Apologies for this not being a story (and if you deem it necessary to move this thread, then go ahead, but please don't yell at me over my error); I am very curious about which writing style you generally prefer and more importantly, why you prefer it. Please don't just vote or post one-liners. If you vote/reply, I really would appreciate some sort of explanation.

Exempli gratia, "I prefer first-person because it gives a better look into what the narrator/main character is thinking", or "I prefer third-person because first-person limits the story too much", et cetera. If you like both styles equally, why? If you like one more than the other, why? Would you change your viewpoints for different genres (an action-based story versus a drama-based story) of writing?

Thank you.

First person. Sort of. I like the first person, but I usually like it when the narrator is not the main character. Think Sherlock Holmes or The Time Machine.

I like the first person because you can give the narrator more personality. He can have opinions on actions, feelings (positive or negative) about other characters, and even speculation about events. You can also give the narrator a dynamic character, which adds a lot to a story.

All third-person stories that try to give the narrator any personality are either written by Douglas Adams or are parodies of books written by Douglas Adams.

You're leaving second person out of the question.

It really depends a lot on what the story is about... if it's primarily about a character, then it should be first person. Third person works better for accounts of many events, especially as it allows the story to be told from multiple perspectives. No vote.

I prefer the third person, because it allows the writer to take a more omniscent approach. You can have multiple subplots going on at the same time, in completely different places, with different people, or you can reveal things the main character doesn't know (i.e. dramatic irony).

You are limited to what the character sees and hears in first person (this can be done to your advantage such as more surprising surprises and getting more in-depth with the main character, but that doesn't mean you can't achieve the same results with third person). The few books that I've read that uses first person are actually very good but since I still like third person more, I suppose I'm just writing this from a personal point of view.

I prefer Third Person. I have a few reasons for this.

First, I like to switch points of view between characters frequently. Writing the entire story based from one perspective is boring. I think it's also easier developing other characters' personalities this way (instead of having their personalities be based on whatever that one main character thinks of them).

Second, I don't like having the entire story based on the views, experiences, or thoughts of only one person. I like having multiple main characters of equal importance.

I guess that's basically it? I'm not too great at explaining these things so bear with me =P.

No one says a story written in first-person has to be from the same perspective from beginning to end. While the point of view can't be changed too frequently, you can still tell a story from diferrent angles.

As for second-person narrative, this was one of my favorite ways of story-telling when I was growing up (I think of the Choose Your Own Adventure series). I enjoyed the interactive aspect the most.

Well, since second-person has been mentioned several times already, let's just say that I have had little experience with second-person. Most of my literary background comes from classic literature and poetry, so second-person is not something that I have seen often.

Originally Posted by VelKa

Well, since second-person has been mentioned several times already, let's just say that I have had little experience with second-person. Most of my literary background comes from classic literature and poetry, so second-person is not something that I have seen often.

Radium considers your statement for a moment. "Yeah, I've noticed that too," he tells you, "I think it's because it only sounds right in the present tense, which also isn't used much." Thinking about it, you notice that second person past tense would sound kind of like someone with amnesia getting their life explained to them.

Whats wrong with second person?

I think this thread can stay where it is. It is WT-related, after all.

I prefer third person simply because I can do more with it. First person can be fun, though I have a habit of making my characters borderline-omniscient (sp?).

It must be your godliness rubbing off.

I'm the only one that likes first-person? D=

Well, I'm still not sure whether to make my novel first- or third-person. I was hoping that this would at least sort of help clear things up, but I'm still deciding. I personally don't like the ominescent perspective as it ruins a lot of surprises/jump scenes and makes it seem like everyone knows what everyone else is thinking.

You don't have to know what everyone is thinking. Just tell it from the perspectives of one or two people, but third person. Read "Desolation Road".

I would have to agree with the whole omniscence aspect of third person. You can just do more if the narrator is separated from the characters, and essentially all-knowing. And it's flexible. There's no unwritten code to third-person about how many characters whose thoughts are viewed, or about how the narrator has to speak.

I repeat, what is wrong with second person?

I have not read one piece of classic literature that is written in second-person. In fact, I don't believe that I have ever read a book that is written in second-person. It has always struck me as being a little unprofessional, and that is why I will not write in such a style, in addition to the fact that I have no experience with it. My aim is not to produce an interactive book because I am writing for a more mature audience.

