Logical flaws with 1st person pov

Question

Quick disclaimer: Sorry, if my phrasing is not accurate, English is not my first language (and the stories I write are not in English).

I am currently writing a short story that is giving me headaches about the status of the narrator (or point of view, not sure which term is more accurate). Without getting into the details of the plot, the main character (Alice) is gradually being metamorphosed into a markedly different character (Bob) as the story progresses. By the time the story comes to an end, Alice has forgotten about her former self and her recent adventure; she is now fully convinced to be Bob.

Here is my problem: I really want to write this in first person, internal narrator. It would allow me to express the gradual change in mindset much more smoothly and naturally. The tone is also along the lines of thriller/horror, with some tense moments of panic, which I would prefer to write in 1st person as well (and ideally present tense, though this is both less important and less problematic).

However, it doesn't make logical sense to me. This is a question that often occurs to me when I write a story: Where the hell is this story even supposedly coming from? Surely Alice was not taking notes while she was in the middle of her stressful adventures. Surely, once she has fully become Bob and remembers nothing, she cannot tell her story. So who the hell is telling that story in 1st person?

Is it impossible to write it this way without creating a paradox? I feel like having to rewrite the whole thing in 3rd person would really be a waste, would weaken its impact, as well as make it seem a lot less natural. An external narrator transcribing the gradually changing internal thoughts of Alice would feel artificial to me. Having to write this without access to internal thoughts would be even worse, at least for my level of written expressivity.

What solutions do you suggest to solve this somewhat recurring problem that I face whenever I try to write 1st-person style? Do you always have to justify that the character actually physically wrote the story in that case (or at least would have been able to do so)?

Answer 1

I'm sure you have read stories written in the first person. Did you actually believe that every one of these stories was written by the first person viewpoint character after the events? Certainly not.

The POV is a tool that the writer employs to achieve a certain effect. In first person narration the effects are the impression (on the reader) of experiencing the events from the perspective of a character in the fictional world who was "there" when all of it happened. That's all. First person narration doesn't mean that the author of the book is the person going through the events.

If you find this easier, you can imagine that you (the author) are like an actor who takes on a role in a play or movie. While you write, you pretend that you are the viewpoint character and try to imagine what it feels like to experience the events in the story.

Or you can think of POV and grammatical person as camera angles. You can place your camera (in third person, usually) far above the events and view all of it, like a wide angle shot in the movies. Or you can place your camera inside the head of the character (in first person) or behind the character (in third, like some computer games where you see the character you direct in front of you while it walks around and interacts with the game world).

Answer 2

From your brief description, it sounds like you have two likely approachs. The first is the one you already stated: Alice—Bob in 1st person present tense. This will be complicated by the characters rolling amnesia — having no knowledge pf what they are experiencing

The other approach is for the POV character to be a witness to what is happening to Alice-Bob. The witness possesses memory so they can relate the events that are changing Alice to Bob, and can be written in any tense.

The witness should have a strong connection to Alice-Bob. The witness can be a loved one or the cause of their situation

Answer 3

You can alternate between 3PL (third person limited) and first person. The 3PL narrator has access to Alice's thoughts and feelings, this is very common in fiction; and also quite necessary at times when the protagonist is unconscious, drugged, or delusional.

It is hard to make scene transitions or descriptions of settings when your character is mentally impaired, or in any heightened state (passion, fear, anger, grief, etc). Then, first person makes much less sense; somebody fearful for their life or suffering extreme pain is not describing to themselves the brick walls of their dungeon or the chains holding them down or even the glee of their sadistic captor.

I would write this in disembodied 3PL, with breaks (--- centered on a line by itself) to switch to 1st person. In 3PL, you describe what is happening, in 1P, you relate the thinking and feelings of Alice.

When Alice has forgotten Alice and become Bob, the disembodied 3PL narrator knows who "Bob" used to be, and presumably wrote this story.

Where did the 3PL narrator come from? Very few stories ever explain this; it is just a writing convention. 3PL narrators have access to the minds and feelings of the protagonist, and full knowledge of the setting, even when the protagonist is unconscious. No explanation is required.

Answer 4

Don't overthink it

The end-conclusion of this kind of factualism is the epistolary novel, a narrative technique that is intended to appear as a collection of written documents and correspondences. Most early novels are 'a found manuscript' or 'copies of letters', supposedly 1st or 2nd-hand accounts accumulated by an editor who sometimes becomes a frame device that opens and concludes.

The appeal is a veneer of realism in an era when social media was handwritten. The obvious downside is the contortions the author takes to preserve dramatic tension, and convey points-of-view that are necessary to fill in missing parts of the narrative. Even in the 1700s there are parodies where a damsel-in-distress pauses mid-torment to pen another letter to her sister.

Epistolary fiction still exists – it was called Twitter up until recently. But modern novels are not pretending to be real life.

Analogies in other media

Pretty much all forms of creative media are recognized to transcend functional 'craft' to become 'art' when the medium itself becomes part of the message. An art painting is much more than a portrait. A musical is not just a person singing. A sculpture is more than just a statue to commemorate history.

Likewise, a narrator isn't just a character who tells a string of facts (in real-time as they happen).

Modern fiction is generally not concerned in convincing the reader how a series of private letters came to be published in a bound volume. Instead the modern idea of a 'narrative voice' is used to present subtextual cues. A modern narrator is influenced by their biases and emotions. A narrator can be wrong, and can lie to the reader.

There is another layer of 'story' in how the story is being told.

Trust your readers

Readers are sophisticated. Trust them to follow what is happening to your narrator. Trust that your readers have a functioning memory even when your narrator loses theirs. They will remember the character was named Alice. They will notice the character is now Bob. They will draw their own conclusions.

Also, please read books. 'The Classics' are considered literary masterpieces generally because they are transcending 'craft' and manipulating our perceptions of how a story can even be told. Jane Austen invented a narrative style called Free Indirect Speech over 200 years ago that solves this exact issue. Virginia Woolf decided to change her MC's gender in the middle of the novel, no explanation other than 'deal with it'. Franz Kafka turned his narrator into a bug, and it is unfathomably heartbreaking!.

Obviously our first novels are rarely on the level of 'classic masterpiece', but we also need to accept that our first novel is not the reader's first novel. They have read MANY more books than we have had the chance to write. Readers are more sophisticated than writers give credit because even the most casual reader has encountered a story that transcends to art.