First Person Voice in Fiction and Personal Narrative

 

Mary Rosenblum:  I hope you all had a good Thanksgiving.  I thought I'd talk about first person characterization because it's done so poorly so often. And it's a particular weakness with first person narrative where the author is telling a real life story.   In third person limited POV it's easy to use body language, action, and thought to reveal the character.  But in first person, the main character....or the author in personal narrative....is only going to reveal character through his or her speech.  And that character does not have to tell us what he/she is thinking. Or that POV can lie about what he/she is thinking.  So it is the manner in which that person speaks that reveals the character to us.

 If the main character is unreliable...that is, if he or she is lying to the readers about what he/she is thinking, then voice is the only way we get a sense of the person. So when the first person narrator...fictional character or author....speaks in a bland monotone, we get no sense of who this person is and we're bored.   Your goal as author is to plant lots of clues for the readers in your narrative voice. Those clues are going to help the readers get a sense of the speaker as a real person.

The reason that most novice writers have trouble with personal narratives is that they don't realize that they have to create themselves as characters for the readers. After all, they ARE real, right?  But again, the readers only know what's on the page.  A few novice writers do strong narrative voice naturally. Most do not.

 But whether your first person narrator is the author or a made up person, that person needs to reveal himself/herself to the readers in every line uttered.  Create a strong voice for that character before you start writing. You want that first person character to sound different than you. You want that voice to be distinctive. If it reads like a third person narrative, you have no voice. What I see a lot are stories where the first person character simply describes the action, the way the author would.

 

Gail: Sue Grafton has done a wonderful job of the 1stP POV in her alphabet mysteries

 

Mary Rosenblum:  Yes. It's very hard to succeed with first person in mystery unless you write it well. Mystery readers like first person novels...it's the Chandler/Hammet tradition. But they must be strong first person voices.   You create character in first person through what I call 'asides'. That narrator interprets the action and in the process of interpreting it, reveals much about himself/herself to the readers.  That is, your first person narrator...either the character or the author....goes beyond mere description of the action.

 

Verbose: Like in a play where the character stops and talks to the audience?

 

Mary Rosenblum:  That's it exactly, Verbose. And you can do it more subtly, where the MC might simply be talking to himself. Or you can make it very clear that the narrator is turning away from they story and speaking directly to the audience. Burdett does that in his Thai mysteries, where his first person POV occasionally addresses the readers directly, referring to them as 'farang' (foreigner).  That's a stylistic choice to make and it depends on what you're trying to accomplish with your scenes.

Where most novice writers run into trouble is where they simply have the narrator describe the action. Or in a personal narrattive, they describe the situation, with no other input. an example:

 I looked into the living room. Daphne was sitting on the sofa and Carl was staring into the fire with his hands behind his back. Nobody was smiling. I decided I'd better to out to the kitchen and have Wilbur serve the sherry.

So here we have a visual scene. We see these two people and they're not happy. The narrator informs us of what she is going to do (I'll make her a she). And how compelling is this? It's no different than a third person visual scene:

Daphne sat on the sofa staring at her hands while Carl, his back to her, stared into the leaping flames in the fireplace. Coraline peeked in the door and then went out to the kitchen to tell the butler to serve the sherry.

 Ho hum either way.

 So let's make that first person work. Let's create Coraline as a person rather than a monotone:

I peeped into the living room. Uh oh. Daphne was pouting, staring at her hands, looking for all the world like a jilted lover. Poor Carl! He was staring into the fire and from the color in his face, she must have really let him have it. Probably in full victim mode. I knew it was a good idea to send the letter. Time for this little charade to end. Trying not to smirk I hurried out to the kitchen to find Wilbur. The old goat was going to have a stroke when I told him to serve the sherry.  You do things by the book at Chase Manor. But poor Carl clearly needed a drink.

