Why is first person so hated? It can be done well

Why is first person so hated? It can be done well.

Because readers are mostly voyeurs, passive critics of other people's existence. They don't like the spotlight that the first person casts upon them.

user made a new post, and called OP a faggot.

Bump

Most people who write in first person can't progress beyond

"I did this. I saw that. I said this thing."

Because, like rhyming verse, it's hard to pull off, and in the hands of amateurs does little but provide a way for bad writers to really show their worst qualities,--so of course bad writers usually try it.

>First person- can be great in great hands, and awful in not-so-great hands. When reading an author who fell for the "show don't tell" meme it's always substandard. It's painful to read a series of statements like "I did this, then this happened, then a bunch of other stuff happened." Imagine writing a diary this dull, or, even worse, being so dull as to think this is interesting or somehow clever.
>Second person- gimmicky if no thought is put into it. The second person implies an inherent structure that will effect the prose unless worked around.
>Third person- the most sincere and elegant. Instead of forcing yourself into the narrative, you are looking at the narrative from a bird's eye view and commenting on it. This perspective does not limit your prose to "how a character would speak"; instead, one can simply write how they chose to.

Can you give me examples of first person novels that are well writed?

Notes from the Underground

Pynchon did second person in cool ways, but I can't imagine an entire book being written like that.

I think that user was looking for novels that are both A. in first person and B. well written. The key word is BOTH.

Thanks

Wait, so "Notes from Underground" is bad?

Not necessarily bad, but the writing is very difficult to enjoy.

In journalism we are taught to never use first person as it implies you are giving your opinion on the subject, which as a whole it's subjective, because one can't remain eliminated from the event, it would inspire a sense of a robotic quality to the handler of the news, but there's exactly where the art relies, and it's creating a piece of writing -objectevely- knowing that even when you use your opinion you don't need to be involved in it, as it would take value to the subject.

>In journalism we are taught to never use first person as it implies you are giving your opinion on the subject

This is exactly why journalists ought to use the first person more.

It's 'hated' because it draws attention to the subject and takes if from the matter, but if the matter is the mainly and specifically about the subject as in a Kafka novel, you would see why it would be useful, but in nowadays literature where Wikipedia reigns persons are left behind, in figurative sense, and literal. But in all seriousness, either you use it well or it will be too personal, boring, distractive.

First person is inherently pretentious and a bit awkward

So are you

don't blame your failings as a reader on the book, user

Diary of a Drug Fiend
The Stranger
These two come to mind immediately

"A man", by Oriana Fallaci.

Amazing book too.

That's the exact criticism levied by plebs against third person
(note how I'm not implying you're any better than them, on the contrary)

it's not.

name of the wind, murakami, knaussgaaard...

Johnny Got his Gun
Emma

Malone Dies

I just started reading Gravity's Rainbow, did I make a good choice or is it not worth my time?

gayest post i've read in a long while, good job and good projection

etc
ur all gay. no one hates first person outside of this shit board. not even saging because fuck you

...

I didn't fail as a reader. I could have finished the book if I wanted to, but the writing is so poor that it just wasn't enjoyable to do so. Maybe Dostoyevsky had a good story to tell, but he should have collaborated with another writer who could tell it in a better way or at least with an editor who could help him.

It was just me shitposting the other day. Nobody cares.

hurrr

durrr

Literary equivalent of the found footage movie genre. You sacrifice too much (free prose and omnipotent narrator) and gain too little.
It's also pretentious, unrealistic and unrelatable, real people do not think in words

Most people hating on first person are genre fiction reading retards anyway.

>omnipotent narrator
>still using that outdated shite

>real people do not think in words

It's bad for platformers because you can't tell where you're landing.

>He doesn't think in mathematical equations
What a pleb

>fell for the "show don't tell" meme
wait what

island of the blue dolphins
lol

You can if you're not pleb.

Some people are visual thinkers and have "little internal dialogue". They think in pictures and feelings. However, there are plenty of people who think in words at least SOME of the time, so saying "people don't think in words" is kind of excessive.

Moby Dick

That depends on whether you can piece It back together.

Seconded, can someone explain?

Hunger by Knut Hamsun

It's MFA advice, adhering to it lowers your cultural capital.

>Emma

u fking wot m8

>In journalism we are taught to never use first person
I wasn't taught that when I studied journalism. They're teaching you wrong. There are cases in journalism when it's entirely appropriate to use the first person voice.

Lolita.

No one here has read those.

How so

Fear and Loathing in LV

dom casmurro

memorias póstumas de bras cubas

Ficciones

Most of Robert Walser

I looooooove first person :) It lets me express mahself for who I am. Lawlz. OR,, if I want I can make believe be someone else. Look! I'm a dragon now! RAWR!!!! :)))))))