Using present tense in fiction.

[Lantern Jack]

I'll keep this brief:

I'm writing a short story and feel myself strongly gravitating toward the present tense. What are the advantages and disadvantages of present, vs. past, tense:welcome:

[Shadow_Ferret]

I had a really wonderful response until I scrolled down and got distracted your sig.

What was the question again?

[Lantern Jack]

I had a really wonderful response until I scrolled down and got distracted your sig.

What was the question again?

;) Okay, I just added ferrets to my soon-to-be-extinct list:tongue

[Maryn]

I've worked in present tense several times. The big advantage, for me, was that the possibility of the narrator's death remained on the table. He or she hadn't survived to tell the tale but was still in it as it unfolded.

I also like the immediacy. The reader feels more right there, IMO, so it's especially apt for stories involving, say, danger or tension.

The biggest drawback is that a lot of readers really, really don't like it. I'm not going to allow a verb tense to cost me a sale, which is why I still do longer work in past.

Maryn, who may some day even try third person limited, woo-hoo

[Siddow]

It's easier to get away with it in a short story than a novel. (This is the novel board, right?)

If that's the way you want to tell the story, go ahead. If it works, why wouldn't you?

[Sohia Rose]

As a reader, I don't mind it too much. As a writer, it feels weird to write that way. Plus, I think I would get too screwed up with verb tense and whatnot.

I might try it someday.

[Haggis]

I'm one of those people Maryn warned you about. In other words, I just don't like present tense stories. The problem may be that present tense is so different than what I normally read, that I find myself paying more attention to the tense than the story. In other words, if feels like an author intrusion. That said, I've actually read a few where it worked for me (can't remember any titles, but I do remember Neil Gaiman wrote one) and I actually used it once myself, when it seemed right for the story. A novel though? I dunno. But it's your story. Write it the way you think it should be written.

[JBI]

If I remember correctly, Moorcock's Elric is in present tense, though I may be wrong on that. Generally I feel it makes the writing too uncomfortable. Just make sure if you do it, to stick with it, and not toss in past-tense verbs.

[WildScribe]

I hate present tense. That said, I felt it was the only thing to make my novel really work. So I am struggling through tenses and verbs confusion and all kinds of other fun things with my WIP. Wanna commisserate?

[RG570]

Only a few very small parts are present tense in the Elric saga, and to great effect.

I keep hearing these warning against present tense, but the last four novels I read all were written at least in part in the present tense, and they were great.

[PeeDee]

I can go for present tense...but I've read too much really bad fiction written "artistically" in the present tense that I'm unconsciously turned off by it. It's not what will stop me reading, but it isn't a point in the story's favor. Not for me.

That said, I've written some stuff in present tense. I use it in comic and radio scripts. So I don't know.

(your signature scared the PHENTERMINE outta me)

[MidnightMuse]

I always hated First Person, until I read one that was done so well I didn't even notice. I can't say I've ever read anything longer than a short in Present - but there's always a first time.

[maestrowork]

Present tense, IMHO, works only with first person. It gives an immediate, ultra intimate feel to the story, as if the narrator is right there next to the reader telling them the story. Some people say but it can't be in real-time. All stories happened in the past. To me, present tense is not about real-time. It's about intimacy. We all write in present tense in these posts, and no one thinks it's odd, that these words appear on the screen at the same time we are reading it. But first person/present tense gives a very immediate, intimate tone.

[Lantern Jack]

I've worked in present tense several times. The big advantage, for me, was that the possibility of the narrator's death remained on the table. He or she hadn't survived to tell the tale but was still in it as it unfolded.

I also like the immediacy. The reader feels more right there, IMO, so it's especially apt for stories involving, say, danger or tension.

The biggest drawback is that a lot of readers really, really don't like it. I'm not going to allow a verb tense to cost me a sale, which is why I still do longer work in past.

Maryn, who may some day even try third person limited, woo-hoo

I'm of the mind to play it safe, too, and go with past tense. However, the bigger the risk, the tastier the reward, right?

[laurenem6]

IMO, I would never get past the first few pages of a novel that was written in present tense. For some reason, to me, it seems amateurish. I don't really know why. It's very jarring and I just don't like to read it.

[Soccer Mom]

I agree with Ray. It only works for me in first person. I wrote a mystery novel in first person/present tense and it worked (for me. I haven't submitted it yet.) It just felt right for that particular story of a teenage girl coming to the realization that someone she is close to is a murderer. I wanted the audience to experience it with her.

[lfraser]

Present tense can work really well, in my opinion. It gives a certain energy and immediacy to the narrative. I've seen it used in several novels to great effect.

It doesn't have to be first-person, either. For instance, Neal Stephenson used third person present tense in Snow Crash, and Dan Simmons used present tense first and third person for one of his characters and certain chapters in Illium/Olympus. Done well, as Simmons and Stephenson handled it, present tense can be interspersed with other tenses and still sound natural and fitting.

I'm very attracted to it, myself, although I'm reluctant to use it just yet, because I think it could be a disaster if handled poorly. I suspect I might end up with stream-of-consciousness rambling instead of plot and story

[Provrb1810meggy]

I think it also depends on the genre. For example, the YA market seems to be more accepting of first person, present tense.

[ruecole]

If it feels right, do it.

Despite the fact that many people on boards such as this claim to detest present tense, short stories and novels using that tense are published all the time. Some even sell well and win awards.

As Maestro said, present-tense isn't about telling the story in real time, but about intimacy.

FWIW, I thought third-person, present-tense would be weird to read, but done right it's actually not much different than past-tense. Just a little more immediate and intimate. ;)

JMVHO

Rue

[maestrowork]

FYI, my first novel was written in first person/present. I was dead set to convince people that it would work, if I did it right. :) It was published.

And I had a GREAT time writing it.

[ruecole]

I just read your first chapter at your website, Maestro.

WOW! Good stuff. I may just have to put in an order at Amazon. ;)

Rue

[ORION]

OK.
You write what your story needs.
I switch back and forth between present and past tenses throughout my entire book. It is mostly present tense.
My beta readers said nothing
My agent said nothing.
My editor said nothing.
My foreign rights publishers said nothing.
I truly believe this kind of debate ought to join "What font should I use and how heavy should my paper be in my query."
JMHO

[Adagio]

Margaret Atwood wrote novels in present tense: Bodily Harm (3rd) and The Handmaids' Tale (1st). The narratives drew me right into them. Monica Wood wrote The Secret Language (3rd). I never had any problem accepting those stories and enjoying them. My WIP first draft is written in present tense, but when I started the editing process, I realized that I'm not skilled enough to handle present, so I changed to past ... but deep down, I still see the narrative told with the immediacy (as Maestro pointed out) of the present tense (in my case, a combination of 1st and 3rd).

[seun]

I'll write in present if it fits the story. I have no problem reading present or past. If the story is good enough and keeps you inside it, I don't think the tense should be a distraction.

[FergieC]

I love present tense, in both first and third person. It gives more tension and energy to a narrative. Also, it mirrors the way people often tell stories. If you listen to people talking, they'll often say something like:

So I went down to the beach yesterday, I was walking along, and then this guy comes right up to me and he starts yelling and he's giving it all this... whatever....

It just seems to be natural to slip into present tense for telling an actual story somehow, for getting a reader right into the story. Loads of novels use it to great effect, although very few stick with it right the way through, as that lessens the effect - you lose the tension if it's always present.

My biggest problem is often using it too much in novels, getting fed up with it and trying to figure out how to get back out of it.

[Lynn Sholes]

The best use of present tense that I have seen in a novel is when the author is telling two different stories in two different time periods. Anita Shreve uses this technique with a lot of craft. You never doubt which time period you are in. On story (or part of the story) she tells in past tense, then in the chapters that take place in another time period, she switches to present. It's quite effective. Take a look at the way she does in in The Weight of Water for one example.
Good luck.

[Carmy]

I hate present tense. If I'm browsing at a bookstore and reading first pages of potential buys, anything written in present tense goes right back on the shelf.

Has anyone seen book-jacket blurbs written in present tense?

[seun]

I hate present tense. If I'm browsing at a bookstore and reading first pages of potential buys, anything written in present tense goes right back on the shelf.

That's a shame. You might be missing out on some great books.

[Adagio]

The best use of present tense that I have seen in a novel is when the author is telling two different stories in two different time periods. Anita Shreve uses this technique with a lot of craft. You never doubt which time period you are in. On story (or part of the story) she tells in past tense, then in the chapters that take place in another time period, she switches to present. It's quite effective. Take a look at the way she does in in The Weight of Water for one example.
Good luck.

I agree. I like Anita Shreve. In The Pilot's Wife she uses the same technique: story is told in past; flashbacks, when Katharine remembers scenes in which her husband appears as a "live" character, are told in present.

Another author came to my mind: Michael Cunningham's The Hours. A great book!

I wonder why some readers are turned off by present tense. True, the general assumption is that an action is told at least a few seconds after it happened, so the past tense seems the obvious choice. I remember: when I presented one page from my WIP to the instructor of a creative writing class, he rejected it on the spot. There might have been other reasons but all he told me was: present tense! I came back with a short story and the same page both in past tense. He accepted my subsmission. But that first rejection sat with me as a red flag.

[Jenan Mac]

Alice Hoffman's Practical Magic is present tense, as are Patricia Cornwell's Kay Scarpetta books. I can forgive it in Hoffman, and tolerate it in Cornwell, but it really makes me itch most of the time. And it's almost always a dealbreaker in books I pick up at B&N or Border's.

[ChaosTitan]

I took a two year detour into screenplay writing, so present tense doesn't bother me. There is something more immediate about present tense that can serve the right story well.

I couldn't read one book after another in present, but sprinkling one in every now and again won't hurt me. It's just another writing style, and as a writer, I like to experience everything that I can.

[Adagio]

Alice Hoffman's Practical Magic is present tense, as are Patricia Cornwell's Kay Scarpetta books. I can forgive it in Hoffman, and tolerate it in Cornwell, but it really makes me itch most of the time. And it's almost always a dealbreaker in books I pick up at B&N or Border's.

Patricia Cornwell is an interesting example. In later books she abandoned 1st pov (Kate Scrapetta) and used multiple pov's. I didn't read all the books in the serie and I wonder what triggered the change (1st too limited, too suffocating?) The publisher? Readers? A need to experiment with 3rd and present tense?

[maestrowork]

Has anyone seen book-jacket blurbs written in present tense?

Synopses are all written in present tense. So the point is?

Actually, I just picked up Stephen King's Cell. Yup, the blurb's written in present tense.

[Anthony Ravenscroft]

So I went down to the beach yesterday, I was walking along
Huh.

Does everyone else in this discussion think this is "present tense"? If so, it might explain a few things.

[Hillgate]

Nope!

[scarletpeaches]

I read many novels these days that are written in present tense; either first or third person and I don't even notice the tense any more.

The chicklit genre tends towards present tense more than any other I read.

As long as the book's written well, it doesn't matter.

[scarletpeaches]

Has anyone seen book-jacket blurbs written in present tense?

Yes. Plenty.

[Sage]

I don't think I noticed one way or another when I was younger, but since writing & editing my own stories, I have a tendency to edit out "that"s in published novels, & found myself mentally editing present tense into past tense in a short story I recently read. Found it too distracting to finish the story.

[James D. Macdonald]

We are at rest five miles behind the front. Yesterday we were relieved, and now our bellies are full of beef and haricot beans. We are satisfied and at peace. Each man has another mess-tin full for the evening; and, what is more, there is a double ration of sausage and bread. That puts a man in fine trim. We have not had such luck as this for a long time. The cook with his carroty head is begging us to eat; he beckons with his ladle to every one that passes, and spoons him out a great dollop. He does not see how he can empty his stewpot in time for coffee. Tjaden and Muller have produced two washbasins and had them filled up to the brim as a reserve. In Tjaden this is voracity, in Muller it is foresight. Where Tjaden puts it all is a mystery for he is and always will be as thin as a rake.

