Perhaps it’s time to change directions in these discussions. Although discussing the hero is very fun, it’s not always what makes a romance. In fact, there a lot of elements that go into romance, and one of which is the point of view. Point of view? What? We’ve gone into the realm of some literary discussion here, but just go with it. . .
Think about it, point of view. It’s tricky thing. Not only the difference between reading a book in 1st or 3rd person, but the point of view of a historical heroine or a contemporary heroine. I don’t want to get ahead on this one. One step at a time.
First, seeing the world through the eyes of just one person, their feelings, expressions and actions, in a first person gives a book a different meaning than when you see things from outside of the characters as in 3rd person. Would Blue-Eyed Devil have been a different sort of book if it had been 3rd person, rather than 1st? Would Haven’s troubled life and her trials and tribulations meant less? Meant more?
After reading Blue-Eyed Devil, did anyone see the differences in Haven from Sugar Daddy? Anyone else realize that Churchill Travis through the eyes of his daughter was very different than through the eyes of Liberty? How much of that is the point of view and how much is something else?
Not only though is it just 1st or 3rd person, but the voice of a character. Just like each person has a different voice, of course characters do as well. What they deal with in a historical romance gives them a point of view on their life and times. What is dealt with in a contemporary romance will obviously give a different point of view on their life and times. How much does the setting, historical or contemporary, play into the voice and point of view of characters?
Or, as Gwen mentioned the formulation of this question, mentioned, “there’s a certain innocence in a historical POV
but there’s practicality and freedom in contemporary”. How much of that is true? Is it innocence or just the times in which the character has been put? Is there freedom in the contemporary or is it just being able to see better the point of view because it’s our time now?
Ponder away. . .
Hi Everyone
Just want to say Lisa, I absolutely loved BED and really felt a strong connection with Haven. Particularly the relationship with her father which in many factions resembles the relationship I have with my own father. The book was masterfully written and rather shocking at many points.
In regards to the question I would have to agree that there is a kind of innocence with 1st person POV. I find as I have gone through BED the second time, that if the book had been in 3rd person Nick might have been seen as even more sinister earlier on in the book. Due to the fact that he would have been observed by the varying parties involved. Because it was from Haven’s point of view the process was a slow and dangerously subtle one. It happened without her really seeing it at first which is what I find to be so very disturbing yet undeniably compelling.
In the first person, we get only one point of view but we feel more closely connected to the character. The success of a 1st person narrative hinges very much on whether the reader could identify with the character telling the story. The character’s background as well as the time period would come into play, not just in their choice of language but also in their interpretation of body language, actions and events. I don’t quite agree on the bread and butter being more important in a contemporary because in historical times, there are only so many options for a woman who’s in need of money. Similarly, if the modern heroine is well born, then money isn’t an issue. It all depends on the storyline.
Thank you so much, nne! I considered it very carefully, and I thought the story would not be at all the same if it were in 3rd person, that the reader HAD to experience the story as Haven was experiencing it. I’m so glad you enjoyed the book, and that you related to it. The subject matter was so difficult . . . I really had to hold back in writing the earlier scenes, because even handled in a restrained manner, it is very tough stuff.
The view of Churchill was important to me, because I have seen so many times in real life how a parent can be quite different to a child than he or she is to an outsider. Parents often have different expectations and different ways of relating to their offspring than they do to the rest of the world. I think a couple of readers interpreted it as inconsistency on my part, that Liberty’s experience of Churchill as a substitute father was so much warmer and nicer than Haven’s experience of Churchill as an actual father. But it was absolutely deliberate on my part. And as I’m writing Jack’s book (from 3rd person this time) the impression of Churchill is different yet again. Because Jack is a son, and a middle child, and naturally his relationship with Churchill would not be the same as Liberty’s or Haven’s.
What I really loved was showing Hardy through Haven’s point of view, and how her feelings toward him slowly transformed throughout the course of the story. As much as I would have liked to get inside his head, it wouldn’t have served the story . . . and in the end, I think the reader can tell what Hardy is thinking and feeling even when Haven can’t.
Your very welcome Lisa,
I agree with you on both counts on the creation of the POV of Churchill, and the importance of telling the story in Haven’s POV. I have found what really made the story so intense was the slow transformation of Nick and Haven. Haven begins as this kind of “go -get’em-tigger” young women but who still wants to please. And Nick in the beginning was like this cute college type of guy. As the story progressed Nicks mutation was so sinister but also so slight. And Havens heartbreaking yet eyeopening change really gave the story an all around sense of reality. Nick was a psychopath in the worst way. Everyone meets someone like this in their lives or knows someone who knows someone like this but its truly hard to recognize. This is why Haven’s POV was so compelling because it provided such a honest view of how abuse starts and how it ends. What inspired you to make Haven’s story about domestic abuse, the struggle for acceptance, self empowerment, and female independence?
Dear nne,
The subject of domestic abuse was “on the table” along with many other ideas for Haven’s story, and I kept returning to it, mulling over possibilities, and then doing some research. And the more I read, the more I realized how many misconceptions I had about abuse and why certain women are the focus of it. I think the big question most people have is, why doesn’t a woman just leave immediately when it starts? So I wanted to write about it in the context of a healing love story, from the positive angle of finding yourself and learning to trust, and loving from a position of strength.
Part of my interest in the subject stemmed from the fact that I had a brief engagement a long time ago (before I met my husband) with a charming, good-looking seemingly perfect guy. After this man and I became engaged, the charm started fading, and he became verbally and emotionally abusive (though not physically, thank heavens.) And as a sensible, educated woman, you would think I would tell him where to get off, right? . . . but instead, my instinct was to try harder, be nicer, lose more weight, do everything I could to finally be “good enough” for him. Luckily I got out of the relationship very fast, but I understand why many women can’t or don’t. So this experience has always been in the background, and it’s turned into something positive, because now I am very aware of my personal boundaries and maintaining them.
The other point I tried to make in Blue Eyed Devil was that a predator or abuser like Nick always starts out as an appealing and attractive person. And women are so naturally loving– we want to love and forgive–and that’s why so many women are drawn in. It has nothing to do with being stupid, or masochistic, or any of the labels that people place on victims.
It is a struggle for so many of us, isn’t it? . . . to really love and accept ourselves the way we are. And sometimes when a woman receives criticism from someone else, it is horribly effective because it echoes the self-criticism she already feels inside.
I hope I don’t sound preachy or anything . . . I just feel so strongly about this subject, and there is so much to say 🙂
Would Haven’s troubled life and her trials and tribulations meant less?
I don’t think Haven’s experiences would have meant less, but the story would have lost some of its immediacy had it been told in third person.
No you don’t sound preachy at all!
I’m a psychology minor at San Jose State and last semester I took a class that focused on the idea of the “everyday psychopath.” After reading your book I really felt you kept the integrity of how anyone can become a victim and not even realize it. These people are everywhere and theres really no way to stop yourself from actually meeting someone like this. That what made Haven’s story so refreshing. One of the aspects that make a character like Nick so frighteningly intriguing is how charming he was on the outside. That is why I love that quote by Oprah when she said, “When someone shows you their true self believe them.” Its the best protection we have. To really listen to that sixth sense that instinct, little voice, or whatever you want to call it. I was so happy when Haven really started to trust herself and find that power and strength inside of herself. It reminds me of how many women never get to make this revolutionary discovery I think this why I loved BED so much! It was really all about Haven and her struggle to truly discover herself.
Dear nne
::I’m a psychology minor at San Jose State and last semester I took a class that focused on the idea of the “everyday psychopath.”::
FASCINATING. It must have been a great class.
::These people are everywhere and theres really no way to stop yourself from actually meeting someone like this::
They are, they’re everywhere, and at the risk of sounding paranoid, now that I know what to look for, I see them all the time. It’s the boundary-crossing that is so obvious, those comments and behaviors that chip-chip-chip at a victim’s self-esteem.
