Bid on Cool Mystery Book Stuff and Help Erin!

That's a picture of my dog. I put it there for no reason.

Only one day left to bid on terrific stuff donated by many amazing crime fiction authors and going to the benefit of our very own Erin Mitchell in her fight to control horrific medical bills--here's where to bid!

Jeff Cohen

Right now, I'm writing something (this post). Eventually, you'll read it. I keep that in mind when I'm writing because without a reader, writing is a collection of private thoughts and I could have saved myself the trouble and just sat down and mused for a while.

That knowledge-the idea that a writer will have a reader-is not insignificant. I'm always cognizant of it while I'm working and even after, when the work hits shelves and some lovely people pay actual cash money to read it (if you download the book free from an illegal site, please go away). So when I'm putting a story together and rearranging these 26 letters yet again, I never don't think that there will be at least one person taking in this tale.

And that leads to what they call "breaking the fourth wall."

In theater or film, breaking the fourth wall (the one that should be where the apron of the stage is, but is left out because they want people to actually see the actors and the play) is not considered all that odd. Characters speak directly to the audience on occasion, to let their innermost thoughts out or to provide some information the viewer might need to best appreciate the story being told. Shakespeare broke the fourth wall so often the bricklayer's union in Stratford on Avon probably held a dinner in his honor for all the business he created.

In books, however, the idea of the character speaking directly to the reader is much less common and considerably less accepted. Breaking the fourth wall to a reader is considered bad form, or something. It destroys the illusion, I guess, that you're not actually sitting in your comfortable living room, perhaps by a warm fire or an air conditioner, rather than actually investigating some horrible murder. Talking to the reader directly? Just not done, you know. Bad form.

Except I do it all the time.

To me, it makes a ton of sense that the main character in a first-person narrative would speak directly to the reader. If Alison Kerby isn't aware that someone is reading the story she's telling, um... why is she telling it? (Of course, I have sometimes wondered how Chet the Dog, Spencer Quinn's narrator in a successful series of books, manages to type out his tail--sorry, tale--but that doesn't seem to be a concern.) First-person narration especially almost begs for direct address. 

Look at it this way: Each character I write (Alison, Samuel Hoenig, Kay Powell or Rachel Goldman, for the time being, Kay this week) is telling his/her own story. And it's clear from the language being used and the organization of the information that each character has a (hopefully) distinct point of view. Each one is telling the story in the fashion that suits the narrator's personality. But they are all telling stories.

Let's say you sat down next to a person at a bar (go ahead, say it; I'll wait). A person you've never met before. And this person, without warning, just began reciting some anecdote or biographical narrative while staring straight ahead into the inevitable mirror behind the bar. You'd wonder what lunatic you just planted yourself beside. If, on the other hand, your new acquaintance introduced him/herself, made a little small talk and then told you the same story, directly to you, after a natural segue in the conversation (or better yet, based on context), you might feel differently.

It's the same way with the narration in a book, I think. There's a reason I (and many others) choose to write in the first person. It brings the reader into the character's thought process and makes the character (again, hopefully) more appealing to the reader. You tend to root for the person you know best in a situation. 

The character, at least to my mind, can assume that you want to know the story. That's context. We just start the book AFTER you've asked to be told the tale. No point in repeating that because you looked at the cover, read the synopsis and maybe a blurb or two and decided to plunk down some hard-earned salary in order to get the details. Well, that means you sort of asked for it, didn't you? 

See how I'm talking directly to you now? Does that distract from your experience or divert your attention? I'm guessing not.

So it makes sense that the narrator would speak directly to the reader at various points, particularly when something especially unexpected or odd has occurred. Otherwise, the speaker is simply reciting facts and not including the audience in the experience. It would be, in my opinion, off-putting and rude to exclude the reader from the equation.

If you're reading something I've written, then, and a comment is directed straight at you (not you personally, although I'm sure they're working on that technology as we speak), does it take you out of the story, or does it make you feel more included? I'd be interested to hear what our loyal visitors have to say on the subject.

 

P.S. Pitchers and catchers report in 66 days.

Comments

[Patty]

I love first person when it is done well and several of my favorite authors, including both Cohen and Copperman, do this so well.

There is a series of books recently made into a TV show that demonstrate the differences quite clearly. In the Walt Longmire mysteries, you are in Walt's head all the time, either when thinking or when talking. The TV show is great, but you don't feel like you know Longmire nearly as well as you do in the books.

I imagine when they get around to making your books into a TV show or movie series the same things will happen.

[carl brookins]

Many thoughts on a limited topic. My detective, Sean Sean occasionally does so,(speak directly to the reader) usually in a ruminative sort of way. My other characters do no. I take the view that my stories are meant to help readers et out of their regular lives and into something else for a time of relaxation and avoidance of current woes. Asides destroy that atmosphere which is generally not a good thing (IMO)

[Jeff Cohen]

From your keyboard to Spielberg’s ears, Patty.

[Jeff Cohen]

I respect your opinion, Carl, but I disagree that asides take the reader out of the story. I think it makes the story seem more intimate, more direct. Just a difference of opinion.

[Donald A. Coffin]

65 days now.

I think you are mostly right about first-person narration, and, when the narrator doesn't recognize the existence of an audience, it can sometimes be strange. Archie Goodwin occasionally comments on the fact that he's writing his reports for readers (for example), and even one at least one occasion comments on his reaction to the reaction of at lest one reader (in Death of a Dude, as an example). Philip Marlowe, on the other hand, is telling his stories to someone, but I never get the impression that he is actually conscious of doing so...I sort of think of him relating all this to his shrink.

(One of the issues with omninscient-narrator books is who, exactly, is telling me this story, and why? Which is a question implicitly behind your discussion of why you use first-person.)

So if the narrator stops to speak directly to me (the reader), it's not a problem...unless the character also breaks character (which I have experienced, but won't say from whom--not from you. (I actually read a book once, written in first-person, where occasionally a third-person narrator would show up and comment on the goings-on. Now, that was weird.)

[Leslie Angel]

"Reader--I married him."