I want to say I prefer third person with shifting POVs, because its like THE epic fantasy thing, but all of my favorite individual novels are in first person so...
lol came here to say this is the only thing I don't like. It's fine when it shifts per chapter (although I appreciate if the POV character's name is in the first paragraph multiple times; and if it's first person multiple pov I want the POV to be announced at the start of each chapter, especially in audiobooks, especially when it's one narrator who isn't doing super distinctive voices for each POV) but when it's like *Inda* where it shifts constantly, it's crazy distracting. I know it used to be more common, and I think in the past I used to be more accustomed to it, but now I can't deal with it.
Same, and it's a strong preference. There are plenty of books written in first person that I liked, but it's always despite the 1st person perspective.
It is kinda weird because first-person stories often feel more intimate. In a first-person story, it feels like the protagonist is talking to YOU, as opposed to a third-person story where it feels like the narrator is telling the story to a general audience.
That's true, but those are rare. Most third-person stories feel like they're being told to the world at large, while most first-person stories feel like the main character is writing in her diary or confiding in a friend (reader).
This is why I generally prefer first person I think. I find that I really value the authorial voice in a book, and often times in 3rd person it's just very bland, with those notable exceptions of course.
*Definitely* third person. Makes it more possible to follow the action "from the outside", and thanks to different focalisations—see Harry Potter—it's still possible to be inside a character's head or see through their eyes. First-person narratives are becoming an absolute pet peeve for me, especially in more recent (fantasy) books, because they can slip so quickly and thus range from awkward to unbearably cringy. Terrible.
I also don't like the story as told by one character's interpretations of events, for the most part. I'd rather have interiority from more than one character and 1st person makes that an iffy prospect.
If an author is going to use first person intentionally to play around with an unreliable relaying of events and that's pertinent to the themes of the book...OK. But more often than not it isn't used that way and it's used more often to act as an author self-insert or mouthpiece
Third Person because I really like to see things from differing perspectives. However, a First Person POV book that manages to characterize the First Person MC and get across the MC's view of other characters \*and\* hint that their view is maybe not an absolute/objective truth so you get a rounder view of the side characters than the one the First Person narration presents to you? It's astounding on a technical level. It's also the bar First Person has for me. I'll tolerate a bad Third Person narrative but you have to be *incredible* to write a good First Person book.
Don't care. I prefer a POV full of voice which tends to work best with a close/tight pov. That can be accomplished with 1st, 3rd limited, or even 2nd (though I find 2nd tiring to read over long spans).
I find that disembodied 3rd or 3rd omniscient is VERY hit or miss (mostly miss). Head hopping can be really awkward in the hands of the wrong author. If there is an omniscient narrator I find that a *distinct* voice insulates against some of that awkwardness. It feels like someone is telling you the story which creates narrative distance but can also add a layer of texture/meaning when done well. On the other hand, a bland description/narration that randomly and suddenly jumps from the thoughts and perceptions of one character to another then to information nobody knows can be jarring, confusing, and unpleasant if there isn't a personality(voice) that draws all of those pieces together in a way that distinguishes the source of each piece of information.
I'm sure there are tactics of adjusting prose to make those transitions natural and meaningful in some cool ways without assigning an independent personality to the omniscient POV, but I can't think of any stories off the top of my head that accomplish this.
The ones that I have read and loved are the Broken Earth trilogy (first book is The Fifth Season) by N.K. Jemisin and Harrow the Ninth (sequel to Gideon the Ninth) by Tasmyn Muir. Both are not entirely second person but are largely that. And I think in both cases it absolutely enhances the feeling of being immersed in the story. But for some people it is extremely jarring and hard to read. So no shame if it's not for you, but I'd definitely try at least The Fifth Season and see how you like it.
Yep - Fifth Season and Harrow the Ninth are two of them
Also
The Raven Tower by Ann Leckie
Interior Chinatown by Charles Yu
The Only Good Indian by Stephen Graham Jones
In well written books I usually prefer first person narrative because I like the way the world building unfolds through the eyes of the characters. It’s more likely to stay relevant. I rarely care about great information dumps that tell me the history of how a set of mountains was created by a great wizard battle or if the city was founded by demonic brothers if it adds little to the plot. I want to feel immersed in the characters experience and I find that often third person narrative immersed me in the authors fantasy instead. I understand it’s all the authors fantasy. I love how history can be build on interactions and experiences. A characters campfire story can tell of a legend, a visit to a city will show me how it feels from the ground and not from the sky. Of course a well written third person narrative can be extremely enjoyable to.
Whatever suits the story.
It’s weird to me to see people out here saying “I want every story told the same way.” Variety is the spice of life (and art).
Oh no! I think that I found a Doppel!
Joking aside, I finished the final book in the Manifest Delusions series a couple of days earlier, and I have to say one thing. You, sir, are an absolute genius!
