Writing with Present Tense

[Makai_Lightning]

I've been curious about the use of present tense in writing. It doesn't get used too much, which generally makes sense. Most stories are about things that have already happened (or we'll say they alreay happened, even if it's not real). They are complete events strung together, rather than things unfinished.

But what I was thinking about was, for instance, how in conversation, we tell things that happened in the past with present tense. Not always, only sometimes, but people, myself included, do. It's probably why when writing in 1st person, people (myself included, though I get better at it after I settle into it) tend to switch back and forth in tenses. But anyway, if in the sense that hearing someone tell us a story in present tense can be understood as a past event, then shouldn't it be the same sort of thing in writing?

From where I was playing with present tense, my writing seemed more fast paced and immidiate, and I liked the effect because it created a nice sense of urgency, and it can create a sense of continueing action. I wouldn't say that people should use present tense all the time, but it doesn't seem to flow too bad. It is different and would probably need a slightly different approach, but I can see where it would be useful. It seemes to me it could be used more, because I don't see it used much.

My inner musings also led me to remember a book discussion I had about A Thousand Splended Suns. One person brought up how they noticed in the latter portion of the book that in some of the dialogue, instead of "said" it said "says," and went into his analysis about what it meant for the book, and how he thought it implied a few of the statmenents were ongoing things for the character that had continueing significance. For all I know, it was just a mistake, but it did make me think a little. Even if it wasn't purposeful, as long as the readers believe it was done for a purpose, it would therefore mean something. So then, I went off thinking about what kind of things you could imply with use of present tense, provided it made sense to use it. I can't honestly remember exactly, but I think one thing my friend was saying with regards to A Thoudand Splendid Suns was that it seems to progressively use more present tense (I could be clearly wrong here, as I honestly don't know nor own the book, but whether or not it's correct had me thinking). Possibly, if it continually moved toward using more present tense, it could create a sense of moving closer toward the present. For the record, I don't think it was used too much in the book at all, so at this point I've reached over analysis, but it's part of what I do. I don't have the book to check it anyway, but this line of thought entertains me.

As a naturally curious individual, I was wondering what others had to think about it. How well does 1st person present tense work compared to 3rd person present tense, if, by your opinion, at all? Have you used it? To what effect? Sorry if somewhere this was discussed to death before, but it interests me.

[elissa]

My first novel (I feel compelled to point out here that it is not published, or even agented, at this point) is in first person present tense, except for a few flashbacks in first-person past. It's women's fiction, sort of literary-like. I used it on purpose because I wanted the story to feel like it was unfolding in the moment. It frustrated me once or twice, and I actually converted much of the novel into past tense at one point and didn't like it at all. The thing that would frustrate me most was the fact that it was hard to pass time quickly...so to get around that I would start a new section of the book whenever a significant amount of time passed. Otherwise, it felt kind of more...poetic? I don't know. I've also used it for short stories, where you don't have that issue as much with the pacing getting bogged down in the details of minute by minute.

[maestrowork]

My first novel was written in first person, present tense. I agree that it adds certain urgency to the story. But it also depends on the story.

Mine is a journey story, and the readers are going along with the ride. They're just as much in the dark as the protagonist is, and also the protagonist changes through the progression of the story and the narrative voice changes as well because of that. As the story unfolds, the narrator learns more about what's going on and what's changing within himself. I simply felt present tense is the right approach for that kind of a story. It's also contemporary and conversational -- much like posts on bulletin board, people tend to speak in present tense when Again, communicating with others... There's certain immediacy (not necessary "real time" as many people assert that present tense means it's happening as you read!) and urgency and extreme intimacy. I don't think you can get as close to the narrator as you would with first person/present.

Again, I think it really depends on the story. It's just another tool in the writer's tool box. We must look at these tools and see what make the best sense for the stories we're telling. My current WIP is in 3rd limited. It makes sense.

Present tense is not as rare and you may think -- but I generally think it works better with first person. Fight Club, for example, is an excellent example of how a first person/present tense story would work. The Time Traveler's Wife is another -- it almost had a "diary" feel to the narration. (check out mine, too -- The Pacific Between. ;) Shameless plug intended).

[miles]

The thing about present tense is that it has to be done well to work. It's not as forgiving as past tense. When done poorly, it really can be a turn-off to many readers. When done well, readers may not even notice what they're reading is in present tense at all.

