I can't decide whether to write my wip in first person or third. In the first draft, I tried it with both and I could see benefits to either one.

I naturally err towards first, but one of our CWG members got some feedback on her novel that said it didn't work in first person, and it's thrown me because I've read a fair bit of it and it seemed to work perfectly well to me.

Really, what's the difference between first person and a very closely written third person pov? How do I decide which to go with?

Really, what's the difference between first person and a very closely written third person pov? How do I decide which to go with?

You've got a bit more elbow room in close-limited-third to get out of the head and into a neutral place to comment on the character from outside.

On my blogpost about the difference, I said:

Writers often choose to work with a third-person narrative with a limited point of view, instead of first-person, because it adds a little flexibility: it's natural to pull a little bit further out in psychic distance, where you need to, towards something more neutral and "god's-eye-view", which is why this kind of narrator is said to have "limited omniscience", and can mention the weather, for example, even when the character might not specially notice it, or fill in a bit of background knowledge or geography.

The problems are the same too, though: plot-difficulties, limitations of voice and setting, and an overall narrowness. Above all, the drawback is what John Gardner suggests: this limited-subjective viewpoint has a "pettiness and unseemly familiarity" which he finds frustrating as well as unattractive. I think he has a point, although I'd talk more in terms, again, of claustrophobia, because the subjective point of view allows for nothing - no feeling or experience - beyond the individual.

More here:

http://emmadarwin.typepad.com/thisitchofwriting/2011/10/point-of-view-narrators-3-external-narrators.html

hmmm, that's very interesting, Emma. Thanks v much!

You're welcome, Freebird. I'll be interested to know what conclusion you come to!

I realise shearing that bit of its context makes it unclear:

The problems [of close-third-limited] are the same [as they are with first person] too, though: plot-difficulties, limitations of voice and setting, and an overall narrowness.

I changed my male MC's voice from third to first, to (hopefully) bring out his deliberately-reserved personality. Some early reviewers had said he was nondescript, which was not entirely unexpected, as I found it difficult to make him sufficiently strong in third.
But that was about four months ago, and I think I've taken a step up since then (thanks in no small part to being here).

Oh, and my main female character remains in third. The chapters alternate between first and third. I like it. I think it works, and the closer psychic distance with the male works well with the more-distanced female.

But, of course, it's no use me liking it, if no one else does.

Btw, Emma links to part 3 of her blog about narrators. I would suggest anyone interested reads all 4 parts.

I was thinking about this in the car back from France yesterday. I always tend to write in first person because I like its restrictions, especially in a thriller type plot. I enjoy the discipline it imposes, inasmuch as you can only reveal what the protagonist directly experiences. I also like the way you have to reveal other characters' thoughts and motivations through speech and action - you can't just jump into their heads.

I was thinking too that I like first person because it emulates life. We all experience the world, the plot of our lives, in the first person.

(I read a novel the other day that had whole chunks in first, then bizarrely switched into third to go into other characters' heads. Horrible.)

<Added>

Oops, sorry, Alan, I didn't mean to imply that technique is always horrible, just the way this author had done it! He'd kicked off about a third of the novel in first, so when the switch happened it was really jolting.

I've decided to stick with first person. I agree with all your points, EmmaD, but I have to admit that I like reading first person because it gives that sense of intimacy, as though we're reading someone's diary over their shoulder.

I tried it both ways, and in third it seemed more clunky somehow, especially with a scene that has two girls in it - was tripping over all the 'her's and 'she's, making sure it was clear who I was talking about.

But you've given me plenty of food for thought in planning the next book...

I changed my male MC's voice from third to first, to (hopefully) bring out his deliberately-reserved personality.

Ah, yes, that trick - and of course you could always convert it to third again, having made use of how most of us instinctively get close in more easily in first. I often suggest the third-first-third trick to writers who want to work in third for its flexibility, but find it hard to get in close.

I like reading first person because it gives that sense of intimacy, as though we're reading someone's diary over their shoulder.

