Two 1st person narrators?

[CdnWriter]

Is it possible, allowed, advisable (you pick!) to have two different first person narrators in a novel?

For example, can you have a detective chapter where it's first person, AND a killer chapter where it's 1st person? The detective and the killer are NOT the same person. For example:

Chapter One
The detective: I entered the apartment cautiously, being careful where I stepped so as not to disturb the scene more than necessary. This wasn't the initial apartment I had planned to search but as I headed towards my destination I saw shadows flicker from underneath the door of the apartment I was about to pass and heard the sound of a chair (?) being slid on the floor. The building was condemned. There shouldn't have been anyone in the building. I tried the door and finding it unlocked...

Chapter Two
The killer: I cursed myself. I had lingered too long and needed to find a hiding spot. The apartment a few doors down was perfect, the door was slightly ajar, affording me easy access to the unit and I slid into it unnoticed, looking for an escape route or better yet, a hiding spot. Unfortunately, the approaching figure was fitter than the average homicide detective and had made his way to this floor faster than I anticipated.

I'm sure someone, somewhere has done this, but I can't for the life of me remember a story where I have read this!

I assume the main thing to do is to make sure the reader knows there are two different people talking in the novel and not one person so they don't get confused when the "same" person starts exchanging gunfire with himself....lol.

 

[X Equestris]

Is it possible, allowed, advisable (you pick!) to have two different first person narrators in a novel?

Possible and “allowed”, sure. I’ve seen it done. Advisable? I don’t know there. There’s a serious risk of confusion and not a lot of advantages over Deep 3rd Person, which is a lot easier to switch POV characters with.

I assume the main thing to do is to make sure the reader knows there are two different people talking in the novel and not one person so they don't get confused when the "same" person starts exchanging gunfire with himself....lol.

Yeah, I think it’s critical for the voices to be distinct. The reader needs to be able to tell immediately whose perspective they’re in in a given chapter or scene. It might not be a bad idea to consider going the A Song of Ice and Fire-route and outright labeling each chapter with a name or title associated with its POV.

 

[Louanne Learning]

The first thought that occurs to me is this - how would you maintain the mystery?

 

[CdnWriter]

The first thought that occurs to me is this - how would you maintain the mystery?

The detective would still have to figure out who and where the killer is.

The killer still has to avoid capture and kill his victims.

I'm not sure I understand the concern. The reader will see parts of the story from the detective's perspective and parts from the killer's perspective. Wouldn't that maintain the tension?

I'm a visual thinker, I'm thinking in terms of how when you watch a tv program or a movie, you see the death from the POV of the killer and then later you see the aftermath of the death from the POV of the detective, and I'm trying to transpose that to the written page.

 

[CdnWriter]

Possible and “allowed”, sure. I’ve seen it done. Advisable? I don’t know there. There’s a serious risk of confusion and not a lot of advantages over Deep 3rd Person, which is a lot easier to switch POV characters with.

Yeah, I think it’s critical for the voices to be distinct. The reader needs to be able to tell immediately whose perspective they’re in in a given chapter or scene. It might not be a bad idea to consider the going the A Song of Ice and Fire-route and outright labeling each chapter with a name or title associated with its POV.

I think I may have confused something somewhere....what is DEEP 3rd person? I've only heard of 3rd person so....maybe that would be more suitable for what I have in mind but I need to get a better sense of what it is...

Thanks for your comments!

 

[slimeclown]

Its a standard way to do POV in romance books so yes, a lot of books have it. I'd say it depends on the genre and your personal goals with the book as far as advisable. If your main goal is market success, and switching POVs is really atypical in your subgenre, then its a potential risk.

 

[Louanne Learning]

I'm not sure I understand the concern. The reader will see parts of the story from the detective's perspective and parts from the killer's perspective. Wouldn't that maintain the tension?

How do you envision the climax?

 

[X Equestris]

I think I may have confused something somewhere....what is DEEP 3rd person? I've only heard of 3rd person so....maybe that would be more suitable for what I have in mind but I need to get a better sense of what it is...

Thanks for your comments!

Deep 3rd Person is a form of 3rd Person limited where the character’s perspective so deeply colors the narration it effectively erases the line between the narrator and the character. This article gives a good summary:

In some ways this is how you can think of deep third. It not only throws the window open wider; it reaches out and yanks the reader through it so you’re in the character’s head, behind their eyes, privy to their deepest thoughts and reactions. In essence you are the character, knowing what they know, feeling what they feel, directly experiencing what they do.

The key differences to remember when using this voice is that unlike omniscient, but in common with limited third, it sticks to the perspective of a single character per scene or section.

And in contrast to both omniscient and limited, the narrator is not a separate entity that can comment on things happening within the character’s purview that they are not aware of. As with first person, if your character doesn’t know it, see it, feel it, hear it, or experience it, it can’t be on the page. The character is the reader’s avatar and we are them, sharing their background, predilections, quirks, orientation, failings, etc. Their blind spots are our blind spots. Their biases color our perception too.