Take the beginning of PARADISE by Toni Morrison:

They shoot the white girl first. With the rest they can take their time. No need to hurry out here. They are seventeen miles from a town which has ninety miles between it and any other. Hiding places will be plentiful in the Convent, but there is time and the day has just begun.

They are nine, over twice the number of women they are obliged to stampede or kill and they have the paraphernalia for either requirement: rope, a palm leaf cross, handcuffs, Mace and sunglasses, along with clean, handsome guns.

Anyone who picks that up and starts reading will most likely not even notice the tense.

[Makai_Lightning]

Haha. Shameless plugging noted :). Never did read Fight Club, though I've heard it's amazing from several people. I used present mostly with 1st person too. My character's mental state was basically breaking down, I thought it worked well. No, you probably wouldn't want to use present tense for everything. It could get bothersome. But agree it's easier to get inside the character's mind most directly with 1st present.

[Harper K]

I love present tense -- both reading it and writing it. I read lots of contemporary YA (young adult) and probably the last 10 books I've read have been in 1st person present tense. There's a big focus on immediacy in YA, and using 1st person present tense is a way to establish that sense of immediacy from the very first page. I suppose it's less "realistic" in a way, as it takes a greater suspension of disbelief to trust that the narrator is telling the story at the same time it's happening. I think the tense can be distracting the first time a reader encounters it (I remember hating present tense books when I was a kid), but as long as the novel's well-written, the writer will expertly ease the reader into the "world" of the novel.

My two favorite literary series are both in present tense, too -- John Updike's Rabbit series, and Richard Ford's novels about Frank Bascombe. Ford's are in 1st person present tense, while Updike's are in the much rarer 3rd person present tense, which is far more difficult to pull off than 1st person present, in my opinion.

[bethany]

I also love present and also read and write YA. I honestly don't feel like most non-writers care about the tense as long as it's done well.

[ClaudiaGray]

I think most stories "come to you" in a voice, which may (or may not) vary from story to story. My advice is to listen to it. If you are feeling the need for present tense very strongly, chances are that's right for your story. If you're pushing the story into that tense, maybe not.

[Shady Lane]

I HATE when Ray mentions Fight Club before I do.

...


Anyway, I always write in present tense because I hate past tense. I've tried writing in past when I think it better suits the story, and when I finally give up and change it to present in the third or so draft, it's always far, far better.

[pointman]

It seems to me like present tense writing is starting to become more popular, but what do I know? If you want an example of an excellently written book in that style, try Chabon's The Yiddish Policeman's Union.

[ORION]

The thing is - many books are done in present tense - or at least portions- and often it's done so well the reader doesn't even notice- My novel is present tense and out of 1000+ emails not one reader mentioned it.
It is a literary tool to lend immediacy and can be quite effective- not to be confused with someone who has difficulty with tenses.

[Danger Jane]

I love present tense. It's my favorite to write in, for sure. I like to combine it with first person to create a sense that when you open up the story, you're entering into someone's mind, edited for clarity. I want to put my readers as deeply inside my characters' minds as possible; tense is just another tool that can help a lot.

I didn't like present tense as a reader until I read a book that used it so well I didn't notice til the third time I read it.

[maestrowork]

The thing is - many books are done in present tense - or at least portions- and often it's done so well the reader doesn't even notice- My novel is present tense and out of 1000+ emails not one reader mentioned it.
It is a literary tool to lend immediacy and can be quite effective- not to be confused with someone who has difficulty with tenses.

Exactly. No one ever mentioned "so your book is in present tense." In fact, some didn't even notice until I mentioned it. And some people even told me "I hate present tense" and they had no problem with my book. ;)

[Phaeal]

My default tense is the past, with the present reserved for passages meant to have an intense yet distant quality, like brief flashbacks, dreams, visions and the like.

[Hollan]

I used to hate present tense, until I realized the only present tense I'd read was badly written. All "I wake up. I get dressed. I eat eggs. I read the paper." To be fair that would be dull in past tense too. Then I realized I loved several stories that were in present tense and I hadn't realized it.

So I started to warm up the the idea. Then I started my new WIP and bang! The MC (1st person) wanted it to be present tense. I said "whatever you want" and he got his way. Now I'm loving it. I actually think transitions are more fun in 1st person present, even when large amounts of time have gone by. You're right there with your MC as it's happening, and since it's so internal it doesn't feel jumpy, IMO.

