The double edged sword of first person, non-omniscient narration in fantasy.

[Bill]

Hi again folks! I'm back to talk a little bit about my recent experience writing a novel from perspective of a the first person, non-omniscient narrator. I'll try to be fair about the pros and cons, and then go over the early reaction to this stylistic choice.

* What is first person, non-omniscient narration?

First person means that the story is told directly from the perspective of a particular character. So instead of referring to Sorch as 'he', we're going to refer to him as 'I'. As Sorch experiences the world, we go along for the ride.

And non-omniscient means that this particular character isn't in any way all-knowing. This means we the readers only know what Sorch knows. The only perception are his perceptions. We don't know the lay of the land unless he's been there, we don't know the history of a place unless he's studied it.


* What challenges are there when writing first person, non-omniscient fantasy?

The biggest challenge, in my experience, is keeping the fantasy world's reality separate from the main character's perception of the world's reality. For example, if Sorch had spent his entire childhood being taught that the oceans are acidic, he's going to relate that to the reader. When we're sharing his thoughts, those are the perspectives he's going to share: Everything needs to be shipped by land, because of the acid. You can only get fresh water fish, because of the acid.

This leads to strange situations where you are actually, actively lying to the reader about your world. We only see what Sorch sees, right? As the author, you know that the seas are perfectly fine and there's a huge shipping and fishing industry, and Sorch's tribe only told him that to keep him close to home. But until Sorch discovers that, we don't discover it! We only hear through his ears and see through his eyes.

Another challenge is a realistic amount of world knowledge and plot exposure, without going overboard. Let's say there are 36 major gods and demons in the world of Panos. But our main character isn't a big scholar insofar as deities go, and in fact only a couple of the ones important to his race are of any interest at all. He might be exposed to the beliefs of 7, maybe 8 more as he meets peoples and studies things important to his adventure. But there are still two dozen gods that he's never heard of and honestly doesn't care about.

Should I as the author go out of my way to throw a 'cheatsheet of the gods' in front of Sorch and literally force him to read it for some contrived reason? Or will the full pantheon of Panos just have to remain a mystery to the reader until it's realistic and organic for Sorch to be interested in learning more? For me, it's the later.

This concept extends to geography, geo-politics, and all of the cool things that a reader would know if it was a third person omniscient story. In first person, non-omniscient narration you can't realistically get all this into a single book without our main character literally becoming a know-it-all. We know what Sorch knows, and Sorch doesn't know jack about the political situation in United Diben. He doesn't even know anyone who's been to Eastern Hook, and he has no reason to tell us about it, so that entire continent might remain a mystery for quite some time. It would be ridiculous coincidence to 'overhear' or read about 375 random facts about Panos in the course of 250 pages. 'Contrived' would be a good word for it. And we avoid that.

* What are the good things about first person, non-omniscient narration?

The very good news about this writing style is that our knowledge of the main character is massive. We rapidly get to know what Sorch thinks, what he loves, what gets him mad, and what drives him. I dare say that the reader's connection with the main character is unparalleled in first person, non-omniscient narration. It's designed so that we feel what he feels, after all.

One might think that means the other characters suffer as a result, but that hasn't been my experience. If anything, we know exactly why Sorch is hanging out with these other people. Through his friendship, through his love, or through his conflict we get to observe these people in a biased-but-absorbing manner. Their words matter to Sorch, or he wouldn't be telling us about them. Do things happen when his back is turned, or when they're away? Sure. Might they keep secrets from him? Yeah. But in the long run we get to know them in the most intimate way possible, because we are there as a person, not as a nebulous floating observer.
Finally, and this might sound a little mean but I'm trying to be honest here... as a writer, I don't want to fixate on boring crap. I don't care what order the silverware was laid out in at the royal banquet. I refuse to use the words 'sprawling vista' over and over again. I'm not going to tell you where the leather for that boot came from. And I have a great excuse, because Sorch couldn't give a crap either!

Are there dozens of tricks for more exposition using this voice?
Absolutely. And if you want to write longer books or focus less on action and more on background, you're free to do so. But I personally feel that the level of fantasy-realism suffers. Every time you describe the tax system of a foreign government, a fairy dies.