::That is why I love that quote by Oprah when she said, “When someone shows you their true self believe them.” Its the best protection we have. ::
That is so wise, and true.
You know what I enjoyed and found ironic? . . . that she would get involved with a man her family disapproved of AGAIN . . . but this time her judgment turned out to be correct. And think of the great man she would have missed out on if she hadn’t trusted her instincts about him!
In BED, a particular scene that touches me is one involving Haven and Todd, when Todd got the first hint of how difficult things with Nick were and he asks what he could do. He’s so sweet and funny, in how he keeps trying to push Haven towards Hardy. Told from Haven’s POV, you can feel the strength of their friendship and how much it helps to anchor her.
Hi,
I think I agree with most of the above posts, in that it does kinda depend on what the story calls for regarding which POV is used – for me, the first person really worked in BED as a lot of the story focused on Haven’s development and ‘journey’ as a person, and as Lisa said, she went through so much that it really had to be told through her eyes – her voice made it so much easier to understand how she got into and thankfully, out of, such a situation. Churchill did seem very different in the two books, but then again his relationships with Haven and Liberty were very different even though he was the same character.
Dear Jenny,
A good friend can be a lifesaver . . .thank God for them.
Dear Emma,
The interesting thing about 1st person POV, is that you’re never really certain if you’re getting the full measure of reality, you’re getting that narrator’s impression of it. So for example, Churchill may not actually be that harsh, but Haven certainly thinks so and is taking him that way. It’s this “coloring” of things from one viewpoint that I think is so fascinating about 1st person.
I have to admit that for me I find it hard to read first person in historical novels, just because in order for them to be done well not only do you have to get inside a person’s head, but you have to get inside that person’s head AND incorporate the social values and mores of the day. Like it or not, the way a historical heroine and a modern heroine are going to go at a problem is going to be different because they were raised different ways. There are exceptions of course, but too many exceptions in a first person-historical just makes me want to throw the book at the wall. The only first person historical I can think that I’ve really really enjoyed is Diana Gabaldon’s Outlander series, and in that it is a more modern heroine first person perspective who’s time traveling, so I’m not quite sure how much it counts.
By the way, if people have found good first person historicals, let me know, because I would love to sink my teeth into some I haven’t found yet.
More modern heroines from first person perspective I’m a lot more forgiving on, and a lot more willing to suspend my disbelief.
Does anyone else have similar problems?
On first person historicals, how about The Other Boleyn Girl? I found it quite compelling and the setting lush and it has a strong sense of the period, if a little sensational.
Yes, I can’t think of any first person historicals that I’ve enjoyed that much – though that could be because I haven’t read very many. Lisa, I see what you’re saying about the ‘colouring’ that comes with the 1st person POV, particularly in a series of connected books, so you get to see the same characters but from totally different view points.
I think in the first person you get a good feel for that person and their emotions, how they think other people are feeling and what they are thinking. In third person you get the best of both worlds as you get to see multiple POVs and, as you can tell, this is my favorite, though I have to admit, as of late 1st person is growing on me. 🙂
I have to drop in and confess that I really was not going to keep up with Lisa Kleypas’s contemporaries, because they didn’t seem so interesting to me. And then I read this discussion and I soooo want to read BED now.
Regarding first person, I think the earlier comment that was made about the narrator is absolutely true. You really have to like the character. I wouldn’t necessarily say I have to identify with her–it’s rare that I identify with heroines in my books because our lives are so very different–but I have to like her.
I have to like the heroine too, Shannon, not only as a reader but as a writer . . . and it’s so difficult to force the issue! If I make a heroine perfect and sweet, someone who always makes the right choice, that’s boring and she’s a “Mary Sue.” But I can’t make her too much the other way, either. I think the trick is, even when a heroine is making a mistake or doing something unlikeable, we have to understand her motivation and hopefully sympathize. And ultimately, I try as a writer not to overthink this stuff . . . sometimes, as is the case with Lillian from “It Happened One Autumn” I just have to tell myself, “She is who she is,” and go with it.
