Fringe Fiction Unlimited discussion

I've noticed more and more novels in which one character's POV is told in first person, and all the others in third. So I'm wondering, why are authors doing this? Is there a specific reason (even something as trivial as "because it seems to be a trend"), either verified or merely suspected, to do that, and not use third person all the way? And if you're an author writing such POVs, what are your specific reasons? (*)

(I'm just being my usual curious self here, not criticising anyone—and in itself, it doesn't bother me. I can manage 20 different POV, as long as they're well-written, so such a shift isn't likely to be a problem for me... as long as it's well-written, too, of course.)

(*) I don't mean 3rd person as in "only the omniscient variation"; objective and limited are also included.

I haven't read novels that use both 1st and 3rd person recently. Could you provide specific examples?

The only ones I can think of is from 19th century authors, mainly during the Victorian Gothic era which involved epistolary novels. A series of letters or documents told from different characters, so it was neccessary to switch narrator. And that was just the style of the times.

Lily wrote: "I haven't read novels that use both 1st and 3rd person recently. Could you provide specific examples?"

Sure. Among the ones I've read: Joe, Hold Me Closer, Necromancer, also the one I'm currently reading (The Midnight Witch), and others I'm forgetting right now and will probably only remember once I'm in bed or something.

These don't involve letters or other documents. It's really a character (the main one) telling his/her story in 1st person, with other characters whose narratives are told in 3rd person.

ORBS does it. The story is told in third pov except when it's about the computer. To explain it a little bit better, the computer thinks like a human and has a female name too.

I've also remember another one done that way. Sacrifice

I know that it could have been done differently, but I still think it adds a little something. In both cases I liked it.

In Orbs, it helps make a difference between humans and machine, and yet makes the machine feels more human. (If that makes any sense?)
In Sacrifice, it helps the reader relate to Lysander, the protagonist, and not just see him as the 'bad' guy.

Edited: In those two books, the main POV is third, with just a few chapters once in a while being told in first POV.

In that case... I'm not really sure. lol Hopefully someone else can answer. My best guess, new style in the 21st century? And hey, if it works, go for it.

Personaly, I don't have the brain space for that kind of thing. I use 3rd limited, because, well, that's my limit. ;)

Heres a possible reason: They don't realize their doing it maybe? They use first person because it's the main character so then maybe without thinking about it they transfer over to 3rd person to seperate the distinction? I don't know that's just an idea.

Justin wrote: "Heres a possible reason: They don't realize their doing it maybe? They use first person because it's the main character so then maybe without thinking about it they transfer over to 3rd person to s..."

... How coud an author not know? That boggles my mind a bit...

Well, as someone whose written this way, i usually default to third person when I am writing as the opposite sex or a minor character. Then again, I've written the opposite sex as first person so i guess the best way to answer is how the story comes to me. Sometimes when I switch POV, i feel like I'm inside that person's head 'I' and sometimes, I feel like I'm observing what that person does. If it's information i need to get in the book from a minor character, it's almost always third person.

I hope this helps and the short answer at least for me would be a stylistic choice.

@Justin No, at least in the books I have read, it's definitely done on purpose. No accident there. ;)

Interesting. Also, I know a lot of people tend to consider 1st person as "the easy POV", so maybe it indeed seems the most obvious one for the main character?

I'm used to writing in 3rd person limited, which is perhaps a reason I never considered that option myself—since I can have the limited perception of 1st person as well as that of other people not involved in the same scenes. The only time I mixed both POV was in a story with a prologue in 3rd person, and the rest of the narrative in 1st; I never finished it, and found that jarring in any case.

I still don't really get it, though, to be honest. "Telling parts of the story the main character doesn't know", OK, but we can also do that with 3rd person limited POV. Are there yet other reasons? For instance, what was the "little something" it added (in G.G.'s post about ORBS and Sacrifice), and can it be described, or was it more a feeling?

(Yes, can you tell I loathe it when I don't understand something? ^^;)

Just read a book like that, first time I'd seen it. It was Saving from Monkeys

I think in this case it was to help differentiate between the two characters. Sometimes when the POV changes constantly it can get confusing if it's not well stated that it's been switched. Not sure of another reason to do it.

Wren wrote: "Sometimes when the POV changes constantly it can get confusing if it's not well stated that it's been switched."

But isn't that part of the author's job? Making sure the reader understands whose POV it is? (Otherwise it may seem like a cop-out: "Let's use 1st POV to make it easier on me.")

@Yzabel haha I guess we're alike. I too loathe it when I don't understand something. Sadly, it happens too often for my liking. :P

The little 'something' it added... well it's hard to explain. For Orbs, the character was a computer. At first you'd think that switching to first POV for a machine is strange, but I thought it was a great idea. It made her stick out from the human characters, especially that unlike a normal first POV, she has access to all the rooms thus, to all the other characters. It was some kind of a first POV with the added advantage of the third omniscient POV. (Does that make any sense?)

