I'm sure there's at least forty threads on this in the archive, but . . .

I'm in the early stages of my new novel. At the moment, I am dealing with one character's narrative, though there will be another one, too.

This character is narrating the events of the present in first person. I have now - for reasons I am not sure about - flicked to the past, and my impulse is to tell the past story in third person.

However, I'm worried that this will raise all sorts of technical questions. Like, for instance, whether one person's story should be told in both styles. Because doesn't it invite the question of, 'Why is the story being told in different narrative voices? Who is telling the third-person story if not the narrator? Is it the authorial voice?' and so on.

I, as a reader, have always accepted a mix of narrative styles, but some agents who read my first novel, which mixed up first and third, were all outraged by it, and demanded to know where the mysterious third-person voice was coming from.

What do people think? Is it ok to mix and match? Sorry. I'm sure this question has been done to death.

Personally I think it's fine. Rather unhelpfully, I think if it works it works, and you sort of can't tell until you've done it. But if the whole book works, then I think no one will care.

If that's how it's coming out instinctively I'd be inclined to stick with it.

I think we're all familiar with the sense of looking back and seeing ourselves from outside. I'd say, at this stage, absolutely go for it, if only to find out what it's all about in the novel's grander scheme of things. If you make it very clear it's the same person, then only the dozier will be confused. You can always change back later.

More generally, don't, don't, don't, let what people say about Mothernight confuse you about this one. Neither snotty rejectors who didn't get it, nor paean-gushing reviewers who did. Believe me, both bugger up your proper writer's sense of what works and what doesn't.

Emma

I would worry as a reader if some of the narrative was first and some third without a distinguishing reason, but if some is present tense and some past tense (backstory) then I think that's enough of a distinguishing reason to make it work, and it might even be better to distinguish by two differences rather than just one (if you follow me).

Deb

I tend to agree that what feels right to you will come over as right to the reader.

Rosy x

I would agree with Emma about not being swayed by individuals' subjective views. You've got to do it in the way in which you think it ought to be done, the one you feel will work. There will though always be a difference in the style/voice if only because third person will almost certainly not be quite so 'close' to the character as first. For this reason, in order to get the balance right, I do think the author needs to understand why he/she wants to use the different form: to be more distant? to allow more authorial intervention? to give more weight to other characters?

A good example of mixing them up is Hemingway's To Have and Have Not which worked well, except, for me, in one small respect which one should perhaps watch out for. A new chapter would sometimes begin in the first person, but it could take a page and a half before the reader could work out which of the previously third-person characters was now the narrator. This was a 'feature' that I found somewhat annoying. That aside, the approach as a whole is fine, and it is interesting to view a character's progression partly from the outside and partly from the inside.

Chris

All good advice, Sapph.

The novel I'm working on at the moment has two narrative strands: one in first-person past, one in third-person past. Briefly, it's like that because I think it works best that way, end of story. If you pressed me to justify it, my reasoning would be that the third-person character is rather obsessed with how she's perceived by other people, very conscious of her life as a story, etc. so she's written "into" the story in that style. Whereas the other character (in first-person) is a rather confused but not entirely benign victim of far-right shananigans...and I thought it would be more effective to create an empathetic character from "inside" a really perverse system.

As for present/past combinations, as a reader this doesn't bother me in the least.

This character is narrating the events of the present in first person. I have now - for reasons I am not sure about - flicked to the past, and my impulse is to tell the past story in third person

I did exactly that in my second adult book, but I've actually abandoned that entire novel (I killed it - long story). This aspect wasn't a problem though. I actually found that a really effective way of dong things, because there is a certain distance about the past sections. That fits really well with the idea that the MC may not have faced up to certain things.

(sorry, putting this really badly, have two three year old boys running riot in Spiderman suits)

<Added>

Argghhh...not sure that makes a jot of sense! The shame!

hi saph, i too am mixing 1st and 3rd in my second novel, but the first person narrative (in the past) is a diary. Rading this thread there seem to be a number of reasons why it would work to mix both, i guess you really need to decide if using both strengthens the plot/narrative or detracts? I think as long as you can fully justify the POV shift then it'll work. If you've found the writing of the past works better in third, then you need to tease out why this is - is there a sense of the 'present' narrator observing his/her past? If so then a switch to 3rd would seem appropriate.

Juliet

I've a new idea for a novel, still in very early stages yet, but I am struggling to see how I can write it without using the Omniscient viewpoint a great deal (possibly as the dominant viewpoint throughout the book). I know this is unfashionable these days, but is it considered a complete no-no by agents and publishers?

Nothing wrong with omniscient - don't let the fashion-mongers tell you there is. All omniscient means it that you're writing in third person, moving between characters' points-of-view and a neutral position which is no particular character's point of view. It may or may not mean that you have a narrator's voice which has its own opinions.

It's not as easy as a restricted third-person in some ways, because you need to keep iron control of point-of-view, but it's much easier in others, for instance in plotting.

Emma

Maggie O'Farrell's After You'd Gone is a good model to look at - she switches pov even to second person at times, tense too, but it all feels really fluid. It was only when I finished reading it for enjoyment and went back to analyse how she'd built up the structure that I saw she'd broken every rule going!

Thanks, everyone. This is helpful, and I have followed my gut and done the mix-and-match. Though now it's taken a whole other turn. Hey ho.

Coming rather late to this, but After You'd Gone was the book that gave me the inspiration, or the confidence rather, to write my book in the way I have. I've got two narratives - one in first person past tense, and the other in third person present tense with bits of first person present tense thrown in! I do worry that it will put off agents, but that's the way it felt right to write it.

With the second narrative, the narrator is operating under an assumed name, so when she's in this "mode", she speaks about herself in the third person. When she's alone or not maintaining her false identity in front of someone, it switches to first person, because she is just being "herself". To me, this works as there is a clear rational behind it, but on the other hand, it's never exactly explained in the novel itself, so who knows, everyone may think it is shit.


<Added>

"Rationale", I meant...