Omega124
Challenging Fate
So for an assignment in my modern world seminar (I'm avoiding doing a second assignment I really don't want to do by writing this, in fact), we had to read this novella called A Small Place. Now, I'm not going to get into the details with the class and the messages that the professor and the author of this novella both try to convey. That is beyond the scope of this thread. What I want to do, is focus on the convention of 2nd Person Narration, and why I find (most) usage of it extremely problematic.
For those unaware, there are three major perspectives of narration within both fiction and nonfiction. They are, in order, first, second, and third person narration. They are technically defined over the choice of pronouns that use within the narration of the text, whether it be I, you, or he/she. The choice of narrative perspective often plays into the choice of pronouns used. For example, 1st Person Narration generally involves making the narrator a character within the story, and have the narration be partial to the thoughts, emotions, and perspective of the character. Usually the narrative focus is the protagonist, but that's not always the case (Moby Dick uses a first person narrator, but Ishmael is at best the secondary protagonist, and tbh is more of a secondary character in general. Captain Ahab is the true protagonist of the story, and there's even other characters, not to mention Moby Dick himself, that are more narratively important). First Person is great for giving viewers a more personal account of the story, and to identify with the protagonist (or narrative focus) in a way that the other forms of narration simply can not perform (If you're interested in that topic, there is a thread on OT here that discusses the topic of identification of characters)
Third Person, which is probably the most common narration style of them all, is usually defined by having an omnipresent, impartial narrator that does not appear in the confines of the story. This narrator does not give the same personable experiences as knowing the direct thoughts and emotions of an individual character as told by them, but allows for a greater understanding of the world on a more objective level. Personally, it's the style I use when I write; I can respect first person but its not for me.
2nd Person, the focus on this thread, is like first person in that the narrator is a character within the story. The catch is, the protagonist of the story is supposed to be the reader themselves, rather than a defined character in the 1st person. 2nd person tends to use "you" and "yours" a lot, and focuses on the primary experiences of what is essentially an audience insert into the narrative. The supposed benefit is that high quality 2nd person narration brings the viewer into the story in a way that the other two forms simply could never. After all, you are in the story itself! The caveat is just that: high quality
Unless you are a master wordsmith, you can not pull 2nd Narration off.*
I have seen way too many authors, both forum users here on the Internet and in actual published works, and time and time again it does nothing but pull me out of the story, and just honestly makes me think the author is a pretensions bag of female hygiene that doesn't know how to write. Writing in 2nd Person requires a completely different skillset than writing in the other two forms, and there is a big, but often ignored, reason for why 2nd narration tends to fall flat.
When it comes to first person, despite the usage of the "I" pronoun, we can tell that the character in the story is a unique person with their own thoughts and emotions. While we may identify with the character narrating or not, we can at least visualize that there is a difference between the character and ourselves. In a way, it's not unlike a friend recounting a story of their own lives to you. They will tell their story using the "I" pronoun, maybe even tell you how something made them feel, but you know there is a clear differentiation between what you are and would do, and who they are and what they would do.
2nd Person throws that distinction out the window. When the reader is the main character of the story, then maintaining a suspension of disbelief in the narrator's actions and emotions is paramount in keeping the reader engaged. If there is something about the protagonist which contradicts how we know of ourselves, then we are instantly thrown out of our suspension in a very unsettling dissonance.
Don't believe me? Here is a small excerpt of the second and third page of A Small Place, which should illustrate my point:
(Yes, that was one unbroken paragraph, which still continued past that. But I digress)
Firstly, I must make aware this specific story is made with a very specific political point in mind. She wanted to write a semi-fictional account of a tourist visiting her homeland of Antigua so she can demonstrate the poverty of the island and make her claim that tourism is a form of neo-imperialism that continues to exploit the poor. Again, I'm not going to get into the claims of her argument, but instead talk about how using 2nd person was a terrible way to express her views.
The biggest problem is kind of obvious. Since she wants to make the argument that tourism is a form of neo-imperialism, she has to make the tourist character have specific traits. Notice that she affirms that the tourist comes from North America (it's quite clear that she specifically means American, but for reasons of suspension of disbelief of non-American readers can't outright say that), with the side note accepting a European background before further clarifying that she means white.
Giving definitive traits to a 2nd person narrator, especially demographical ones like race, nationality, gender, etc, is TERRIBLE in maintaining that suspension of disbelief for many audience members. After all, not all North American and Europeans are white (African/Asian Americans and indigenous people for NA, Algerians in France, Turks in Germany, etc), and not all white people are North American or European (Australians, New Zealanders, Boers, etc). Not to mention, there is the possibility of readers not hailing from these regions, also not being white bu still wealthy enough to be common tourists, like Chinese, Indian, Japanese, etc. In one fell swoop, she completely removed them from this story. The "yous" are meaningless; they no longer accurately identify those readers and they can safely ignore the rest of the story since it no longer applies to them. Especially since the point of this novella is to make a political point, deincentivizing your readers from identifying with the main character or even continuing to read kills the point that the author was trying to make.
