(That’s First Person POV…)
Ruth Kaufman’s recent RWR article about FPPOV has engendered a lot of discussion on various email lists and blogs. Since most of the email lists and blogs I read focus on romance and its various related genres, most of the discussion I see seems to center around the so-called “recent” rise of FPPOV.
I never thought of it as new, and especially not in romance, and I also never thought of it being a current trend. What about Jane Eyre? Or Clarissa, (all epistolary novels being, by necessity, in FPPOV), or (wandering farther afield, genre-wise) Moby Dick, most of the stories written by Edgar Allen Poe, Gulliver’s Travels, or Frankenstein, or David Copperfield, or how about getting really old school and saying Dante’s Inferno? (First person epic poetry, even!) Perhaps FPPOV is more popular in romance now than it was, say, ten years ago, but I think the discussion is better centered around why it ever went away then than why it has returned now.
Not only does first person POV enjoy a long and distinguished history in the realm of romantic literature, since it was featured so often in gothic romance (not Udolpho, perhaps, but certainly heavyweights from Bronte to Du Maurier employed it), but as one of the pre-eminent narrative devices in the development of the relatively new form of the novel, full stop.
Daniel Defoe, commonly (and perhaps erroneously) considered the Father of the English Novel, employed it in his most famous work, Robinson Crusoe, as well as the more “woman’s fiction” centered The Fortunes and Misfortunes of the Famous Moll Flanders. At the beginning, the novel was considered first a predominantly “female” (read: fluffy and dismissable, and how things haven’t changed in three hundred years!) form of writing before being co-opted by Defoe et al., which is why many early novels featured female protagonists. More than thirty years previously, the now-famous poet/playwright/spy/first female professional English writer Aphra Behn employed the technique in her book (ostensibly a highly-suspect memoir about an equally suspect trip to Venezuela) called Oroonoko.
In Oroonoko, Behn employed the oft-maligned conversational technique of speaking directly to the reader. (The most famous example of this, perhaps, is “Reader, I married him,” in Jane Eyre.) This kind of author intrusion would be re-interpreted by later writers as the now-out of fashion omniscient narrative. In first person, however, this meta-narrative omniscence lends an extra level of realism to the text — the person telling you the story knew what was to come next. It’s the technique I use in the Secret Society Girl series. The Amy telling you the story knows more than the Amy acting on the page. (We’ll discuss this in more detail — complete with the debate about whether or not Amy is an overt autodiegetic limited external focalizing or an overt autodiegetic limited internal focalizing narrator — tomorrow. Say it with me: Jargon! Goodie!)
This emphasis on realism, to the point of pretending the novel was a memoir, or a found bunch of letters, or etc. (a technique which is very rarely used today, and usually only as some sort of marketing stunt, as with Gryphon and Sabine, the Lost tie-in novel, Bad Twin, or Journal), became very important to the nascent form of the novel, because no one was sure that readers would buy the fantastic prose tale they were about to experience without first being assured, somewhat, of its veracity. First person framing devices were enormously popular. (Compare to the idea of a campfire horror tale where the teller insists this happened to a friend or a cousin.)
It is, of course, very rare today to pretend, either with a wink or with any degree of seriousness, that your novel is anything but a novel. (No Frey jokes, please.) In fact, it seems far more common for readers to insist that a writer’s clearly defined fiction is in fact, a thinly veiled memoir or roman a clef. Especially in the genre of chick lit, where such high-profile books as The Nanny Diaries and The Devil Wears Prada seem to be just that.
I’ve seen and heard quite a bit of speculation about my own novel. I suppose I should feel flattered that the story is imbued with so much realism that people would think it was actually true. After all, that was the point. I wanted to write a book about secret societies the way they really are, and not the way that Hollywood often makes them out to be. But it’s fiction. If my depictions of a secret sociey’s rituals and behavior sound true, that’s no different than describing realistic police procedures in a mystery. My book is based not on my experience at Yale nor on the experience of any other person. It says so right on the copyright page
But it leads me to an interesting point. If, in fact, there has been a resurgence in FPPOV in novels, which I do not necessarily claim, can it be connected to the upsurge in emphasis that the market is putting on the author’s personal experience with the subject about which she writes? Many writers have told me that authors writing medical thrillers benefit from having a background in medicine, that authors writing from the point of view of a certain ethnicity will play up that ethnicity (to the point of changing their name to a more suitable, ethnic-sounding pseudonym), and that authors writing glamorous fiction had better have a little glamor going on in their bio. The first question an agent is asked upon shopping a piece of multicultural fiction is whether that author is indeed, a member of the culture.
