First Person Controversial

15 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Sun, 2005-04-24 14:35

I have been thinking about Milkstones work a lot lately. I followed the discussion on the Winter's Tale thread but didn't weigh in at the time because I wanted to think about it. I hope I haven't missed the boat.

I was interested to read that some people reacted to the detachment of her writing style in the same way that I have. I'm not writing this to slam Milkstone's writing in any way. It's a writing style that I actually enjoy reading and the stories are often edgy. Obviously your writing is well received by many if not most so maybe these comments are not helpful. Nevertheless I think it's helpful to most people to think about the use of voice and how it affects the reader.

First person is a difficult voice to write in my opinion, though many new writers use it to write autobiographical pieces. I've done this. It's the voice we feel most comfortable with. But to the reader there is a subtle psychology to it. It's an intimate voice. It's like reading someone's diary, with their permission. Or being told a story one on one.

I think it sets up a subtle relationship between writer and reader. In other narrative structures the reader has the privilege of detachment, we are reading from a distance and we are free to make our own judgments. In a first person narrative we want to form a connection with the narrator. And I think we always expect to receive some gem of privilege, some deep detail.

In many of Milkstone's pieces the psychology is turned on its head. She is detached and we are left wondering what is going on in her head. And because her works seems autobiographical I almost feel dirty for wanting to know the nitty gritty details. It makes me annoyed. She has the control, I am left to pan her every word for the gold dust of meaning. I honestly believe that this wouldn't happen if her stories were told in a different narrative voice.

Whether or not this works is up to the reader. Milkstone's writing draws a lot of positive comment so it must be working for some people. I raise the point not to harrass poor Milkstone, but just to address the issue of voice. Milkstone, you are obviously happy with your writing style, more power to you. Yet I will say to you, there is depth to your characters that you are not revealing. I am left wanting to know more about the dirt under the fingernails, and why a girl would choose to play at being a prostitute for a few hours on a sunday afternoon. This is much more interesting to me than her detachment from the unpleasantness of the experience. Obviously I don't have to read what you write, but I do. It does make me think and that's never a bad thing.

Tue, 2005-04-26 03:24

Jasper

Oh...sorry Fergal......that comment has no malicious reflection or intent upon your very lovely and lively art, whatsoever!

Thu, 2005-04-28 14:02

forum cleaner

I liked this

Sun, 2005-04-24 15:30

maxwell eddison

why a girl would choose to play being a prostitute on a sunday afternoon? wow, I'll have to read some. Surely friday nights would be have greater market potential?

Sun, 2005-04-24 15:32

maxwell eddison

Saying that, it's pretty common 'up here,' for the men to stuff themselves with sunday lunch and then go to the pub for the remainder of the afternoon. But I'm sure they'd find it almost physically impossible to sit up straight nevermind swing a hip.

Mon, 2005-04-25 07:09

kjheritage

Hi burinsmith, I take your point about 'wanting to know more'. I won't repeat my earlier comments on the winning story as I think my view on this has been well expressed all ready. First Person in terms of a short story, is in my opinion, a far easier option and will always connect with the reader (as you say) in a more intimate fashion. Third Person in a short story, particularly under 3000 words is an entirely more difficult proposition and takes a lot more discipline. To pull off an adequate Third Person short story is a feat in itself. I normally stick to First Person for smaller peices although I am always tempted otherwise. I used to write a lot of First Person and it's a great style to start with - I find it particularly useful to 'discover' charcaters for longer pieces by listening to their voice, so when they speak in my Third Person narrative, they (I hope) sound fully rounded. For a novel, First Person becomes problematic as the first person has to 'be in the action' or 'overhear conversations', or 'be told what happened' etc. which can get a little bit tiresome and can stretch your reader's suspension of disbelief and get artificial as your central charcater is 'shoe-horned' into all the action. Still, there are hundreds of classic novels written in First Person. Obviously, there's no right or wrong narrative, but I think Third Person is definately trickier (for me anyway). Any thoughts on this? [%sig%]

Mon, 2005-04-25 09:27

Archergirl

Unless it's Third Person Omnipotent, which [should be] rather easy... how about Second Person, a novel written with 'you' in mind? ;-)

Mon, 2005-04-25 11:19

justyn_thyme

I just finished reading an old 1950's Jim Thompson murder mystery (Kill Off) in which each chapter moved the story along from the first-person perspective of a different character. Thus, for example, chapter one was John narrating from his perspective. Chapter two was Jane, etc etc. He never repeated characters, though they turned up in other characters' narratives, of course. It was effective, but that's probably because Thompson was a master at what he did. I wouldn't want to read very many more novels structured that way. As for first person in general, I often write that way because it allows the character to speak in his own voice. On the other hand, it can be limiting, and if the character is unappealing, there is a risk that the whole story will sound like the babbling of someone you really don't want to get to know past the first paragraph.