Another problem is trying to give this second person narrative character a definitive personality. Now, it should be obvious again that the author has a very low opinion of tourists, so she tries to make the tourist character very pretentious and full of themselves because that's how she sees us (notice the very exaggerated, and very airheaded dialogue and thoughts the tourist has in that excerpt). The issue is, readers do not have the same low opinion of themselves that the author has. Making the main character an idiot in a 2nd Person Narrative is an insult to the reader themselves, and it will pull them out of the story. After all, who the hell even thinks like that? "Oh, what a marvellous change these bad roads are from the splendid highways I am used to in North America." There is so many things wrong, from the pretentious word choice, to the pretentious thought itself (I'm so tired of paved roads; these dirt roads are sooooooooooo liberating), that no person in their right mind would ever consider themselves this tourist. Any audience the author had left after dismissing them due to race is lost after she dismisses them as idiots.
The thing that kills me is that the tourist character itself is actually largely integral to the point she's making. She needs a pretentious airhead to help illustrate why what we'd consider a begin, if not helpful (we're funneling money into their local economy!) actually hurts her community in the long run. The character themself is not the problem. If she simply wrote this in a first person perspective, she could have her caricature make her point, and not lose nearly as much audience as she would have writing in second person**.
That's the fundamental issue with 2nd Person. You have to write a main character that intentionally has as little characterization as possible, since the reader will fill in their own with how they know themselves. This practically necessitates forgoing a traditional character arc as well, since it requires being able to demonstrate a change characterization. Not to say that you can't write a story with an intentionally bland protagonist and limiting character arcs to secondary characters (or even not having them at all!), but that requires a lot of practice and skill that most writers simply do not have.
It's cool to want to buck standard story conventions to express a more unique and memorable story. I understand the mentality completely; having your story stand out in the sea of fiction is great to grab attention and even leave a legacy for your own work. However, we developed a conventional way to write stories for a reason; we have found that over the six millennia of literary tradition, that these certain conventions tend to lead to more effective stories. Going against the grain is certainly possible, but its hard, and you need to know what the hell you're actually doing. Elsewise, your story is going to be bad, after failing to heed my advice, you should feel bad.
*Yes, I am fully aware that sentence is in 2nd person. Some anvils need to be dropped.
**Let's face it, though. Making your main character a negative stereotype of an entire nation is probably going to make you lose members of that community either way. But at least a first person tourist would allow the reader to differnate this obnoxious tourist from themselves.
For those unaware, there are three major perspectives of narration within both fiction and nonfiction. They are, in order, first, second, and third person narration. They are technically defined over the choice of pronouns that use within the narration of the text, whether it be I, you, or he/she. The choice of narrative perspective often plays into the choice of pronouns used. For example, 1st Person Narration generally involves making the narrator a character within the story, and have the narration be partial to the thoughts, emotions, and perspective of the character. Usually the narrative focus is the protagonist, but that's not always the case (Moby Dick uses a first person narrator, but Ishmael is at best the secondary protagonist, and tbh is more of a secondary character in general. Captain Ahab is the true protagonist of the story, and there's even other characters, not to mention Moby Dick himself, that are more narratively important). First Person is great for giving viewers a more personal account of the story, and to identify with the protagonist (or narrative focus) in a way that the other forms of narration simply can not perform (If you're interested in that topic, there is a thread on OT here that discusses the topic of identification of characters)
Third Person, which is probably the most common narration style of them all, is usually defined by having an omnipresent, impartial narrator that does not appear in the confines of the story. This narrator does not give the same personable experiences as knowing the direct thoughts and emotions of an individual character as told by them, but allows for a greater understanding of the world on a more objective level. Personally, it's the style I use when I write; I can respect first person but its not for me.
2nd Person, the focus on this thread, is like first person in that the narrator is a character within the story. The catch is, the protagonist of the story is supposed to be the reader themselves, rather than a defined character in the 1st person. 2nd person tends to use "you" and "yours" a lot, and focuses on the primary experiences of what is essentially an audience insert into the narrative. The supposed benefit is that high quality 2nd person narration brings the viewer into the story in a way that the other two forms simply could never. After all, you are in the story itself! The caveat is just that: high quality
Unless you are a master wordsmith, you can not pull 2nd Narration off.*
I have seen way too many authors, both forum users here on the Internet and in actual published works, and time and time again it does nothing but pull me out of the story, and just honestly makes me think the author is a pretensions bag of female hygiene that doesn't know how to write. Writing in 2nd Person requires a completely different skillset than writing in the other two forms, and there is a big, but often ignored, reason for why 2nd narration tends to fall flat.
