However, the first person is full of traps. I've outlined a few below:
1. It's all about Me Me Me -- Most grievous among author-errors is forgetting how limited the "I" experience can be. Yes, it is the most direct way to convey narration, thoughts and dialogue in a setting, but at the same time your writing-hands are tied...because you can only write as much as the character knows.
I'm writing this blog in the first person, and while I can easily detail what I'm doing while I write (drinking a glass of water, listening to music) I have NO idea what you are doing while you read it. Maybe you're on the phone, perhaps you're downloading porn - I have no clear way (as a character) of knowing what it is you're doing. As such, I can't describe it. Well, technically, I could describe it, but I better speak in vagaries or with an element of doubt.
2. Narration is inner monologue -- Narration (which is exposition made specific to the character(s)) in the first person acts as monologue. There is very little elemental distinction between what the character thinks and interaction with the world/plot. See here:
I wrote this sentence and considered watching television.
There is a pair of explicit actions present: (i) writing (ii) thoughts about watching television, both of which serve as potential springboards for the upcoming plot. Maybe I will write another sentence, mayhaps I shall go watch television. You (the audience/reader) is propelled forward to see what comes next.
The plot (and potential-plot) are driven forward only by what I say/do/think in response to any stated action. If there's no stated action, then there's no clear indication that I have or will do anything in response. Also, if there is a stated action, and there's no relevance to me, there's not any indication that I'll respond either. Example:
I sat in my chair, looking out the window. It was too warm to do more than sit and sweat.
Starting with the pair of explicit actions (sitting, looking), the text moves from narration to narrative-exposition as I stop talking about myself and move to speak my opinion about the conditions beyond myself.
"It was too warm to do more than sit and sweat" is the opinion of the character. This does create the condition of being warm, and creates an inference that the character giving that opinion is not going to be, or not encouraged to be active. It's an opinion. There's no action in the sentence, so it's monologue.
When you dive into the first-person, and you start to explore the plot, the divisions between who says what (dialogue), what I do (action), what I think (narration/monologue), what else is going on (exposition) all blur, and sometimes horribly fail.
The plot (the conflict which drives the story and compels the characters to grow/change) is built on action, not opinion. While I can spend an entire page describing thought processes (like when a certain girl spends a whole page in chapter 2 pining for her sparkly vampire), that isn't actually moving the plot forward, it only reinforces what is already established. (Or in the case of girl and vampire, it does fuck-all).
How firm a foundation do you need to move things forward? Audiences are not stupid, so stick to this simple formula:
create element + solidify element -> move on
Once you've established some idea or concept, an audience does not need reminders in the immediate future. What you say in line 6 will hold true in line 12, unless you've introduced new conflicting material. Your monologue AT BEST establishes elements and reinforces them, but it is the action-verbs and action-beats which will advance your plot.
3. Sentence abuse -- Just because you write in the first person, you need not start the majority of sentences with "I". The world can still be described (exposition), characters interactions can be fleshed out (narration) all without you starting off with "I" to preface everything.
Bad example: I stood on the catwalk, a few feet from my foe. The whole metal structure swayed, so I bent my knees and grabbed the railing. My old foe, Doctor BadGuy, held Penny by the neck and I felt angry. I wanted to get to her sooner, before he dropped her over the edge.
The words "I" and "my" snake like a ribbon through that text. Notice too, that the character doesn't actually move forward, he instead bends his knees and grabs the railing. He wants to move forward, but doesn't actually. The end result is a lot of wanting (which is hard to describe) and not a lot of tension or movement.
Better example: The catwalk swayed and groaned as I made my way closer and closer to Doctor BadGuy. Penny hung limply in his hands, and although I wanted to save her, risking her life was not an option. Each step seemed to take hours as my old foe grew nearer and nearer. With any luck, I could sock him and grab Penny, before she collapsed or was hurt further.
There are actually more "I" and "my" in this text, but they're not as jarring. This is because the elements of the sentence have been moved around. Instead of stating what "I" does, there is a descriptive, tension-building element placed first, which allows for a more direct explicit action to occur in the first sentence. One sentence in, and we're already doing something. The second sentence does not directly present action, but it does establish context. It discusses what Penny is doing, creates the feeling that she should be saved (by "I") and clarifies that she can/will/should be saved, but not with undue risk. This qualification creates greater tension, which is detailed in the third sentence. Notice here that more action is occuring as the distance between two characters is closed. The final sentence put a nice solidifying bow on the whole thing, raising the tension by inserting a possibile course of future action.
4. Badguys - Since first person is often protagonist-focused (although there is antagonist-driven..but in that case the badguy/goodguy convention is reversed), the audience is often left without clear badguy motivation. We are treated to pages (hundreds of pages) of the hero so that we are made to sympathize, and understand and cooperate with him, but the badguy is only giving examination through the lens of the hero.
If the badguy turns out to be a goodguy all along, we only know that when the hero expresses that idea. If the badguy has been trying to demolish this orphanage, but we later find out that he's doing it because he plans to build a bigger orphanage and oppose the spread of the highway, our conclusions about the badguy come through the hero.
It falls then to the hero to tell the audience how we should then perceive this former badguy, and that's usually accomplished through narration or dialogue:
"I guess he wasn't really a badguy after all." or something like that.
Through that one sentence (or one idea, if you express it differently) the entirety of focus changes about the character. Now we can go back through the book, examine the motives and actions and use the new information we've gained to put together a more full picture of the character.
Third-person is the medium of choice here for this, giving it's objectivity and ability to describe things without limitation. The classic villian-turned-hero has most recently been done well in Rowling's Snape, as the discoveries of the final book allow a total character examination in all the previous books. If it were told in first person, this explanation and lensing of the character would have to be handled in-scene, either in dialogue between two characters (giving the audience a change to "overhear" or as hero-thoughts)
Avoiding these traps is not difficult.
To avoid the "Me Me Me", place yourself in the character, and write only what the character would think/do given the information you've provided thus far. The character does not have the benefit of the entire plot nor the other elements of the story, so put the blinders on and just express THAT character at that time. (If you're on page 7, you can't write/act with the knowledge that on page 90 he's going to die, it makes the future less credible).
To keep your narration clear, establish the exisiting situations WHILE including action. Make sure the characters DO things while they think whatever they're thinking. DO NOT have them do all the thinking first, and then act. It's not what people do.
To avoid sentence abuse, stop building "I-first" sentences. There are billions of other ways to compose the thought, use a variety.
To strengthen your bad guys or express a change in character-nature, remember that HOW you illustrate the change is what will validate the type of change. Do not skimp on this for the sake of expedience or under the assumption that "people get it".
No comments:
Post a Comment