First person vs Third Person?

If your story is about a person's deeply felt emotional experiences and how they grew or changed because of that, then the first person is a good choice because you can describe it all "from inside" that character. But this also means you can't be particularly objective about those emotions and experiences, which is one of the benefits of third person.

It also depends on the plot. Do you want the reader to be aware of things that the central character is unaware of? If so, then you can't really use the first person because the whole story is told from their point of view and this rules out the unknown. There are exceptions to this, e.g. if the narrative allows the reader to infer things the character is not saying and is not aware of because they lack self-awareness or aren't very observant. That kind of narrative is very difficult to pull off, but when it works it can be very good, e.g. "Notes On A Scandal" by Zoe Heller, where the reader slowly begins to understand that the narrator, Barbara, is delusional and dangerous and seriously implicated in the events she claims to be narrating objectively.

A nice compromise is "free indirect", where you write in the third person, but then sometimes describe things from a particular character's point of view. You can move in and out of any character's consciousness as required. Some sentences are written from the point of view of the third-person narrator, others from the first-person perspective of the character feeling the emotions. It's used a great deal in romantic fiction because it really propels the reader into the character's state of mind. Here's a link with a description and some examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_indirect_speech

Any narrative can be presented in the first person or the third-person omniscient. The obvious limitation of the first-person is that the narrator is restricted to his or her own observations and interpetations, and therefore the reader is, too. Moreover, the reader cannot be sure whether the narrator is reliable, which can create some interesting reader experiences -- the reader may have to work a bit harder and engage in more critical/analytical thinking.

Young writers with limited skills may actually be better off with first-person narrative, because they are not experienced with creating a variety of plausible characters, of a variety of ages, backgrounds, and points-of-view. They may also have trouble with the structural complications presented by third-person omniscient -- how to move smoothly and plausibly from one character's point-of-view to another's.

The downside of a young, inexperienced writer's use of first-person is that the writer is usually using the narrator as his or her alter ago, and this can interfere with the ability to develop a full, three-dimensional story that any reader really wants to bother to read.

New writers really should take classes in which they can get some serious professional criticism and feedback and perhaps join writer's groups for the same reason. Doing this will let them know whether first-person works for them or whether third-person omniscient would be best, and what they can do to improve whatever approach they choose to take.

It depends on the type of story. For me, personally, I write in third person when the character is a male (because I'm female and it's the rare person who can write believably in the gender they are not) or if it's a big story where I want the camera to shift between a few people. I'll write in person if the main character is female only sometimes, because I still like to get more than one point of view and it can be annoying to listen to someone yap about themselves for 200 pages. The "I did this" and "I thought that" and "This happened to me" can sound self-absorbed.

The first person works well in detective stories, though. And Harper Lee did a brilliant job in To Kill a Mockingbird. I also loved Bone Boatwright's narration in Bastard out of Carolina. But some characters (ahem - Cathy Dollanganger - ahem) are painful to listen to after awhile.

But yeah, it depends on the story. And do what you feel is right.

Good luck. :)

The limitations of first person are that you only show one point of view. The omniscient voice gives you the opportunity to develop conflict between characters - if that's essential to your story, you will probably find third person an easier way to do it.

The main liimitation of the third person voice is that it doesn't have the immediacy or the urgency of first person, which should, if done properly, drag the reader right into the thick of the action.

I started out using third person limited omniscient, focusing the story on my main character- this made it easier to keep track of my other characters- but i found that I actually preferred first person, because i could expand more on thoughts, ideas, and reactions. my main character was extremely sarcastic, and with third person limited, i couldn't really elaborate on that as much as i could in first- because most of her thoughts were sarcastic and cold at times.

Just try writing a piece of your story with third person limited, and then switch to first, and see which one comes easier to you. if you don't know at first, just keep writing. it took me two years to realize that i liked first person better, so don't rush it.

Hope this helps!

I quite like novels written from the narrator's perspective. A third person story can seem quite distant to you personally but a first person perspective can bring you closer to the character as you are inside their head. My favourite books written in first person are the Thursday Next series by Jasper Fforde. In one, "Something Rotten", the first person changes to another character as the main character is in the coma. This is quite effective as you suddenly see the sheer horror of what has happened to the storyteller. (She was shot in this case)

1

first person really allows you to express your opinion better than third person.