[Seif]

The 3rd part of my novel is written in 1st person present tense - and I've modeled it on Bram Stoker's Dracula as it is in journal form like mine.

[Makai_Lightning]

I suppose it's less "realistic" in a way, as it takes a greater suspension of disbelief to trust that the narrator is telling the story at the same time it's happening. I've always understood that point of view, but I personally question it. Why do we now accept an existanceless narrator telling us a story of these people over the (equally existanceless, though as a character it would feel less so) narrator for first person, telling in present tense? Not every 1st person story has to justify why or how the narrator is telling the story to the audience, though some do, but it's almost always accepted. You can go the diary/journal route, or you can set something up like Dean Koontz did with Odd Thomas and say it was the narrator writing a manuscript, but it's not really essential. If there's equally no context for 1st person past tense, why should we technically need one for 1st present? Especially when its how people can naturally talk to each other? I simply don't think it's necessary to try to be "realistic," although it is sometimes nice.

This is great news! I've read so much negative about the use of present tense that I've been forcing myself to write in past tense.
Am I going to switch my current WIP over to present tense even though I'd originally started out writing it in present and switched it to past? Possibly.
It works better in present and it gives me something to get excited about as I've been struggling with regaining the excitement I once felt for this WIP these past few weeks.
Thanks guys.
Yeah, I've always heard people who hated present tense complain too, though I personally have generally liked it. My default writing style is 3rd person, past tense, but I like using different toys where effective. I'm glad you're excited for your new project again. For one thing I was working on, I remember it felt like it was dragging on, then I switched to present tense and it picked up perfectly. I wrote like, 3000 words just because it fit so well and it just felt so perfect.

[Phaeal]

This is great news! I've read so much negative about the use of present tense that I've been forcing myself to write in past tense.
Am I going to switch my current WIP over to present tense even though I'd originally started out writing it in present and switched it to past? Possibly.
It works better in present and it gives me something to get excited about as I've been struggling with regaining the excitement I once felt for this WIP these past few weeks.
Thanks guys.

Hey, anything will work if it works. I think people are slowly getting over their prejudice against the present tense in fiction, but caveat scriptor: There are those who hate it with a passion and are biased against anything written in it. Some of those people are agents and editors.

If the present tense excites you, go for it. It'll help you finish, and it may be just what the work needed. If not, you can change it in a second draft.

[SPMiller]

I know a lot of folks who will claim to hate present tense, but will often point out my work as an exception. Based on how many exceptions there seem to be, I'm starting to wonder if people who claim to hate present are lying.

But then, I'm nuts enough to prefer first present to the traditional third past...

[scheherazade]

Present tense actually seems pretty trendy these days. Fight Club is mentioned above, but Palahniuk steals his style pretty directly from Amy Hempel, who writes a lot of ultra-short stories involving present tense. Not a lot of plot, necessarily, but present tense galore. A lot of literary writers, in particular, seem to use present tense these days, but I'm pretty sure it's used even in chick lit (if I remember correctly, I think the Shopaholic novels are even written in present tense, which sort of makes sense because they're about an impulsive woman who shops to make herself feel happy now, without regard for how she's going to pay for it later... hence the regret-free present tense).

You're definitely right about the immediacy of present tense. I've had writing teachers who recommend the tense for that very reason, because it can make action seem more pressing (the hero could truly be in peril, if he/she isn't necessarily "living to tell the tale"). It's also great for YA books, as mentioned above, because teenagers in particular like to think about the world immediately around them. By the same token, it's a fitting style to write in these days in North America, because our culture really is about the now, satisfying our current needs, rather than looking backward. But who knows... maybe with the environmental movement we'll start to see more future-tense stories? Er, I hope not. :)

Like deciding whether to use first or third person, you can play with tense to decide how you want your reader to be affected by your story. With first person, readers tend to feel more akin with the protagonist, whereas third person maintains more boundaries between reader and character. So by the same token, you can decide whether you want your reader to feel more in the heat of things with present tense, or more contemplative in past tense.

[firehorse]

This is great news! I've read so much negative about the use of present tense that I've been forcing myself to write in past tense.Same here, though I make myself write in past tense (and third person) as a writing exercise.

