I know we have some actual authors, wannbe writers, perfessers, and all sorts of cultured literary types here. So I wanted to ask a question or three. I would fall into the wannabe writer category. About 35 years ago I wrote a bunch of short stories and about a half of a novel. I'm pretty sure they all sucked But I was young and life and career got in the way. Now that I am semi-retired I was thinking to put some more time into it, more as a hobby than anything else. But with the self publishing options nowadays who knows? I have yet to write a word

Lately I have been reading a bunch of non bestselling types of novels (free monthly selections from Amazon Prime mostly). These aren't literature but some are mildly entertaining. One thing I noticed in more than a couple of these is that they will often jump from 1st person to a different 1st person to 3rd person and back again.

1st, 2nd and 3rd person perspective has always intrigued me. And other than a few of these recent novels I can't really remember much of this perspective switching in older stuff I have read.

Do you have a favored perspective? I think 1st person is the easiest to write in but seems more schlockish to me. Maybe it was all of those Mickey Spillane books 3rd person seems to be most common and 2nd person very rare. In a way I would like to take a shot at maybe some 2nd person simply because it is different but probably for a reason? Possibly being more difficult to write in and harder to paint the picture with.

Mainly I would like opinions on favored perspective and what your thoughts on switching perspective mid story may be?

It sounds like you are interested in the second person perspective. To me this is a good thing because it has the potential to be the most personal and immediate.

This may be the worst advice ever, but I suggest taking a work in second person that you like, and then trying to imitate it. Doing so might teach you the good an the bad of that point of view.

I can't think of a reason why it would be harder to paint a picture with the 2nd person, but I do notice that a lot of authors seem to switch in and out of it. Is it harder to sustain? Also, in the old epistolary novels the point of view switches back and forth between the correspondents, so there might be something to think about there -- keeping in 2nd person, but changing the me and you.

Bright Lights, Big City is pretty much the exemplar for a novel in second person.

Okay, just downloaded to my Kindle and will read soon. I can't off the top of my head remember any 2nd person stuff so this will be educational.

I prefer writing in 3rd omniscient form (ie dipping into 1st), but 1st does work very well in some cases, especially short stories.

I write screenplays, so they are naturally in 3rd person.

I banish any student who writes in the 2nd person.

Second person has always struck me as a pointless gimmick. It would be like writing the novel in future tense—despite whatever statement you're making with it, it's overshadowed by the sense you're just trying to get noticed by being different, and reading it quickly gets tiresome. There's probably a reason there's only one novel written in English that anyone's ever heard of that uses it, and in my opinion its being in second person added nothing to it. Maybe that gimmick is the only reason it ever became noteworthy and popular—no one can say for sure.

With all that said, you aren't necessarily trying to please people like me, or jaded critics, so if you think writing in second person is cool and fun, go ahead. Some of the most successful books these days are absolute plebeian dog ****, so don't worry about evincing a less than refined palate.

You might also read Lorrie Moore's short story "How To Become A Writer," which is also done in second person. It's superb.

I'm reluctant to mention this.

In the early 90s I was a member of a book club. When it was my turn to pick a book, I picked one that had a good deal of writing in the 2nd person. It was a beautiful book.

At our first meeting to discuss it, people started screaming at me and even started throwing things (the book in question). There was even a suggestion that I be thrown out of the group.

I think you should take a look at it. I'll mention it here, then never discuss it again. It is If on a winter's night a traveler by Italo Calvino. Check it out.

And I've read If On A Winter's Night . . . It's terrific.

second person sounds so pretentious and aggravating

Says you!

Italo Calvino also penned, Invisible Cities. A very worthwhile read.

Write in whatever perspective is most comfortable and that best presents the story you wish to convey.


Also take Mark Twain's sage advice that I will paraphrase; Write about what you know. It may sound redundant and simple but it will make all the difference in the world.

Second person is horrible unless you are reading some advice book. I'd stay away from advice books as well, unless it's How to Win Friends and Influence People or Cialdini's Influence.

I think 1st person is only good for autobiographies. It's super irritating to read a novel where the "I" is a dude and the author is a female. Thanks, lady, for describing what my boner feels like. You're wrong, okay. You're wrong. I'd imagine it's even more stupid the other way around.

I also dislike 3rd person omniscient. With great power comes great responsibility, and reading the entire world's thoughts ends up causing a lot of blubber where a 200pg novel explodes to 5 1,000 page novels. Once again, the cross-gender is irritating as well.

I think Stephen King said it best: the reader should feel like she is writing the novel with you. Once you add a thought bubble or characteristic that contradicts what the reader felt was right, you lost her.

The reader is never wrong. Don't mess with that relationship.

You might look at http://blog.janicehardy.com/2008/02/...-view-pov.html

and Rust Hills' self-described "informal textbook" Writing in General and the Short Story in Particular and the nine articles beginning on page 120, with the first one titled "Point-of-View Methods." Rust Hills has unique observations about the impact of POV on a narrative.

I don't seem to attach much importance to perspective -- I think tenses are much more interesting to play with. I wonder why. It might be because I'm of the last generation to write letters. It seems that in letters, and in love letters particularly, perspective can change quickly with a single sentence containing 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person P.O.V.s, and it's no big deal.

"Write what you know."

Yes, if that means I'll never be asked what I think about a sci-fi or fantasy book, I'm down with that advice.

Then again, maybe there are real-life leprechauns, fairies, and xphlomoneticalazzxesemsees on Earth.

Then We Came to the End was a novel I enjoyed written in the first person plural.

https://www.amazon.com/Then-We-Came-.../dp/031601639X

I'd pick either 1st person or 3rd person and stick with it. Both of them have their merits and which one you choose should come down to the style in which you want to tell your story. 1st person gives you the opportunity to be more conversational, stylized, and intimate, but third person allows omniscience. Jumping around perspectives or using 2nd person are ill-advised and sloppy imo.

Nice resource...thanks

This thread made me think of another book I read. The entire book was in first person. The catch? It was all once huge quotation mark except for some minor exposition.

I don't remember the book.

I don't remember the author.

I remember how it made me feel.

Finally got a chance to start reading this today. A couple of chapters in and so far enjoying it. Second person isn't really all that different from first person. One thing it has made apparent to me though is that much of my own personal internal dialog is often in second person. For the story this is telling so far it seems as though second person is the perfect choice. I guess a lot of it depends on the story you are trying to tell and how main character centric it is.

Have no idea, but I have read Gilbert Sorrentino's Gold Fools, a parody of boys' adventure stories told entirely in questions. It's funny.