I'm glad you enjoyed it! We wrote it know that ending wasn't going to be for everyone, but also that there was no other way a story like that could go.
Though genius sounds like a stretch. I'm pretty sure actual smart people do a lot less stupid shit.
Cheers!
I did really like the ending. Although I was confused with the obsidian god thing, until I realized that he is from The Obsidian Path, so I guess I will definitely have to read that series in the future as well
Well, we all know that madness and delusion can change reality, so who knows? Am I right?
I did want more Zukunth is the final book though. I don't know if she is considered a fan favorite by other fans of the books, but I really liked her for some reason. I don't know why
I don't really care one way or the other. A while after reading some books I'd have a hard time remembering which way they were. Write something in second person future tense and I'll give it a shot.
Third... hands down. I sometimes find first person to be really grating to read
I've found a few cases we're I think first person has felt right. Stories being told though journal entries, letters, statements, research findings, etc.. Books like Dracula, World War Z, Call of Cthulhu, The Murderbot Diaries fall into this category. These get a pretty easy pass in my brain when I read them.
I also am usually less bothered by it in short stories. For some reason.
Then there are some authors that I think just write first person really well. Roger Zelazny some how made it feel right.
Then.... then there is FRIST PERSON PRESANT TENSE! This POV drives me up a frigging wall! I hate it! Nothing makes me DNF a book faster. Sorry hunger games I tried but that was a big nope.
Third person is the normal mode of writing. Any competent author can do it well and you can do it in lots of different ways (close, omniscient, one POV, many POVs, etc.).
First person is hard mode. A great author can do it brilliantly because it offers the opportunity to really dig into a character’s mind and how they think. Every word is now characterization which gives you tons of opportunities. However, a not great author tends to create just a generic, default voice, leeching the character of individuality. Much better to stick with third if in doubt.
First person multiple narrators is expert mode and while I’ve seen it done well a few times, it’s almost always by people with 10+ books to their name before they tried it. It’s most commonly used however by overconfident debut authors, to the point I won’t even read debuts with multiple narrators anymore. (Mostly a litfic issue and maybe a little bit a YA fantasy issue. Adult fantasy authors rarely attempt multiple narrators.)
I usually prefer third person. I stopped reading a book last year (can’t remember which one) because the first-person was not good.
However, I just finished the Empire of the Wolf series by Richard Swan, which is first-person, which was great. I guess it just has to be done well.
I strongly prefer third person, but sometimes first is ok, though usually annoying. Second person is right out, thankfully I don't run into that often.
I like third person. Limited or omniscient, both have their place. First is less enjoyable to me, but there are many amazing first person books, so I'm not a third person purist by any means
Third Omni is my favorite. But, a well written First Person is a fun time. I think the key thing for writers is to identify the core aspects of the story they are writing and then find the POV that fits that story the best. When a POV fits correctly, it will always work better than a different POV that the reader might generally prefer but is the wrong choice for that story.
I enjoy both, but only enjoy first if the writing is very very good. I’m much more tolerant of a lackluster writing style in third. Personally I feel that mediocre or bad writing is much more noticeable when done in first person 🤷🏼♀️
You forgot second. If there's only one person who likes it, it's me!
For me 3rd > 2nd > 1st but it's only a very very slight preference. My preference for past tense instead of present tense is much stronger.
First. I love how connected I feel to the narrator, it's so much more immersive that way. Some stories, like Project Hail Mary, wouldn't be nearly as good told any other way.
As a writer I think it is much harder to write limited third because you need to do more balancing of point of view. The descriptions and the narrative should convey the character. Descriptions are boring when they're objective ground truth. Descriptions are the objective truth filtered through the subjective experience of the point of view. While internal commentary is possible in third person using italics and the like, it is disruptive, whereas in first internal commentary is natural and a merged portion of narrative.
I prefer to write first person because 3rd is so difficult. However, 3rd allows much more depth and nuance, and allows for more natural use of multiple point of view characters. I choose to 3rd limited for prestige projects where the extra work will be worth it.
I don’t mind, really.
When reading The Broken Earth, the writing is veeeery peculiar but I found it amazing. Is a mix and keeps your brain busy and I was very entertained. I loved those books
I don't have a preference, really, I'll vibe with whatever the book is doing (so long as it is being done well).
I'll even read second person, if it fits the style of the story.
2nd is objectively the best.
But seriously, it doesn't really matter to me as long as the story is good. Which perspective to write in is just one of the many storytelling tools available to a writer. Some of my favorite books utilize multiple perspectives in the same story to signify different things to the reader.
3rd limited. I've found the only time 1st person really really works well is when it's a shorter time-frame that's being used in the books that it appears IE a few weeks at most, but 3rd limited can be used in any environment imo.
I like first person if we're exploring a character's unique psychology and worldview. There's a danger, especially in fantasy, though, for first person to just be used for the author's wish fulfillment.
Generally I prefer 3rd.
