When writing a novel, is it wise to switch from first-person to third-person? What is the most effective way to do this?
In a novel I've been writing, I begin by introducing a character and describing her history and personality from a third-person perspective.
Now, I want to start talking about a different character, who is in a different, but related circumstance, later in time. I plan to have their stories come together later in the novel. However, I want the reader to relate more to this character, and I want to have him give long, thoughtful, musings on his experience, to which I think a first-person perspective would be much better suited.
Is this a wise decision, what alternative options do I have? How would you recommend I best switch perspectives without confusing the reader? I also want to make it clear that I am changing perspectives and the new character was not narrating before, and is not familiar with the events of the previous part of the story.
It might also be helpful if you could point me in the direction of other novels where this sort of thing has worked before.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/28382. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
2 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
Since English is not my first language, and I learnt all this terminology with completely different names, bear with me as I go over the terms.
So you have started writing using the third person. Did you use Omniscient or Limited?
(omniscient narrator; written in 3rd person; narrator knows everything that's going on; does not usually help the reader feel intimate with the characters)
Claire woke up early and went out for a run before heading to her sister's, to babysit her little niece, not realising she had forgotten her phone at home. While she was out Jack phoned her and left an urgent message.
(Limited narrator; written in 3rd person; narrator usually shows only what one character knows, though this rule can be broken ocasionally; usually helps the reader feel intimate with the characters)
Claire opened the door with a big smile. She loved babysitting her little niece. As she dropped her handbag, something caught her attention. Was that... ? Yes, it was her phone. Drats! She hadn't even noticed she didn't have it with her. She picked it up hoping nobody from work had called. Her boss was constantly going on about how important it was that she was always available.
And now you want to pick up the first-person.
(the character is the narrator; written in 1st person; the narrator can know more than the character only if the narrator is talking about past events while having the knowledge of what has happened; great for the reader to get intimate with the character, but can get claustrophobic)
I hit the snooze button the moment the alarm went off. For some reason, though, the alarm didn't stop. It dawned on me I was patting the nightstand and that the phone wasn't where it should. Sleep suddenly gone, I switched on the light. Where on earth had that phone gone to?
I think swapping between third and first person is jarring and should be done only by skillful writers. My advice is to go with 3rd person limited. You can do it really limited, if need be, so much so that the narrator can sound like it lives within the character's consciousness.
If you want to go with long, thoughtful musings, the first-person approach can become a bit claustrophobic so balancing those musings with the third person might help the narration flow easier.
In the end, though, it's your choice. Just weigh pros and cons of your possibilities, try them out on a chapter and decide which one creates the best effect.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/28389. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
Perhaps the most famous example of switching from an involved to external narrator is Dickens Bleak House. No Country for Old Men by Cormac McCarthy is a more recent (and shorter) example. It is worth noting that in both these cases, there is far more than a change of narrator going on. The whole tone and mood and attitude shifts as well.
The effect, in both cases, is quite startling. It is not a small change, but a big one, one that forces you to sit up and take notice. I can't prove it, but I think this may be an essential part of making it work. I suspect this is a go big or go home kind of thing.
I think it is mistaken to think that reader's identification with the character is increased by the use of an involved narrator (I regard "first person" as a misnomer because most of what they write will actually be in the third person). As human beings, we relate to the people we meet, observing them from the outside, not the inside. Writing from within one person's head had an intensely introspective quality, but introspection is not particularly revealing of character. By their fruits ye shall know them. We get to understand people by their actions. And beware long thoughtful musings. It is the easiest thing to be self indulgent about, and the hardest thing to make interesting to others.
Plenty of people identify with Harry Potter, and those books are all written with an external narrator.
In short, the desire to have the reader identify with the character may be neither a necessary nor a sufficient reason for switching to an involved narrator in the middle of a book.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads