I've been working on a manuscript for several (i don't want to say how many) years now. I want it finished and am kicking myself because it isn't yet. Not because I haven't had the time. I've had plenty of time. I know the story, i know the characters, most every detail has been worked out in my head and on countless pages of notes, outlines, etc. There are a few holes here and there, but I'm confidant that once the bulk of the story is complete, the holes will easily fill in. It wouldn't even take me very long to actually write it, I don't think, because at this point I've worked out so much of it, its pretty much just a matter of converting it from thought to written word. Its a prequel to what will be a series. I even know how the next 2 or 3 installments will go. The main problem I have is not knowing from what perspective to write it in. I've experimented with 1st and 3rd person, but neither of them are very satisfying. I would much rather write it in 1st person, but if I do that, there is too much of the story left blank because the main character, who would be telling the story, is not present for a lot of key elements. 3rd person seems too plain for this. I've even experimented with the idea of telling it in 1st person, but rearanging the sequence of events, and the time period that the story covers, but that requires me stretching things out and creating more content to keep the story moving along. I've already thought up the bulk of the extra content for this process, but its unnecessary to the heart of the story and is only there to fill in the gaps that are created by rearanging the sequence of events. Anne Rice's Queen Of The Damned was written in both 1st and 3rd person. Lestat was telling his view of the story, and the in-between chapters were done in 3rd person. That's the only example of 1st and 3rd person I've ever seen. I've considered doing this, by converting the 1st-person account into a sort of journal, but I don't know if that would work either, and again, it requires the extra unnecessary content. Plus when people write journals, they don't usually include word-for-word dialogue, and exact details of emotions, scenery, etc, which would complicate things and cause a journal-like account to be less than realistic. Have any of you had this problem before with writing? Any advice would be much appreciated. E.D.

Perspective is important, but not as important as the story. From what you've described it sounds to me that working in 1st person will force you to alter the way you naturally want to tell the story. Chances are those changes will read like gimmicks. I would not do that. Go with what feels natural. If the story is good, the rest will flow. jon

Several writers deal with this by using letters and news clippings or other documents to convey the needed information. Mysteries are usually told 1st person because of the emotional immediacy... but how does the detective find out about things happening out of sight? The newsboy can scream a headline underneath his window, her mother can write from college that the Dean's wife was discussing the sorry affair of blank, a realtor's ad can mention that the house is uninhabited, a deed/will/whatever found in a book can yield the missing married name which connects x and y. Detectives traditionally ferret out information and snoop through coat pockets and read other people's love letters (all in the name of serving justice, of course). But even if you aren't writing a mystery, you can still use written documents to pull in this sort of information. Suppose you have a love story: a torn theatre ticket found in someone's coat pocket is probably an indication that the person was at a particular place and time, a doctor bill in the stack of mail under the door could indicate a specific ailment, menus, phone messages, computers and cell phones... we leave a track like a jet's contrail long after the plane has passed. Some stories are better told 3rd person. If you are going to have a lot of narrative (epics and travelogues), and you are doing it 1st person, either your protagonist is going to be incredibly chatty or terribly tiresome. Perhaps most important, for a 1st person story to be successful, you need to write convincing dialogue. This means speaking it aloud in front of the cat and listening to yourself. It has to be convincing and also each character needs his or her own voice and speech patterns. If everyone talks the same way, without good reason, the reader will get confused. I strongly recommend "Language of the Night" by Ursula K LeGuin. The essays will help you think about diction and dialogue, among other things. :) Carolly

Maybe really need to do is familiarize yourself with the different types of third person writing, presuming you don't already, in which this little snippet I'll post won't help. But hopefully it will. :-) Third Person writing types: 1. Omniscient. With the third person omniscient point of view, the narrator knows everything, allowing the writer to mention the thoughts and feelings of any character, and to insert editorial comments. The narrative can also skip around to different places and times, and fill in backstory at any point. The disadvantages of this point of view are that it is difficult to maintain a consistent voice, it can feel impersonal to the reader, and it is less believable than the other options. 2. Objective. With the third person objective point of view, the narrator knows only what can be heard and seen from outside the characters (think of the narrator as recording events like a movie camera). The thoughts and emotions of the characters are unavailable, so the story must speak for itself. The main disadvantage of this point of view is that the lack of emotion can make it feel very cold and uninvolved. A good writer can make use of small details to compensate, however. 3. Limited. With a third person limited (or limited omniscient) point of view, the narrator knows everything about one character, including thoughts and feelings, but knows the other characters only through that one person. This kind of viewpoint can be so close to the character that it is nearly a first person p.o.v., or it can pull back for a broader view. Because of its advantages, this point of view is often thought of as the default--to be used unless there is good reason not to. 4. Rotating Limited. One way to avoid the limitations of a limited point of view (that only one character is known from the inside) without the disadvantages of an omniscient point of view (impersonality and implausibility) is to use a limited viewpoint that switches between several characters. This allows the reader to get inside more than one character's head, but maintains a consistent narrative voice. Crawford Kilian calls this "episodically limited" third person omniscient.

Another approach that I have seen, read, is to write it first person..but from several first person perspectives. Switching people makes for a natural chapter break. When your characters "meet" in the story you write that section twice...one from each characters perspective. COuld be a cool device depending on the story.