What's more important still is the issue of a double ration of smokes. Ten cigars, twenty cigarettes, and two quids of chew per man; now that is decent. I have exchanged my chewing tobacco with Katczinsky for his cigarettes, which means I have forty altogether. That's enough for a day.

It is true we have no right to this windfall. The Prussian is not so generous. We have only a miscalculation to thank for it.

Fourteen days ago we had to go up and relieve the front line. It was fairly quiet in our sector, so the quartermaster who remained in the rear had requisitioned the usual quantity of rations and provided for the full company of one hundred and fifty men. But on the last day an astonishing number of English heavies opened up on us with high-explosive, drumming ceaselessly on our position, so that we suffered severely and came back only eighty strong.

-- All Quiet on the Western Front

[CheshireCat]

Huh.

Does everyone else in this discussion think this is "present tense"? If so, it might explain a few things.

First person, past tense.

It is amazing how many people see present tense in any material using the first person POV.

[Doctor Shifty]

I've switched from past to present tense in the middle of a short story then back again. The present tense portion is a series of flashbacks induced in the MC by what is happening to him. Although the story is told in past tense, the flashback scene is made more immediate by using present tense, and there is a certain irony in the change to present tense for what is obviously the past history of the character.

[Doctor Shifty]

Huh.

Does everyone else in this discussion think this is "present tense"? If so, it might explain a few things.

I think FergieC was drawing your attention to the change to present tense verbs in recording the actions of the intruder -

So I went down to the beach yesterday, I was walking along, and then this guy comes right up to me and he starts yelling and he's giving it all this...


I went ... I was walking
contrast with:
This guy comes ... he starts yelling ... he's giving it

[Anthony Ravenscroft]

See, writing is a little different than merely transcribing "what happens." Try transcribing a real monologue sometime, with ellipses for the awkward pauses & every spelled-out "like" & "um," & you'll likely create something unpublishable.

Can such awkwardnesses be used to advantage? Certainly! But they are not forgivable in print merely because they happen In Real Life.

The aforementioned would begin with something like, "So, dude, like, I'm at the beach? And I'm, y'know, walking?" Set the tone, then lay off the dialect or the reader will balk at being reminded that this is just a bunch of flyspecked paper with a likely-imaginary recollection, rather than something that's personally involving.

[scarletpeaches]

Funny how some use present tense for flashbacks. Seems a bit skewed to me.

I once wrote the first draft of a book with the present day in present tense and...the 'past' chapters were written in...well, past tense.

Fancy.

[PattiTheWicked]

As a reader, I absolutely can't get through a novel written in present tense. I recently picked up Basket Case, by Carl Hiaasen, whom I normally love. I had to give up after about four chapters -- not because I didn't enjoy the story (it's actually pretty good) but because I couldn't get past the present tense narrative, which is just so distracting that it ruined the whole thing for me.

[Vanatru]

It's a personal thing. Some like it, some don't. There will be different fans of each style and they buy the material that's in the style they like. Some people like multiple styles and will buy it all.

I can't stand it personally. As was mentioned earlier, it smacks of high-school style. It might have a great story or idea, but if I can't get past the tense, I won't. When they're plenty of great books out there, I don't see a reason to make myself waste time on something I'm not keen to.

Of course, whatever works for, works for you. So do what's comfortable for you.

[FergieC]

Huh.

Does everyone else in this discussion think this is "present tense"? If so, it might explain a few things.

I went ... I was walking
contrast with:
This guy comes ... he starts yelling ... he's giving it


Yes, thanks Dr Shifty. That's exactly what I was referring to. People - not writers, just people chatting, if you eavesdrop on their conversations - have a tendency to natually fall into present tense when telling a story, even if they're talking about something that happened. Therefore, they will start off in past tense, taking about having gone down to the beach yesterday, then slip naturally into present tense to tell the story.

This isn't any kind of writing device, it's just an observation of the way people actually tend to speak (or at least they do in Britain), and they way they tend to tell stories. So I reckon having narrators do something similar - ie, slip into present tense to up the tension - is perfectly allowable, if it mirrors the way people actually do think or communicate.

[Enzo]

I prefer writing in past tense, but I sometimes catch myself using present tense when I insert or change short passages.

[Anthony Ravenscroft]

Present tense & first-person have in common that they are very demanding on the reader. Whether fiction is written as pastime or "serious" prose, it's almost always intended to be entertaining; making the prose more demanding increases the risk of pushing the reader away.

Once in a long while, you might start writing in one way, & then come to realise that it'd work better in another. Perhaps you just didn't realise it, or the temper of the tale's gone in such a direction that a different approach would work better. I've only, once, tried to rewrite a mostly-finished story from third to first, & I gotta tell you it was easier to start from scratch & pull in relevant points -- not a mere find/replace editing.

[scarletpeaches]

Demanding on the reader? I've never had any problems with either and the book I'm reading at the moment is written in present tense AND first person!

I don't want anyone dumbing down the books I read...

[FergieC]

I agree peaches. First person can be fantastic if it's done well. I love Catcher in the Rye, for instance. You can get a real sense of character and voice in first that you can't always get so easily in third. And present tense gives tension and immediacy. It's just a case of balancing, and getting the right voice at the right time (which is bloody hard, even if the best writers do make it look easy!)

[Hillgate]

Demanding on the reader? I've never had any problems with either and the book I'm reading at the moment is written in present tense AND first person!

I don't want anyone dumbing down the books I read...

I'll second that

[TsukiRyoko]

Present tense, if executed incorrectly, can sound awkward and redundant. Very sensitive matter, this one. I try to always stick to past tense.

Now, fi you REALLY want a challenge, try going for future tense. If it happens to work out, you'd probably get pretty well known pretty damn fast.

[maestrowork]

Present tense & first-person have in common that they are very demanding on the reader.

How is the prose more demanding with 1st/present? I don't get it.

If it's because you're not "used" to it, then, well, get used it. There's nothing inherently more "demanding" with first person/present tense.

[maestrowork]

Present tense, if executed incorrectly, can sound awkward and redundant. Very sensitive matter, this one. I try to always stick to past tense.

Oh, like a poorly-executed 3rd/past novel would be easy and pleasant to read?

It's a matter of taste. Just because we're used to vanilla doesn't mean chocolate is bad. It's okay if we "hate" present tense but try not to make that judgment into a qualitative analysis why it's bad.

This whole argument is so silly. It's as if Lantern Jack asked, "I want to write fantasy. Is it okay?" and then we argue about how some people hate fantasies so he shouldn't write it, or vice versa.

The bottom line is, present tense is a legit form of storytelling, so if you want to write it, go with it. It is harder to do well, but it's not impossible. Just do it well, as with anything else.

[scarletpeaches]

Demanding on the reader? I've never had any problems with either and the book I'm reading at the moment is written in present tense AND first person!

I don't want anyone dumbing down the books I read...

I'd like to add that I don't consider third person or past tense to be dumbing down. I just don't want people avoiding present tense because it's allegedly 'harder to do'.

Like Maestro said, the argument's silly. No tense or narrative is better than any other - just different. Write what best serves the story.

[Jenan Mac]

[

[scarletpeaches]

Um, well I was replying to another poster who suggested present tense was more demanding, so I think we're actually in agreement on that one.

[janetbellinger]

You've got it, Scarlett. Any tense can sound awkward if it isn't written well. Let the quality of the writing be the measure of whether or not the piece is good rather than an arbitrary one such as the tense it is written in or whether it uses adjectives or adverbs. These are all very superficial things and not indicative of the quality of the writing.

[veinglory]

I think that it is only realistic to realise people do find the less familar tense/person combos more demanding to read and they are less like to do so. I suspect editors are also aware of this. Neither editor nor writer being able to dictate what readers decide to acquire a taste for. I happen to like writing first person, but when I do so I get lower sales and complaints from even my loyal readers, and I listen to them.

ETA: Other writers make other choices, and often with greater success ;)

[Sage]

A warning I once heard regarding use of first-person is that if the reader doesn't identify with the MC, they might give up on the book. Could that be what that poster meant by "more demanding"? That it was demanding on the reader to accept a POV (in the form of "I") that they may not otherwise share?

Maybe in that respect, present tense requires the reader to accept that things are happening right now, & if the reader doesn't happen to be in the same mood as the story, they might find it hard to read.

I havent read much present tense in my life, & the most recent was hard for me, but that was as a writer who was working on editing at the time. Not positive how I would react as a normal reader, though.

[maestrowork]

I on the other hand has great sales even though my book was written in first person/present, and I think I actually converted a few former "hate present tense" types. But you're right -- you need to know your market, your genres, and your fans' taste.

I still say there's no rule -- and don't ever limit yourself just because everyone says so. To be a writer is to be fearless. If you believe your story should be told in first/present or whatever POV and tense, go for it. The only requirement is that you work hard on it and do the best you can.

[maestrowork]

present tense requires the reader to accept that things are happening right now...

That is a myth.

When I was reading Fight Club (in first/present), never did I think everything was happening right when I was reading it. What I got out of it was a feeling of immediacy, as if the narrator was sitting next to me telling the story.

Like I'm typing this post right now in present tense. Do you really think I'm still sitting here at the computer when you read this? Don't be silly -- I may be. I may not be. But I definitely have ALREADY written this.

I think it's a false sense, something that we were taught from every young, that "past tense" means everything is in the past, and present tense means it's happening right now. To me, that kind of thinking doesn't really work with fiction, which by nature is more fluid and creative. To me, the tense is part of a voice, and to necessarily a "time" thing. It's just another way to tell a story, to achieve a certain style and feeling. Much like first person creates a more intimate feeling between character and readers, present tense also creates an immediacy, which IS NOT the same as "it happens right now."

I mean, when you watch 24, do you have a problem thinking "oh, these things are not happening right now as I watch TV..."? Of course, it's not, but the "real-time" aspect of the show creates that immediacy that makes the show so exciting.

When I use present tense, I try to:

- create a different kind of suspense, that the readers are really going on a ride with the narrator...

- create a "buddy" like relationship between the readers and the narrator -- so yes, the "buddy" should be at least sympathetic or interesting

- create interesting plot twist that feels immediate, that the readers AND the narrator didn't see it coming

- create a naturalness when the narrator addresses the readers directly. Much like what I'm doing now, it feels more natural with present tense than past tense, especially when I use a lot of imperatives.

- create voice/mentality change in character. It's hard to do it if your character is naive in the beginning but a worldly person at the end when you write it in past tense. That "character" change just doesn't seem right with past tense... With first person/present tense, I have an opportunity to create an actual "changing" narrator.


There's a reason for everything, and first/present is just one of these tools. You need to know what kind of story you want to tell, and what the best way of telling it is.

My second novel is written in 3rd/past tense. Not that I think it's better or worse, just different. And it's the right POV and tense to use for that particular story. And that really is the most important thing, to know what is right for your story. If you do it right, your readers will follow.

[Dave.C.Robinson]

I don't like present tense. I've read some novels (and short stories) that were written in present and that I liked. Having said that, the number is much smaller than the number I've enjoyed that were in past tense. Personally I find that it gives a sense of artificial immediacy and the artifice hits me more strongly than the immediacy. Please note, I also hate present tense narration on the History Channel too, it simply rings false because I know that it's dealing with the past not the present. Things are likely very different for those who are more sensitive to the immediacy than the artifice.

I also find that present tense is harder to do well than past. One result of this is that given a writer with a finite amount of effort and skill, more of it will be put into telling the story than the story they're telling. I find it's a way to make the writer's job harder and alienate some of the readers, so I prefer to avoid it.

That's not to say it can't be done, but that I don't usually think it's worth it. I also know that it's cost authors I like sales because I've picked up a book and put it down because it was in present tense and I don't care for them enough to bother with a present tense novel. I find they're harder to get into so I want more of a payoff from reading one.

[veinglory]

Perhaps we need a list of great classic and current novels in first/present and both?

[CheshireCat]

- create voice/mentality change in character. It's hard to do it if your character is naive in the beginning but a worldly person at the end when you write it in past tense. That "character" change just doesn't seem right with past tense... With first person/present tense, I have an opportunity to create an actual "changing" narrator.

Gotta disagree with you here. Whether first-person/past tense or third-person/past tense, character development is perfectly believeable, I think. If, as with every other aspect of writing, it's done well.

Just as you rightly point out that present tense doesn't mean the reader believes he or she is reading events happening in real time, nor does past tense prevent the reader from accepting character changes and development over the course of the story because they stub their toes over the awareness that the character has already matured or changed when he or she is narrating the beginning of the story.

It may be more difficult to do (arguable, that), but I've read plenty of first-person/past tense stories in the course of which the narrator's character changed dramatically, and I had no trouble accepting that change. If a reader is drawn in, as he or she should be, forgetting that the narrator is "telling" you the story is simply another aspect of the suspension of disbelief.

Which is the author's job -- no matter what tense or POV is used.

[OverTheHills&FarAway]

Perhaps we need a list of great classic and current novels in first/present and both?

Add I am the Cheese, by Robert Cormier, to the first/present, third/past, and script (transcript?) list. I'm only partway through, so for all I know there could be more.

I may be an idiot, but it took me twenty pages to notice the present tense. And that comes from someone (me) who's writing her WIP in first/present and has been following this thread with great interest . . .

[Judg]

Funny how some use present tense for flashbacks. Seems a bit skewed to me.Very simple reason for that. A flashback is a reliving of an event as if you were in it. Same thing in psychology, I believe.

[maestrowork]

Off the top of my head, that I've read recently:

- Fight Club
- House of Sand and Fog
- Five People You Meet In Heaven (flashback)
- Stephen King/Peter Straub's Black House

[maestrowork]

It may be more difficult to do (arguable, that), but I've read plenty of first-person/past tense stories in the course of which the narrator's character changed dramatically, and I had no trouble accepting that change. If a reader is drawn in, as he or she should be, forgetting that the narrator is "telling" you the story is simply another aspect of the suspension of disbelief.

Which is the author's job -- no matter what tense or POV is used.

And that's the key. Suspension of disbelief. Those who say, "I can't believe the story is told in real time" is robbing themselves a good story because they resist, from the very first sentence, to suspend their disbelief.

I'm not saying first/present is better or worse. I'm just saying that if your character does change over the course of the story, the "suspension of disbelief" may be easier if the narrator is actually "sitting next to you" telling you the story, instead of some "past tense" story -- who knows when it was written. Granted, if done well, it doesn't really matter. A person could simply change (the way she thinks, her voice, etc.) during the time she wrote the story, past tense or present tense. What I was saying is that with present tense, there IS a sense that the narrator is right there with you, so he could be a jerk in the beginning and a total hero at the end and it would be believable even if you don't think the story is told in real time. Think of it as -- you see the narrator over a period of weeks/months/years and he's telling you "and then that happens." First/present is simply a different option and can be very effective.

[Dave.C.Robinson]

And that's the key. Suspension of disbelief. Those who say, "I can't believe the story is told in real time" is robbing themselves a good story because they resist, from the very first sentence, to suspend their disbelief.

I'm not saying first/present is better or worse. I'm just saying that if your character does change over the course of the story, the "suspension of disbelief" may be easier if the narrator is actually "sitting next to you" telling you the story, instead of some "past tense" story -- who knows when it was written. Granted, if done well, it doesn't really matter. A person could simply change (the way she thinks, her voice, etc.) during the time she wrote the story, past tense or present tense. What I was saying is that with present tense, there IS a sense that the narrator is right there with you, so he could be a jerk in the beginning and a total hero at the end and it would be believable even if you don't think the story is told in real time. Think of it as -- you see the narrator over a period of weeks/months/years and he's telling you "and then that happens."

I don't get that from present tense at all. Part of it is that for me present reads like an immediate artificial now, so I don't feel any progression. It feels disconnected from time entirely, there's no past or future to the story just an eternal now. It's hard for me to see that progression without the sense of time passing and past tense does that better for me.

[maestrowork]

See, I really don't understand that. I guess that's just how our brains work differently. To me, the time progression is no trouble at all. After a while, I don't realize I'm reading present tense. It becomes transparent to me.

To me there's no difference between:

a) The day before, she had taken the baby and gone to the park. This day, she went to the bank. Then she thought she would make a cake the day after.

b) Yesterday she took the baby and went to the park. Today, she goes to the bank. Then she thinks she'll make a cake tomorrow.

[Dave.C.Robinson]

See, I really don't understand that. I guess that's just how our brains work differently. To me, the time progression is no trouble at all. After a while, I don't realize I'm reading present tense. It becomes transparent to me. (emphasis mine, DCR)

To me there's no difference between:

a) The day before, she had taken the baby and gone to the park. This day, she went to the bank. Then she thought she would make a cake the day after.

b) Yesterday she took the baby and went to the park. Today, she goes to the bank. Then she thinks she'll make a cake tomorrow.

That's where we differ. For me it takes a lot longer and a lot better writing to get into that reader's trance for present tense than for past tense. It certainly can be done, but I find that many of the strengths you find in present tense aren't there for me.

[maestrowork]

Again, I think it's a personal thing. Much like some people prefer omniscient but some people just can't get into that kind of storytelling. Some people don't read first person -- it has to be 3rd person. We can't please everyone.

To me, first person gets me in the action really fast. There's something a bit more distant about past tense that it takes me a while to get into that dream state. It's actually not as natural to me (because we tend to speak in present tense in real life). And when you add the "had" -- it gets annoying sometimes. "She had made food and would have liked to sit and watch TV but her husband had given up on the car and taken the remote first." Eeek.

I do think past tense is the "norm" in storytelling because, well, it's what we're used to. Someone telling us a story... "Once upon a time..." So it makes sense to be in 3rd/past. But as we get into what we call "cinematic" storytelling in modern times, the screenwriting techniques somehow becomes more and more relevant or accepted, I suppose. And we all know screenplays are written in present tense. Perhaps because I'm a movie person, as well as an actor, that I take to the present tense much easily than others. It's not strange at all.

[Dave.C.Robinson]

I agree that first person really draws the reader (myself included) in quickly, though for me it's present tense that slows things down not past tense. As to adding the "had," that's something that I try to avoid as weak writing.

I would write your example sentence more like: "She made food and wanted to watch TV, but after giving up on the car her husband beat her to the remote."

[maestrowork]

In first person/present I would have written:

She's making dinner; I can smell it. I give up on the car, grab a beer and beat her to the remote. She's not happy at all when she comes in from the kitchen. Oh well.

;)

[My-Immortal]

In first person/present I would have written:

She's making dinner; I can smell it. I give up on the car, grab a beer and beat her to the remote. She's not happy at all when she comes in from the kitchen. Oh well.

;)

I might be wrong (it happens a lot) - but the above reads like a laundry list of 'telling' to me. Is that really how most first person present tense stories are written?

Thanks

[maestrowork]

These are just examples. I'm not trying to win book awards with these, and this is not about show vs. tell. It's about past tense vs. present tense. And how is this different than the "past tense" version. Is that one less of a "laundry list" just because it's in past tense? That's the real question.

If you want a real example, read a few published books, mine included, and judge for yourself if the authors wrote laundry list or real prose, regardless of tense:

Perching above the incline is a cottage with a green tiled roof, red bricks peeking through plastered walls, under an eminent camphor tree the shape of an old man hugging the sky. It's simple architecture -- humble, bland. The vista, however, is magnificent. Set on a lush tract of meadow at the edge of a cliff, the cottage overlooks the broad sea -- a shimmering, rolling sheet of blue silk. To the left, a few roofs peek through the trees at the top of a hill, which drops abruptly and tapers into the desolate cove below.... I wriggle the doorknob and it jitters like a scab about to fall off an arm. The door's locked. I step aside, cup my hand over my eyes and peer into a window. Blackness. As I step backward, I catch my own reflection in the glass.

A man stands behind me.

[Adagio]

I might be wrong (it happens a lot) - but the above reads like a laundry list of 'telling' to me. Is that really how most first person present tense stories are written?

Thanks


Hm. Laundry list? It didn't cross my mind. No, it isn't how most 1st person present tense stories are written. But somehow the narrator has to "tell" something, like picking up a remote control, or going from point A to point B. From his house to the car. No matter how much enamored we are of showing, and heavens know I am one, an overload of similes, metaphores, or excessive showing, unnecessary gestures, perspiration, clenched fists, clenched jaws overloads the prose, imho.

Adagio

[My-Immortal]

These are just examples. I'm not trying to win book awards with these. And how is this different than the "past tense" version. Is that one less of a "laundry list" just because it's past tense?

If you want a real example, read a few published books, mine included, and judge for yourself if we're writing laundry list or real prose.

Ray, I know you weren't trying to win any book awards on this - I was just curious if most, many, some or few first person present books sound like that to others...or just me. (and as I said, I could be wrong - I don't typically write in 1st person present).

Thanks for your input.

[maestrowork]

Actually, I give up with this discussion. It always comes down to this: "I can't stand present tense, therefore it's bad."

There's no point of arguing if people's are already fixed on certain way of writing or expression. And it's a sad affair to me. I would never tell anyone NOT to do anything just because it's not a usual practice or that 10 million other people are doing it the other way or that *I* don't particularly care for it. To me, that's just a wrong attitude and irrelevant. This should not be a thread about "personal preference" but the actual merit of the style.

And no, show vs. tell has nothing to do with tenses. You can write in past tense all you want and still come off as all tell and no show. Those two things are not related.

[My-Immortal]

Actually, I give up with this discussion. It always comes down to this: "I can't stand present tense, therefore it's bad."

There's no point of arguing if people's are already fixed on certain way of writing or expression. And it's a sad affair to me. I would never tell anyone NOT to do anything just because it's not a usual practice or that 10 million other people are doing it the other way or that *I* don't particularly care for it. To me, that's just a wrong attitude and irrelevant. This should not be a thread about "personal preference" but the actual merit of the style.

And no, show vs. tell has nothing to do with tenses. You can write in past tense all you want and still come off as all tell and no show. Those two things are not related.

So hate present tense all you want. I'm done with talking about this.

I didn't read the entire thread, but I hope this wasn't directed at me. I don't 'hate' present tense...I don't have a lot of experience with it, either reading or writing it. I tend toward third person limited, but that's just because that's what I'm most comfortable with (and I still struggle with it quite often). I'm sure for certain stories, genres etc. first person present works very well. I believe Dean Koontz "Intensity" was written in 1st person present and if I remember correctly, it worked very well (I read it many years ago so my memory is a bit fuzzy on the details). I hope you didn't misunderstand my question/comments.

Edit: Going back and reading the entire thread Ray I see that the first part was likely not directed at me.
As for the 'show' vs 'tell' - I agree. Past tense can have way too much 'telling' in it also. I understand your initial example was nothing special (your longer example though reads beautifully), but since I have limited exposure to first person present, I was curious if it tended to sound a bit more 'telling' even if it truly isn't. (or is it was just me).

[Doctor Shifty]

Funny how some use present tense for flashbacks. Seems a bit skewed to me.


Skewed it isn't. It is not merely "present tense for past happenings", it is use of the "historical present", a valid form, common in many languages, and technically required by grammatical construction in Greek (and perhaps other languages) where tense requires indicators for aspect and time. The "historical present" form accentuates the timelessness of a past happening and it is this which makes it especially suitable for the experience of flashbacks.

