3d person view or 1st person

[Businesssn]

Which one is better and why

 

[CadmarLegend]

Which one is better and why

3rd person because then you can show different characters' emotions at once.... though I'm being hypocritical because my one original story is in 1st person....

 

[DubstheDuke]

3rd person is objectively better

On a serious note, I prefer 3rd person because 1st limits you to the intelligence of the character speaking. Technically you can increase this intelligence in 1st person by writing from a 'future/telling a story that already happened' perspective, but even then it's still limiting. You can't be too unique with the writing style, which is something that's extremely important to me.

 

[Draconite]

3rd person is better for a scene, 1st person is better for potraying emotions and opinions

 

[Businesssn]

So what if you did a fusion

 

[Deleted member 45782]

So what if you did a fusion

2nd point of view

 

[Deleted member 45782]

1st point of view seems much easier to write cause it feels like writing from your point of view and can get straight down to the character emotions and stuff. 3rd point feels bit harder cause have to describe what the characters doing from a more distant, outside point of view. Words to describe have to rethink about how to say what (name) character is thinking, feeling, doing, etc. This is just my personal opinion though.

2nd point being the hardest.

 

[Businesssn]

2nd point of view

Cant even get mad at that, that was a good joke

 

[RepresentingCaution]

2nd point of view

Cant even get mad at that, that was a good joke

I don't see it as a joke. Second person is great for erotic content when you want to be the person experiencing the moment.

Here's a non-erotic book that does an amazing job with second person:

Amazon.com

 

[Deleted member 45782]

I don't see it as a joke. Second person is great for erotic content when you want to be the person experiencing the moment.

interesting. til something again. XD

 

[Agentt]

So what if you did a fusion

I always prefer a fusion. I have a narrator speaking everything but the narrator has the same opinions as the character it is currently portraying. Like I have an arrogant character. When tasked to climb the mountain, the narrator said" he grabbed the spikes in order to not show off his spectacular muscles which can break the mountain alone."

 

[hauntedwritings]

I haven't tried writing in first person, and here's why.
Human communication is subtle. Most of our communications is both concious and subconcious bodylanguage - we make facial expressions we aren't completely aware of, we react in ways that we aren't entirely sure how it will be experienced by others. Because we ourselves aren't entirely aware of every thing we do.
When writing in first person, all the subconcious actions and reactions are a no-go to mention. Because if you do, they are no longer subconcious. In third person however, you can write all you want.
And you can go even further, and describe other characters in detail that the MC doesn't notice. Because in first person, you can't describe things the MC doesn't see or experience.

This doesn't mean that 3rd person is actually better. Only that it's easier and gives more options to add the little details, that makes the story feel alive.

 

[Jemini]

It really depends on your needs. What you should really be asking yourself is whether you want to use Omnisions or use the "deep" perspective. Deep means that you limit the perspective to only one character's thoughts, feelings, and point of view. It feels a lot more natural to write in the deep perspective if it's in 1st person point of view, but it is also possible to use 3rd person deep. I personally use the deep perspective in all of my stories because it deepens the immersion by limiting the POV like that. However, it's an extremely strict and much less forgiving writing style. It's the go-to style of the higher rated authors though.

Omnisions are when you give the reader a lot of information (while keeping the MC's perspective) that the MC should not be aware of. It is often tempting to use omnisions, and they are often used in a lot of older writing or writing that you are given in English lit class during school. There are ways to use omnisions well, but it is really not well suited to the style of writing that is used on a lot of webnovel sites. Most of the webnovel writing style works a lot better with the deep perspective that eliminates all omnisions.

There are some ways to cheat the deep perspective though. I am actually pretty good at sneaking minor hints of other people's POV into the deep perspective, whether it be 1st or 3rd person. My first MC was someone who had received ninja training, similar to CIA training in nature in that reading people is a very important skill. Her people reading skills are the absolute highest of any character I have written. My second main character was a psychologist, also a role that makes someone very good at reading people. My MC of my 3rd story is a street-wise thief. All three of these roles have some reason why people reading would be a very justifiable skill for them to have, thus I am able to relay some information from other perspectives to the reader without breaking the deep perspective and putting in an omnision.

So, really, there's actually no real benefit to using 1st or 3rd person. The real question is whether you want to include omnisions or use deep. 1st person will give you some guard rails to keep you in the (superior IMO) deep perspective a little better, and the 3rd person will be a little more forgiving if you happen to slip up and put in the occasional omnision.

 

[Yairy]

I do 1st person because I like to let my readers experience the characters emotions throughout the entire series. I mainly write romance though.

 

[bigbear51]

Depends on the story that's being told. Though if you're going to do first-person, then you'd better have an interesting MC.

 

[Horizon42]

Which one is better and why

Neither. Each one has their strengths and weaknesses and which one an author uses should be specific to what the focus of the story is. 3rd is used by most professionals for fiction because it makes it easy to display plot, but this usually ends up subpar and forgetable (even in professional writers) since the characters tend to be very bland. 1st person puts character before plot, which increases imerssion, so if you have an active MC or multiple POV's, I would prefer this one.

