The following appears in one of Louise Doughty's "Write A Novel in a Year" columns:

"The problem with using multiple narrators is that there is always a risk your reader will prefer one to the other.

I would also advise against mixing the first and the third person in the same book.

Many authors do or have done (mea culpa), but I now regard it as a sign of insecurity, suspecting that the author couldn't cope with the limitations of one style and so decided to mix them up, hoping it would look postmodern.

There has to be a cast-iron reason for that kind of stuff otherwise you won't get away with it. Readers aren't fools."

Uh oh. Does this mean that my plan for a novel that switches between two characters living at opposite ends of the world, in which one speaks in the first person and the other is described in the 3rd person subjective, is doomed to fail?

It worked for Johnathan Stroud's "The Amulet of Samurkand"

I'm mixing past and present tense in the novel I'm currently working on.

Colin

Depends if you've got a cast-iron reason, really, doesn't it. But I agree, these things are sometimes done for the wrong reasons, and I think that's when people start feeling it's not working.

Emma

I'm not sure my reasoning is at all cast-iron; it's just how I'd begun to think about the voice(s) I'd be using.

I'd like the boy's voice to appear in the first person to create a sharp contrast between a child's "straightforward" way of viewing the world, and the complexities that a child can easily misunderstand and misappropriate (this specific example involves a boy whose search for stability and belonging leads him to the Hitler Youth).

And I'd like the young woman's voice to be written in the 3rd.p.subj. to allow for one or two scenes that reveal how other characters view her (as she's an example of a very self-conscious "modern" woman trying to make her life "meaningful" to others in a foreign location, namely, India). I also feel that overuse of the first person can begin to sound self-indulgent if not fully justified, and I want to avoid slipping into a "me me me" tone that dominates the book as a whole.

??

You sound as though you've thought it through, MF.

I absolutely agree with LD about having cast-iron reasons, though imo these can come after the voices start speaking to you, and sometimes you change pov because of a 'sense' or a 'feel' that it's time to do so.

But where I can't follow her is in this: "I now regard it as a sign of insecurity, suspecting that the author couldn't cope with the limitations of one style and so decided to mix them up, hoping it would look postmodern." Clearly it's up to her how she wishes to regard the device, but I suspect she's letting a personal prejudice cloud her judgement and it's a bit naughty of her to announce it as a general guideline.

I've read several cracking novels which change between First and Third, the most recent being Ruth Thomas's 'Things to Make and Mend'. There we follow the lives of two women, the first, Sally, done in Closed Third Person and the other, Rowena, making a later entrance in First Person.

It never occured to me to do anything other than trust this warm and skilful author - I just went with the story. But now I step back I can see that this switch does two things: it allows Rowena to 'catch up' with the reader intimacy-wise, because First Person is more intimate. And it also (a related point really) makes us more sympathetic to her which is important because Sally's already got in and denounced her as a villain.

The rest of the novel is about versions of the same story, shifting sympathies and how to resolve misunderstandings. Against this, the change in voice and pov works a treat.

Thanks for that feedback, everyone.

I agree, Kate; it was Louise's point about insecurity that came across as a bit of a clanger - it's what made me wonder if I really had considered my reasons carefully enough in the first place.

I suppose there's nothing for it but to experiment and see what works best...

Yes, the point about insecurity is valid when a teacher's talking about a student's work, say, but you shouldn't be thinking in that way when you're reading - either it works or it doesn't. Second-guessing the writer's motives doesn't come into it (unless you're WWers, of course, in which case thinking about a writer's motives for doing something is all part of thinking about what we do ourselves.)

I've written things in all sorts of mixtures of person and tense, for all sorts of reasons, some like the ones you describe. MF. And if you've made the best decision you can - which obviously you have - you just have to go with it and see.

Emma

Many authors do or have done (mea culpa), but I now regard it as a sign of insecurity, suspecting that the author couldn't cope with the limitations of one style and so decided to mix them up, hoping it would look postmodern.

What a load of cock.

There are plenty of excellent books written in both first and third persons. I think this comment tells you far more about the person who said it than it does about writers who use these different techniques. I can't belive someone would make such a generalistaion, reducing a complex matter to such brainless - and quite arrogant - simplicity.

I agree with Lammi that, when the writing is good, the reader implicitly trusts their storytelling style.

Also, in answer to the other thing, that there is a risk that readers will prefer one narrative to the other. Well, yes, there is this risk, but so what?



<Added>

I think it sounds very hard to write a novel in a year. Why not - just for a laugh - take two?

Yes, I had a review in The Big Issue for TBMH (which has three voices all First Person) complaining that the two older narrators were merely annoying interruptions in the teenager's tale. If someone wants to read it that way there's not a lot you can do. But it was important for me to get three voices in there so I could look at contrasting experiences over time, and because the story was about all the three women equally (and to an extent because I wanted to show what was happening to Lancashire dialect over several generations).

(To be fair: I've been following the LD column since it started and I've tended to agree with her advice. She's also suggested some excellent exercises to get the writing flowing. This is the first time I've seen her say something that's struck a discordant note.)

Yes, I've had reviewers who couldn't handle the switches of PoV, in TMOL, but they varied which they preferred, so - like the Today Programme getting an equal number of complaints from both sides of the spectrum - I reckoned I'd got it right. Some people just found even a simple alternation of voice confusing. The ARCs didn't have a squiggle at the change of voice, I realised much later, which does make it clearer for anyone who isn't concentrating.

But some people - including some reviewers - are just terribly dense. Gideon the Cutpurse, which is a children's novel just longlisted for the Carnegie, involves two children who travel back in time, and the main story is intercut with the modern-day story of their parents looking for them. Apparently some reviewers in the US didn't think children could even handle that much dual narrative. I mean, honestly!

Emma

Apparently some reviewers in the US didn't think children could even handle that much dual narrative. I mean, honestly!

Gaa! Yes!

For what it's worth, I too have really enjoyed Louise Doughty's columns - great exercises and concise, practical advice. And I loved her "Fires in the Dark".

'Twas ever thus. Beatrix Potter's American publisher tried to make her take the word 'soporific' out of The Tale of Benjamin Bunny.

In most of the less-than-ecstatic bits of TMOL's reviews I've been able to see why the reviewer thought that, even if I disagree, or it was a simple opinion: they liked one aspect more than another. But one or two have said things which showed they totally failed to get something so blindingly obvious that no one else who's read it - and it's a lot of people by now - has missed it. I had to think in the end 'You're just a stupid reader,' and stop minding. But it's faintly annoying to have such a stupid reader passing public judgement on one's work!

Emma

I had to think in the end 'You're just a stupid reader,' and stop minding.

Tee hee

Oooh, sorry.

I've never heard of Louise Doughty, or read her column. Didn't mean to slag off someone you all like. I just didn't like her comment. It's possible I took it too much to heart because (a) My book has three narrators and (b) It also has first-person and third-person chunks and (c) I got rejected by Headline yesterday.

MF, I think in the end you just have to go ahead and do it. Yes, there are risks that people will like one voice over the other. Yes, there are risks that it might all go to shit, but you just have to say, 'Stuff it' and see. If you took every worry seriously, you'd never write anything.

I made the decision to make every single one of my characters bonkers. I thought, 'Hmm. There's a risk that all my characters are mad here. But who wants to read about sane people?' and off I went into the darkness.

And now I've come out, all the publishers are saying, 'Nice writing, but all your characters are bonkers.'