/lit/ - Literature

>not using free indirect speech
The ultimate pleb filter

Ich-form works only if it can capture the story - autobio, detective etc. But the moment you have shitton of intertwined characters and simultaneous events, you need to switch to general observer narrator because no singular perspective can capture the whole tangle.

>>13575313
You're right, I don't think it would have been possible to write a book like say, The Brothers Karamazov in the first person (although there are some "scenes" of the book where the "I" is mentioned, and the narrator is a part of the story for brief moments, but in the first person you just get so much more connection to the character and you also feel what he feels so much more. One thing is to read (and as we all know reading is the same as thinking with another man's mind, as Schopenhauer so wisely explained) "I did this and that.", "I felt this, as if I were in this or that, with such vividness that it made me remember my days, I ate and saw this or that etc." rather than when the book just says "He did this and she said that or this to him." You just distance yourself from the character in question and see yourself in third person, like a movie, which is not what literature should be about.

>>13575450
I will state this again: free indirect speech. It helps to close the gap between 3rd and 1st.

>>13575458
Still indirect speech. While it can be taken to the extreme by simply omitting the pronous, it may soon become incomprehensible gibberish with ambiguous context.

Women often write in this style as strong delineation of perspective boundaries doesn't come naturally to em, https://lithub.com/a-prodigal-daughter-returns-to-dublin/

>>13575275
Some things are impossible; read: very difficult; to write in the first person. Dostoevsky famously threw away his first draft of Crime and Punishment written in first person confession format (think Lolita) simply because writing the story this way was far more difficult and ultimately not very aesthetic. But then something like Lolita pulls it off beautifully.
I think it comes down to which information you want to give the reader at what time, if at all. It's a design decision you have to make depending on the story you are writing.

>>13575478
>it may soon become incomprehensible gibberish with ambiguous context.
Sure, that's where talent and taste come into play.

>>13575450
>which is not what literature should be about
Says who? The first-person narrator is limited in knowledge. Unless you switch narrators, you can only ever know the thoughts of one character. An omniscient third person narrator can know the thoughts and actions of any character at any given moment.

>>13575450
>like a movie, which is not what literature should be about
A movie plays out in my head in either case. Note that even movie script (again, often in "autobiography" format) are sometimes written in 1st perspective. Cue the noir detective trope speaking in melancholic voice "I've always...." and it has the same effect as in books - it helps to emphatize, but can also come off as uncanny when the character does something you wouldn't do.

>>13575480
>Dostoevsky famously threw away his first draft of Crime and Punishment written in first person confession format (think Lolita) simply because writing the story this way was far more difficult and ultimately not very aesthetic.
Yeah, I know. When you write in the third- person you can actually say "He believes that, even though it wasn't true." but in the first person, it doesn't make any sense. Imagine saying "I believe this, even though it isn't true." or something like "I believe it rains outside, even though it does not." Makes no sense, right? But maybe it's precisely this that makes me more attracted to the first-person narration - because it shows the perspective and delves into the mind of the character in question and is the least similar to cinema, which just shows things in the third person.

also sauce.

>>13575493
>The first-person narrator is limited in knowledge.
I know, I'm just saying that it is better at describing sensations, the particular subjective mind of the character, etc.

>>13575313
>But the moment you have shitton of intertwined characters and simultaneous events, you need to switch to general observer narrator because no singular perspective can capture the whole tangle.

Have you ever heard of a man named William Faulkner

>>13575726
yeah but he wasn't necessarily limiting himself to first person. Stream of consciousness doesn't necessarily mean the consciousness of any one given character in a scene

>>13575768
Partially true

>>13575275
is lotr first person ? its not like true first person but it does feel like frodo and hobbits are the reader tier people who dont know the world

>>13575478
Holy shit, that story.