When it comes to first person, despite the usage of the "I" pronoun, we can tell that the character in the story is a unique person with their own thoughts and emotions. While we may identify with the character narrating or not, we can at least visualize that there is a difference between the character and ourselves. In a way, it's not unlike a friend recounting a story of their own lives to you. They will tell their story using the "I" pronoun, maybe even tell you how something made them feel, but you know there is a clear differentiation between what you are and would do, and who they are and what they would do.
2nd Person throws that distinction out the window. When the reader is the main character of the story, then maintaining a suspension of disbelief in the narrator's actions and emotions is paramount in keeping the reader engaged. If there is something about the protagonist which contradicts how we know of ourselves, then we are instantly thrown out of our suspension in a very unsettling dissonance.
Don't believe me? Here is a small excerpt of the second and third page of A Small Place, which should illustrate my point:
(Yes, that was one unbroken paragraph, which still continued past that. But I digress)
Firstly, I must make aware this specific story is made with a very specific political point in mind. She wanted to write a semi-fictional account of a tourist visiting her homeland of Antigua so she can demonstrate the poverty of the island and make her claim that tourism is a form of neo-imperialism that continues to exploit the poor. Again, I'm not going to get into the claims of her argument, but instead talk about how using 2nd person was a terrible way to express her views.
The biggest problem is kind of obvious. Since she wants to make the argument that tourism is a form of neo-imperialism, she has to make the tourist character have specific traits. Notice that she affirms that the tourist comes from North America (it's quite clear that she specifically means American, but for reasons of suspension of disbelief of non-American readers can't outright say that), with the side note accepting a European background before further clarifying that she means white.
Giving definitive traits to a 2nd person narrator, especially demographical ones like race, nationality, gender, etc, is TERRIBLE in maintaining that suspension of disbelief for many audience members. After all, not all North American and Europeans are white (African/Asian Americans and indigenous people for NA, Algerians in France, Turks in Germany, etc), and not all white people are North American or European (Australians, New Zealanders, Boers, etc). Not to mention, there is the possibility of readers not hailing from these regions, also not being white bu still wealthy enough to be common tourists, like Chinese, Indian, Japanese, etc. In one fell swoop, she completely removed them from this story. The "yous" are meaningless; they no longer accurately identify those readers and they can safely ignore the rest of the story since it no longer applies to them. Especially since the point of this novella is to make a political point, deincentivizing your readers from identifying with the main character or even continuing to read kills the point that the author was trying to make.
Another problem is trying to give this second person narrative character a definitive personality. Now, it should be obvious again that the author has a very low opinion of tourists, so she tries to make the tourist character very pretentious and full of themselves because that's how she sees us (notice the very exaggerated, and very airheaded dialogue and thoughts the tourist has in that excerpt). The issue is, readers do not have the same low opinion of themselves that the author has. Making the main character an idiot in a 2nd Person Narrative is an insult to the reader themselves, and it will pull them out of the story. After all, who the hell even thinks like that? "Oh, what a marvellous change these bad roads are from the splendid highways I am used to in North America." There is so many things wrong, from the pretentious word choice, to the pretentious thought itself (I'm so tired of paved roads; these dirt roads are sooooooooooo liberating), that no person in their right mind would ever consider themselves this tourist. Any audience the author had left after dismissing them due to race is lost after she dismisses them as idiots.
The thing that kills me is that the tourist character itself is actually largely integral to the point she's making. She needs a pretentious airhead to help illustrate why what we'd consider a begin, if not helpful (we're funneling money into their local economy!) actually hurts her community in the long run. The character themself is not the problem. If she simply wrote this in a first person perspective, she could have her caricature make her point, and not lose nearly as much audience as she would have writing in second person**.
That's the fundamental issue with 2nd Person. You have to write a main character that intentionally has as little characterization as possible, since the reader will fill in their own with how they know themselves. This practically necessitates forgoing a traditional character arc as well, since it requires being able to demonstrate a change characterization. Not to say that you can't write a story with an intentionally bland protagonist and limiting character arcs to secondary characters (or even not having them at all!), but that requires a lot of practice and skill that most writers simply do not have.
It's cool to want to buck standard story conventions to express a more unique and memorable story. I understand the mentality completely; having your story stand out in the sea of fiction is great to grab attention and even leave a legacy for your own work. However, we developed a conventional way to write stories for a reason; we have found that over the six millennia of literary tradition, that these certain conventions tend to lead to more effective stories. Going against the grain is certainly possible, but its hard, and you need to know what the hell you're actually doing. Elsewise, your story is going to be bad, after failing to heed my advice, you should feel bad.
*Yes, I am fully aware that sentence is in 2nd person. Some anvils need to be dropped.
**Let's face it, though. Making your main character a negative stereotype of an entire nation is probably going to make you lose members of that community either way. But at least a first person tourist would allow the reader to differnate this obnoxious tourist from themselves.
Some of my longer NaNoWriMo projects involve novelizing these FF gamebooks (as fanfic, as I'm well aware that I can't actually publish these stories). I'm writing them from the 3rd person pov so far, although it might be interesting to try a 1st person pov at some point.