* What about reader feedback?

It's probably exactly what you think: There are a lot of calls to know more about the world, or to examine certain things in a more complete manner. And yes, there are tricks to do so, but those tricks can often detract the the plot, draw us away from the action, and remove that immersion.
Probably the most frustrating words you'll come across are 'unfinished' and 'unanswered'. As the author you know that there is that fine balance between immersing the reader in your fantasy-realism and telling them as much as you realistically can through a single character's perception. You have the answers! But unless you want to go to 700 pages and force the main character to go through a ton of unrealistic and boring tasks, you can't spoon feed the reader every answer.

You're going to get people who either simply don't like this style, or simply don't understand the triangle of immersion / novel length / fantasy realism. The good news is that if you tell a great story, they'll forgive you for these perceived shortcomings. If they're emotionally involved, they can turn off that need to know everything and go along for the ride.
Jim Butcher (who is both a nice guy and an absolute madman by the way) once said that it is the writers themselves that are more suited towards first or third person writing. He wrote seven third person books before coming up with the first person voice for Storm Front.

Sometimes you're just going to take it in the teeth from people who don't like first person writing. But if that's what you're good at, maybe you just have to accept it. People are either going to be happy with a good story that immerses you in this world you've created, or they're going to bitch at you because the main character didn't accurately count how many sconces were on the wall of the throne room. You can't make everyone happy, but you still have to write to your strengths.

* Conclusion

The are a lot of pros and a lot of cons to committing yourself to first person, non-omniscient narration in fantasy. As a reader, expect more mystery about the world and be prepared to have more unanswered questions. But also get ready for an emotional, immersive ride inside the mind of a fantasy character.

Bill Ricardi, author of 'Another Stupid Spell'.

[Faith]

I've written a first chapter in the first person with the rest of the story in the third person, to show from the beginning how the character became the much changed person they are in chapter one. The contrasting use of tense delineates what is now and what came before, almost as if the individual now is so different that they don't recognise their former personality as themselves. I don't know whether this is a smart move or whether it will just annoy the reader. What do you think? Should I abandon it and go with the third person throughout?

[Bill]

Faith wrote: "I've written a first chapter in the first person with the rest of the story in the third person, to show from the beginning how the character became the much changed person they are in chapter one...."

What if I suggested first person throughout? :)

Honestly play to your strengths. I would only split between the two if you're equally good at both first and third person.

Of course your proofreaders will have a lot more insight as to which they feel is stronger. Ask them pointedly and see what kind of reply you get.

[Faith]

A couple of friends read Chapter 1 and there were no complaints about the first person. They did say "I had no clue what gender the speaker was", but I don't think that's a problem as the character knows what gender they are and has no need to remind themselves in an internal dialogue, surely? I reviewed a book this year with everything in the first/present tense and I recommended changing it. I just didn't think it read half as well as it would in the 3rd, so I am already acting against my own advice. Maybe present tense is more of a problem, not narrator classification? Just thinking aloud.

[Devorah]

BillRicardi wrote: "Hi again folks! I'm back to talk a little bit about my recent experience writing a novel from perspective of a the first person, non-omniscient narrator. I'll try to be fair about the pros and cons..."
I used first person, present tense, in a police procedural murder mystery. It made for an intense (no pun intended) writing experience.

[Bill]

Faith wrote: "A couple of friends read Chapter 1 and there were no complaints about the first person. They did say "I had no clue what gender the speaker was", but I don't think that's a problem as the character..."

I think you need to pose the question specifically. Proofreaders are often busy looking for actual errors rather than possible mistakes, if you catch my drift. If you want a judgement call, sometimes it's better to put them on the spot and say: "A or B, your honest opinion?"

And I'd say the same goes for tense. In fact, write a piece of it up both ways and put it to them: "Which is better, A or B?"

[Bill]

Devorah wrote: "BillRicardi wrote: "Hi again folks! I'm back to talk a little bit about my recent experience writing a novel from perspective of a the first person, non-omniscient narrator. I'll try to be fair abo..."