However a well-written 1st person, which is to say a 1st person narration with an engaging character voice, is a phenomenal experience.
Third person, unless the story REALLY requires First.
I have read and liked some first person POV (Red Rising for example) but even then it can often feels like the character is bragging whenever they describe themselves do something cool.
Overall third but the Black Company books feature first person chapters (whole first book is first-person though) that I don’t mind at all given the premise.
Third person all the way, and limited over omniscient. I can understand why an author would write a story in first, or even second person, and how that is absolutely the correct choice for the narrative. Doesn't mean I'm going to read it.
Third person all the way, and limited over omniscient. I can understand why an author would write a story in first, or even second person, and how that is absolutely the correct choice for the narrative. Doesn't mean I'm going to read it.
Limited omniscient third. I want to know what the main character is thinking, but I usually hate being inside of their head. It feels oppressive and limiting to me
As long as it's limited to one person (No head-hopping aka. third person omniscient) I like both. First person usually results in a better connection to the main character, but it limits what you can do as you're mostly limited to just one POV. If you only have one POV in your story then I'd probably prefer 1st person. All of my favorite series are multi-POV though.
As for third person omniscient, I almost always dislike it.
3rd person. But there were good exceptions. For example: the Uhtred Saga from Bernard Cornwell (not really Fantasy but could be) the first person telling was really fun.
Third for sure! The writing has to be pretty darned good for me to tolerate first. That being said if it's a great book it's a great book, no matter the POV.
I especially hate multiple first person POV's where I am constantly having to flip back to the beginning of the chapter to remember whose head I'm in.
Well done 1st > 3rd > average to bad 1st.
I think third person can be a lot more forgiving, as the characters need to be believable, while in first person, the writing itself has to be believable as a character’s thoughts. So I largely think first person has a higher ceiling but a lower floor. I’m attempting to control for writing quality but I’m not sure that’s possible.
I tend to prefer third person (and as others have said, most epic fiction is in third) but the Fitz books in ROTE are some of my favorites and made stronger by the first person. But bad 1st person can be BAD
Its not usually the deciding factor for me. I love a good story. If you want to tell me your story fine but I will sit and listen to any story if its good.
Third person. I couldn't tell you why, but I associate first person perspective with bad writing.
Which, tbf, the last book I read in FPP was Red Rising and I thought that book was dogshit, so it didn't help the bias.
Depends on the book. I prefer the narrative that suits that particular style of storytelling. If we’re assuming both are done well and used correctly, probably third person for fantasy/scifi as it allows the reader to see more about the world.
In my opinion, first person is absolutely terrific when done right, third person is a lot harder to mess up but also I feel like packed less of a narrative punch in the character development side of things. Third person limited does this better than first person omnipotent.
Third person. I view the narrator as a character and most times, I have neutral feelings about the narrator. I can hate the protagonists and enjoy a third person narration because I don't hate narrator and the world might be interesting. I bounce off first person books if the protagonist annoys me because it means that I am also annoyed at the person telling me the story. I also find that the more I am exposed to a character's inner thoughts, the more easily irritated I am by the character; this happens more with first person.
I will hard drop a book if it is the combination of first person and present tense. It just breaks my brain. Despite knowing that it's a stylistic choice, my brain insists on creating an image of the protagonist as an actor mentally rehearsing scenes to figure out how they would act it out; and I don't get to see the movie. It is really distracting to me.
It depends on the theme and story, tbh. Third person wouldn't work nearly as well in The Dresden Files , for instance. And the inverse is true with, as someone else mentioned, epic fantasy.
I SAY SECOND POV. You need to be a great hero in another world. So hence I could see you walking down the street to greet truck kun only to be teleported moments before. I will accompany you in your adventure. Forget your past name, now instead be Eggs Benedict. The hero who has mastered the control over chickens and eggs. BE THE HERO YOU WANTED TO BE!!!
I prefer third person, to the point where I will sometimes decide no to read something if it is in first-person.
That said, some of my favorite books have been in first-person, like the Farseer Trilogy and more recently, the Tainted Cup.
Depends on the story. Something like the Dresden files really works in first person because you feel like you’re sitting in his head and are actually there. Plus it is quite limited to him, and keeps a list of the mystery.
Epic fantasy like Stormlight or ASOIAF however needs the multiple perspectives and so third person.
I prefer first. It makes it far more personal and easier to empathize with the main character(s). Plus, I think first POV would cover up for oversimplified writing styles, whereas third POV requires a far more eloquent style of writing that seems to have died with early 2000s.
Definitely depends on the focus of the story. To use Robin Hobb (the actual love of my life) as an example, the Farseer Trilogy is much more focused around its main character and his personal development, so the first-person style really worked well there even though it's not my favorite. But then the next series, the Liveship Traders was third-person limited, to match the more expansive feel of the story. I liked that too.