For Sacrifice it was different. The protagonist is a vampire, a killer and a jerk, but when the author switch to the first POV for his part, you see him in a different way. He's not just a killer anymore, he becomes 'human'. To me it helped flesh him out. It helped me feel for someone (or something?) that I wouldn't have cared for in any other circumstances.

That reminded me, Leon's Lair is another book written in third POV with one character having his spotlight written in first, and yet again, I loved that book.

Now it's my turn to ask you a question, Yzabel. :P
Why did you find it jarring? Was it the switch of POV? If that's the case, re-writing a prologue shouldn't have been too hard to do, and much better than throwing a story away. :(

Secondly, I don't see how a switch to FIRST POV can make it easier for the writer. On the other hand, it's easy to see that switching to THIRD POV could help since the story would suddenly find new perspectives unseen by the first POV narrator.

I'll have to check these books someday. If only for the computer sticking out. (I like stories about AIs and the likes.)

G.G. wrote: "Why did you find it jarring? Was it the switch of POV? If that's the case, re-writing a prologue shouldn't have been too hard to do, and much better than throwing a story away. :("

I don't think I'll throw this story away forever; I'll probably work on it again at some point. As for why it was jarring, it's hard to tell. It just felt off, as if I had made a wrong turn somewhere, but couldn't tell where exactly. I wonder if the real problem wasn't simply the whole 1st person thing. But then, I'm not really into 1st person when I'm writing novels (it comes to me more easily for short stories, on the other hand; I have no idea why).

POV, point of view, tends to be a style choice for the author. And then there's narrator, which can be shown in any POV. I feel it's important to know the difference. One character might be the perfect narrator which would lead an author to think 1st, but for whatever reason, the author's talent and skill works best using 3rd person omni, as an example.

POV is a camera angle in a movie. Narrator is the director. Sometimes multiple camera angles are best, and sometimes it can make the audience dizzy, especially if it's not done well.

Yzabel wrote: "Wren wrote: "Sometimes when the POV changes constantly it can get confusing if it's not well stated that it's been switched."

But isn't that part of the author's job? Making sure the reader unders..."

LOL, I didn't say I liked it, just that I saw it. It threw me off a bit. It could have been done more clearly. There were times when I went back and read the first paragraph again because it wasn't immediately noticeable that the POV had changed. Since the first narrator referred to the 2nd by his name or a 3rd person pronoun, sometimes I thought she was still talking, but it had actually switched to his view.

Wren wrote: "Yzabel wrote: "Wren wrote: "Sometimes when the POV changes constantly it can get confusing if it's not well stated that it's been switched."

But isn't that part of the author's job? Making sure th..."

No worries, Wren, I get what you mean. :) It's just that the way you worded it ("help differentiate between the characters") made it sound as if the author was aware of that... To which my first reaction was, "well if the author knew those POVs weren't well-differentiated, why not write them properly?" In turn, the 1st/3rd person switch would look like a cop-out, instead of an informed stylistic choice. (Uh, I hope this is as clear as it is in my mind. ^^)

Yzabel wrote: "Wren wrote: "Yzabel wrote: "Wren wrote: "Sometimes when the POV changes constantly it can get confusing if it's not well stated that it's been switched."

But isn't that part of the author's job? M..."

I was going for polite with the wording ;) Some people might like that method, and maybe it depends on the author writing it.

Diana Gabaldon does this in Outlander. She uses first person for Claire and 3rd for Jamie and secondary characters. she handles it well. It feels almost natural in her books. And I think it helps differentiate POV's quite well.

Oh! I forgot Diana Gabaldon does that. That might be a huge infuence for some authors, since she's been quite successful.

I can certainly understand why if the 1st person POV is the main character and the 3rd follows secondary characters. It might provide a fuller story beyond what you'd 'see' in that 1st person.

I personally have toyed with the idea, but haven't gone anywhere with it.

I don't think someone's mentioned this possible reason yet. In thrillers I've seen a mix of 1st and 3rd person used in order to disguise the identity of the killer, where the killer's chapter are 1st person and everyone else's are 3rd. And I'm pretty sure I've seen it the other way around. I think it depends on which perspective is easier for the author to disguise the killer's identity for that particular story.

Gregor wrote: "I don't think someone's mentioned this possible reason yet. In thrillers I've seen a mix of 1st and 3rd person used in order to disguise the identity of the killer, where the killer's chapter are 1..."

Protagonist, a cop, is in first person; antagonist, a terrorist, is in third for exactly the reason mentioned here. Very effective.

Jack wrote: "Gregor wrote: "I don't think someone's mentioned this possible reason yet. In thrillers I've seen a mix of 1st and 3rd person used in order to disguise the identity of the killer, where the killer'..."

If memory serves, I think James Patterson has used this 'trick' before a few times, too.

What is it called when you write in narrative(or is that what it's called)? When you describe what is happening and what characters are doing but you don't include dialogue.