 

[LimitBound]

In my opinion third person is better because it can describe the background more. 1st feels like unreliable and doesn't really explain anything important that is if the protagonist isn't an observer type.

 

[HappyVainGlory]

As with all writing mechanics, there isn't one that is 'objectively better.' POV is just another tool that you use to portray your story. In the hands of a skilled writer, a story could be told just as well in either first-person, second-person, third-person, omniscient, or whatever mixed perspective is chosen.

That being said, both third-person POVs and first-person POV have advantages and disadvantages which could be important for the type of story you're aiming to tell and the effect you want to provide.

First off, it's important to clarify that there are different degrees of Third-person POVs: omniscient, objective, and limited.

Third-person omniscient point of view is the viewpoint of a narrator that knows everything about the story and its character. You can jump from person to person, pan out to show the story like a movie, etc.

Third-person limited omniscient point of view narrows the viewpoint a bit more and restricts it to the world as well as a single character and their thoughts. It's essentially first-person plus since you can reveal more information about the world and things that the character doesn't know at the time.

Third-person objective point of view is the narrowest viewpoint of the group is the perspective of a neutral observer, like a camera recording what's being said and done. In this POV, character thoughts are completely unknown, and can only be interpreted from their actions and words.

There are a few other ones as well, like the upcoming 'Deep' POV, but these three are the more traditional types that come to mind when talking about third-person POV.

As to first-person POV, you can think of it as a kind of inverse Third-person objective where you know everything about a character but are absolutely restrained to only what that character knows and experiences.

Now, you can probably imagine that using one of these over the other will change the way a story will unfold for the reader.

In third-person omniscient, the reader has infinite information, limited only by what you give them. There's nothing hidden under the sun, for better or for worse.

If your story relies on withholding information, however, this could be a poor fit. On the other hand, if your story is one that spans entire continents or even worlds, and if the focus is on broad overarching change over time, this is a great fit. Just keep in mind that there's less of a 'core' to anchor the reader in this perspective since you're focusing on how the world, kingdoms, etc. change instead of one person.

In third-person limited omniscient, the reader's information is still a lot, but you remove the ability to see into other characters and focus on one. As a result, you give the reader an anchor point to judge the story by.

In this perspective, the benefit comes from creating a tension where the reader knows just a *bit* more information than the character does, potentially leading to situations where the reader's practically screaming at the character to act but the character is completely oblivious.

In third-person objective, the reader's information is restricted to essentially their own senses. We remove the ability to read the thoughts of anyone in the story and let the reader only experience it by what unfolds, judging things for themselves.

In this perspective, the story plays out more like a movie. Characters do things. Things happen. And while the reader sees it all, they have to judge for themselves the why. But that's not to say that the story is completely impartial. It just becomes one where 'showing' becomes a lot more important than 'telling'... which could be a bit more effort to pull off. However, that could lead to a more satisfied result as the reader learns about characters naturally, like in real life.

Finally, in first-person, the reader's information is also restricted, but to all that a specific character knows. It's the most intimate of the POVs where the reader all but becomes the character that is telling the story. The reader sees the same people, has the same thoughts, does the same actions... all of it because you are saying 'I'.

For better or for worse, in this perspective, the reader *is* the character that the story revolves around. That's both a good and a bad thing. When the reader agrees and sympathizes with the POV character, it becomes a terrific experience where they can step away from reality for a while to become another person. When the reader disagrees, however, there's a tremendous disconnect that could turn them off completely.

Setting aside the practical effects POV has on changing the nature of the story unfolding, you should also keep in mind the reaction a reader might have to particular POV in general.

Like with present tense, there are people who reject first-person POV. Whether due to a history of reading a lot of stories where it's been done poorly, a result of completely hating the viewpoint character, a refusal to be immersed in a story through the viewpoint of a particular character, or a number of other reasons, there will be people who simply do not accept first-person POV.

Similarly, there are people who reject third-person POV as well. These types of readers might believe that it's too detached for them to be immersed in the story, that the perspective is too old-timey, that the perspective is too boring, or countless other reasons. Whatever the case, they won't read a story with third-person POV, or at least only do so grudgingly.

Thankfully, most people tend to fall in the middle of the two extremes and are willing to give your story a shot. You shouldn't shy away from choosing one or the other just because there will be people who will reject it out of principle or beliefs.

Just remember that, like with most everything else in writing, POV is just another tool to add to your kit when building a story. You can use that tool blindly, and you can use it in a way it's not supposed to be used, but in the end it boils down to how *you* use it. As long as you keep that in mind, things should work out.

tl;dr - POVs are just tools that do certain things better or worse. In the end, it depends on the effect that a writer wants to give the reader.

Thank you for coming to my Ted talk. This has been unsolicited writing advice from your local happy and vain writer.