Fight Club is one of my favorite books, in part because I feel like I'm on the journey with the narrator. Mariette in Ecstasy also uses present tense very effectively.

[maestrowork]

I suppose it's less "realistic" in a way, as it takes a greater suspension of disbelief to trust that the narrator is telling the story at the same time it's happening.

To me, that's just silly. Plus does that mean the omniscient narrator really is a god? Or that we actually can get inside other people's mind (3rd limited)? Or everything has to have happened before we can tell the story?

It's a literary device. That's all. It has nothing to do with whether the story is happening in "real time."

[Danger Jane]

To me, that's just silly. Plus does that mean the omniscient narrator really is a god? Or that we actually can get inside other people's mind (3rd limited)? Or everything has to have happened before we can tell the story?

It's a literary device. That's all. It has nothing to do with whether the story is happening in "real time."

Well, of course not. But this literary device can be used to create the illusion that the events of the story are unfolding in real time, rather than that they are being described after the fact by the MC or some mysterious entity. All narrative voices and tenses require a suspension of disbelief, but perhaps it's easier for some to make than others?

[maestrowork]

good point. if people can suspend their disbelief that a) the narrator is a god or b) we can get into other people's minds or c) dragons really exist, then why is it difficult to believe, yeah, the story is happening right now? ;)

[Makai_Lightning]

good point. if people can suspend their disbelief that a) the narrator is a god or b) we can get into other people's minds or c) dragons really exist, then why is it difficult to believe, yeah, the story is happening right now? ;)
I tend to agree with this idea, as I think I said before.

It's all a form of telling a story or entertainment. I'm going to guess a lot of people who want to be entertained won't be poking around wondering why something can't be taking place in the moment rather than "far far away in a distant land, far into the future," or "long long ago." Unless it's non-fiction, none of the worlds exist anyway.

[Autodidact]

Generally speaking, as a reader, I hate it. The book better be damn good to overcome my aversion to it.

[maestrowork]

Generally speaking, as a reader, I hate it. The book better be damn good to overcome my aversion to it.

Read the books mentioned here (especially ORION's and mine. ;) ) -- I hope they will change your mind.

[Danger Jane]

good point. if people can suspend their disbelief that a) the narrator is a god or b) we can get into other people's minds or c) dragons really exist, then why is it difficult to believe, yeah, the story is happening right now? ;)

Exactly. That's why I don't get when people argue against present tense on those grounds.

[blacbird]

Some stories demand present tense, others demand past, and a few maybe can be rendered in either manner with equal effect. I do think that there are more dangerous temptations for inexperienced writers in present tense, especially when allied with first-person POV. But it helps to be aware of that.

That said, I don't put much stock in the often-expressed argument that present-tense makes the story feel "more immediate". Good writing, regardless of tense or POV, is what makes any story feel more immediate. Crappy writing, regardless of tense or POV, accomplishes just the opposite.

caw

[tehuti88]

I don't much care for present tense, simply because I'm used to past tense and I'm just old fashioned that way. No particular reason. I know exactly what you mean about people telling stories (aloud) in present tense, as I do this often, but in fiction writing, I stick to the past.

Present tense can work in a story. There's no solid reason not to use it if you prefer it. It doesn't feel "more immediate" to me personally, but I'm just one person. I won't go into specifics or details of how present tense works properly because I don't tend to analyze writing the way you did in your post, and truthfully, everything I read seems to be in past tense.

What irks me most about its usage, though, is that most people can't pull it off without lapsing between tenses, and truthfully, if I were to read the book you mentioned, where the writer changes tense, I'd get so irritated I'd consider it shoddy work and stop reading. I wouldn't analyze the potential symbolism of the change of tense, I'd just think the writer was inattentive and lazy!

I could be wrong, and there are probably some more literary works that change tenses, but to me it's just a huge turnoff. Unless a different tense is being used for a specific, fixed purpose (someone above mentioned things like flashbacks and dreams, etc.), or perhaps there are alternating chapters, the writer should just stick with one tense or the writing will sound incorrect.

But that's just me. I can't say it's right or wrong, it's only my opinion and I bet some people (like the readers of that book) love or don't mind such things.