I like to think of POV as a vessel on the ocean that is your character(s)’ psyche. In omniscient the vessel can sail every inch of the ocean simultaneously and observe everything happening on the surface, as well as use its powerful radar to monitor what’s going on beneath anywhere in the sea—with every character. Limited third is a vessel with the same capabilities, but which can monitor only one sector of the ocean—one character—at a time.

Deep third becomes a submarine, sinking deep into the depths of its single harbor to live in the underwater world of one sole character, its periscope always up to also experience its surroundings on the surface.

Source: Is Deep Third an Actual POV? | Jane Friedman

In some ways, it’s 1st Person with 3rd Person pronouns.

 

[Banespawn]

Robin Hobb's Fitz and the Fool series had two 1st person narrators, but not right away. It started with just Fitz, like all of the books that came before it. It wasn't until after his daughter was born and she turned 10, I think, that we started to get chapters from her perspective.

They were both protagonists, though. That's a bit different than what you are proposing. If you want to maintain the tension, you'll probably need to make one or both of them unreliable. I forget what it's called when 1st person is written as journal entries, but I'd probably go with that. Maybe the story is written after the fact by both of them and compiled by a 3rd party. Both of them lie about what happened for different reasons, but by getting both accounts, the reader is able to read between the lines.

 

[defaux]

Pierce Brown's Red Rising series does this, switching between several characters, each chapter in first-person from a different character's perspective.

So long as it is clear when the perspective shifts, and who the current perspective belongs to, it shouldn't be too confusing to read.

 

[CdnWriter]

How do you envision the climax?

To be clear, I see several climaxes throughout the story and one conclusion....which may not be an accurate conclusion.

But to answer your question, the climax for the example I gave would be the rising tension as the detective searches for the source of the disturbance and the killer hides within a closet or other hidey-hole, holding his breath, trying not to move at all, as the shadows from the detective's movements throw random patterns around the room....

THEN [...it could be...examples]:

.....a siren interrupts the search and the detective gets a radio call and leaves, the killer undiscovered. The killer breathed a sigh of relief and silently counted to 100 then slowly, ever so slowly, opened the closet door and stepped out. It had been such a narrow escape, he had almost been caught and he promised himself not to make the same error the next time.

....walking away from the closed closet door, the detective pauses...and turns around, heading back towards the closet door, his gun in hand but pointed downward, not expecting anything, having already dismissed the search as the result of his overactive mind. As he came within a step of the door, the killer opened fire through the door and 6 slugs struck him in the arm and torso, sending him reeling backwards with the force of the impacts. His service revolver fell from his hand, unfired.

....there's also the possibly that the detective could be jumpy, think he "saw" or "heard" something and he fires his service revolver through the closed door, then the bloody corpse of the killer collapses to the ground and bleeds out while the detective franctically (FFS, spell check, fix my error pls!!!) calls for backup while tembling and standing ashen over the body of the killer, who is slowly expiring from blood loss.

....or the detective could open the closet door and find a teenage runaway, squatting in the apartment while the killer hides in a different closet and later escapes while the detective delivers the runaway to a local shelter.

Those ^^^^ are all examples of climaxes, right? They all serve to tie off a chapter and reduce the tension, only to build it up again in the aftermath.

Anyways...does this work?

 

[CdnWriter]

Deep 3rd Person is a form of 3rd Person limited where the character’s perspective so deeply colors the narration it effectively erases the line between the narrator and the character. This article gives a good summary:

Source: Is Deep Third an Actual POV? | Jane Friedman

In some ways, it’s 1st Person with 3rd Person pronouns.

Thank you!

I've got to copy/paste that and keep it in mind! I do find the premise intriguing...I'm not entirely sure I want to think that much like a murderer though...would such a deep dive into the psyche of a killer find me on my way to a shrink? Then again....Stephen King hasn't been committed to the insane psych ward as far as I know.

 

[Louanne Learning]

Anyways...does this work?

The usual advice is that all the events in the story should lead to the climax, which is the story's peak. All the events build tension with conflict, and in the climax the conflict between characters is confronted. So, which of the suggested climaxes flow best from the main plot of the story?

 

[CdnWriter]

The usual advice is that all the events in the story should lead to the climax, which is the story's peak. All the events build tension with conflict, and in the climax the conflict between characters is confronted. So, which of the suggested climaxes flow best from the main plot of the story?

Hmm....you're using "climax" the way I use "conclusion" I think.

I see each chapter (or every 3rd) having its own climax which eventually lead to a huge conclusion that ends the story.

The examples I gave, the killer could be shot and that's the climax of that chapter, then the next chapter has the killer being wheeled into the hospital and fighting for his life while the detective is interviewed by Internal Affairs and explains how it got to the point where the killer was hiding in a vacant house and was then shot by a jumpy detective, closing the books on X amount of unsolved murders. The climax of that chapter could be the detective being arrested for murder after the "killer" dies on the operating room table. Or the killer survives and wakes up handcuffed to a hospital bed guardrail while the detective stands over him and says, "You're fuckin' caught, you miserable prick! I'm gonna see the needle in your arm!"

Then another chapter could start with the discovery of another victim and the chase starts again....did the detective really shoot the right "killer"? Is there more than one killer? Did the real killer escape somehow?