This is a quote from the story I was referring to in my earlier post. The setting here is a sexual assault on a new boy in a boy's home. At first he thinks they want his fancy belt buckle, but something releases locked away memories and he realises what is really happening to him.
_______________________________
He managed to pull his hands free and grip the buckle before anyone could get the pin from its hole in the thick leather. With both hands securing his belt he started kicking against whoever was holding his feet.
“If that big kid gets it I’ve got no hope.”
“Very nice,” came a voice from far above him. Benny was standing over him while the others were doing his dirty work.
“Very nice,” Benny said again, kneeling down and rubbing the flat of his hand over Cameron’s chest and stomach. “Very nice.”
Cameron froze at the sound. He looked into Benny’s face. He knew that face, the eyes grazing, and that hand. Cameron’s fear was coming from far away but it was rushing, there was more than a belt buckle at stake here.

Something flitters in front of him, like a bat flying in the night, almost silent, almost invisible. A memory long struggling in the dark, now it is on the wing. Benny’s words, the gaze, his hand on bare skin, they are beacons lighting the path for this dark menace. Cameron reels beneath its flight.
“We have to check you for scars.”
Cameron is standing by the teacher’s desk after the other children have gone. He is as silent as the silking of fabric over young boy’s flesh. His new school shirt is first on the desk and his eyes lock onto it. A slight tremor, a small hand reaches out, it touches the shirt. He is anchored. The teacher is made confident by Cameron’s invisible cloak. He sees the boy’s compliant vulnerability, he smells it, and he wants to taste it.
“Some boys have scars and we have to check that they’re OK.”
_____________________________________

The flow of this story is 40% lead-up in past tense, 40% present tense, 20% wind-down in past tense.

I found when I was writing this that using present tense made me very careful in how I presented very volatile material, but it also allowed me to be more sparing in word use because of the immediacy it gave.

Kim

[ChaosTitan]

This thread inspired me to write in first person/present for tonight's Flash Fiction Challenge. ;) Does it work? I think so, but it is ultimately up to the reader to decide for him or herself.

[Doctor Shifty]

Please note, I also hate present tense narration on the History Channel too, it simply rings false because I know that it's dealing with the past not the present.

This is a particular case where it needs to be used carefully if it's not to be potentially confusing.

Imagine the present tense voiceover saying something like, "The Boldovian marauders defeat the better equipped but poorly led Gardinian Army in this decisive battle. The Boldovians now have the weapons of modern warfare and few dare to stand against them."

And sitting in front of the TV set is a bunch of nine year olds who imagine a tribe of medieval warriors with AK47s.

I think this is one reason why what can work for fiction needs to be used carefully for historical writing.

[seun]

Demanding on the reader? I've never had any problems with either and the book I'm reading at the moment is written in present tense AND first person!

I don't want anyone dumbing down the books I read...

This has already been seconded, so I'll third it.

[scarletpeaches]

When someone says present tense yanks them out of the story, they can't 'feel' it because they know they're not there I would say this:

When you're sitting in your armchair reading an adventure novel set in the wilds of some far-flung jungle, with snakes and guns and albino monks (sorry), do you truly, truly believe you are there just because it's written in past tense? So why expect the same from the present tense?

I know I'm beginning to sound like a member of the Maestro fanclub but hey, he said it: Suspension of disbelief. The unwritten contract between you and the author to temporarily believe that their world is true. You don't get to give conditions; "Only if you write it in past tense." They wrote the book; you want to judge it on the tense rather than the quality of the writing, so be it. Plenty of other people will buy the book.

I don't think people like Sophie Kinsella, Jane Green or Anita Shreve will be worrying about sales figures anytime soon.

[farfromfearless]

When you're sitting in your armchair reading an adventure novel set in the wilds of some far-flung jungle, with snakes and guns and albino monks (sorry), do you truly, truly believe you are there just because it's written in past tense? So why expect the same from the present tense?


I think it would be quite amusing to see the outcome if we were to stick you, Peaches, and Dan Brown in a room. It would be for all intents and purposes, a literary cage match. Peaches' witty barbs vs. Brown's pseudo-historical knowledge. Who would win?

My money is on Peaches! (Just read the acronym thread from a few weeks back, and you'll know why...)

[scarletpeaches]

I'll tie him up with his own adverbs and teach him how to split infinitives! :D

[Hillgate]

My money's on peaches. Dan'd just hide behind his wife, something he did not too long ago...:)

[veinglory]

I don't think there's any cause for frustration because preference isn't automatically criticism. Like many here I also write present tense, in both short and longer stories. I just recognise that it is an issue for some readers, particularly in certain genres. For example, first person chcik lit is common and no problem, first person romance is outright banned by many publishers.

[My-Immortal]

Does anyone know of any first person present fantasy novels? I suspect urban fantasy might work better than say...high epic fantasy. Again, not a criticism of the first person present pov, but I would tend to think (and again, I'm sure someone will be able to prove me wrong-and that's fine), that the fantasy genre might not be filled with as many of those...(though, I am thinking of one book I was reading a while back that was done in first person and I can't remember it being present or past-which would indeed tell me that if done properly it can definitely work--at least for me).

Take care all -

[maestrowork]

It seems to me present tense does work better with contemporary fiction. So yes, I would venture a guess that it will work better with urban fantasy but no so well with Middle Earth.

[Hillgate]

It seems to me present tense does work better with contemporary fiction. So yes, I would venture a guess that it will work better with urban fantasy but no so well with Middle Earth.

I think it could work well with historical fiction, not that I've tried it. It could inject immediacy, maybe? Any thoughts?

[My-Immortal]

I think it could work well with historical fiction, not that I've tried it. It could inject immediacy, maybe? Any thoughts?

I'm still trying to figure out if LOTR would 'work' in present tense..... :)
Hmmm....digging around for the book....