If you do write something where you switch tenses, just make sure you're doing it on purpose so somebody like me can't rightfully call you lazy! :D

[Round John Virgin]

"I am living at the Villa Borghese." Lots of first-person present tense narration in Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer. It didn't bother me--though of course it had other redeeming features to take my then-teenage mind off of the tense. I recently read Love Me, by Garrison Keillor. It's also first person and mostly in past tense. But every now and then he switches into present for no apparent reason. I found it a bit more jarring, but kept reading because it was an outrageously funny book.

Makai Lightning, I know what you mean about people using present tense conversationally to tell stories. What bugs me there isn't the tense, but the verbs:
So I go...
And then she goes...
And I'm like...
But then Trevor's all...
Yeesh! :tongue

[coneflower2001]

I love present tense...It draws you in like no other. I say be true to your story...think not of what others want. But focus in on what feels right to you, the author.

[AnneMarble]

I used to hate present tense, unless I started reading lots of recent YA novels written in the present tense. It took some getting used to, but now, I can accept it. In a recent drawing, I had to read the excerpts of several YA novels to decide which one sounded most interesting to me, and I ended up picking the one in the present tense. The tense was one of the factors that helped make it more interesting to me (that and the plot and the fact that it wasn't a Gossip Girl or Clique book ;)).

On the other hand, not everything should be in the present tense. (I wouldn't be crazy about YA fantasy in the present tense, and I don't think it works for much genre fiction. Miss Marple looks at the detective and says "Kindly Dr. Richards reminds me of my nephew's neighbor, a nice old man who turned out to be an embezzler, a spy, and a murderer.") At one point, many legal thrillers were in the present tense, and I think that was because Presumed Innocent was in the present tense. But Presumed Innocent was in the present tense because it was suitable for that novel, not because it was following a trend.

[blacbird]

I love present tense...It draws you in like no other. I say be true to your story...think not of what others want. But focus in on what feels right to you, the author.

It draws you in like no other. Doesn't work the same for me, necessarily, or for a lot of other people. But I agree with you on the "be true to your story" front. There's a lot to be said for the "write the way it feels right" method of drafting a story. It usually gives the writer the correct course to follow.

caw

[darrtwish]

Before starting my re-write/edit of Paradox, I've never really considered 1st person, present tense. For me it was either 1st person,past tense, or 3rd person, past tense. I will say this much though: I'm pleasantly surprised at how refreshing it is to write in a completely different style than what I'm used to, and I find that I actually prefer first person, present tense.

[kuwisdelu]

I write first person, present tense a lot. I really like it, and it's the POV that's most natural to my voice right now. All of the short stories I've written lately are in present tense, with some first person, some third. I think it works just as well for third person, but in my experience, it's seemed to come off best in first person. I'm not sure why.

I really think the story and the voice (probably more than the story) has to call for first person, present. But no more than it must call for third person, past, or anything like that. I no longer prescribe to any "default" POV. I just write whatever seems most appropriate for the particular story.

Every POV has its own challenges. Bad present can be very bad, but handled well, it's excellent. I think I prefer good present tense writing to good past tense writing. Possibly because of the "immediacy" argument, or maybe it's just the sound of it. Maybe it's refreshing to hear lots of verbs that don't end in "-ed"? I don't know. But I like it.

[Danger Jane]

I think part of the prejudice against present tense is that it's less traditional than past tense, so when a poorly written story happens to be written in present tense, readers can easily latch onto the tense and say, "It's present tense, I just couldn't get into it."

Have you ever read a bad novel and said, "God, that past tense really sucked"? Probably not. For some reason, people tend to have this reaction far more frequently to present tense.

[Makai_Lightning]

Have you ever read a bad novel and said, "God, that past tense really sucked"? Probably not. For some reason, people tend to have this reaction far more frequently to present tense.
I think that is a really good point. Things that are unconventional do seem to have to prove themselves. In that sense it's almost like a prejudice, if the reason something is described as "bad" can only be something like "it's present tense" or "it was told from the point of view of a snail," but no one can describe why that caused a problem, or how. If something seems like it's a problem just because it's different, then I think it becomes too subjective to quantify. Sometimes being different is bad though...

[kuwisdelu]

I think part of the prejudice against present tense is that it's less traditional than past tense, so when a poorly written story happens to be written in present tense, readers can easily latch onto the tense and say, "It's present tense, I just couldn't get into it."

Have you ever read a bad novel and said, "God, that past tense really sucked"? Probably not. For some reason, people tend to have this reaction far more frequently to present tense.