And so on......the benefit of a novel is that I can keep doing that while a short story would only support one climax/conclusion.

To be honest, I'm actually not a fan of the superkiller trope, it's just something I'm trying my hand at. I personally would want the novel to end with the detective victorious although perhaps paying a price, such as by getting shot and having to go on disability, and the killer living out his life on death row. That would be my ideal conclusion.

 

[X Equestris]

Thank you!

I've got to copy/paste that and keep it in mind! I do find the premise intriguing...I'm not entirely sure I want to think that much like a murderer though...would such a deep dive into the psyche of a killer find me on my way to a shrink? Then again....Stephen King hasn't been committed to the insane psych ward as far as I know.

Haha, yeah, writing the POVs of particularly nasty villains sometimes forces you to inhabit uncomfortable headspaces. Of course, the same can be true with 1st Person.

 

[Catrin Lewis]

The detective would still have to figure out who and where the killer is.

The killer still has to avoid capture and kill his victims.

I'm not sure I understand the concern. The reader will see parts of the story from the detective's perspective and parts from the killer's perspective. Wouldn't that maintain the tension?

I'm a visual thinker, I'm thinking in terms of how when you watch a tv program or a movie, you see the death from the POV of the killer and then later you see the aftermath of the death from the POV of the detective, and I'm trying to transpose that to the written page.

Seems one thing you'd have to do is never have anyone call the killer by his name. Unless he establishes that he's going by an alias?

 

[CdnWriter]

Seems one thing you'd have to do is never have anyone call the killer by his name. Unless he establishes that he's going by an alias?

One person can have multiple names and unless someone compares notes AND has a photo, it's not going to be obvious who the killer is.

True story. I had a couple of friends that were dating the same woman. Neither knew about the other. Why? Her legitimate name was Suzanne but she told one guy she preferred "Sue" and she told the other guy she preferred "Ann" so the two of them would hang out, talk about different things they did with "their" girlfriend and she managed to keep it going for like a year. They finally figured it out had a HUGE fight and that was the end of their friendship, plus Suzanne walked away with no repercussions at all - she went to concerts with whomever had money, dined out on whomever had money's dime, had them paying her rent, buying her clothes, and all it really cost her was a roll in the hay once in a while.

I always thought it was amazing this was possible but this was back in the 90s, when not everyone carried a camera around and posted selfies every 5 minutes.

I think most people will see things that STAND OUT when people look at people around them. I notice things like mismatches - for example, a couple of girls rode their bikes pass me when I was walking to the local store. One girl had white socks with sandals, the other wore sandals and no socks. Both wore shorts and hoodie sweaters....it seemed odd to have bare legs when they had sweater tops. Another person might notice the writing on a person's clothing, like black leggings that have the caption, "PINK" going down the side. Yet another person might notice a pop of colour, like a red or yellow hat with an all black outfit. I've seen all of those and I couldn't tell you if people also wore glasses, what colour their hair was or stuff like that UNLESS I knew I was going to need to be a witness because I just glance casually at the people around me.

 

[Tallyfire]

Hmm....you're using "climax" the way I use "conclusion" I think.

I see each chapter (or every 3rd) having its own climax which eventually lead to a huge conclusion that ends the story.

If this is how you want your chapters to look, you might find Swain's structure for "scenes" and "sequels" useful. He uses units in writing called motivation-reaction units to gradually build up tension in a scene (which has a goal, conflict, then a disaster), and the scene is followed by a sequel that further develops the story (with a reaction, dilemna, then a decision) while taking a breather. It sounds a bit like what you're already doing.

In response to your original question, I've read a few books recently that had two first-person narrators: (1) Emily Wilde, in form of journal entries, (2) Network Effect (Murderbot #5) has the thoughts of a few AI security bots alternating by chapter with bot designation at the start of each chapter. Also worth noting is (3) A Desolation Called Peace, which had such close 3rd POV that I found myself confused by perspective switches when every new POV started with "She..." and left the POV character nameless for a while - that was rough in an audiobook with four different POVs, but it also left some mystery to it as the action drove onwards and you weren't exactly sure who you were following.

So: there certainly are books like that. 1st-person POV can be written in a way that's clear, and close 3rd POV can also be written in a way that leaves the character not immediately identified.

 

[Tallyfire]

I just thought of another book: Naomi Novik’s Spinning Silver. That has multiple 1st person POVs, and there’s no obvious signage for who narrates which chapter. Instead, the narrative voice is sufficiently different for each character so once you know the characters you can pick up who’s talking after a few sentences, but then, just as you think you’ve got the two POVs down, another crops up, and then another. It’s certainly an interesting way to tell a story.

 

[CdnWriter]

I just thought of another book: Naomi Novik’s Spinning Silver. That has multiple 1st person POVs, and there’s no obvious signage for who narrates which chapter. Instead, the narrative voice is sufficiently different for each character so once you know the characters you can pick up who’s talking after a few sentences, but then, just as you think you’ve got the two POVs down, another crops up, and then another. It’s certainly an interesting way to tell a story.

This sounds like listening to an audio book in the car on a drive that's on "shuffle" - this was a gag in the cartoon book, "Zits."