Half of the marketing buzz about the uber-bestseller The Da Vinci Code seemed to center on how many of the novel’s statements were based in fact. (At a recent visit to the Louvre, my mother overheard a curator politely interrupting a “Da Vinci Code tour” to remind the visitors that a certain fact that the DVC tour guide was relating was, in fact, completely fictional, at which point one of the visitors snapped back that she knew all about the cover up, having read the book!)
So, have we returned to the early-novel sense that fiction should be, on some level, true? And is that why the veneer of first person, with it’s “this happened to me” conceit, so popular in the type of fiction (say, chick lit) where the sense of realism (this could happen to you or your best friend) is so important?
___________________________________
All this week, Diana will be discussing FPPOV.
October 16th, 2006 at 8:12 am
The more ‘real’ a book seems, the more I tend to enjoy it and get lost in it…assuming the writing is there of course. Nothing throws me out of a story more than when something goes too ‘over the top’ and I’m reminded that it’s ‘just a story’.
Plus the more ‘real’ it seems, the more fun it is to wonder how much is ‘fact’ and what is actually ‘fiction’.
I’m actually a fan of the first person stories that are somewhat memoir-like, where you feel that a good friend is dishing about what happened. That draws me into the story more. I sometimes have a hard time with first person stories when they seem unfocused and I wonder, ‘who is this person, and why is she telling this story?’ First person is tricky to do well I think. When it is done really well, I usually don’t even notice if it’s FP Present or Past.
[Reply]
October 16th, 2006 at 8:58 am
I found my voice writing in FFPOV. But I’ve heard many a gripe that FPPOV doesn’t pay enough attention to the hero in a romance. And that it makes the MC come across as self-absorbed.
[Reply]
October 16th, 2006 at 8:59 am
And that would be FPPOV, not FFPOV.
It’s Monday.
[Reply]
October 16th, 2006 at 9:04 am
Well, you’re writing paranormal, right? So maybe it’s “First Fairy Point of View…”
[Reply]
October 16th, 2006 at 9:23 am
D-My book is also written in FPPOV – I find it much easier to delve into the minds of the protagonist when writing this way. But, like you, I’ve had readers assume that the story is culled from my own life (or the life of my friend who battled breast cancer), when clearly, the book is a work of FICTION. Shrug. I think it’s just a slippery-slope for readers to think, “well, the story seems so true to life that it must be true to life.” And as you said on in your post, I’ll just take that as flattery.
[Reply]
October 16th, 2006 at 9:24 am
I’ve always written in 1st. In fact, I find 3rd awkward to write, and more difficult for me to critique, because I have little experience with it. I do read books in third, but I don’t study them.
I don’t write romance, so I can’t discuss whether or not 1st person narrative neglects the hero (nor do I really care about that, because I’m perfectly happy seeing the hero through the heroine’s eyes), but I can tell you that I much prefer to read stories in 1st person, because those make me feel like I really “know” the character. Every line in the book is her thought, so I don’t have to be content with the thoughts the author gives me.
Last year I heard (read on the internet) that 1st person was a hard sell, and that agents and editors hate it. That’s ridiculous. Obviously all agents and editors have personal preferences, but I never got a single complaint about my novel being told in 1st person.
That said, before anyone starts yelling at me, I’m not suggesting that all books should be written in 1st. I know better than that.
Great topic, by the way. And wonderful examples of “old-school” first person.
[Reply]
October 16th, 2006 at 9:53 am
Fairy or Furry will work.
And ditto what Rachel said.
[Reply]
October 16th, 2006 at 10:10 am
Fascinating post, Diana. I agree with Pam that the more ‘real’ a novel seems, the more fun it is to wonder how much is ‘fact’ and what is actually ‘fiction’. It’s that nosy, gossipy part of us wanting to peek into other authors’ lives.