I love when characters get to speak in their own voices because I think it makes the story more relatable. Part of the reason that I LOOOOOOOOOVE Sugar Daddy and Blue E.D. so much is because I really felt like I was right there with Haven and Liberty – we really bonded haha. All of their trials and tribulations seemed extremely realistic to me and I began to feel everything that happened to these women emotionally which made their happily ever afters that much more special for me.
Yay!
xoxoxo
Lisa: Hello! I wish I could have been here sooner but I’m on the late shift this week and as my computer screen faces the fax machine, the printer and the photocopier – my online time at work is SEVERELY limited 🙁
I agree with you that neither Sugar Daddy nor BED – especially would have been nearly as powerful written in the third person. As a reader, I really felt like a went through what Haven went through due to the first person. She became so much more real. And while it would have been nice to get into Hardy’s head, I think it was also more interesting to see him strictly through Haven.
As a reader I confess I’m very late to the first person POV. I’ve been reading the Stephanie Plum books for years, but when you come right down to it they aren’t really romance although you do have the Joe/Ranger draw. But for romance, I’ve been avoiding it for years. But I am fully on board now and I’ve enjoyed quite a few first person books recently.
I’ve loved your historicals for years and now I adore your contemporaries. I’m really getting the best of both worlds!!
I haven’t yet read BED but I plan on it soon…I really loved SD and I think those who have said that you have to like the heroine in order to appreciate the story is spot on. I have so many friends who didn’t like stories written in first person because they couldn’t connect with the characters or didn’t like the main character’s “voice”.
I would be repeating everything so I’ll just say ditto to what Monica said. =)
I definitely notice the difference between first and third person. Generally, I find it a lot more difficult to get into/relate to a book written in 1st person. It’s hard to do – if there’s anything weird/off about it, the reader is oftentimes alienated. [Isn’t Rebecca written in 1st person?] 1st person is crazyhard to do. (Well.)
Sometimes it’s fun to see how vastly different people’s views of the same person is. Growing up, everyone loved my dad and told me my dad was so much fun – and they wished he was their dad. To a degree, yes. But at the same time… he wasn’t their dad. And it was a whole different ball game with that aspect thrown in.
I don’t know if I’d say there’s an innocence about historicals – though maybe just because of culture. Eh – I can’t think.
Hi Lisa and fellow reading friends,
I agree with everyone’s comments about why BED was perfect told from Haven’s POV. If it were written any other way, I think the realism of Haven’s journey would have been lost. I also think that through Haven’s POV was the perfect way for us to ‘see’ Hardy for the hero he truly is. By calling him a hero, however, I do not claim that he ‘saved’ Haven, but rather that he gave Haven what she needed to save herself. Now THAT’s a perfect hero.
Dear Limecello,
All your comments about your dad . . . yes. I really understand. People looking in from the outside don’t ever see or “get” the full relationship, even when they think they do. Some families are very good at giving the impression of being the perfect happy family, when that is not always the case.
Hi everyone,
Glad to see Haven and Hardy get their HEA. The first person pov worked the best for Haven’s story. I use to think the same thing, if this guy is such a big jerk, why does the woman stay??? Lisa showed perfectly how women tend to try harder to please someone even if it makes no sense to someone on the outside. But I’m glad Haven finally left and started to heal and define her boundaries. Great lesson for all women.
I think Hardy Cates is the type of character who could have taken over the story and pushed the heroine into the background. Since the story is told from Haven’s point of view I think it balances the story more. Also, since I had read Sugar Daddy I felt like I had an idea of Hardy’s personality and how it was shaped by his life.
I agree this story wouldn’t have been as powerful if written in third person. Being that both were victims of abuse it might have taken away from both characters if not done that way,and we were able to get a good perspective about Hardy from Haven’s viewpoint.