Is it okay to mix first person and third person when writing a story?
Is it a big mistake? Not necessarily. But, having said that...Doing something like this requires skill. It's going to be jarring to the reader, so if you're going to make it work, there will have to be a clear and consistent use for it, and a structural reason that the story is written that way. If it's just a gimmick, or you can't decide how to write the story so you just mixed perspectives at random, the reader probably isn't going to want to come along for the ride.There are writers who've used all kinds of unorthodox structures to tell good, engaging stories. William Faulkner, Iain Banks, Italo Calvini, Joseph Heller, and David Mitchell spring to mind as examples. But tinkering with the expected narrative flow or structure of a book is a tricky business that takes care and consideration. It's not something to undertake lightly.If there isn't a compelling reason why your story has to be told that way, you might be better served to rewrite it from a consistent perspective.
What 're the advantages of third person limited?
With 'third person limited' POV, you will have a story written in third person ('he said, she did') without the 'omniscient' part that usually goes with that point of view. 'Omniscient' is mentioned as part of third person limited, but, as seen below, it's not at all the same as 'third person omniscient.' 'Limited' means the narrator cannot write any thoughts other than that of his protagonist, and the narrator gives only that protagonist's continuing activities, sights and thoughts, without the reader having any clues as to what others in the book think. This can be a good thing when handled correctly. The reader is left as much in the dark about certain things as the protagonist is, adding to suspense and a sense of mystery about at least a few things. The reader is left to puzzle things out with the protagonist and no other characters. It can be fun. It can also be a bad POV if the author is not very consistent in maintaining third person limited. The author would have to fully identify with the protagonist, even in third person, to the point that there is no thought of jumping suddenly over to another character's thoughts and undeclared motives. That can be difficult. I think it's an interesting way to write and interesting to read, though many people find it to be too constricting. Your choice now.
What is the difference between 1st person limited and first person omniscient?
First Person Omniscient: The author narrates from the perspective of one character, but shares the thoughts of other characters with the reader.Don't screw this up, I thought, swallowing the lump in my throat. Ask the girl out already."You want something?" Becky asked, wondering why I was acting so strangely.First Person Limited: The author narrates from the perspective of only one character and does not share the thoughts of other characters with the reader.Don't screw this up, I thought, swallowing the lump in my throat. Ask the girl out already."You want something?" Becky asked. She stared at me curiously.Personally I hate first person omniscient.
What do you think about switching between first and third person in fiction?
Thank you for the A2A.I suppose the answer to this one, like so many things, is, "it depends." What is the writer trying to convey to the readers for the shift in perspective?If it's handled skillfully, I think it can make for a highly entertaining shift in perspectives. It can be a good tool for the writer. I actually did this with one of my manuscripts (still in editing), but it was out of a necessity to tell the tale. A shift from first to third was a necessity, and has a purpose.Yet there are some rules about it that I'd consider unbreakable -- avoid shifting person in the same chapter. If you have to break that rule, don't make the shift seamless -- divide it up with a break so the reader can shift gears with you. Overall, it's a big no, unless there's a specific purpose for the switch. Character death is a good reason for it, for example. So, if you think a perspective change is necessary for your story, then go for it, but if it doesn't enhance your reading experience in any meaningful way, then it should be avoided.
Can the prologue of a book be written in third person while the rest of the book is written in first person?
‘Can the prologue of a book be written in third person while the rest of the book is written in first person?’Of course you can. It’s your book: you can do whatever you like.Ideally you should have a reason for doing it that way — but a strong feeling that you should is also sufficient. Sometimes the reason why you do something isn’t clear until the book is done.There are a few questions you might want to ask yourself:Does this book need a prologue?Sometimes a prologue can come from a reluctance to plunge directly into the story itself. (Don’t be shy, jump in! :)Or because you may have read similar books, and they have prologues, so you think yours should.Alternatively, there may be something you need the reader to know before they read on, and a prologue is the only way to get that information out there.How do third person and first person help the story?It could be that while first person is more immediate, third person allows you to show stuff Our Hero couldn’t know yet.Or perhaps third person distances the reader from the emotions and allows them to start the story in a rational frame of mind, preparatory to those first person dramatics.Or even, third person is used to give authority — to e.g. the totally batshit history this society believes in — while first person shows us someone who has worked out the truth (but dare not voice it, hence we need to be in their heads to know this).Is the prologue there to bring the reader up to speed on the previous books in a series?There’s an argument for a plain ‘new readers begin here’ at, say, volume 4 of a 6 volume set of books.There’s the possibility that you can weave what the reader needs to know into the first chapter, no prologue or new-reader required.Or, you might have a prologue that functions as ‘new readers begin here’, but it might also include new information as a hook, or show the events of the previous volume from a different character’s viewpointThere are so many compare-and-contrast things you can do with different viewpoints in a book that it would take a book to decide them all.My feeling is, if you want a third person prologue, have one. If when you re-read, you think it should be cut, or changed to first or second person, or something completely different substituted, you can do that.HTH…
Is first person or third person superior when writing fiction? What arguments do you have to make your case for or against one or the other?