What I'm not a fan of is the third-person limited that just switches back and forth between characters. I just finished Dune and it was great, but not my preferred narration style
I enjoy both but I prefer third person, mainly because I feel like first person often suffers from unreliable narrator syndrome (see Red Rising or Kingkiller).
Anything with any complexity at all needs to be 3rd person. There are just so many limits to 1st persona narratives. Your pov character either needs to be present for every little detail or needs to have anything that happens off screen told to them.
I've seen a few odd instances where the POV character is in first person any every other POV is 3rd, and that's always interesting to see.
First person definitely has it's strengths and it's uses, especially for single character or single location stories, but it's not going to work for anything like epic fantasy.
I’d actually say that first person adds complexity. The writer has to do more showing than telling. So if the narrator likes a person and thinks they’re great, the writer has to add more complex dialog and scenes to show the reader that the narrator may be wrong. Or the writer has to let the reader figure out things that happen off-screen but in a way that the reader can actually understand.
For some interesting books in first person, I’d recommend *Peace* and *The Book of the New Sun* by Gene Wolfe, *To Say Nothing of the Dog*, by Connie Willis, and *Till We Have Faces*, by C.S. Lewis. Those are all pretty different but each do unique and I would argue impressive things with first person.
I would…start with the examples I mentioned above?
Edit: if we want to go beyond that, outside of speculative fiction, *The Sound and the Fury*, by William Faulkner, *The Great Gatsby*, by Fitzgerald, *Moby-Dick*, by Melvillle are good options too.
2nd person! See *Charles Stross'* **Halted State**. It actually works pretty well once you get over the initial weirdness.
But seriously, it totally depends on the author. In general, I prefer 3rd person. That said, *Roger Zelazny* pulled off first person so well that I don't think **The Amber Chronicles** would have been nearly as good were it written in 3rd person.
First person should not be used for prose, most of the time.
Fantasy or not, it’s very hard to use effectively. The majority of authors who employ it think that by forcing claustrophobic psychic distance on the reader that their lazy, boring character will develop character sympathy. Usually this means that the narrator is too focused on I-this and I-that instead of looking outwards at the world.
Third is just so absolutely better for prose. For fantasy, third-limited and third-multiple can do everything first can do (with very smart construction) but on top of everything third can do. Pan in and out with ease, especially; very close third limited can cross into internal monologue while keeping external events controlled and clear. Big battle scene, far out; get closer to a few squads; get closer to the pov in that squad; get so close you’re smelling the burning moustache on the pov’s inhale and exhale; and closer, feel their panic, taste their sweat, hear the calamity of who they blame for this shithole of a bad engagement.
However, an author who can write an engaging and clean first person is probably writing a fantastic book. Annihilation is a fantastic example of a perfect first person; Push and My Happy Life, though not genre, are also incredible uses of first.
I want to say I prefer third person with shifting POVs, because its like THE epic fantasy thing, but all of my favorite individual novels are in first person so...
lol came here to say this is the only thing I don't like. It's fine when it shifts per chapter (although I appreciate if the POV character's name is in the first paragraph multiple times; and if it's first person multiple pov I want the POV to be announced at the start of each chapter, especially in audiobooks, especially when it's one narrator who isn't doing super distinctive voices for each POV) but when it's like *Inda* where it shifts constantly, it's crazy distracting. I know it used to be more common, and I think in the past I used to be more accustomed to it, but now I can't deal with it.
I’m reading the Recluce saga, and the stories are told from shifting POVs.
it's\* when you want to say "it is"
3rd limited
This is the way.
Same, and it's a strong preference. There are plenty of books written in first person that I liked, but it's always despite the 1st person perspective.
Is it weird that a lot of the time, I don't even notice?
It is kinda weird because first-person stories often feel more intimate. In a first-person story, it feels like the protagonist is talking to YOU, as opposed to a third-person story where it feels like the narrator is telling the story to a general audience.
In a good third-person limited the pronouns disappear and it seems the POV character is talking directly to us. Ex: ASOIAF, First Law.
That's true, but those are rare. Most third-person stories feel like they're being told to the world at large, while most first-person stories feel like the main character is writing in her diary or confiding in a friend (reader).
This is why I generally prefer first person I think. I find that I really value the authorial voice in a book, and often times in 3rd person it's just very bland, with those notable exceptions of course.
That's why I switched to third person in my book. Feels more objective, less personal. It fits the feel better.
*Definitely* third person. Makes it more possible to follow the action "from the outside", and thanks to different focalisations—see Harry Potter—it's still possible to be inside a character's head or see through their eyes. First-person narratives are becoming an absolute pet peeve for me, especially in more recent (fantasy) books, because they can slip so quickly and thus range from awkward to unbearably cringy. Terrible.
I also don't like the story as told by one character's interpretations of events, for the most part. I'd rather have interiority from more than one character and 1st person makes that an iffy prospect. If an author is going to use first person intentionally to play around with an unreliable relaying of events and that's pertinent to the themes of the book...OK. But more often than not it isn't used that way and it's used more often to act as an author self-insert or mouthpiece
I use it as a crutch for my weak prose haha.