Good point. I think that's probably very true. The same thing could probably be said of first person vs third person. It's easy to say that getting into the structure of "I did this, I did that, I ran here, I walked there," is easier in first person, and such lack of variation makes for bad writing, therefore first person is tricky. But really, the exact same problem is there in third person, where one can write "he did this, he did that, he ran here, he walked there." Such lack of variation sentence structure is the same problem in both cases, but in one case, it's first person that gets picked on, and in the other, it's just sentence structure, because many people are more used to "he."

[t0neg0d]

In my first manuscript, I made the mistake (and this is subjective, as I am sure other, more experienced writers could make this work) of attempting to switching to present tense to make the impact of a remembered dream seem more urgent. I justified this to myself with the following: A dream is a dream. It can be what did happen, what is happening and what will happen--even all at once.

But, on my first revision, it (of course) stuck out like a sore thumb. I fumbled with it, tried to edit it and leave it in present tense--if the page and a half had stood alone, it would have been great. It had the desired impact.

On my second draft, I attempted to change it to past tense. Can I just say: This DID NOT WORK!

On my third pass, I completely rewrote it (still keeping the original; I wasn't about to give up on the fetus, even through the abortion was in process).

So, why did I type 6 pounds of crap? To say: If you're consistent with present tense, it can work beautifully--really give urgency to your story as it unfolds. If you're flopping between tenses, it hurts the brain.

[channeller]

Interesting thread. What do you say about having some chapters in 1st person present tense, and some (another character) in the usual 3rd past? Would that be weird and flowbreaking and all the rest do you think? It's the way my WIP is looking atm, but if it seems hopeless I might have to try and change it to something more conventional...

[maestrowork]

Interesting thread. What do you say about having some chapters in 1st person present tense, and some (another character) in the usual 3rd past? Would that be weird and flowbreaking and all the rest do you think? It's the way my WIP is looking atm, but if it seems hopeless I might have to try and change it to something more conventional...

In House of Sand and Fog the author switched from first/present to first/past and back. It worked.

[channeller]

Ok. But it was the same person talking about what had happened earlier? I'm thinking more like one character gets to tell the story (1st/present) and the other gets written about in the 3rd(past)... and I'm even confusing myself at this point :)

[a_sharp]

Ok. But it was the same person talking about what had happened earlier? I'm thinking more like one character gets to tell the story (1st/present) and the other gets written about in the 3rd(past)... and I'm even confusing myself at this point :)
And that's what will likely happen to your reader if you do it that way. Why? What's wrong with sticking to one voice?

Unless you're very good at segue, you risk pulling the reader out of the story. Switching around like that borders on gimmicky writing, which the reader will spot in a trice. And it's seldom called for.

I write both ways, but it works better if stay throughout with the voice and tense I started with. The notion of jumping out of that voice to pose another POV is, to me, a lazy device. If I find myself wanting to make a drastic POV/tense change, I reconsider my rationale. Usually it just takes more hard work to make the story work as is.

But that's me.

[roseangel]

As long as it's not confusing and its consistent, it can work.
I often have trouble getting into a story written in 1st person, but mainly, it's because of the voice, so to speak.
I try not to judge based on tenses/povs, but on how it is handled.

[channeller]

What's wrong with sticking to one voice?
Just that if that voice is 1st, then I'm stuck with one person and can't write about anything that happens when he's not there, and nothing of what other characters are thinking. And they wouldn't tell him everything either! I guess the solution would be to put everything in third... we'll see.

[maestrowork]

Just that if that voice is 1st, then I'm stuck with one person and can't write about anything that happens when he's not there, and nothing of what other characters are thinking. And they wouldn't tell him everything either! I guess the solution would be to put everything in third... we'll see.

It's not necessarily a bad thing. It can add a lot more tension, suspense and mystery -- things that make people turn pages. The story can unfold as the readers ride along with the narrator who is just as much in the dark. It can be so exciting!

And oh you have the tools to reveal things that the narrator may not have known or when he wasn't there, etc. Just because you're in first person doesn't mean you can't refer to other things (hearsay, conversation, eavesdropping, diary, blah blah blah... all kinds of literary devices can be used in first person).

One of the things I find is that some writers believe they must tell everything and what every character is thinking or doing...

[Nakhlasmoke]

I just want to chime in that the only people who have questioned why I have written books in first present (and third present, at one point) were other writers.