 So now we have a LOT more scene. We all of a sudden have the emotional dynamics here, and a lot of hints about backstory. We also have a sense of Coraline. Clearly she's someone who can order the butler around, but also someone who disdains the 'rules of the manor' and also has clearly had a hand in the little scene going on in the living room. If you find your first person narrator mostly describing action, then by all means write the story in third person limited POV. It will be much stronger.  But where first person shines is when you can interpret and add information in an entertaining way. If I tried to wedge all that backstory into the action scene of Carl staring into the fire and Daphne staring at her hands, I'd have a very static scene with a lot of internal narrative.  But Coraline's strong character voice adds entertainment value even though nothing much is really happening here.

This is what most novice personal narrative writers fail to do -- create a strong, entertaining, interpretive voice.  If you describe your family outing and all we get is action and some dialogue, why should anyone who is not in your family care? It's like watching a home movie.  But if you add the interpretation -- what's really going on under the surface here -- then you bring in the humor or drama or emotional richness that makes the piece engaging even if we don't know these people at all. That's when you can point out the universals that engage your readers with something that happened to you.

 

Jane:  Mary, I'm re-reading Friday by Heinlein; he puts so much detail in, down to the tiniest thing, that the action stops in its tracks at times.

 

Mary Rosenblum:  Yeah, but a lot of the 'classics' like that are classics for what they meant at the time, not because they were examples of strong writing.  I didn't care for the way Heinlein wrote when I was a teenager and didn't know that much about structure. But he was a pioneer in the genre for other reasons.  I carefully avoid rereading some childhood favorites because I know I'll be too impatient with the writing now.    I prefer to remember them fondly.

 

Jane:  Sometimes that's a good policy. :)

 

Rae:  what do you think about Zave Gray?

 

Mary Rosenblum:   Zane Gray, Rae? Gosh, I haven't read his stuff since I was about fourteen. Couldn't analyze it for you.

 

KMart:  Does anyone write cowboy books anymore?

 

Mary Rosenblum:   Yeah, Kmart, it's a viable genre.

 

Rat of Nimm: Is there a posting on LW or anywhere that could be used as a cheat sheet with regard to POV definitions?

 

Charge2charage:  how many different genres are there?

 

Mary Rosenblum:   Rat, you'll find a lot of articles on POV in Writing Craft: Characterization and Writing Craft: Craft.  Lots of genres, charge. Just go to your local chain bookstore and look at the shelf tags.

 

KMart:  Is the Flesch-Kincaid eval on word a good guideline to follow?

 

Mary Rosenblum:   No, kmart, not at all. A mechanical measurement of word value like that is not going to help you.  You need to learn to use the voice/vocabularly that suits your story, the genre you're writing in, the age level of your readers.

 

KMart:  It has helped me with my passive sentences though

 

Mary Rosenblum:   Well, grammar checkers on your word processor are good for that.  Most word processors have them.    Just don't do everything they say. People do not...or at least rarely...speak in grammatically correct sentences.

 

Jane:  Mary, Who would you recommend we read for good first-person memoir?

 

Mary Rosenblum:   Read anything by Studs Terkle. I recently read Karl Fleming's Son of the Rough South and was impressed by his narrative and use of visuals. Very strong. Generally, you're not going to see publication by the big publishing houses in memoir unless the writing is good....OR, you're a big name celebrity.  Stay away from the big names and you'll find good examples of memoir. I highly recommend James Herriot and Bailey White for an example of first person narrative that highly engages readers.

 

Gail:  How closely do 1stP POV resemble the author? Grafton does such a wonderful job of Kinsey Millhone that I often wonder if the two are similar.

 

Mary Rosenblum:    Usually the author keeps more distance from the first person character than in third, Gail.

 

Gail:  Thanks...I was curious.

 

Mary Rosenblum:    Now some novice authors clearly are their first person characters, but that really limits you. All your stories have the same character, even if the names change. Funny about that. Most of my first person characters have been male, come to think of it. Gives me that extra distance. And you need to keep a conscious distance from your first person character. If you stop consciously using that first person voice, you'll slip into your own voice and the character will suddenly change.