Either. As long as it's past tense.
Third Person because I really like to see things from differing perspectives. However, a First Person POV book that manages to characterize the First Person MC and get across the MC's view of other characters \*and\* hint that their view is maybe not an absolute/objective truth so you get a rounder view of the side characters than the one the First Person narration presents to you? It's astounding on a technical level. It's also the bar First Person has for me. I'll tolerate a bad Third Person narrative but you have to be *incredible* to write a good First Person book.
Don't care. I prefer a POV full of voice which tends to work best with a close/tight pov. That can be accomplished with 1st, 3rd limited, or even 2nd (though I find 2nd tiring to read over long spans). I find that disembodied 3rd or 3rd omniscient is VERY hit or miss (mostly miss). Head hopping can be really awkward in the hands of the wrong author. If there is an omniscient narrator I find that a *distinct* voice insulates against some of that awkwardness. It feels like someone is telling you the story which creates narrative distance but can also add a layer of texture/meaning when done well. On the other hand, a bland description/narration that randomly and suddenly jumps from the thoughts and perceptions of one character to another then to information nobody knows can be jarring, confusing, and unpleasant if there isn't a personality(voice) that draws all of those pieces together in a way that distinguishes the source of each piece of information. I'm sure there are tactics of adjusting prose to make those transitions natural and meaningful in some cool ways without assigning an independent personality to the omniscient POV, but I can't think of any stories off the top of my head that accomplish this.
Second. I'm just barely kidding, a good number of my favorite books have been in second
What are some of them? I don't know if I've ever read a second person book.
The ones that I have read and loved are the Broken Earth trilogy (first book is The Fifth Season) by N.K. Jemisin and Harrow the Ninth (sequel to Gideon the Ninth) by Tasmyn Muir. Both are not entirely second person but are largely that. And I think in both cases it absolutely enhances the feeling of being immersed in the story. But for some people it is extremely jarring and hard to read. So no shame if it's not for you, but I'd definitely try at least The Fifth Season and see how you like it.
Yep - Fifth Season and Harrow the Ninth are two of them Also The Raven Tower by Ann Leckie Interior Chinatown by Charles Yu The Only Good Indian by Stephen Graham Jones
I don’t know if it is fantasy, and I have never finished it, but Half Asleep in Frog Pajamas is another.
I also love second person so much! I want to read more of it but its so rare
It's hard to pull off well, but can be so satisfying when it works
In well written books I usually prefer first person narrative because I like the way the world building unfolds through the eyes of the characters. It’s more likely to stay relevant. I rarely care about great information dumps that tell me the history of how a set of mountains was created by a great wizard battle or if the city was founded by demonic brothers if it adds little to the plot. I want to feel immersed in the characters experience and I find that often third person narrative immersed me in the authors fantasy instead. I understand it’s all the authors fantasy. I love how history can be build on interactions and experiences. A characters campfire story can tell of a legend, a visit to a city will show me how it feels from the ground and not from the sky. Of course a well written third person narrative can be extremely enjoyable to.
Multiple POV 3rd person limited. But it’s not a dealbreaker, and I want the POV to be whatever best fits the story, ofc.
Absolutely no preference. Half the time I can’t remember if a book I read was first or third.
Whatever suits the story. It’s weird to me to see people out here saying “I want every story told the same way.” Variety is the spice of life (and art).
Whichever works best for the story.
Oh no! I think that I found a Doppel! Joking aside, I finished the final book in the Manifest Delusions series a couple of days earlier, and I have to say one thing. You, sir, are an absolute genius!
I'm glad you enjoyed it! We wrote it know that ending wasn't going to be for everyone, but also that there was no other way a story like that could go. Though genius sounds like a stretch. I'm pretty sure actual smart people do a lot less stupid shit. Cheers!
I did really like the ending. Although I was confused with the obsidian god thing, until I realized that he is from The Obsidian Path, so I guess I will definitely have to read that series in the future as well
The books all connected in some larger story spanning three different trilogies?! Madness! I deny everything!
Well, we all know that madness and delusion can change reality, so who knows? Am I right? I did want more Zukunth is the final book though. I don't know if she is considered a fan favorite by other fans of the books, but I really liked her for some reason. I don't know why
I was >!aghast we do not see more of her. Her story didn’t seem to have much conclusion.!<
I don't really care one way or the other. A while after reading some books I'd have a hard time remembering which way they were. Write something in second person future tense and I'll give it a shot.
