Jakub324 said:
The year is 2457. Humanity lives on dozens of worlds, and almost everything is controlled by the state. I say "almost" because a few colonies broke away. One such colony is Sola, an inhospitable ice-ball of 800,000 inhabitants. The government send an army to obliterate Sola. Within in two days, the population has been reduced to less than 2,000 and what little of it remains hides in shadow, praying for a miracle. However, it is quickly becoming clear that the invaders aren't the most dangerous thing on the planet, and that the new threat might also be Sola's salvation...
I can't decide whether or not to tell part of the story from the perspective of an enemy. He could be:
Part of the officer cadre, highly educated, and under pressure to eliminate last vestiges of local resistance. They have three months to confirm the deaths of the last locals, or they will face a firing squad.
Part of the criminal company, so he'd be one of many convicts. Between them, they have committed every crime under the sun, and now they have guns and have been set loose on the locals. Characters witness them torture and then execute captured civilians. Almost all of them choose to flood their systems with steroids and combat drugs, which make them even more psychotic and merciless.
Ordinary soldier. Very indoctrinated, basic education only, most are conscripts. They make up bulk of the invasion/occupation force.
Do you think I should include this kind thing? It might help make the enemy seem less two-dimensional, but it's already seen through the eyes of both the protagonist and, on occasion the deuteragonist, and I heard a lot of people find POV switching annoying.
I think you need to decide how you want to tell the story and how best you can convey what you want. If you aren't sure what character to tell the story from, that may mean you are unsure as to whether or not first person is right for your story. These are the different points of view you can write in:
First Person: As you know, from the eyes of one person.
Pros: Close and intimate with their exact thoughts, and you can play with the idea of bias and the unreliable narrator. Great opportunities for dramatic irony.
Cons: You are very limited, here. You can ONLY see things through their perspective, so anything they do not or have not experienced in the past cannot be included. Anything they don't know of or experience, the reader won't about.
Third Person Limited: Third person perspective, but mainly following one character.
Pros: You can have a variable level of intimacy with the character. You can stay far, or get very close--even to the point where you are talking as though you are in the head and thoughts of the character, but simply not using quotations or exactly saying "he thought." You can also point out things that the character may not be aware of, or articulate things they don't necessarily comprehend themselves. I recommend reading The Story of an Hour [http://www.vcu.edu/engweb/webtexts/hour/] for a good example of this.
Cons: In third person limited, it is very easy and tempting to just hop over into another character's head for a bit. But you can't--that ruins the point of being limited. Being limited is the middle ground between third person omniscient and first person--you've got the level of intimacy with one character like first person, but the opportunity to go outside their head and elaborate on other things going on like omniscient. Speaking of which:
Third Person Omniscient: Third person point of view, but not limited to one character. In this case, the narrator knows EVERYTHING about EVERYONE. There is no head they can't enter.
Pros: In omniscient, you can keep track of many characters in different places and get into all of their heads. Think about something like the Lord of the Rings--you can jump between groups of characters in different places at any time. You COULD also use it for a smaller cast, but again be careful as to how much you give away. Try reading Rope [http://members.multimania.co.uk/shortstories/porterrope.html] to see what I mean.
Cons: You will want to consider how close you want to get to each character, because if you get too much into EVERYBODY'S heads it can take away from the mystery and tension between the characters and their relationships. Also, it can insult the reader because you could end up giving more away than necessary.
Now there is also second person, but you can look that up yourself. For stories, these are the main ones you'll consider. So the question you need to ask first is this: How do you want to tell the story? Will you want or need to do a summary to introduce the reader to some aspects of the world, or can you accomplish that successfully in the first person? Jumping between points of view should only happen at critical moments for emphasis--if you do it at all. If you want to jump between people's heads, you might want to consider a well executed third person omniscient. You can still get very close to their thoughts, as you can see in that story Rope, but without the inconsistency and whiplash of switching from first person to first person.
So I guess my point is don't commit yourself to first person just yet if you don't even know what character you might be telling the story from. Experienced writers will tell you to use first person sparingly, and only if you are ABSOLUTELY certain that is the BEST way to get your story across to the reader. Remember those little tricks you can pull with each perspective--use them to your advantage. And good luck!