 The hard part is world view.  Our choice of words reflects our view of the world. If your POV doesn't share your view of the world, he/she is not going to choose the same words.  What I catch novice writers on a lot is a character who professes to be one way, but every word that person speaks suggests a very different world view.

 

Gail:  Your Rachel O'Connor was a strong 1stP POV char in your mystery series...and she was female.

 

Mary Rosenblum:    She's not first person, Gail.  The novels are in third.  But that's a nice commentary on my limited third POV. Thank you.

 

Gail:  Gosh...you're right...kudos on that ltd. 3rd, Mary!

 

Mary Rosenblum:    LOL Gail. That's the goal of really strong limited third POV....make it SEEM like first, but you can do more with it.

 Okay... as for an example of that 'one view/another view'. Say your character is supposed to be a cranky old guy who hates kids. Here he is going home through the park.

I cut through the Laurelhurst park on the way home. Kids were playing basketball and a really tall guy with a purple shirt had a good hook shot. I circled around the playground area with the swings and such because I really don't like kids. They always bring their dogs, too, and I really don't like them either.

Okay. our POV tells us he doesn't like kids and dogs. But is he looking at the park as someone who really doesn't like kids and dogs? No. Not really. Remember that show, don’t tell thing? It matters for first person, too.  Let's show the readers a cranky old guy who hates kids and dogs.

 I cut through the park because I was late. I hate it on weekends. The punks play ball and leave their garbage all over the benches there. The playground area, right in the middle, is swarming with brats and their bloody dogs. They poop all over the place and you think anybody picks up after them? I cut way around the whole mess and I might as well have stuck to the sidewalk for all the time it saved me. But it kept my shoes clean.

 This guy just doesn't see a 'tall guy' or notice that he has a good hook shot.
He sees punks.
Garbage.
Brats.
They swarm. Like flies.
It's a mess.

 Every one of those 'nuanced' words I listed gives us 'cranky old guy hates kids and dogs'. Letting your character tell us about himself is very very secondary to having that character reveal himself to us through his perceptions of the world around him.

 

Jane:  Mary, if this guy is really cranky and really old, you need a few swear words in there, don't ya know. LOL

 

Rae:  Not all cranky old men swear.

 

Mary Rosenblum:    Well, bloody is my family-friendly replacement for the word that belongs there, Jane.   And Rae is right.  Maybe this guy is the deacon at his church, he has never sworn in his life.

 

Belinda:  just mean and nasty in actions

 

Mary Rosenblum:    Exactly. Character is all about consistency.  Once you decide what this person is like, you reveal it consistently.
[Mary Rosenblum ] 10:56 am: Too often, novice writers resort to the 'telling'. I hate dogs, our POV says.  But if he notices Dalmatians and Cockers, it's not likely he hates dogs. Why would he know breeds if he shuns all dogs? Aren't they all mutts to him?  If he hates kids, why notice some kid's nice hook shot? He is seeing something different from what the nice guy who lives near the park and coaches the kids sometimes will see. That guy is going to notice the hook shot and the shy, short kid who's hanging back on the edges, but has some nice ball handling skills. What is really going on is that the author is mixing 'character' telling with the author's own narrative.

 

Jane:  So, for detail's sake, he could notice a "bloody firehouse dog" or a "long-haired mutt whose tongue won't stop with the drool"

Mary Rosenblum:    Exactly Jane. It can be a challenge at times if you want your readers to see something specific and your first person narrator doesn't know or doesn't care about that specific.  Think garden. If your narrator could care less about gardening, how do you have him describe a very pretty English cottage garden? It's a challenge! You want the readers to get the picture, but our narrator doesn't know a delphinium from a hawthorn.  This is what makes first person tough.

 

Verbose: Dialogue with a secondary character might do it.

 

Mary Rosenblum:    That's one good way, Verbose. Well, I hope this helps you all a bit with first person. It's especially important to reveal yourself as a person in personal narrative.  Have a good week, and I'll see you all Sunday for our casual chat!