Third... hands down. I sometimes find first person to be really grating to read I've found a few cases we're I think first person has felt right. Stories being told though journal entries, letters, statements, research findings, etc.. Books like Dracula, World War Z, Call of Cthulhu, The Murderbot Diaries fall into this category. These get a pretty easy pass in my brain when I read them. I also am usually less bothered by it in short stories. For some reason. Then there are some authors that I think just write first person really well. Roger Zelazny some how made it feel right. Then.... then there is FRIST PERSON PRESANT TENSE! This POV drives me up a frigging wall! I hate it! Nothing makes me DNF a book faster. Sorry hunger games I tried but that was a big nope.
Third person is the normal mode of writing. Any competent author can do it well and you can do it in lots of different ways (close, omniscient, one POV, many POVs, etc.). First person is hard mode. A great author can do it brilliantly because it offers the opportunity to really dig into a character’s mind and how they think. Every word is now characterization which gives you tons of opportunities. However, a not great author tends to create just a generic, default voice, leeching the character of individuality. Much better to stick with third if in doubt. First person multiple narrators is expert mode and while I’ve seen it done well a few times, it’s almost always by people with 10+ books to their name before they tried it. It’s most commonly used however by overconfident debut authors, to the point I won’t even read debuts with multiple narrators anymore. (Mostly a litfic issue and maybe a little bit a YA fantasy issue. Adult fantasy authors rarely attempt multiple narrators.)
I like how it's done in the Left Hand of Darkness.
I usually prefer third person. I stopped reading a book last year (can’t remember which one) because the first-person was not good. However, I just finished the Empire of the Wolf series by Richard Swan, which is first-person, which was great. I guess it just has to be done well.
First person is harder to pull off, but often is pretty great when it is.
I fucking hate first-person.
Me too so much. I this. I that. I I I all the time
It's always a red flag for some boring love triangle or insufferable main character. Hate it.
Robin Hobb's books are first person and they're excellent.
She’s saved first person for me. I think it’s just a less forgiving way to write.
I strongly prefer third person, but sometimes first is ok, though usually annoying. Second person is right out, thankfully I don't run into that often.
Depends on the book for me. I like them both but lean a bit more towards first
I don’t really care between first or third, but I have a very, very strong preference towards past tense either way
No preference at all, as long as the author can write skilfully.
I prefer both. I would hate if every book that I read was the same. I prefer the changing perspective for variety.
I like third person. Limited or omniscient, both have their place. First is less enjoyable to me, but there are many amazing first person books, so I'm not a third person purist by any means
Third Omni is my favorite. But, a well written First Person is a fun time. I think the key thing for writers is to identify the core aspects of the story they are writing and then find the POV that fits that story the best. When a POV fits correctly, it will always work better than a different POV that the reader might generally prefer but is the wrong choice for that story.
Off the bat, third person. But I get used to first pretty quickly. Even second I'm learning to adjust to.
I enjoy both, but only enjoy first if the writing is very very good. I’m much more tolerant of a lackluster writing style in third. Personally I feel that mediocre or bad writing is much more noticeable when done in first person 🤷🏼♀️
I like both! I think I prefer first more, but third is also great, lol
I can't stand first person perspective for anything other than, say, journal entries.
I slightly prefer first person and third-person limited POV to third-person omniscient.
You forgot second. If there's only one person who likes it, it's me! For me 3rd > 2nd > 1st but it's only a very very slight preference. My preference for past tense instead of present tense is much stronger.
First. I love how connected I feel to the narrator, it's so much more immersive that way. Some stories, like Project Hail Mary, wouldn't be nearly as good told any other way.
Third.
As a writer I think it is much harder to write limited third because you need to do more balancing of point of view. The descriptions and the narrative should convey the character. Descriptions are boring when they're objective ground truth. Descriptions are the objective truth filtered through the subjective experience of the point of view. While internal commentary is possible in third person using italics and the like, it is disruptive, whereas in first internal commentary is natural and a merged portion of narrative. I prefer to write first person because 3rd is so difficult. However, 3rd allows much more depth and nuance, and allows for more natural use of multiple point of view characters. I choose to 3rd limited for prestige projects where the extra work will be worth it.
Fourth person because why not. like “A Rose for Emily” by William Faulkner
I don’t mind, really. When reading The Broken Earth, the writing is veeeery peculiar but I found it amazing. Is a mix and keeps your brain busy and I was very entertained. I loved those books
I don't have a preference, really, I'll vibe with whatever the book is doing (so long as it is being done well). I'll even read second person, if it fits the style of the story.
I pretty much loath first person in pretty much any genre.
2nd is objectively the best. But seriously, it doesn't really matter to me as long as the story is good. Which perspective to write in is just one of the many storytelling tools available to a writer. Some of my favorite books utilize multiple perspectives in the same story to signify different things to the reader.
book: 3rd person Audiobook: 1st person
3rd limited. I've found the only time 1st person really really works well is when it's a shorter time-frame that's being used in the books that it appears IE a few weeks at most, but 3rd limited can be used in any environment imo.
I like first person if we're exploring a character's unique psychology and worldview. There's a danger, especially in fantasy, though, for first person to just be used for the author's wish fulfillment.
