Interestingly not many of them complained about the second person, some mentioned it, but more complained about the geek element. I've been married to my husband long enough to be able to deal with the geek speak it was clear enough that you only needed a basic understanding. (at least with the second book) This has reminded me I need to write a review of Rule 34.
I've found that there is often a tone present in Second Person narratives that is somewhat desperate, and obviously authoritarian. Sometimes those qualities are important to story. Sometimes the author wishes to put the reader into a role he is not comfortable with. No other view point can achieve these things. "Not disturbing the reader" may be the holiest of holy concepts, but I'd argue that for a writer -- an artist -- more important is "try new things".
Oh I agree with trying new things. You do so to find out what the strengths and drawbacks are of a particular technique or approach. But ninety-five percent of those experiments will tell you more about what to avoid and why in your "real" writing. What you can learn about a technique is: 1. What are its effects? 2. What are its drawbacks? 3. Is it the most effective way to achieve a result? Number three is often overlooked by those trying to offer a justification for an uncommon approach. Consider: Do you really believe all those writers who came before never thought of a particular technique? Assume they did. Why isn't it used more often? Usually it's because its benefits are few and its drawbacks significant. If you aren't asking yourself why an approach is uncommon, you're probably trying to rationalize being different for the sake of being different. Too many new writers think a different approach will get them noticed by a publisher. Well, they are right, but more often than not they won't be noticed in the positive light they are expecting.
You agree with trying new things? Well, you're really not communicating that. Every time anyone says "this new idea could work", you've been shooting it down and arguing that we shouldn't try it because publishers or readers won't like it. If you were really for trying new things, you wouldn't (a) presume everything on earth relates to publishing, (b) everything conventional is good, and (c) everything a new writer tries that is not done all that often is just to impress someone else, rather than because they think it works in their piece. Forgive me if I seem frustrated; it's not you, it's me being stressed and unable to finish a paper--but I digress. You present a nice model, but it's simplistic. How can I possibly know if what I have is the "best way" to achieve the result? Even when I'm absolutely convinced something is, others disagree entirely. That was the issue with my piece, if you remember: half the group thought it was great, half hated it. I stuck to my gut because I thought it worked, and now I'm not so sure. I didn't overlook 3, and I doubt most people do. The question is just how to answer it. In my opinion, second person was a good way to achieve my story. In others' opinions, it wasn't. How do I know what's right? And for the last time, I'm NOT trying to impress a publisher. I'm not trying to justify my style--or maybe I am just a bit because I'm vain. Fuck it. I'm just tired of being shot down. I feel like it's been happening a lot lately. Sorry. I have to get back to churning out a shitty essay. So long.
Simple answer, how can you know what is the best way to achieve the results you want? Try other ways for the same thing. People have moved into here for and against second pov in general because that's the way conversations unfold. In the end, the best way is the way that gets your intention across to the specific audience you are writing for. Half of your audience felt the numerous reasons given here, the other half weren't bothered by it, which is why it's not typically the best to go with.
Hi first post here so thought i would throw my penny into the bowl. i find that second person can be a good medium to convey a sense of confusion to a character. It allows them to be connected to the story but still be held on the outside of the event, at the same level as the reader.it is something that i have wanted to play around with before with breaking the fourth wall but am still not convinced that by doing so, you aren't just in effect really breaking back into a third perspective with an internal monologue.I will say though that i don't personally believe that the reader does feel like they are being forced in a direction but are being shown a frustrating view point from the protagonist without having the clarity of actually being inside the subjects head. a hard tool to use but one that can be quite effective when used right.
I agree with Lightman that If On A Winter's Night is an excellent use of second person The point of the book is to capture the experience of the reader. What is the journey a reader endeavors between the pages of a book? Because of its purpose, second person fits the story perfectly. It is not only the main character's journey, but yours. Everything has its place. There are no absolutes. Second person is and will be the most effective POV for some stories.
I cannot believe it! Until I sat down to read last night I had forgotten my favourite use of second person. (I really do not pay a huge amount of attention to the narrative unless for some reason it isn't working right). I have a lot of calming meditative stories, both for my children and myself. They can give a lovely sense of reallly floating on a leaf or down a stream on a boat etc. I couldn't find it but I remember a story once that I was told in primary school about the babbling brook and how that brook became a bigger stream, fed into a river and ran right out to sea. It was such an emotional rollercoaster and it allowed identification with an inanimate object. The very best use of second-person though goes to Lewis Grassic Gibbon with Sunset Song, in the very best tradition of Celtic Literature (one wonders if Jo experiementing with second person whilst doing a degree in Ireland involving Irish History is coincidental) it uses a hybrid narrative. And 'shock' another big no - a prologue - lol For the rest of those however many thousand words the reader is either going to be right inside Chris' head and part of the landscape around her or they will be like many Scots school children and not enjoy the book. (He's sort of the Scots, Shakespeare - thousands of Scots kids are forced to study him and learn to hate him that way) It is not an easy read, but that second person prologue sets up the book perfectly, it brings in unsettling, calming, meditative, controlling feelings - all of which the Aberdeenshire countryside can be. Second-person is the perfect way to describe a stone circle, cairn or other prehistoric stone structure. It captures the emotions many feel whilst stood in the centre of them.
Unfortunately, these days, my main association with second-person perspective is terrible fanfic in which no attempt is made to hide the fact that "you" = a formless author/reader insert who does very little beyond becoming bestest friends with Harry, Hermione and Ron, while making out with Draco, who turns out to be misunderstood and thus becomes bestest friends with HHR as well. I think it's very difficult to do well, or even not do badly, and I'm not convinced that it's ever the best choice for a narrative, although I'll be looking up some of the ones mentioned here, and I can see how it could work well for horror/stories with elements of horror (though I'm still not sure if it would be the *best* choice.) However, I really liked the Italo Calvino piece - I get the impression it's meant to be jarring and a little obnoxious, certainly from what I've just read about the book as a whole it's far from a conventional narrative. I also enjoyed the bit about the bookshop and all the different types of books trying to make me feel bad I am not sure if I want to read the whole book - I suspect I might get irritated after a while, although it was interesting to read negative reviews on Amazon which essentially seemed to be grumbling about the fact that it's not a story.
This. It's why writing is so difficult: there are no absolutes. Well said, funkybass. Again, I'd recommend Lorrie Moore's Self Help as a wonderful example of second-person POV.