As people have mentioned, it's not something readers tend to get huffy about. And really - a bad book is bad whatever tense it's in.

[Makai_Lightning]

Just that if that voice is 1st, then I'm stuck with one person and can't write about anything that happens when he's not there, and nothing of what other characters are thinking. And they wouldn't tell him everything either! I guess the solution would be to put everything in third... we'll see.
I'm not sure if that necessarily means you'd have to use present, but what kinds of things weren't you able to convey? I like some of the inability to know everything in 1st. I let my narrator make educated guesses about things, and he can comment on things he's heard. He's wrong sometimes, especially about conclusions, but he can get the observations correct. It lends itself well to keeping the reader both in the dark and not in the dark, because it forces the reader to see the world as the character does. Not knowing everything is okay. I understand if you want to expose more anyway, because I do the same sort of thing, but technically, it's not necessary. Well, unless it is necessary, or otherwise really really cool.

What I mean is, you hit on the limetation of 1st person, but it can also be an advantage, and you shouldn't necessarily have to switch tenses/POV, though if you see there as being a good reason for it, then I'd say try it. If it doesn't work, you can always grab the whip and knock some sense into it.

[Nakhlasmoke]

Just that if that voice is 1st, then I'm stuck with one person and can't write about anything that happens when he's not there, and nothing of what other characters are thinking. And they wouldn't tell him everything either! I guess the solution would be to put everything in third... we'll see.

Um...multiple firsts, it ain't illegal, just saying. ;)

[unaudable_sounds]

I enjoy reading stories in the present tense but I find it very hard to write in the present tense ... Especially when you are basing the book on events you have experienced... It's easier (I feel anyway) to describe the scene the story is set in when you are someone narrating as apposed to living the experience.

[channeller]

Um...multiple firsts, it ain't illegal, just saying
Multiple firsts! Can you do that? :D I thought that would be very confusing... you'd have to start the new chapter with someone saying the new person's name or something, or the reader would think they're still with the previous character... still, might be worth trying that, if it is indeed legal as you claim ;)

[Nakhlasmoke]

Multiple firsts! Can you do that? :D I thought that would be very confusing... you'd have to start the new chapter with someone saying the new person's name or something, or the reader would think they're still with the previous character... still, might be worth trying that, if it is indeed legal as you claim ;)

Well I do it, um, not that that means anything. :D

Generally the voices are quite distinct, although I have betas tell me when i get confusing, and then it's just a matter of tweaking the voice and the opening lines until I have it right.

The last book I wrote had three first povs interchanging. I really hope it worked because I quite like that particular book.

I don't always have to mention names because the characters speak quite differently - example the uses of Father vs da, and stuff like that. Where it started to get tricky was where the common bastard kid started picking up the speech habits of his "new" higher class family. Ugh. Talk about a pain in the arse trying to get that balance right.

[maestrowork]

Multiple firsts! Can you do that? :D I thought that would be very confusing... you'd have to start the new chapter with someone saying the new person's name or something, or the reader would think they're still with the previous character... still, might be worth trying that, if it is indeed legal as you claim ;)

It's very doable and many novels have multiple first person POVs.

[angeliz2k]

I am NOT a big fan of present tense first-person. Somehow, it seems to come across as pretentious, like the character is some egomaniac who thinks we want to be by his side all the time and know every thought. That or it seems like the writer is using it becuase they think it sounds smarter. Either way, I don't like it. I'm sure it can be done well, but I haven't come across one (I might try ones suggested above).

[blacbird]

I am NOT a big fan of present tense first-person. . . . I'm sure it can be done well, but I haven't come across one (I might try ones suggested above).

I've seen plenty of stuff exhibiting exactly the sins of which you speak, especially in manuscript form. And I have a bit of a bias that any writer working in first-present has to overcome to get my approval.

That being said, there are worthy exceptions. Try The Moviegoer, by Walker Percy, for one that immediately comes to mind.

caw

[SPMiller]

I am NOT a big fan of present tense first-person. Somehow, it seems to come across as pretentious, like the character is some egomaniac who thinks we want to be by his side all the time and know every thought. That or it seems like the writer is using it becuase they think it sounds smarter. Either way, I don't like it. I'm sure it can be done well, but I haven't come across one (I might try ones suggested above).I know posters on this very site who do it well. Their trick, as far as I can tell, is to not focus internally. Yes, the author has access to all the internal monolog they could possibly want, but they can focus externally and avoid filtering just as easily as in any other perspective. It's an issue of Conservation of Detail: they don't write thoughts (or events) that aren't plot- or characterization-relevant.

