I wasn't sure what category this fit into, so if I posted in the wrong place, apologies.

This is quite simple, really. The rudimentary elements of a new fantasy series are beginning to take shape in my head, but alas, the plot is snagging on the main character.

My problem is this: I want to write a long, epic series, spanning more than 5 books. I've already done some basic outlining for the first book, and as I have it, the life of the MC plays a vital role in the plot, so much so that I'm considering dedicating the second book to going back and explaining his story more fully. Anyway, I wanted to write this in 1st person, because that's the best way to convey his inner turmoil. However, 1st person is restricting in terms of the plot's scope and the narration, since nothing can take place outside of the character's knowledge.

Taking into account the range of my series, I'm having a difficult time deciding whether or not to use 1st person at least for book 1. Will it seem strange to read a book entirely from one POV and then swtich to multiple POV's in the other books, which include the MC as well? Or would it be strange to write the entire series from the MC's POV, which limits what I can cover?

I have 3 options:

1. Write book 1 (and likely book 2), from MC's POV, and shift later books to 3rd person.
2. No 1st person.
3. All 1st person.

Any comments, from both a writer's and reader's standpoint, would be most welcome and helpful.

Note that which "person" you write in is orthogonal to---not necessarily tied to---whose POV you write from. For example, if you write in the third person I strongly recommend that you pick one character's "head" to "inhabit" for each scene (and preferably no more than a handful in each story), and stick to his or her point-of-view for the duration of that scene, describing things and events as he or she perceives them ... essentially using his or her perception as the lens through which you focus the reader's perception, in contrast to first person where the character's perception functions as the camera. This is only slightly less limiting than writing in the first person (since you're still writing from a character's point of view), but it's much less jarring to switch whose POV you're writing from (so long as you don't try to switch mid-scene, and clearly establish whose POV we're in at the beginning of every scene).

From a readers point of view: I always get impatient whenever the view switches to someone besides the MC, especially if the other character is a bad guy. It drove me crazy during Red Wall, but maybe that's just me.

If you did switch POV, my recommendation would be to create another likable character, with his/her own sub-plot that runs through out the book(s), so it's not just about gaining information. (This may already be what your thinking.)

Even in third person you can still get inside people's head, but if you think it would make a big difference and add a lot to the character to do it in first person, I say go for it!

I don't really think you should switch from first to third mid series. I think I would get attached to the first person and be sad to see it go.

Hope this helps.

Writing the whole series in first person could be fine, if you can manage to effectively tell an epic fantasy story that way. There is also an unconventional method that some writers use: Writing the main protagonist in first person, and all the other characters in third person.

That has been my approach for all my books thus far.


I think I get that. And I agree that it's less jarring using the method you described. My thought was more in consideration of the entire series. So, for example, if I write books 1 and 2 entirely in MC's 1st person POV, would it be acceptable to write the remainder of the series in 3rd person, which would include MC?


I do switch a number of times within a book, but not nearly to the extent that Redwall did. In any given book, I'm usually juggling between 3 and 5 various places, each with their own POV.


I hadn't given that approach much thought, but it's a suggestion I'll definitely consider.


The thinking behind 1st person was the use of personal pronouns such as I and me. Having the MC talk in that fashion, instead of using their name in 3rd person, to me anyway, gives the chance to delve more deeply into their thoughts and make their experiences more personal. There's a distinct difference between saying so-and-so is horrified and I'm horrified, especially if the character has inner turmoil you want to stress. At least that's how I view it.


That was the question I wanted answered most. However, would switching to 3rd person but still including the MC from that new POV be all right?


That was my fear: being able to create a series with a huge scope while being restricted to one person's head for the entire journey. That seems almost impossible.


Like I said above, It's more about using 1st person in 1 or 2 books and then switching to third for the rest.

Thanks for all the input, guys (and girl ).

As we've seen already in this thread, some readers would find it jarring or be otherwise displeased, and some readers wouldn't care---personally, having seen third-person limited done so well, I tend to (when I notice the "person" at all) see first person as "the easy way out" (except for books where the author is using the narrator's diction and dialect as characterization)..


In my experience, if you're writing well enough for us to really get "into" the character, the only advantage first person provides is the use of voice for characterization.

If you wrote either of those, any critique partner worth her salt would circle that in red ink and tell you, "Show, don't tell." But even aside from that (I understand that you want demonstrative examples to be concise), how effective either form is depends entirely on how well you've built up to it over the course of the story so far.


You could have some parts told as letters to your main character, or some such. (Writing from only a single POV, possibly plus documents and such he or she reads, would be good practice if nothing else.)


Wince. It's bad enough when Modessit's Recluce series has some characters' sections told in the present tense and some in the past tense ...

Okay. Thanks for all that, kingjon. You've given me plenty to think about.


An excellent idea in moderation. But with the vast amounts of information I'd have to impart, it would become redundant after awhile.


Could you give any examples?

Part of the purpose of such an exercise would be to show how much of this information actually has to be shown "on stage," let alone more than once. Yes, for the kinds of stories we want to tell it's too limiting to keep up for long, but it's a useful exercise to help learn to control the opposite extreme. Much like limiting ourselves to a sixth-grade reading level would be for me.


Lois McMaster Bujold is one excellent example. Robert Jordan (i.e. the Wheel of Time series) is, I think, at least fairly good too. It's hard to think of examples of this being done well, because one of their hallmarks is that you don't notice when it's being done well. For examples of other formats being done well, I recommend Patricia Wrede's recent trilogy (starting with The Thirteenth Child---told in the first person) and her collaborations with Caroline Stevermer (Sorcery and Cecelia: or, The Enchanted Chocolate Pot is the first---told entirely through letters).

You could do it. It's not so much that I would miss the MC, but I feel the transition could potentially disrupt the flow between books because the styles are so different, and could therefore come as a shock to readers.

Of course, you could overcome this by effective writing. Maybe you've reached the climax and resolution of the MC's inner turmoil, and a new, broader plot is escalating. This might make the first books seem like a prequel, but it wouldn't feel so abrupt. There are probably other things you can think of to get around this, having written a ton more than me.

Before you get started, you might try reading a couple 3rd person limited books that have good man-vs-himself conflict and try to learn how feasible that is to write.

If you've written well, then by the end of your first book, I adore your MC and want to know all about him.

Switching to other people's heads could be a problem.

However...if the story is kept VERY MUCH focused on your MC, I would be inclined to forgive you since variety IS the spice of life.

Thanks for all the great comments, guys. I really appreciate them, and you've given me some ideas I'll have to consider.


That was my chief fear.


Good points and suggestions that I'll keep in mind.


Okay. That seems to be the general sentiment. The hard part will be deciding which option.


I figured, but I wanted to get other opinions.


The first two books would be pretty much devoted to the MC, but not so much after that.

Jeff Gerke used it in one of his books.