I’ve written in both third person and first. For my YA fiction, I definitely prefer first, since it lets me play the part of my main character throughout the novel. I am essentially putting on that costume, along with all the emotions and thoughts. It’s playing make-believe, and it’s so cool that I still get to do that as an adult–and get paid for it, no less.
I like that you wrote SSG in first person. I’ve never been a girl like Amy myself, and so I enjoy being in her head and seeing what that’s like. Third person just wouldn’t give me that same experience.
[Reply]
October 16th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
can it be connected to the upsurge in emphasis that the market is putting on the author’s personal experience with the subject about which she writes?
Taking you for example… I’ve not once considered that your story is anything but fiction. But while Eli University is a fictitious setting, it is based off Yale which you have experienced personally as a student. Your own personal experience with Yale and the surrounding town lends a very realism to the setting of SSG (and even you admitted on a TV interview I believe that readers familiar with the area will “recognize” certain locations described in the book).
Is the market putting pressure on you because of your Ivy League experience? Or does it merely show because of the realism that comes through your writing by “writing what you know”? On the author blurb on your book jacket, whose decision was it to note that you were a Yale graduate (which I would assume is there to make you seem credible to write an “Ivy League Novel”).
In FPPOV, two people are telling the story, the author and the character whose point of view the story is in. With all the realism and background that an author brings to a story, I think it’s difficult for some readers to distinguish between the two story tellers.
And I think this “trend” that you’re discussing could very easily be linked to the trend of reality TV. With the masses craving the “sensational” drama, conflict and comedy of shows like “Survivor”, “Big Brother”, “Wife Swap” to name a very small few, perhaps that’s spilling over to their tastes in fiction. Or conversely, when reality is seeping into our entertainment on the boob-tube, perhaps it’s difficult for readers to not think that reality is seeping into novels.
When you first peeked in on my journal after I read your ARC, you made a comment about my writing out the full title in my post. By the way, it’s okay if you just want to call it Secret Society Girl. I do. The “Ivy League Novel” is how publishers love to tack on “a Novel” after everything, just in case you thought you were picking up a cookbook or a bird watching guide. So I’m wondering when this trend started, that so many book titles are using the phrase “a Novel” and if it’s in relation to the rest of this at all…
Sorry for the lengthy ramble…
[Reply]
October 16th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Ooh, Diana, your literary jargon makes my brain hurt…
I’m not a big fan of FPPOV in romances. probably because I’ve gotten used to, and enjoy, a 50/50 or 40/60 or whatever split between hero and heroine POV. I like knowing what’s going on in the guy’s head as he’s falling in love, but that’s me. I find it really annoying when an author writes a romance entirely in third person, but stays exclusively in the heroine’s head.
Personally, I think first person works really well in chick lit/women’s fiction because the voice of that character is as much a part of the story as the story itself. As a reader, you are experiencing her (or his) journey, through her eyes. It creates an intimacy that wouldn’t exist otherwise. God, i’m so rusty in my english lit analysis, but I’ll try to apply it to SSG. As a reader, I felt more invested in Amy’s journey, her happiness, etc, because FPPOV created the kind of girlfriends “oh my god, you won’t believe what happened to me” kind of relationship with me as a reader.
[Reply]
October 16th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
Annie, I think that’s a really great point, about the reality TV. I never thought about it that way, not being much of one for the trend.
And oh, yeah, ABSOLUTELY my bio plays a part in the marketing of the book. Just like people are more likely to “trust” a latina telling a story about latinas, I’m an insider telling this Ivy League story. It was a very wily move on my publisher’s part to put “Yale” in my bio (and in the radio ads, actually). i feel lucky there. What happens when I write something that doesn’t have anything to do with my experience? Hmmm….
As for “a novel” I think they’re just tyring to make clear to the reader that the book is NOT non-fiction. Compare with the 18th century trend of calling these newfangled novels “a true history” etc. It took a while for the idea of fiction to become acceptable, indeed, even desirable. For a while, Robinson Crusoe was presented as a memoir and even published in excerpt in newspapers as fact. that blows my modern mind, but then again, I lived through Freygate.
[Reply]
October 16th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Annie said,
“In FPPOV, two people are telling the story, the author and the character whose point of view the story is in. With all the realism and background that an author brings to a story, I think it’s difficult for some readers to distinguish between the two story tellers.”