[maestrowork]

Actually I've read far more crappy novels in 3rd person/past than 1st person/present.

Just because something is harder to do well doesn't mean you can't do it well. And just because something is easier to do doesn't mean someone is good at it.

It is what it is.

[blacbird]

I know posters on this very site who do it well. Their trick, as far as I can tell, is to not focus internally. Yes, the author has access to all the internal monolog they could possibly want, but they can focus externally and avoid filtering just as easily as in any other perspective. It's an issue of Conservation of Detail: they don't write thoughts (or events) that aren't plot- or characterization-relevant.

Really good post. Echo, for emphasis. If you're tempted to write in first-present mainly so you can bring forth the deep thoughts of your (almost certainly) autobiographical narrator, save them for a diary.

caw

[kuwisdelu]

Multiple firsts! Can you do that? :D I thought that would be very confusing... you'd have to start the new chapter with someone saying the new person's name or something, or the reader would think they're still with the previous character... still, might be worth trying that, if it is indeed legal as you claim ;)

Not to post anything too off-topic...this one delves into a bit, particular my post #6...

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108650

[kuwisdelu]

I know posters on this very site who do it well. Their trick, as far as I can tell, is to not focus internally. Yes, the author has access to all the internal monolog they could possibly want, but they can focus externally and avoid filtering just as easily as in any other perspective. It's an issue of Conservation of Detail: they don't write thoughts (or events) that aren't plot- or characterization-relevant.

I write a lot of first-person, present, and I'd say one of the keys to success in it is external focus. If you're really good, you can even do internal monologue through externals, such as suggesting the narrator's internal feelings through the way (i.e. tone, diction, etc.) he or she describes everything else. (Not to say I'm any good, but that's how I try to do it.)

Right now, in the connected short stories I'm working on, though the over-arching story is ultimately about the narrator, story-to-story the narrator has very little to do with the actual events. My narrator rarely, if ever, talks about himself through internal monologue, or even to relate who he is or what his life is like. I have a lot of fun with an objective, uncaring narrator revealing a lot about himself simply through the stories of other people he chooses to tell, the way in which he tells them, and the details on which he dwells.

[maestrowork]

I write a lot of first-person, present, and I'd say one of the keys to success in it is external focus.

In general, that's a good advice for all fiction, 1st person or otherwise. Not to say you can't delve into internal monologues, but navel gazing is not very interesting. "Show vs. tell" still applies with 1st person. Just because you're using 1st person doesn't mean you stop showing and tell, tell, tell. Stories are more interesting when the characters are doing something or when something happens to them. Make the readers feel and experience, not telling them.

The reason why writers tend to internalize more when using first person is that it's so natural to do -- "I feel this" and "I think that." "I am so sad" and "I am so angry" -- it's easy to delve into the internal emotions and TELL with first person. That's a trap for many writers.

[kuwisdelu]

In general, that's a good advice for all fiction, 1st person or otherwise. Not to say you can't delve into internal monologues, but navel gazing is not very interesting. "Show vs. tell" still applies with 1st person. Just because you're using 1st person doesn't mean you stop showing and tell, tell, tell. Stories are more interesting when the characters are doing something or when something happens to them. Make the readers feel and experience, not telling them.

Good point. One should really avoid too much internal monologue in any POV... new first-personers just need to remember it more, since it's so much easier to slip into.

[maestrowork]

Think about it. Think about in real life. If someone keeps talking about himself and how he feels and thinks, etc. it gets old really quickly, even if the character is really, really interesting. But if he focuses on telling you what happens, what he and other people do, and the consequences and impact, etc. it's more interesting and may even gives you goosebumps. That's the art of storytelling -- make the readers experience what the narrator is going through by focusing on the external, not the internal.

[SPMiller]

On the other hand, I've encountered readers who love it when my characters wax monologic. Go figure :Huh:

[kuwisdelu]

On the other hand, I've encountered readers who love it when my characters wax monologic. Go figure :Huh:

As with any "rule," there are exceptions. Even internal monologue can be good if done well. There's plenty of it in literature, too.