I've been blogging about literary writing. One of the first things a writer must choose when writing is what perspective to use when writing the book. There are many advantages and disadvantages to each kind of perspective. Third-person tends to be distant, though it doesn't have to be. Third-person omniscient, wherein the narrator knows everything about everyone and can show the thoughts of many parties, is an older approach and tends to be less common than it once was. Third-person limited is more personal, like first-person, but speaks from outside the main character's head with his/theirs/hers. This is one of the most common kinds of writing. First-person is a more intimate kind of writing, writing from the point of view of the main character(s). Everything is written in I/me/us/we. Second-person is somewhat rarer unless one is writing instructions. The writing speaks directly to the reader with you and your. This can work with fiction or poetry, but it takes a careful hand and isn't that common. Before one starts to write, one must choose one's approach because it doesn't work to hop between perspectives.
Third-person omniscient is one perspective, and this was once the most popular kind of storytelling. If one character's perspective isn't enough to share the full story, many heads can be used. Fairy tales and folktales as well as many classics were written in this form. The reader has the advantage of seeing all pertinent events from several perspectives. The reader can listen in on several people's heads in one scene, hopping back and forth to learn everyone's thoughts. When not handled with finesse, this method of writing holds no mysteries. If you're hopping back and forth between the main two leads in a romance, the reader knows all the time what everyone is thinking and feeling, so there's little tension. Hopping heads several times in a scene can get confusing for the reader, especially the young reader. It's often best to spend at least a scene with one character, so the writer can hold the reader in suspense for a short time. Spy thrillers, action stories, sci fi, horror, and similar books can work really well from this perspective. Timothy Zahn books often use this perspective successfully, including with his Star Wars books.
There are benefits and drawbacks to the third-person omniscient perspective. There's a distance in this perspective that many modern readers don't love. Sometimes, in seeing all, the reader feels less. Yes, you hear a little about a lot of characters but less about just one. A perk of third-person omniscience is that the reader knows many things the characters don't, so the reader can use this to build dramatic irony, which is suspense based on the reader knowing something the reader doesn't. Dramatic irony can be used for horror, humor, or any number of other styles. Many classic works make this work; however, many writers have moved away from this omniscience of the narrator in favor of a more intimate kind of writing.
First-person tends to stick to one head and explore the world and story from just one point of view. The writer dives deeply into that person's head and heart as in Twilight, Percy Jackson, and a large percentage of romance novels. Some successful stories tell a first-person story from two or more perspectives. Romance novels will often bounce back and forth between the two romantic leads, usually switching between heads every section or chapter. Rick Riordan's Heroes of Olympus series, for instance, spends chapters with each of five main characters. The more perspectives, the more chances the reader has to be confused. Each perspectival shift needs to be clearly labeled. It needs to be clear who the "I" in the text is for each chapter.
There are challenges but also unique opportunities to writing in first-person perspective. For one thing, first person can be limiting because everything has to be told from one character's perspective. If the writer is describing what's in ANYONE else's head, it has to be a judgment based on appearances or insights. If you're in Mom's head, you can't suddenly jump to a view of how Dad views the world. It's okay to say, "I stared and dad as he shrugged, showing he had no idea." It doesn't work to say, "I stood there, looking at Dad. He didn't understand why." That's a head-hop and doesn't work in first-person perspective. Furthermore, it can be hard to describe the protagonist's appearance and the reality of the story if it's different from what the protagonist perceives.
Many writers use first-person to give the reader an honest view of the story, the characters, and the events. However, this is a great perspective for presenting an unreliable narrator, a narrator who cannot be trusted. It can be tricky to make the difference between the main character's perceptions and the reality of the story clear. If you want to try it, you'll want to research and read books with unreliable narrators. A lot of solid literary works have been based on that questionable gap between the truth and the questionable perspective of one character. In the doubt, a lot of meaning can be born. One way or another, first-person perspective can bring in an intimacy and personal touch other perspectives may lack.
A lot of writers and readers are drawn to third-person limited. It has the advantage of intimacy, zooming in on one character's perspective to an intensive degree, like first person. For instance, the Harry Potter uses this perspective. If the reader learns about things external to Harry Potter's immediate vicinity only through dreams and similar experiences. It also has the advantage of flexibility, meaning one can focus one more than one character but do a deep dive in each. There's a bit of a distance, but it should remain in the eyes of the character featured in that book, chapter, or section. Once again, head-hopping can get disorienting to the reader, especially the young reader.
There are other kinds of perspectives, but they're more rare. There are second-person perspective stories that walk the reader through what is happening, but that takes a very very careful hand to pull off and isn't common at all. Also rare is the kind of perspective featured in "A Rose for Emily" in which the main character is part of a chorus, a chorus of "we" and has nothing to do with the actual thoughts, feelings, or actions of one character. It's a more observatory approach. I've also read a book or two in which the third-person narrator slowly goes mad over the course of the story, Ever After High book 3 by Shannon Hale. The narrator went from reliable and omniscient to thoroughly unreliable. A character within the book took over at that point as the first-person narrator. In other words, it's possible to start with one perspective and switch, but it's not often done.
Perspective dictates the reader's experience with the events of your story. The very same events can feel very differently if you're observing through the eyes of a kid vs. the eyes of an adult vs. the eyes of a distant, third-person narrator. One can choose a perspectival approach and switch it, but it's easier to choose which perspective works for your story, start there, and stay there. It's helpful to read what you plan to write and figure out how it's done then go with it. Does the perspective you are using work for your story? If not, is there another that can work?
