I have no clue why any writer tells a tale in the the first person perspective. It heavily limits storytelling...

I have no clue why any writer tells a tale in the the first person perspective. It heavily limits storytelling, and only gives a small perspective in what could be larger narratives.

Done right it adds a layer to view the story from. It makes you think about perceptions of reality vs. true reality (if that's even a thing)

Are there even any books that do this besides Catcher in the Rye?

You're fucking retarded. I bet you're from /v/, and most of your "wisdom" comes from screencapped mini-essays.

first person present tense is objectively the best.

>subjective narration
>objectively the best

Nice!

In my opinion third person omniscient is better

On the other side it gives us a succinct storytelling with just what we need

>It heavily limits storytelling
our inner landscape is limitless compared to the exterior world

Not every narrative needs to be ebig for the win affairs. Limits are good.

>larger narratives
Here is the largest of them all: some things happened. Why would dealing with particular episodes be bad? You might strive for general truths but those tend to be unreliable and generic, unless they are supported by examples (outside mathematics, at least). Moreover your life will always be a particular case of truths that lie outside your immediate reach.

agreed

Man vs Self will never be anywhere near as interesting a conflict as Man vs Nature, Man vs Man, or Man vs Society

>Man vs Nature, Man vs Man, or Man vs Society

there is only Man vs Self, everything else is nuance of that or artificial and mediated for loonies

Writing in the present tense seems to be trendy these days. After a while I find it annoying, like someone constantly tugging your arm trying to grab your attention.

>It heavily limits storytelling, and only gives a small perspective
Gee it's almost like there could be reasons for doing that.

Think of a very good first-person novel and try to imagine it as third-person and that will show you the advantages of first-person form.

e.g.

Heller - Something Happened
Golding - Free Fall
Nabokov - Lolita

>t. someone who has never read a book before

Two novels that really illustrate the difference between first- and third- person form are Jane Eyre and Emma. Jane Eyre couldn't ever be anything except first-person, and Emma couldn't ever be anything except third.

>large narrative is good
Fuck off, retard.
>muh conflicts
Fuck off, child.
Plus, none of that is mutually exclusive.
My planned short story or even novella is a first-person antignostic narrative. A collective shittake on the 'chosen girl' YA narrative. Not to mention that persons can be changed (Veeky Forums doesn't read anything remotely modern or challenging so they wouldn't understand). Veeky Forums cannot read, you think Veeky Forums can write?

>antignostic
I think you meant agnostic or antagonistic :^)

Indeed, one interesting thing about first/third-person perspective is how good writers often get "the best of both worlds".

e.g. in As I Lay Dying, he uses first-person perspective but it's a different narrator every chapter, so there's omniscience as well.

Or in Crime and Punishment, it's technically third-person but Dostoevsky identifies so strongly with Raskolnikov that there's a lot of the first-person feel.

It depends on what kind of novel your writing. First person is great at conveying emotion and good at giving the story a personal touch.

>My planned short story or even novella
kek

No, anti-gnostic. Don't you know what a Gnostic narrative is? Well, the opposite of that, yet taking a very similar form. The alien is thrown into being and incubated in the earth. She travels through the cave to the surface, where the sun is not liberative or enlightening in the positive sense, but rather a reminder that she is not home in the world. It's first person because it only has one actual character.
kys autodidact

Agnostic is the opposite of Gnostic. :^)

>Who are Nerval, Bataille and Camus?

No, a- in agnostic is a negation, anti- is a rejection. And it is the proper noun Gnostic. You might be retarded. Perhaps you should go to university instead of aimlessly reading awful books.

It cannot be agnostic because there is still revelation of knowledge, there is still Aletheia. But it's in the cave, not on the surface.

Antignostic isn't a word. Agnostic has always been the opposite of Gnostic. You're just a brainlet grasping for straws.

Yes it is. You have no clue what you're talking about. Suicide is painless
Anything can be a word you fucking moron.

this

i read this in a squawking 23 year old badly fucked 6/10 short haired woman’s voice just so you know

I'm 30 and male

quit acting pretentious

I'm not. It's a very simple story, that's why it's a short story. It's spelt out.
Stop being an autodidact who is easily impressed by 'big' stories.

It's the way you talk, not the fact that you want to make a short story.

>s-stop being mean 2 me ;cccccccccccccc

I'm annoyed, not upset.

>gives a small perspective
Isn't that the point?

>stop being an autodidact
He needs a supposed "authority" to tell him what to think, what to read, and what is "true"
L M A O
M
A
O

Oh look, the autodidacuck doesn't know what he's talking about. Typical.

You're not hot shit, no matter how much you think you are.

Keep telling yourself how paying "accredited authorities" money who just repeat what they read in a book is superior to just reading the book yourself and other related materials.

t. autodidact
Oh look, the autodidacuck is doing it again.

I don't think you even know what that "big, big" word you're using means. Maybe if you pepper it enough in your short story, publishers will think you are literary, and publish your book.
Or more likely they'll see you for the brainlet you are and consign your manuscript to the shredder

No he's right. The prefixes a- and anti- usually denote different kinds of negations. The word antignostic would denote a notion opposite to that of gnosticism, whereas agnostic simply means not gnostic. Not X is a different thing than the opposite of X, for example cold is a different thing that not hot.

Cause all you read is sci-fi and fantasy (cause you're a virgin), right?

b-b-bb-b-b-b-b-b-but ive never seen it before so it cant be a word!1!!111!! muh high (dude weed lmao) school teacher (feminazi) sed that u cant make words no more even if every body understands

Wow...please never come back to this board.

>I have no clue...

lolwut?

this is 100% true but its easier to digest things in allegorical format, man vs nature is man vs self but better. Explicit man vs self introduces doubt and waffling around shit like "i fucking hate the narrator" Good man vs nature is universal.

Truth doesn't exist.

>Good man vs nature is universal.
Wrong. Universals don't exist. kys platonist

In fact I wrote truths plural.

Retard

I agree that catcher in the rye is a bad book, but not all first person stories are like that, my high school senior d00d