For me, I don’t notice the author at all in FPPOV. But I do in a third person that is written poorly.
[Reply]
October 16th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
Jami, a few years ago, I was reading a lot of vintage category romances (violet winspear, betty neels, etc.) and they were almost solely told in TPPOV from the heroine’s point of view. In the end, there was always a big scene where the hero explained why he acted this way or that, and how he always loved her. It was a completely different way to have a romance. Much more like Austen or something — remember how many Austen’s, the heroine receives a letter from the hero, at long last, describing why he acts the way he does, how he feels, what’s REALLY going on? (In Emma I think Knightley actually speaks up and explains himself.)
Part of the fun of the women-only perspective, for me, is all the romantic speculation it engeders — and the huge payoff when he finally confirms that yes, indeed, it was because he loved her so!
You’re right. It’s a completely different style of romance. But the stories themselves were much more constrained. Lots more longing looks and the like. If the guy were SLEEPING with the woman, I’d need an explanation from his POV right up front, I think! LOL!
[Reply]
October 16th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
I currently write in 1st and 3rd POV, and my natural preference is 3rd. Various reasons, but mostly because I like to explore various POVs. Like Rachel, I don’t write romance, and when I do read romance, I do tend to gravitate to third person romances.
Do I think you need to live it before you write it? Nope. It might make it a bit easier to have lived it, but you know, there’s a little something called research.
I think realism is a matter of perspective. A cop might find it very easy to believe that your kid could get kidnapped. A little old lady who’s spent all her life in a relatively safe small town probably will find it difficult to believe that it’ll happen to her own grandkid.
[Reply]
October 16th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
But a cop might be less likely to believe that the kidnapping described in the story is realistic, whereas the little old lady might buy it. The cop might be inclined to buy it more if it was a story written by another cop, who “knows” what it’s like to investigate a murder.
And that’s where I think the market values experience in certain genres. The guidelines for certain medical romance lines even say they prefer writers with medical backgrounds! It’s an interesting phenomenon, to be sure.
[Reply]
October 16th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Insightful post!
Maybe the suggested return to FFPOV is also a reflection of our times. As a people, Americans are much more socially guarded than say…twenty years ago. Could it be that we’re searching in the literature we choose for the social intimacy that our wired-for-sound world lacks?
[Reply]
October 16th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
Liane, I was just thinking the opposite!
I noticed the resurgence of FPPOV with chick lit, after Bridget Jones. Since that start, it has seeped into regular romance and other kinds of romance-related fiction, or women’s fiction (I hate that term, but have yet to come up with a replacement).
I also read a lot of pop culture media–People, Time, Entertainment Weekly. Along with those, and many, many other print publications of various levels of class, we have TV shows of the same ilk. There is now even an E! TV channel, among others.
And THOSE bring a buddy-buddy sensibility, connecting regular readers and TV watchers and moviegoers with the stars who are actors, directors, writers, producers, and even casting directors (check out Chad Darnell’s blog and his comment trails, how many fans he has).
My rather rambling point is that the general public wants a RELATIONSHIP with those who are entertaining them. FPPOV gives that relationship. The reader is privileged to be part of the narrator’s inner circle, which is a whole different reading experience than BEING the characters.
I don’t think today’s wired world decreases intimacy, though. I think it increases it, and this is a manifestation of that.
[Reply]
October 16th, 2006 at 9:45 pm
Rachel, I hear you. I started out my career writing 3rd person, but then once I started writing in 1st person, it was like slipping on a comfy pair of sweats.
Now my 3rd person sounds awkward and stilted. Speaking of which, I miss Lee Child’s 1st person. He did a fabulous job of it, and his books don’t quite hold the same appeal to me since he switched to 3rd. I always wonder: did someone tell him to do it?
[Reply]
October 16th, 2008 at 8:42 am
[...] It’s not. You know who writes in first person? Melville, Nabokov, Twain, Poe, Faulkner. You want older? Fine. Dante. Are these guys hacks? Amateurs? Chick lit writers? Recent? This argument bugs me to no end. All it does is reveal the ignorance of the person making it. What really bothers me is when it is writing teachers supposedly telling students this crap. WTF, guys? You can prefer a different POV, but don’t act like it just popped out of nowhere. [...]