What’s your Poison?

First-person, second-person, third-person, or alternative: Which narrative point-of-view is for you? Which isn’t?

This came to mind when it was suggested to me to read a book that just got movie rights purchased by FOX. Most times I like to read books before they’re movies, but I always do some research beforehand. Books are expensive and I’m a very picky reader. (Besides, not only awesome books get made into movies, right?)

First thing I look for is point-of-view. I’ll admit I have a strong aversion to first-person. Too often it sounds whiney to me and I only grow frustrated at the lead character for being so annoying. (Even if the actions themselves are not annoying) A few exceptions to this are first-person telling the story of another character—aka: a narrator not telling their own story. A great example: Sherlock Holmes. It is first-person with Watson telling his observations of Holmes but rarely comments on his personal feelings. (Other than how surprised he was)

So when I discovered this novel is a first-person...I had to dig more to discover if the plot itself would be worth it. (It wasn’t. I’ll pass.) I used reviews but hardly care if the reviewer left a one or five stars—I’m only looking for info.

This brings me to my point. Obviously the narrative-point-of-view is a big deal to me, but does anyone else care? Will they pass up a story based only on that?

(psst. Don’t forget: there's a month-long celebration at http://www.theromancereviews.com/

I’ll be featured on March 11th. During my free-time I'll be hanging out on the site all month.)