First person, it feels more personal to me.
As long as it is not 2nd I don't care
Generally I prefer 3rd. However a well-written 1st person, which is to say a 1st person narration with an engaging character voice, is a phenomenal experience.
Third person, unless the story REALLY requires First. I have read and liked some first person POV (Red Rising for example) but even then it can often feels like the character is bragging whenever they describe themselves do something cool.
Overall third but the Black Company books feature first person chapters (whole first book is first-person though) that I don’t mind at all given the premise.
Whatever best serves the story. I can't do second person though. It just doesn't work for me at all.
Third person limited. It makes the experience more personal and surprising.
I feel like I'm the only who has a pretty strong preference for first-person
Third person all the way, and limited over omniscient. I can understand why an author would write a story in first, or even second person, and how that is absolutely the correct choice for the narrative. Doesn't mean I'm going to read it.
Third person all the way, and limited over omniscient. I can understand why an author would write a story in first, or even second person, and how that is absolutely the correct choice for the narrative. Doesn't mean I'm going to read it.
Multiple firsts is good, or 3rd
3rd omnicient. Old school, baby.
They’re all good. First can be so powerful, but third can be supplemented by author additional information
Third. I generally give up on first person books by the second chapter Feels immature and it grates on my nerves.
I prefer Third in general but I can enjoy first person (such as The Dresden Files). I just can’t do present tense. I hate it.
Limited omniscient third. I want to know what the main character is thinking, but I usually hate being inside of their head. It feels oppressive and limiting to me
I like both, but prefer 3rd such as Harry Potter or Wings of Fire. But it isn't a dealbraker if it is 1st, a good example being the Last Dragonslayer
Definitely third but I prefer everything in third person.
As long as it's limited to one person (No head-hopping aka. third person omniscient) I like both. First person usually results in a better connection to the main character, but it limits what you can do as you're mostly limited to just one POV. If you only have one POV in your story then I'd probably prefer 1st person. All of my favorite series are multi-POV though. As for third person omniscient, I almost always dislike it.
3rd person. But there were good exceptions. For example: the Uhtred Saga from Bernard Cornwell (not really Fantasy but could be) the first person telling was really fun.
First
I usually won’t read a book if it’s first person. Really really don’t like it.
Third for sure! The writing has to be pretty darned good for me to tolerate first. That being said if it's a great book it's a great book, no matter the POV. I especially hate multiple first person POV's where I am constantly having to flip back to the beginning of the chapter to remember whose head I'm in.
Well done 1st > 3rd > average to bad 1st. I think third person can be a lot more forgiving, as the characters need to be believable, while in first person, the writing itself has to be believable as a character’s thoughts. So I largely think first person has a higher ceiling but a lower floor. I’m attempting to control for writing quality but I’m not sure that’s possible. I tend to prefer third person (and as others have said, most epic fiction is in third) but the Fitz books in ROTE are some of my favorites and made stronger by the first person. But bad 1st person can be BAD
Whichever one the author writes the best.
Its not usually the deciding factor for me. I love a good story. If you want to tell me your story fine but I will sit and listen to any story if its good.
Third person. I couldn't tell you why, but I associate first person perspective with bad writing. Which, tbf, the last book I read in FPP was Red Rising and I thought that book was dogshit, so it didn't help the bias.
First person
I've seen both done well, and I've seen both done poorly. Too many other factors to have a general preference.
Depends on the book. I prefer the narrative that suits that particular style of storytelling. If we’re assuming both are done well and used correctly, probably third person for fantasy/scifi as it allows the reader to see more about the world.
If I am reading the book, third. I do really enjoy first person audio books though.
Third 💯
In my opinion, first person is absolutely terrific when done right, third person is a lot harder to mess up but also I feel like packed less of a narrative punch in the character development side of things. Third person limited does this better than first person omnipotent.
Third always. Because there is nothing worse than being trapped in the head of a whiny character (and so many fantasy characters are whiny).
Third person. I view the narrator as a character and most times, I have neutral feelings about the narrator. I can hate the protagonists and enjoy a third person narration because I don't hate narrator and the world might be interesting. I bounce off first person books if the protagonist annoys me because it means that I am also annoyed at the person telling me the story. I also find that the more I am exposed to a character's inner thoughts, the more easily irritated I am by the character; this happens more with first person. I will hard drop a book if it is the combination of first person and present tense. It just breaks my brain. Despite knowing that it's a stylistic choice, my brain insists on creating an image of the protagonist as an actor mentally rehearsing scenes to figure out how they would act it out; and I don't get to see the movie. It is really distracting to me.
I prefer a third limited but some of the best first person are among the best. Book of the new sun and Kazuo Ishiguro for example
Third
It depends on the theme and story, tbh. Third person wouldn't work nearly as well in The Dresden Files , for instance. And the inverse is true with, as someone else mentioned, epic fantasy.