Mon, 2005-04-25 11:33

beloved aunt

I've played a couple of times with First Person Omnipotent - where the story is chiefly narrated, but also includes scenes where the 'narrator' is not present and either speculating about the events or filling the reader in from other character's reporting. It works okay if you want the narrator to be unreliable (and unreliable narrators are something I particularly like) Second person, I really dislike. It makes me constantly want to say, "No I'm not" "No I didn't" when the writer says "You've always drunk your coffee with cream, but today, thinking about her, you reach for the semi-skimmed." I think my favourite is first person, because it lets you get good and close and you are also describing events and character from one perspective, not necessarily an objective one. But I am writing much more Third Person these days, because I want a big cast list. You do have that floating doubt about whether the Third Person knows everything about the character's inner thoughts or just some of them, and when to show and when to withhold, but that's quite an interesting thing to play with.

Mon, 2005-04-25 11:47

#10

burinsmith

One of the drawbacks of first person, I believe, is that it's difficult to reveal positive qualities about the character without them sounding vain or self-obssessed. Alternatively some people use what I call "first person self-deprecatory" which works okay in comedy but it can be wearing to read. You know, the lovable loser type. It's difficult to strike a character that has a balance of qualities that shows the narrator is worthy of our attention and yet not too much so! If the character has real depth, layers, glimpses of darkness and light, and normal in between it works okay. I do believe it is easier to write in first person but in my opinion it is difficult to do well. And when a person writes first person from an autobiographical source it's all the more difficult because there's less ability to be objective about content and method. It just seems to happen, which voice I choose. Some characters just need to be written a certain way for the most interesting side of themselves to be revealed. Second person, yes, I have wondered about that! Why don't you show us how it's done Archergirl? I can't quite get my head around it somehow! And then of course there's tense, that's a whole other discussion...

Mon, 2005-04-25 12:16

#11

fergal

Hmmm - I'm thinking of lots of my favourite books - Huckleberry Finn, The Great Gatsby, Great Exepectations, Gulliver's Travels - to name but a few that just popped into my head - and I wouldn't agree that first person is a 'starter'. When done well it is brilliant - it tells you so much more about a character than third person - because it's what the character doesn't tell you and how she/he reacts to other people around her/him. I love it when a character is a naif - like Gulliver - it makes the satire much more biting and turns it around towards the reader. I also love third person - but I sometimes think third person is duplicitous - it acts as though the story is as it 'is', when in fact it has come from the mind of a writer. Thus if there is a description of a 'fat, sausage-fingered man' in third person, the reader kind of takes it as true whereas the same man described in first person is taken differently. The reader thinks, 'Why is this character describing this man so negatively? What does it say about her/him?' Never trust a first person narrator, but trust a third person less I say. (I read one story in second that was brilliant once.)

Mon, 2005-04-25 12:52

#12

kjheritage

Lots of your favourite books written in this format, not described as 'starters' - well of course not. There are lots of great novels in both Third and First Person. I meant that to start out as a writer, First Person is an easier format to begin with than Third, particularly for shorter stories. I'm not decrying First Person, far from it. But for me, anyway, Third person is a harder discipline exactly for the reasons you mentioned.

Mon, 2005-04-25 13:04

#13

beloved aunt

But of course, the narrator in The Great Gatsby, like the narrator in Moby Dick isn't the focus of the story, they really are just watching the events. I've long been taken with the narration style Hemingway used in The Sun also Rises, where he positions his narrator very much to the side of the action, so that we think the novel is going to be about the beautiful people he describes and then the reader and the narrator himself are surprised to find themselves at the centre of the drama. And of course, when you write in First Person, everyone assumes that you're writing about yourself. In Third Person, you're supposed to get a more objective account, but that isn't always true - for example, Pride and Prejudice is slanted so much that it may as well be First Person narrated by Elizabeth Bennett. Tense is a whole other debate - I absolutely love writing in the present tense, but I've moved into past tense quite recently. I think it is the harder discipline.

Mon, 2005-04-25 13:13

#14

fergal

The present tense is harder to read I think - it has to be very very good to for me to not put it down and wander off and make tea (Maggie O Farrell is my main example of very tiring present tense). The sun also rises is such a good book, but then again, i think Hemingway is a genius.

Tue, 2005-04-26 02:09

#15

Jasper

But she is Milkstone: not some dead literary hack or talentless wannabe!

Topic locked