Homer addressed his audience as 'you' when talking about Eumaeus the swineheard in 'the Odyssey'. Maybe he just likes the guy so much he feels that everyone should be like him (Eumaeus stayed loyal, along with Philoetius, to Odysseus after about 20 years of absence from Ithaca).

;P

Originally Posted by VelKa

Well, I'm still not sure whether to make my novel first- or third-person. I was hoping that this would at least sort of help clear things up, but I'm still deciding. I personally don't like the ominescent perspective as it ruins a lot of surprises/jump scenes and makes it seem like everyone knows what everyone else is thinking.

Well, I guess it would help us help you if we knew what the book is about and what aim it has in the fields of atmosphere/feeling and message.

Originally Posted by White Rabbit

Homer addressed his audience as 'you' when talking about Eumaeus the swineheard in 'the Odyssey'. Maybe he just likes the guy so much he feels that everyone should be like him (Eumaeus stayed loyal, along with Philoetius, to Odysseus after about 20 years of absence from Ithaca).

;P

Yes, that is true; Homer liked the character a lot, so I have read.

However, that aside, was the story written entirely in second-person? No. For anyone who is wondering why I am not so fond of second-person, please name one piece of classic literature written entirely in second-person.

Fawriel: I would venture to say that it is some sort of literary melodrama. I was supposed to write a short descriptive paper for an English class a long time ago, but since papers are generally not supposed to be epic-length (I had a limit of six pages myself), I decided to present one particular scene. It was written in the third-person, from the POV of the community. Since it was the POV of the community, there were certain things about the character that were ambivalent. I liked that. However, with more than one character involved (and needless to say, there was absolutely no dialogue whatsoever in the short paper, which made everything even simpler), it gets complicated keeping track of who knows what, and obviously Person A doesn't know everything that Person B is thinking and should not be portrayed as knowing everything that B is thinking. So I'm still thinking about it. Character development is my specialty, and I don't go for big epic battle scenes myself, so I'm still debating which method is better suited for such a book.

If you want to know more, PM me; I generally do not divulge my ideas except on my LiveJournal, which is obviously private/restricted.

I don't think third-person really requires the omnicience aspect - you could follow just one person (example, the Harry Potter series) and reveal their thoughts alone. Having multiple main characters does complicate things, but if you only have one or two it shouldn't be too bad. Or you could omit the whole thought-reading thing (though I think this makes the characters more human and less disconnected from the reader) and write the events only.

Originally Posted by Coppertop

you could follow just one person (example, the Harry Potter series) and reveal their thoughts alone.

Harry Potter followed different people (and their thoughts) occasionally. It just only switched people between chapters, and rarely.

Hm, good point, but it was rare. In the beginning of the series there were no character changes.

The first chapter of the first book was told from a perspective other than Harry's.

I prefer 1st person, cause I can live more by hero, It's I, then. 3rd games support needing of controlling someone else. And also, 3rd person games have sucking cameras and there are problems with controlling.

Lol?

This is the War Tavern. The poll is about first/third person for WRITTEN material, not games. Is this a joke or haven't you even read Velk's first post?

Originally Posted by White Rabbit

This is the War Tavern. The poll is about first/third person for WRITTEN material, not games. Is this a joke or haven't you even read Velk's first post?

You're misunderstanding him. I saw it as a brilliant symbolic metaphor.

Originally Posted by Unknown Rabbit

The first chapter of the first book was told from a perspective other than Harry's.

True, but it didn't really set anyone else as a main character. Harry was the only main character in the series.

Originally Posted by Radium

You're misunderstanding him. I saw it as a brilliant symbolic metaphor.

Actually, so did I. Except not.

Well, he did have a point, I guess. You can see more of what's around your character in a 3rd-person environment, but it's harder to tell what s/he is doing, whereas if you're in a 1st-person game, you can see directly through his/her eyes. Heh.

Off-topic, but I don't want to make another thread - Is there any rule against posting stories that are known to be incomplete? I have some "scraps" and half-written stuff that is definitely never getting finished, though I wouldn't mind sharing it.