I see first person as making yourself that character, which makes me run in the opposite direction so fast you'd think I was road runner.

Um... yes, first person is sort of about making yourself that character. For me, though (I love first person, just so we're clear) that's about understanding them, getting inside their head and knowing what they know, seeing the way they see. Walking in their shoes, if you like.

It seems...unsophisticated. Or something.

It's simple. Direct. Which, really, is 'unsophisticated', only viewed as an advantage.

you can put yourself in a character's place and it becomes second person--"you" are doing the action, and someone else is controlling what is happening; it's not a placement of self into first person.

And there, right there, you've articulated exactly what I hate about second person: someone else is controlling what is happening, the character (in the second person 'you') are not responsible any more. This may be fuelled by having read fanfic (don't ask me where; I lost the link on purpose) that used second person to make it seem like evil characters (Spike, for example) weren't responsible for what they were doing.

t /rant

Sorry, that's an old one.

I don't think there's anything intrinsically simple about first person ... to write it well, for instance, requires filtering everything through character, and that's not simple.

I'm not in love with second person, for reasons Am states -- I'd rather feel like I was watching (3rd) or doing (1st) as a reader, rather than puppetted (2nd). I feel like I'm being told how to be.

I don't think there's anything intrinsically simple about first person ... to write it well, for instance, requires filtering everything through character, and that's not simple.

It's not simple to *do*. It is, as you say, filtered-- made simpler by taking out the parts that are not known by the character. I find limited 3rd much harder, because if I write in first I remember to filter; in third, I tend to forget, and it becomes omniscient third.

And there, right there, you've articulated exactly what I hate about second person: someone else is controlling what is happening, the character (in the second person 'you') are not responsible any more.

I'm not in love with second person, for reasons Am states -- I'd rather feel like I was watching (3rd) or doing (1st) as a reader, rather than puppetted (2nd). I feel like I'm being told how to be.

Huh. I always read 2nd-person POV as a distanced form of 1st-person. Not that there's a controlling narrator dictating what the character does, but rather that the character wants to be distant, possibly disaffected, from the action of the story.

the character wants to be distant, possibly disaffected, from the action of the story.

Which in very selected settings, can work. Just.. not very often, in my experience. I think it's the PWPs in second that get me there: wanting to be distant and disaffected when you're having sex? In one way, understandable; in another way, bizarre and off-putting.

made simpler by taking out the parts that are not known by the character

I don't see what's simple about that. I think the omniscient view is much simpler.

With good 1st person, every action says two things -- it's about the action perceived, and how it's being perceived. With third, there's no perception layer. It's about the action and how it's to affect the reader. Not how it affects the reader and the narrator.

Huh. I always read 2nd-person POV as a distanced form of 1st-person. Not that there's a controlling narrator dictating what the character does, but rather that the character wants to be distant, possibly disaffected, from the action of the story.

This is one thing I enjoy about it. But I like the other aspect, the controlling aspect--I think it's intrinsic to television, and fandom as a relation, that there is that controlling mechanism there, which makes it interesting to experiment with second person. But then, I have my own ideas about fate that probably read into this.

This is neat, though, especially with Am--how different POVs make people react.

I find limited 3rd much harder, because if I write in first I remember to filter; in third, I tend to forget, and it becomes omniscient third.

I was writing limited 3rd, and that was exactly one of the problems. The limited POV is hard to maintain, it's hard to draw a line. For example, I want Buffy to notice something Giles is doing, and think it's shifty. I want the reader to be aware of him being possibly shifty and Buffy noticing. In 3rd person limited, all I can really do is have Buffy look as Giles does the questionably shifty thing, and then have her grimmace or otherwise change her facial expression, as the plot dictates she wouldn't call him on it immediately.

I understand SA's distaste though. I think that's one of the reasons my instinct is to allow different characters to tell different parts of the story. I don't want Buffy yammering away for thousands and thousands of words. And I want things revealed to the reader in some cases that Buffy will never know about, or will only discover in part, and after the time the reader should know.

I don't see what's simple about that. I think the omniscient view is much simpler.

But... but... knowing everything is so *complicated*!

Okay, so maybe I'm a lazy writer who likes first person because that way I can just write, telling what a person knows and how they feel, without worrying about which parts of the whole to tell-- because it's filtered already-- and without having to start out with a plot in mind, because when I write in first, stuff just happens to people.

I think that's one of the reasons my instinct is to allow different characters to tell different parts of the story.

Yes; by using several first person POVs, you can give the same information as you would in simple third, but without all the work that goes in to picking what to tell when.

That's how I find it, anyway. That's why 'Explaining' is practically a story about switching points of view.

I think it's intrinsic to television, and fandom as a relation, that there is that controlling mechanism there, which makes it interesting to experiment with second person.

I don't find that interesting, I guess. There's a controlling mechanism in television, sure. But it's the author, it's outside the text, and it's there equally much in a book or any other story. You can even argue that RPF is about adding a controlling mechanism, fictionalizing real people. So, maybe some of what I don't like about second is that it feels like bringing something which in my mind is outside the text, the controller, into the text.

I think it also goes into writing styles. I usually write really dense, lyrical (almost poetic) prose with a lot of description and moodiness and crap like that. That style doesn't correspond as easily with first person (I might argue that it doesn't at all) as it does with third person o and simple, and second person.