Yes, I do too. In fact, up to about a year ago I'd have said that I was utterly addicted to first-person - TMOL has two, ASA three first-person voices, and I loved writing every one of them. But I've just found myself over on Petal's PoV thread saying how I'm now fascinated by third-person stuff. Getting at that first-person intimacy, in third person, is so fascinating.

As part of thinking about how a new novel would work did a rough conversion of a scene I wrote a while ago in first, to make it into third, which was also fascinating. Even though in strict logic all you have to change in the verbs, it did seem to demand other tweaks as well, to do with psychic distance...

was tripping over all the 'her's and 'she's, making sure it was clear who I was talking about.

Oh, yes. In fact, I was writing a gay male love scene the other day (without toooooo much detail, not ever having been there) and it was getting bloomin' complicated. So much easier, in practical terms, to stick with mixed-sex sex scenes.

I was writing a gay male love scene the other day (without toooooo much detail, not ever having been there) and it was getting bloomin' complicated.

Never mind whether it was complicated, (haven't been there? Use smoke and mirrors) - did you enjoy it?

I just LOVED writing my female-on-female scene, but I didn't get over-excited at all.

LoL Alan.

Though I'm not sure the usual female response to reading/writing all-male love-scenes is quite the same as the standard male one to all-female scenes...

But I was very pleased by a gay female friend saying that she'd found the longstanding, male, same-sex love in ASA very touching, because it was so straightforward and genuine and un-problematic. Because that's how I'd meant it to be...

Getting at that first-person intimacy, in third person, is so fascinating.

Ali Smith does that fantastically in The Accidental, imo. I'm also fascinated by distance and pov, and how they work together (I wrote my MA critical essay on this topic, examining The Accidental and Woolf's To the Lighthouse.)

The chapters alternate between first and third. I like it. I think it works

My wip is similar. It doesn't switch every chapter, but the 1912-14 chapters are in first person (originally they were diaries but now it's full first person narration), whereas the modern-day chapters in third, filtered through two character's perspectives (in sections). No one who's read it so far has reacted negatively to this aspect.

If I had to state a preference, I'd say I prefer third person - for reading as well but especially for writing.

I think if there's a clear logic to the first person - third person switch, it can be very effective. Every other chapter or different time periods sound logical. It's more of a speedbump, I guess, if you think for some time that you're reading one kind of novel - ie. from one person's perspective - then suddenly find you're reading another kind altogether.

I think if there's a clear logic to the first person - third person switch, it can be very effective.

Yes, absolutely. It's about knowing why you're doing it this way, and how you're exploiting the differences, which (hopefully) means you switch for the right reasons.

The WIP is third-person-past-tense and I'm loving the fluency of it. Although, perhaps because I'm coming to it as a former first-person writer, it's helped me to have a clear image of my narrator, and where she stands, relative to the story, IYSWIM.

But I have got shortish passages in first person-present-tense, always the main character's voice, and for moments of great intensity and/or where things are very fluid and flashback-y, for example. But as it is very much built round that character, obviously there are places where I could do first or third ... I've got a trusted reader reading it at the moment, and I'll be interested to see if she feels I've got it right.

<Added>

"one of our CWG members got some feedback on her novel that said it didn't work in first person, "

This sounds to me like a candidate for remembering that readers often blame the wrong technical thing for a problem they've rightly identified, IYSWIM. You have to cross-question a bit to find out what the original feeling was, which they've hitched on to - say - it being first person.

I had a novel rejected on the grounds that the two first-person voices weren't sufficiently distinct, and my agent said, "That's what they always say when they don't like it but can't put their finger on why." That novel did have things wrong with it, but the voices weren't the problem at all.

It's about knowing why you're doing it this way, and how you're exploiting the differences, which (hopefully) means you switch for the right reasons.

Totally agree. In the novel I referred to earlier I suppose I felt that the author had simply got tired of the constraints of first person in a thriller plot, and had decided to switch to third simply to make life easier for himself.