Welcome to Gaia! ::

I think the chief difference of the two is that, for me, first person allows me to feel what the author wants me to, but allows me the freedom to retreat from them and still stay connected to the story.

1st person
John the Hero does this, and feels a certain way. I can't identify with it for whatever reason, let's say I would never react the way he does. Well, this is just another facet of John. Doesn't bother me in the slightest.

2nd person.
Same as before, but now I am John, and cannot see myself doing what John just did. Suddenly I find myself arguing with the book! 'I would never do that.'


You can always 'assign' some invisible person to be John when you're reading a 2nd person story, but that 'You' will always subvert your best efforts.

The difference is that with a first person narrator, it is a character who is completely within and only connected to the story. With a second person narrator, the reader is the character.

"I" is someone talking to you. When someone tells you a story from their point of view, they use "I did this." First person is like listening to a friend.

"You" is someone referring to you. You don't tell someone a story about something that happened to you and say "You were scared," you say, "I was scared." Only an idiot would say, "No, you weren't scared," however, it's easy for a person to say, "No, I wasn't scared." It carries an assuming tone that is not associated with the word I. You is used in speech writing, advertising, and arguments. It's assuming you agree with them about something. And if you don't agree, it easily turns presumptuous, and even accusational. When you're fighting with someone, and they say, "You think ____," and it's not true, the first instinct is often to go on the defense. Removing this from an argument, it's alienating to tell the reader what they think.

If Bob says, "I think ____," it's perfectly fine. I don't have to agree, and it's just another aspect of Bob.

If Bob says, "You think ____," it's perfectly fine until Bob is wrong. Because this isn't about Bob, it's about me.

Now, you can argue about "take a leap of faith and step outside yourself for a moment!" until the cows come home, but even if I did, it doesn't mean second person and first person are the same thing.

They're the same thing in that they're both used to tell a story, but the words mean completely different things. They both have the same purpose, because first, second, third and omniscient all have the same purpose: tell the story. The difference is that they are different ways of telling a story.

First person takes on the viewpoint of a character, and the reader watches them. They are not doing anything in the story unless they choose to take on the identity of a character. Second person takes on the viewpoint of the reader, or, at times, a reader-character, with the expectation the reader will allow themselves into the story. Third person takes on a neutral viewpoint that conveys action and dialogue, without necessarily conveying personal emotion or thought. Omniscient takes on the viewpoint of an all-knowing spectator.

To narrow it down, in a first person/third person story, the reader is given the option of involving themselves in the story by seeing themselves as the character. In the second person story, the reader is expected to see themself as the character. It removes the choice.


With a story with both first and second, the things that are forced on you are the things that are written in second person.

In the end, "You" and "I" are not used the same in real life, so why would they be the same thing in writing?


I really am having trouble understanding why you don't see the difference between:

"I feel sad."

and

"You feel sad."

I mean, when a friend walks up to you and says, "I had a horrible day!" do you honestly believe that they're assuming you had a bad day, too? As opposed to "You had a bad day!" which implies that the friend expects you had a bad day, and in which case, if they were wrong, a normal person would say, "No, I did not"? (The problem is, you can't say "No I did not" to a character in a book, so you'd probably have to listen to yourself say, "Yes, *long explanation* and then listen to your likely wangsty and annoyingly-written "friend" (who you'd never be friends with in real life) coddle you, before you go out to play a SUPER SPECIAL AWESOME game of football, and can't say, "No, I dislike football..." )

Agreed. Unless it's a choose-your-own-adventure book.

No, those books are ******** annoying also.

I agree for the third time.

It gets very awkward to read second person because it's telling you things that you did but you didn't do and the character that is supposed to be you can make really incredibly stupid choices without your consent, even in 'Choose Your Own Adventure' books anything can be a trap and doesn't necessarily apply to reason. Plus if you die it's like killing yourself!

To answer and any unsaid questions, I did have a bad experience with a CYOA book.

Did you die first go? xp