: The only real issue with using 1st-p is that the narrator (assuming the MC/protag is also the VC) can't know what they don't experience, or so we are told. So they can't narrate scenes they

@Angela458

Vote Up Vote Down

The only real issue with using 1st-p is that the narrator (assuming the MC/protag is also the VC) can't know what they don't experience, or so we are told. So they can't narrate scenes they were not present for, unless that is used as a frame story. IOW, a character can relate a story to them, which they repeat to us, either in dialog or narration.

But you can't get away with that very often. It also can get tiring to be in the same person's head. Still, I prefer 1st-p.

Locked Rooms by Laurie R. King is presented in 'parts', or sequences of chapters. Part one is in 1st-person POV from the heroine. Part two is in 3rd-p limited, from her husband. But it works very well, and is not confusing, and it makes sense (a very good story).

What appears to be a problem only for those who listen too hard to short-sighted not-that-intelligent Creative Writing teachers, or to Prof. Google, who actually knows very little, is when you write in 1st-p and then write a scene the MC was not present for. Logistically, that is impossible, but dammit, it still works, and readers are not confused or dismayed by it. It's invisible to both the author and the reader.

It does not make literal sense, but it makes literary sense, and it is not nearly the problem people who critique authors for sport make it out to be. When a 1st-p narrator talks about events that happen to other people, they use 3rd-p pronouns. If they are in the scene (which they typically are) they use 1st-p pronouns regarding themselves. But if they are not in the scene, then there are just 3rd-p pronouns, so it sounds exactly like 3rd-p, even if narrated in 1st-p.

In reality, people can't tell us things they either were not present for or that were not told to them first. But in the fictive dream, logistically impossible as it would seem, it still works, and readers will not have a problem with it.

And who are we writing for? Not critiquers hungry to wordsmith and nitpick every single thing that doesn't match what they consider reality. No, we write for readers, who couldn't care less whether that makes logistical sense or not. They suspend disbelief.

So one can indeed change POV. To make it most easy to comprehend, try to do it at a section or chapter break, or if needed, maybe at a scene break. Certainly don't do it inside a paragraph or a sentence. Head-hopping is confusing to the reader.

So this can happen two ways: the 'accepted' way is to have a different character narrate, for instance, a different chapter, or have the story slip from 1st to 3rd or 3rd to 1st.

The other way is to stay in 1st with the same narrator and just allow them to narrate a scene they were not present for. It still works, even though logistically impossible in real life. It's called 'fiction' for a reason, which is that it is not real, so it does not have to adhere to all of the laws of time and space. It's invisible to readers, and it works.

(0)

Login to post a comment!