For a year I have set the novel I’m writing in first person chapters based on multiple points of view, much like As I Lay Dying by Faulkner. Last week, I received edits back on my novel, and wondered if this is really the right way to proceed with such a short work (175 pages). I now want to define what is gained or lost by writing in a specific point of view.
Multiple first-person viewpoints
Shifting from first person narrative to first person narrative is reminiscent of the epistolary novel. In novels that use this technique the reader becomes more aware of the author writing the story, since the perspectives are not addressed to anyone in particular, except generally, the reader. Ultimately, the story is a first-person account, a kind of deposition that the writer has extracted from his characters.
This is in contrast to the third-person omniscient perspective that took Victorian literature by storm, which allows the writer to create and define his world, rather than characterize like a lawyer. I love Faulkner; it’s just that he was the best at writing this way and makes it look a lot easier than it really is.
Third-person subjective
This is, I think, a more mature form of literary exposition. It is how “The Old Man and the Sea” is written, along with Joyce’s “The Dead,” and is in a way similar to third-person omniscient, but less objective, less geared toward sweeping multi-character worlds, and more intent on bringing the reader into the narrative. Also known as the over-the-shoulder effect, this technique gives us a world in which we can know the innermost thoughts of the narrator while believing more in his reliability than when in first-person. Similar to multiple first-person viewpoints, we can shift from character to character to know exactly what characters are thinking.
There are multiple other ways to write a story, of course, but I am thinking of another better suited to our blog-heavy era: the first person omniscient. This style is similar to the third-person subjective and third-person objective, when a narrator begins to include his thoughts and opinions about how the story is progressing. It differs, however, when the narrator takes a more engaged approach than third-person omniscient or third-person objective, conscious of themselves as narrator, and more reliable than direct first person.
Where the boundary blurs interests me most. For if I have a magical omniscient first-person narrator who is aware of themselves as narrative voice and able to enter the minds of other characters, using ‘I’ intermittently to deliver opinion, maybe I could pull this off.
All I know for certain is that each style of narration accords with a specific kind of narrative. For a coming-of-age story first person is best. For a seven-hundred-pager, third person omniscient is ideal. For me, third-person subjective or first-person objective (where’s the line again?) affords the engagement and reliability I want to express. What do you think? Better yet, what do you want to use for what kind of story?
The post A Guide to Narrative Voice(s) appeared first on Daniel Ryan Adler.