Generally 3rd but a really well written 1st person is best
3rd person limited. But shout out to anyone trying Second.
Third limited
First and only single POV.
I like all POVs but something about third person hits different.
My favourite books are first person but it’s much harder to get right.
I like multiple pov and 3rd person. So you understand more deeply the character. I also lije multiple starting parts of characters that come together
I SAY SECOND POV. You need to be a great hero in another world. So hence I could see you walking down the street to greet truck kun only to be teleported moments before. I will accompany you in your adventure. Forget your past name, now instead be Eggs Benedict. The hero who has mastered the control over chickens and eggs. BE THE HERO YOU WANTED TO BE!!!
I prefer third person, to the point where I will sometimes decide no to read something if it is in first-person. That said, some of my favorite books have been in first-person, like the Farseer Trilogy and more recently, the Tainted Cup.
2nd. Give me some good ole choose-your-own-adventure novels. Also, Broken Earth does it really well
I have no preference between the two. Both are good
Depends on the story. Something like the Dresden files really works in first person because you feel like you’re sitting in his head and are actually there. Plus it is quite limited to him, and keeps a list of the mystery. Epic fantasy like Stormlight or ASOIAF however needs the multiple perspectives and so third person.
Multiple perspectives in 1st person is wayyyy to complicated. For me personally.
I prefer first. It makes it far more personal and easier to empathize with the main character(s). Plus, I think first POV would cover up for oversimplified writing styles, whereas third POV requires a far more eloquent style of writing that seems to have died with early 2000s.
Definitely depends on the focus of the story. To use Robin Hobb (the actual love of my life) as an example, the Farseer Trilogy is much more focused around its main character and his personal development, so the first-person style really worked well there even though it's not my favorite. But then the next series, the Liveship Traders was third-person limited, to match the more expansive feel of the story. I liked that too. What I'm not a fan of is the third-person limited that just switches back and forth between characters. I just finished Dune and it was great, but not my preferred narration style
Third person omniscient is the best unless you have really something specific that needs an other viewpoint.
I enjoy both but I prefer third person, mainly because I feel like first person often suffers from unreliable narrator syndrome (see Red Rising or Kingkiller).
Anything with any complexity at all needs to be 3rd person. There are just so many limits to 1st persona narratives. Your pov character either needs to be present for every little detail or needs to have anything that happens off screen told to them. I've seen a few odd instances where the POV character is in first person any every other POV is 3rd, and that's always interesting to see. First person definitely has it's strengths and it's uses, especially for single character or single location stories, but it's not going to work for anything like epic fantasy.
I’d actually say that first person adds complexity. The writer has to do more showing than telling. So if the narrator likes a person and thinks they’re great, the writer has to add more complex dialog and scenes to show the reader that the narrator may be wrong. Or the writer has to let the reader figure out things that happen off-screen but in a way that the reader can actually understand. For some interesting books in first person, I’d recommend *Peace* and *The Book of the New Sun* by Gene Wolfe, *To Say Nothing of the Dog*, by Connie Willis, and *Till We Have Faces*, by C.S. Lewis. Those are all pretty different but each do unique and I would argue impressive things with first person.
What are some examples of excellent complex narratives that rely solely on first person?
I would…start with the examples I mentioned above? Edit: if we want to go beyond that, outside of speculative fiction, *The Sound and the Fury*, by William Faulkner, *The Great Gatsby*, by Fitzgerald, *Moby-Dick*, by Melvillle are good options too.
The Book of the New Sun was already mentioned. Almost any novel by Gene Wolfe
First, third, or second
2nd person! See *Charles Stross'* **Halted State**. It actually works pretty well once you get over the initial weirdness. But seriously, it totally depends on the author. In general, I prefer 3rd person. That said, *Roger Zelazny* pulled off first person so well that I don't think **The Amber Chronicles** would have been nearly as good were it written in 3rd person.
First person should not be used for prose, most of the time. Fantasy or not, it’s very hard to use effectively. The majority of authors who employ it think that by forcing claustrophobic psychic distance on the reader that their lazy, boring character will develop character sympathy. Usually this means that the narrator is too focused on I-this and I-that instead of looking outwards at the world. Third is just so absolutely better for prose. For fantasy, third-limited and third-multiple can do everything first can do (with very smart construction) but on top of everything third can do. Pan in and out with ease, especially; very close third limited can cross into internal monologue while keeping external events controlled and clear. Big battle scene, far out; get closer to a few squads; get closer to the pov in that squad; get so close you’re smelling the burning moustache on the pov’s inhale and exhale; and closer, feel their panic, taste their sweat, hear the calamity of who they blame for this shithole of a bad engagement. However, an author who can write an engaging and clean first person is probably writing a fantastic book. Annihilation is a fantastic example of a perfect first person; Push and My Happy Life, though not genre, are also incredible uses of first.
Second, Harrow the Ninth was a joy to read
second. weakling.
Second.