What are the advantages and disadvantages of writing in first person and third person?

Well, the first person limits you in what you can say about other characters; you can't "get inside their heads." You can describe only what you see.

But, the first person gives a much more "personal feel" to a story, making it easier for the reader to identify with the protagonist.

"A writer's choice of narrator is crucial for the way a work of fiction is perceived by the reader. Generally, a first-person narrator brings greater focus on the feelings, opinions, and perceptions of a particular character in a story, and on how that character views the world and the views of other characters. If the writer's intention is to get inside the world of a character, then it is a good choice, although a third-person limited narrator is an alternative that doesn't require the writer to reveal all that a first-person character would know."

There are actually two third person narrations: limited and omniscient.

"The third person limited omniscient is a narrative mode. In this mode, the reader and writer observe the situation from the outside through the senses and thoughts of a single character, although that focal character may shift throughout the course of any given narrative. Furthermore, there is no implied fictional intermediary between the reader and the story, as there would be in the case of a fictional newspaper article with an implied fictional reporter.

Although first person fictional narratives are popular as well, the third person is seen as the current preferred voice in fiction, with the prominent exception of most detective and some police procedural novels.

While an omniscient point of view can change viewpoint characters instantly, the limited omniscient point of view narrative limits narration to what can be known, seen, thought, or judged from a single character's perspective. Thus, the narration is limited in the same way a first person narrative might be, but the text is in third person."

By contrast, a third-person omniscient narrator gives a panoramic view of the world of the story, looking into many characters and into the broader background of a story. For stories in which the context and the views of many characters are important, a third-person narrator is a better choice.

First person writing always has an intimate feel to me. It allows the reader to really get inside the head of the character though it is imperative to have an interesting character for the reader to invest in.

Third person can be difficult, too. Some writers go inside the head of every single character and that can get confusing.

I think when you sit down to write a story, you'll feel what comes easiest. You can experiment, of course, and then you'll find what comes most naturally. The best thing is to write the character in the way that flows the easiest. This, I find, varies from story to story.

the advantage of writing in a first person is that the reader can place himself in the shoes of the main character. seeing "i" in the story, makes the reader feel that he or she is the one in the story. the disadvantage for the writer is keeping the first person story consistent. there would be instances that the writer might shift to a third person. the writer should be conscious of that. :D

I prefer to write in the first person rather than the second or third person. I can generally word it better and be more adventurous as if I am living the part.

Try both and see which suits you the best.

in first person, you can give a bigger description of the characters feelings and wants and needs...its exclusively his/her feelings about things. so that's good, but on the other hand, you can't legitimately describe what another character is feeling or thinking, but that can be good in a way, because it allows the readers to use their imagination. and its more challenging on the writer's part. 3rd person allows you describe the situation, different characters, and various subplots, but this can get confusing, and messy. stick to what you like. I've gotten comfortable with 3rd person, but try both ways. both have their ups and downs

Only write in first person if you can do so without being annoying. And I only know a few authors who can pull it off.

I myself prefer third person: you can show everything more objectively but still be personal. Instead of saying, "I thought he was a jerk, " you can say, "She cursed him secretly with every curse word known to man. She wished to spit on his face, dance on his grave, and call his mother an Albanian prostitute. She would have her revenge."

All in all, I believe that it's simply more mature to write in third person. You can jump from character to character and show what they are feeling. You can relate an event that your main character might not know about. You can allow the readers to see more, to feel more. You're not trapping them in one body for the entirety of your story.

When you for instance write in the 1. person, the I-person is the narrator, involved in whar he og she is telling. This makes it more personal, subjective: ! went and saw a film to-day? Makes a more lively and involved impression. 2. person is the one the I is talking to: And do you know what: the film was dull and boring. 3. person is the one that is talked about, impersonal, distancing and objective: Good films arn't simply made anmore.

Hemingway said,

"Anybody can write in the first person; but it takes a real writer to write in the third person."

Well, writing in first person might be easier because you can pretend the character/person speaking in first person is you. it's more personal, i guess. but writing in third person you're just saying "he" or "she" so it's no big deal. when reading a book, to me they're both simple to understand. but i personally prefer writing in third.

It's not up to you to decide which person to write in, the story will let you know.

Thomas