Assuming you're just as good at both, certain genres benefit from first person more than others. The fact that you're expected to withhold information because of non-omniscience is a boon when dealing with crime/mystery.

[G.G.]

I LOVE first person POV. It feels closer. You wonder what's happening WITH the MC. As you said, you can have an honest narrative that's still somewhat hiding the truth because the MC doesn't know everything. The MC could also be an impulsive liar. You choose if you want to establish that early on or let the readers discover it as they read.

On the other hand, while close third person can do the same it doesn't have the same impact for me. So you can say I am a true first person POV fan. :P

I can add to the con of that POV.

1) At times, you might need to be unusually imaginative to get the story to fit together without too many plot holes. It's probably why many authors choose third person and they move from character to character. They can tell more of the story this way.

2) Staying in first person POV is not always as easy as it sounds. The MC cannot know what he/she doesn't see. For instance, you can't go and say, "I walked by the bush unaware of the hidden man."

3) Another mistake often made is for the MC to know what someone else thinks. He/she might guess, or read their body language, but they cannot 'know'.

Now, don't get me started with tenses. I dislike present. Don't take me wrong. Some authors do a great job with it but it takes special skills to make it feel natural. I've read books in which I've noticed the present tense only after many chapters, but to be honest, those are rare and are usually in first person POV. (I might not be lucky with third I guess.)

On the other hand, second person POV is almost always better in present tense.

[Devorah]

BillRicardi wrote: "Devorah wrote: "BillRicardi wrote: "Hi again folks! I'm back to talk a little bit about my recent experience writing a novel from perspective of a the first person, non-omniscient narrator. I'll tr..."

That's true.

[Bill]

G.G. wrote: "I LOVE first person POV. It feels closer. You wonder what's happening WITH the MC. As you said, you can have an honest narrative that's still somewhat hiding the truth because the MC doesn't know e..."

The good news is, I feel that genuine surprise is easier in first person non-omniscient. You never think: Gee why is the narrator not being as descriptive as normal? Oh we're about to get a verbal 'jump scare'. Instead what goes unnoticed genuinely IS unnoticed, you don't need to change your level of description. You can cut off the narrator's thoughts mid sentence and react as things happen.

[Michael]

I write my novels in first person limited, past tense (can’t stand present), and find the intimacy of exploring the thoughts, emotions, and actions of a character as if I were that character quite satisfying. My character is female, and I don’t find that being a male in any way detracts from my ability to express a female perspective. A writer should be able to inhabit any character he creates, and if he’s any good at all, what should come across is a believable portrayal of that character as a unique individual without the inanity of gender bias or stereotype. As far as first person, or any writing perspective, goes, I believe in an organic approach. What doesn’t fit naturally in the plot doesn’t belong. My advice is don’t put out information that your character won’t be using in the course of the story. It has to have a purpose, and its introduction has to occur in the natural progression of events. However, introducing information that will take full form in a future book is fine, as long as it has some bearing on what the character is presently experiencing.

[Bill]

Michael wrote: "I write my novels in first person limited, past tense (can’t stand present), and find the intimacy of exploring the thoughts, emotions, and actions of a character as if I were that character quite ..."

Absolutely agree here. I've fallen in love with this style, and will likely use it with everything I publish for the World of Panos. You can do some great foreshadowing that simply doesn't seem obvious or forced, because it's yet another observation in the natural flow of observations. It's a sexy device. :)

For my other planned series I'm going back to third person, because there's a lot of macro-level world event type stuff that I want a fish-eye lens on. But it's just another tool in the toolbox.

[Bruce]

In the third book of my series "Grandchildren of Lem" there are two sections I wrote in first person, non omniscient. My copy editor asked me to change them to third person. I did, but one of them lost so much emotional colouring that i changed it back. The other section felt better in third person even thought the reader really only saw into the head of one character. My second character simply became more important and that felt good. Almost all of my stories are character driven, usually with two important characters. I ask how and in what way do I want the reader to know those characters. Sometimes in the first person you find you have to be contrived to hide things from the reader that you don't want them to know till later. You sacrifice really knowing the guts of the main character.