When First Person Needs a Different Outlook

I don't particularly care for stories written in first person. I admit I keep trying them, looking for something that might be different but most of the time I'm disappointed and can't get into the story. To me, writing in first person reveals some serious character flaws. This person is telling the story but their view is very limited. It has to be because they can't describe anything that doesn't affect their own senses.

There's always an exception. They always have that same narrow focus but the difference is in how it's presented. Most first person characters deal with "I see", or "I think" but Diana Gabaldon's Claire Fraser is able to tell about her surroundings, people dealing with other people, without interjecting herself into every situation. And when Claire is directly involved, she isn't always the focus of the scene. I like it so much better that way. It doesn't sound so 'self-absorbed'.

But I have found another use for first person. Sometimes when I'm working on a scene I find it difficult to get the feeling of things just right. So one day I tried putting myself in the particular situation my character was unsuccessfully facing. Raven's young son (about two years old) had disappeared and Raven spent her days riding the length and breadth of the highlands searching for him.

To bring out the emotions Raven needed to experience, I got under her skin, became her and interjected what I might have felt under those circumstances. The anger, the worry, the disregarding of anyone else who tried to stop her or make her see reason. I was able to delve into Raven's psyche and bring out all she was feeling. Working from this angle makes it so much easier to interject the necessary emotional trauma that fits the scene.

In my first book, the heroine never knew her parents and believed she'd been unwanted by them. So naturally there was no love lost on her part. Late in the story she finds a letter from her mother where the truth is revealed and gives the heroine new insight to her situation. Again, I put myself in her head and felt the things she needed to deal with. Both scenes were written in first person.

When I'd finished writing both of them, I read them carefully and changed "I" to the heroine's name, changed verbs and anything else that would take the scenes out of first person. What I didn't touch was the emotional quality of the scene. What I ended up with turned out to be some of my best writing.

I suppose it's an odd way to use first person but you use what tools you have to create what you want.  And those tools aren't always used as they were meant to be used. Would that fall under necessity being the mother of invention, where just about everything can have more than its intended function? I imagine it could be. As they say, you need to know the rules before you can bend them. (You don't want to break the rules. That's a whole other can of worms that should remain tightly sealed.) Using first person this way is probably bending the rules of writing but whatever helps can't hurt.

So when you get stuck on a scene, consider a different way to approach it to get the results you're looking for. Who knows, you just might come up with a winning story.

A Trip to Medieval England

Discovering "new to me" authors is always an adventure in itself. Not long ago I found Elizabeth Chadwick and her wonderful historical fiction set in the Plantagenet era. It'll take me a while to make my way through her list of work but that's half the fun. Of course that's what all readers like to do. It's part of the whole reading experience.

Shortly after discovering Chadwick I found another author, James Forrester. That's the pen name (and middle names) of historian Dr. Ian Mortimer, author of The Time Traveler's Guide to Medieval England. As it turned out I already have the guide on my bookshelf. I admit it, due to past reading experience, I'm not a big fan of male authors (sorry, guys). But I decided to give this one a shot based on the genre. I'm glad I did.

The book I've just finished is the first in a trilogy and is titled Sacred Treason. The story takes place during the reign of Elizabeth I. For several years, Henry Machyn has been keeping a journal that no one but a select few has seen. Once word has gone out that the book could be holding information of a treasonous plot, the manhunt begins. It isn't enough that Elizabeth has her people (Sir Cecil and Francis Walsingham to name a couple) persecuting Catholics and trying to restore Protestants and the state church (which was just the opposite of what her sister "Bloody" Mary did during her reign).

The journal or chronicle in question has been left to William Harley, Clarenceux King of Armes, who has no idea what the chronicle is about, nor does he know what it's for. He has to figure it out and get it to the right person. In the meantime, anyone found to have possession or knowledge of the book or knows of its whereabouts ends up as a "guest" of Walsingham. Is the book treasonous? If so, what treason does it hold?

This story is more about the characters than action but that doesn't make it any less intriguing. There are a couple close escapes and some one-on-one combat. Forrester gives us a clear picture of what life was like at that time, the mid-sixteenth century -- not just living conditions but how, to some extent, the law worked. It wasn't pretty.

Sacred Treason has been informative as well as entertaining and has opened new avenues of reading for me. Next book?  I'm looking forward to reading Book 2: The Roots of Betrayal.