L.M. Ironside's Blog, page 2
April 23, 2014
Earn your First Person chops, people.
Yes, my first-ever Goodreads blog is a rant. Sorry. I had to let this out somewhere.
I want all the historical novelists in the world to go get a sticky note. Now get a pen. Now write this on the sticky note backwards, in mirror-language:
First person perspective does not automatically grace my writing with immediacy, intimacy, or realness. It's not that easy. I have to work harder for it if I want a reader to feel my character and my story.
Now tape that to your forehead and leave it there for a week so you see it every single time you brush your teeth.
I don't read a ton of books in other genres, so I can't speak to whether the issues with first person are the same, but I can definitely say that in historical fiction, I have read few books in first person...VERY few...that are engaging.
I've been wondering why first person seems like such a sentence of boredom and triteness in this genre, and I think it's because readers (and I am a reader of HF first and foremost) are really looking for a specific kind of experience when they read historical fiction. We are looking to be pulled into a different world, surrounded by the sensations of a past era and an exotic locale. We are hoping to know historical characters well enough to truly understand them, what made them tick in a world that was so unlike our modern world.
99% of the first-person historical novels I've read recently fail to achieve this. I've been thinking about why that is. I think I've figured it out.
I believe the assumption is that a narrator who says "I" instead of "she" is automatically more open, vulnerable, intimate, and free with her thoughts and emotions. THAT ISN'T TRUE AT ALL. Pronouns do not create intimacy between writer and reader. Pronouns are just syllables. They are just noises echoing in a reader's head.
What creates that intimacy, that feeling of experiencing a story (so important in successful historical fiction) are these two things:
1) Detail, but not overdone detail. Not detail overload. Not rote lists of detail, but detail that's expressed via the main character's senses. Not only what she sees, but what she hears, smells, tastes, and feels against her skin.
2) Emotional changes in the main character. Again, returning to the senses, how does the emotional rollercoaster FEEL to this character? "I was angry" is boring. "I felt sad" is boring. "I was elated" is boring. Change the pronouns to see exactly how boring it is. "She was angry." "She felt sad." "She was elated." That is exactly as much of a snorefest with "I" as it is with "she." Don't kid yourself into thinking it's more moving just because you used a different pronoun.
You MUST nail these two crucial techniques, or your book will be all tell and no show. I don't care whether it's first or third or second or omni. This is the foundation of an intimate and believable story world, in any perspective and in any tense. NOTHING else will make a reader feel closely connected to your story, and on the flip side of that coin, ANY perspective or tense will feel equally intimate, real, engaging, and authentic if you write with these two foundation stones under your feet. Perspective really doesn't matter when it comes to intimate narrative.
Yes, it can be very hard to find the right words to make a reader FEEL what your character is feeling. That's a tall order, isn't it? It's especially tall when you consider that you have to frame all this relate-able feeling and sensory detail within the context of a time that neither you nor your reader has lived in. It's a rough gig. And it doesn't happen with pronoun smoke and mirrors. It takes hard work to get it right. There is no shortcut, but even if a shortcut did exist, I guarantee you that just using first person narration would not cut the mustard.
So I propose a new law in Bookland: all historical novelists who are considering writing a book in first person must first write five good books in third person. Once you've figured out how to draw a reader in close via detail and emotion, you can write in whatever freaking perspective or tense you please and it will all be epically awesome because the foundation will be rock solid.
But until you can make me believe in your world and your character -- until you can make me FEEL the history -- I think the book gods ought to ground you from using first.
I want all the historical novelists in the world to go get a sticky note. Now get a pen. Now write this on the sticky note backwards, in mirror-language:
First person perspective does not automatically grace my writing with immediacy, intimacy, or realness. It's not that easy. I have to work harder for it if I want a reader to feel my character and my story.
Now tape that to your forehead and leave it there for a week so you see it every single time you brush your teeth.
I don't read a ton of books in other genres, so I can't speak to whether the issues with first person are the same, but I can definitely say that in historical fiction, I have read few books in first person...VERY few...that are engaging.
I've been wondering why first person seems like such a sentence of boredom and triteness in this genre, and I think it's because readers (and I am a reader of HF first and foremost) are really looking for a specific kind of experience when they read historical fiction. We are looking to be pulled into a different world, surrounded by the sensations of a past era and an exotic locale. We are hoping to know historical characters well enough to truly understand them, what made them tick in a world that was so unlike our modern world.
99% of the first-person historical novels I've read recently fail to achieve this. I've been thinking about why that is. I think I've figured it out.
I believe the assumption is that a narrator who says "I" instead of "she" is automatically more open, vulnerable, intimate, and free with her thoughts and emotions. THAT ISN'T TRUE AT ALL. Pronouns do not create intimacy between writer and reader. Pronouns are just syllables. They are just noises echoing in a reader's head.
What creates that intimacy, that feeling of experiencing a story (so important in successful historical fiction) are these two things:
1) Detail, but not overdone detail. Not detail overload. Not rote lists of detail, but detail that's expressed via the main character's senses. Not only what she sees, but what she hears, smells, tastes, and feels against her skin.
2) Emotional changes in the main character. Again, returning to the senses, how does the emotional rollercoaster FEEL to this character? "I was angry" is boring. "I felt sad" is boring. "I was elated" is boring. Change the pronouns to see exactly how boring it is. "She was angry." "She felt sad." "She was elated." That is exactly as much of a snorefest with "I" as it is with "she." Don't kid yourself into thinking it's more moving just because you used a different pronoun.
You MUST nail these two crucial techniques, or your book will be all tell and no show. I don't care whether it's first or third or second or omni. This is the foundation of an intimate and believable story world, in any perspective and in any tense. NOTHING else will make a reader feel closely connected to your story, and on the flip side of that coin, ANY perspective or tense will feel equally intimate, real, engaging, and authentic if you write with these two foundation stones under your feet. Perspective really doesn't matter when it comes to intimate narrative.
Yes, it can be very hard to find the right words to make a reader FEEL what your character is feeling. That's a tall order, isn't it? It's especially tall when you consider that you have to frame all this relate-able feeling and sensory detail within the context of a time that neither you nor your reader has lived in. It's a rough gig. And it doesn't happen with pronoun smoke and mirrors. It takes hard work to get it right. There is no shortcut, but even if a shortcut did exist, I guarantee you that just using first person narration would not cut the mustard.
So I propose a new law in Bookland: all historical novelists who are considering writing a book in first person must first write five good books in third person. Once you've figured out how to draw a reader in close via detail and emotion, you can write in whatever freaking perspective or tense you please and it will all be epically awesome because the foundation will be rock solid.
But until you can make me believe in your world and your character -- until you can make me FEEL the history -- I think the book gods ought to ground you from using first.