I wouldn’t say one or the other is “superior”. Although I would say that each viewpoint ought to be suited to the story you are trying to tell. Depending on the story, it may be quite clear that either one or the other is necessary.A few examples.In John Irving’s novel A Prayer for Owen Meany, the title character turns out to be literal prophet (Owen believes from early childhood he is an instrument of God, and this ends up being true). Irving tells the story from the first-person point of view of Owen’s best friend. In making this decision, Irving said that every story about a prophet required a first-person narrator, someone who could claim they were there and saw the miracle.In Gillian Flynn’s Gone Girl, we clearly need two first-person narrators in order to pull off the effect Flynn desired. Alternating between Amy and Nick kept the reader guessing about which character was telling the truth, until Flynn eventually reveals the truth about Amy’s murder. This could not have been achieved in third-person.Stephen King’s The Stand, however, requires a third-person narrative because he is telling a story with a vast cast of characters over a widespread geography. A third-person narrator allows King to jump from place to place, character to character, giving the novel a more epic scope.The same can be said for George RR Martin’s Song of Ice and Fire novels.When it comes to point of view, I would say that you should consider the needs of the story you are writing. It is not always obvious at the start of a story whether one POV or the other is the best option. So don’t feel bad if you get a good way in and realize that you need to start again and change POV. It happens.
When writing in 3rd person, do you switch perspectives within the same chapter? Like detailing the thoughts of Character A and Character B.
You can. It depends on which version of third person you are using.Third person limited is told from an external perspective … using he/she etc. …but the narrator only knows the point-of-view of one character. The narrator cannot relay information that character does not know. The advantage is that the reader always knows who is telling the story, which gives some of the immediacy of first person.Third Person Multiple is the same as Third Person Limited except that the narrator knows the POV of more than one character. The writer must make switches between character POV obvious or the reader will be confused. Also the narrator cannot relay information that none of the characters know.Third Person Omniscient is probably the most common choice and gives the greatest freedom to the writer. The narrator knows the POV and the thoughts of all characters. The narrator may even relay information that none of the characters know. The writer can switch between characters but must be careful to indicate the POV in play.
Is writing in third person more difficult than writing in first person?
In one common POV (‘Tight Third’) you’re so tightly within the POV character’s moment by moment experience/thoughts that to describe her appearance, you have to make her look in a mirror. Anything you want to inform the reader about, has to be in the character’s thoughts at just the right time.In another common POV (Memoir Style) the character/narrator is telling a story from her past, and she can tell it any way she wants to. She can start with the final situation and then tell what led up to it — like in Rebecca. Or she can jump around in time, with lots of “Had I but known”s and/or digressions to anything she wants to talk about.(These are both really POV issues. Third person can have many characters taking turns which is the POV character, and/or have an impersonal Narrator that knows everything whether any character knows it or not, and can talk abotu anything he/she wants to. First person can stick very tightly to what the character sees/thinks moment to moment: like Tight Third with the pronounds changed.)So it depends on what you want your story to be about, and which is the easiest way to present that.
What was an incident from Martin Van Buren's term where he made an important decision?
Van Buren oversaw the Cherokee expulsion. He sided with the Spanish in the Armistad case. In 1839, Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement visited Van Buren to plead for the U.S. to help roughly 40,000 Mormon settlers of Independence, Missouri, who had been attacked, killed, raped, and run out of the state from their lands The Governor of Missouri, Lilburn Boggs, had issued an "Extermination Order". It authorized Missourians to "exterminate" Mormons and encouraged them to do so. Smith and his party begged Van Buren to intercede for the Mormons. He reportedly told Smith, "Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you. If I take up for you I shall lose the vote of Missouri. Had he decided differently in any of these cases, he might have made pollitcal enemies, but he would have created a climate of tolerance that would have changed the moral character of the country. Had he done so the riights of minority citizens would have been recognized a hundred years before the civil rights movement. Because his and Jacksons policies lead to moral and financial collapse, Van Buren only served one term in office, any way.