need to give sensory details and internal reactions and thoughts that might not be necessary in third person. And if it's not done well, your character can come across as Mary-Sue-ish rather than an engaging narrator you want to go on a journey with.

[Ara 13]

I agree that first person is much harder to write well. Just manuvering the character through the scene is difficult without a good supply of description. More importantly, as a writer, I choose the person in accordance to the level of reliability I wish to convey. The reader tends to assume the third-person actions to be accurate as they are usually from an unannounced narrator, and they assume first-person narrations to be questionable, as they are from a discernably human source. Tie this to the present vs. fast tense choices and the narrator's reliability can be finely tuned according to the author's intent. Ara 13, author of Drawers & Booths, an IPPY "Outstanding Book of the Year."

[Linda]

First person also doesn't work that well for certain types of stories. For example, a complex story that a thriller novel might have.

When I first started my book, I had a terrible time deciding on viewpoint. I went to third person because that's the way I've always written. But the story just wouldn't gel.

So I tried first person and discovered that my character's extremely complex backstory--which I didn't want to reveal all up front--turned into info dump after info dump after info dump. And the viewpoint character came across as annnoying because the viewpoint made some of the complex issues of the story a little too one-sided.

So I ended up in a third choice which fit the story better--omniscient. And, by the way, I've had people tell me no one uses it any more, that publishers aren't taking it, etc.