 

[CadmarLegend]

As with all writing mechanics, there isn't one that is 'objectively better.' POV is just another tool that you use to portray your story. In the hands of a skilled writer, a story could be told just as well in either first-person, second-person, third-person, omniscient, or whatever mixed perspective is chosen.

That being said, both third-person POVs and first-person POV have advantages and disadvantages which could be important for the type of story you're aiming to tell and the effect you want to provide.

First off, it's important to clarify that there are different degrees of Third-person POVs: omniscient, objective, and limited.

Third-person omniscient point of view is the viewpoint of a narrator that knows everything about the story and its character. You can jump from person to person, pan out to show the story like a movie, etc.

Third-person limited omniscient point of view narrows the viewpoint a bit more and restricts it to the world as well as a single character and their thoughts. It's essentially first-person plus since you can reveal more information about the world and things that the character doesn't know at the time.

Third-person objective point of view is the narrowest viewpoint of the group is the perspective of a neutral observer, like a camera recording what's being said and done. In this POV, character thoughts are completely unknown, and can only be interpreted from their actions and words.

There are a few other ones as well, like the upcoming 'Deep' POV, but these three are the more traditional types that come to mind when talking about third-person POV.

As to first-person POV, you can think of it as a kind of inverse Third-person objective where you know everything about a character but are absolutely restrained to only what that character knows and experiences.

Now, you can probably imagine that using one of these over the other will change the way a story will unfold for the reader.

In third-person omniscient, the reader has infinite information, limited only by what you give them. There's nothing hidden under the sun, for better or for worse.

If your story relies on withholding information, however, this could be a poor fit. On the other hand, if your story is one that spans entire continents or even worlds, and if the focus is on broad overarching change over time, this is a great fit. Just keep in mind that there's less of a 'core' to anchor the reader in this perspective since you're focusing on how the world, kingdoms, etc. change instead of one person.

In third-person limited omniscient, the reader's information is still a lot, but you remove the ability to see into other characters and focus on one. As a result, you give the reader an anchor point to judge the story by.

In this perspective, the benefit comes from creating a tension where the reader knows just a *bit* more information than the character does, potentially leading to situations where the reader's practically screaming at the character to act but the character is completely oblivious.

In third-person objective, the reader's information is restricted to essentially their own senses. We remove the ability to read the thoughts of anyone in the story and let the reader only experience it by what unfolds, judging things for themselves.

In this perspective, the story plays out more like a movie. Characters do things. Things happen. And while the reader sees it all, they have to judge for themselves the why. But that's not to say that the story is completely impartial. It just becomes one where 'showing' becomes a lot more important than 'telling'... which could be a bit more effort to pull off. However, that could lead to a more satisfied result as the reader learns about characters naturally, like in real life.

Finally, in first-person, the reader's information is also restricted, but to all that a specific character knows. It's the most intimate of the POVs where the reader all but becomes the character that is telling the story. The reader sees the same people, has the same thoughts, does the same actions... all of it because you are saying 'I'.

For better or for worse, in this perspective, the reader *is* the character that the story revolves around. That's both a good and a bad thing. When the reader agrees and sympathizes with the POV character, it becomes a terrific experience where they can step away from reality for a while to become another person. When the reader disagrees, however, there's a tremendous disconnect that could turn them off completely.

Setting aside the practical effects POV has on changing the nature of the story unfolding, you should also keep in mind the reaction a reader might have to particular POV in general.

Like with present tense, there are people who reject first-person POV. Whether due to a history of reading a lot of stories where it's been done poorly, a result of completely hating the viewpoint character, a refusal to be immersed in a story through the viewpoint of a particular character, or a number of other reasons, there will be people who simply do not accept first-person POV.

Similarly, there are people who reject third-person POV as well. These types of readers might believe that it's too detached for them to be immersed in the story, that the perspective is too old-timey, that the perspective is too boring, or countless other reasons. Whatever the case, they won't read a story with third-person POV, or at least only do so grudgingly.

Thankfully, most people tend to fall in the middle of the two extremes and are willing to give your story a shot. You shouldn't shy away from choosing one or the other just because there will be people who will reject it out of principle or beliefs.

Just remember that, like with most everything else in writing, POV is just another tool to add to your kit when building a story. You can use that tool blindly, and you can use it in a way it's not supposed to be used, but in the end it boils down to how *you* use it. As long as you keep that in mind, things should work out.

tl;dr - POVs are just tools that do certain things better or worse. In the end, it depends on the effect that a writer wants to give the reader.

Thank you for coming to my Ted talk. This has been unsolicited writing advice from your local happy and vain writer.

Will "your local happy and vain writer" be kind of like your signature on every message you post.....?

 

[MadmanRB]

Both have their advantages and disadvantages.
First person can get us into the characters head and see the world from their eyes, but limits all events to the characters POV.
Third person gives us a broader scope of the universe and its characters but sometimes overlooks the characters inner workings.
I say one can use both depending on what you are doing, I know I played with this myself where the majority of my story is third person but when I want to explore a character more I will reach inside their heads.
And yes I break this up, so it doesn't seem like "head jumping"