[maestrowork]

I don't think LOTR would work because it doesn't really go for that "immediacy." There's actually a grand/epic storytelling arc with a cast of thousands, and for that kind of story, I really do think present tense is inappropriate. You actually want a little narrative distance. That's my take.

[Hillgate]

Thinking about it, I think present tense should only be considered where you know it's a personal story where the only other option is first person in the past tense. The fact that that person may choose to use the present tense to express themselves might, possibly, give an additional slant/interpretational clue as to their character? Maybe? Or should I open the wine now? ;)

[veinglory]

First person fantasy, Laurel K Hamilton and Jim Butcher, I think.

[My-Immortal]

First person fantasy, Laurel K Hamilton and Jim Butcher, I think.

Jim Butcher's Dresden Files series is not in first person present (first person past)... I'd have to look around to find out if Hamilton is or not. (Though, I'd consider his Dresden Files to be urban fantasy - so it 'could' work). Ray, I think you're right about LOTR. I don't think present would work well for that book at all (though I suppose if you wanted to tell JUST Frodo's story and put it in first person present that 'might' be an interesting read....)

Edit: Peter David has a series in first person also in fantasy, but it too is written in past tense.

Still looking for first person present non-urban fantasy.... :)

[Dave.C.Robinson]

There's a lot of fantasy in first person, and as I remember both Laurel K Hamilton and Jim Butcher write in first person. However they both write in first person past, not first person present. I for one think the first vs. third person debate is independent of present vs. past tense.

What works for the story is what works for the story.

[Dave.C.Robinson]

Jim Butcher's Dresden Files series is not in first person present (first person past)... I'd have to look around to find out if Hamilton is or not. (Though, I'd consider his Dresden Files to be urban fantasy - so it 'could' work). Ray, I think you're right about LOTR. I don't think present would work well for that book at all (though I suppose if you wanted to tell JUST Frodo's story and put it in first person present that 'might' be an interesting read....)

Edit: Peter David has a series in first person also in fantasy, but it too is written in past tense.

Still looking for first person present non-urban fantasy.... :)

Some of L.E. Modesitt's Recluce series are in present, I can't remember if they're first or third person though.

[veinglory]

Yes, I was only thiking of 1st, not present.

[CheshireCat]

To me, first person gets me in the action really fast. There's something a bit more distant about past tense that it takes me a while to get into that dream state. It's actually not as natural to me (because we tend to speak in present tense in real life). And when you add the "had" -- it gets annoying sometimes. "She had made food and would have liked to sit and watch TV but her husband had given up on the car and taken the remote first." Eeek.

I do think past tense is the "norm" in storytelling because, well, it's what we're used to. Someone telling us a story... "Once upon a time..." So it makes sense to be in 3rd/past. But as we get into what we call "cinematic" storytelling in modern times, the screenwriting techniques somehow becomes more and more relevant or accepted, I suppose. And we all know screenplays are written in present tense. Perhaps because I'm a movie person, as well as an actor, that I take to the present tense much easily than others. It's not strange at all.

It is, as you say, largely a matter of taste or preference. There's no right or wrong to it. I accept present tense in a screenplay, but in a novel it grates against my nerves. Does that make it bad or wrong? No, just not my cup of tea.

And any argument about what is "harder" either as a reader to read or a writer to write, is also a moot point. Reading and writing are experiences unique to each individual. So what I find harder, you may find easier, and vice versa.

[CheshireCat]

Actually, I give up with this discussion. It always comes down to this: "I can't stand present tense, therefore it's bad."

There's no point of arguing if people's are already fixed on certain way of writing or expression. And it's a sad affair to me. I would never tell anyone NOT to do anything just because it's not a usual practice or that 10 million other people are doing it the other way or that *I* don't particularly care for it. To me, that's just a wrong attitude and irrelevant. This should not be a thread about "personal preference" but the actual merit of the style.

And no, show vs. tell has nothing to do with tenses. You can write in past tense all you want and still come off as all tell and no show. Those two things are not related.

Yes, but there's no way to determine the merit of a particular style without injecting personal preference into the debate. There are no absolutes in writing, no right or wrong, no yardstick against which all fiction can be measured (or in a more manageable bite, all first-person narrative), no true objective analysis.

So while you can argue passionately that readers and writers are shortchanging themselves by avoiding first-person, or present-tense works, someone else can argue just as passionately that they believe otherwise. You can argue passionately that first-person, with or without present-tense, is more difficult or challenging to write, or write well, or more or less difficult to read, while I can disagree with you -- or not.

My point is that I don't think first-person, present-tense is bad, I just think it's not for me. And if I choose not to read books in a tense or POV I dislike well, that's my decision. It doesn't invalidate what the author has done, anymore than it invalidates the work of a SF novelist that I choose not to read that.

Different tastes, that's all.

[My-Immortal]

I know someone earlier mentioned the whole "suspension of disbelief" as a reason why they did not like first person present tense (or at least I think it was this thread) but isn't true first person present tense technically impossible? I mean...the events are supposed to be happening 'now' - to the main character (who is revealing the story to the reader).

But the main character can't "actually" be experiencing the events as he/she is revealing them in the 'now' because that character would 'technically' be sitting at the computer typing the words that just appeared on the screen.

(Warning - poorly written example forthcoming....)

Outside, I hear two men shouting. I get up from the computer and go outside. My neighbor is chasing after a man wearing a ski mask.
"Stop him!" my neighbor shouts.
Ski mask is running straight at me. I'm a writer, not a fighter, but I pretend I'm ten years younger and playing football. I tackle him.

---------
Technically, once the I reaches the 'get up from the computer' everything else in the story isn't happening 'now'....it would have been events that happened previously and the I later returned to the computer to write them--in the present tense (though it happened in his/her past).

Now, I understand you can write the scene as I did (poorly) above, but I suppose that bit of contradiction is what throws me a little when I do read stories written in first person present tense.

Does that make sense at all?

[maestrowork]

Yup. That's what I said about the notion that "it is happening now as I type" thing that throws a reader, and I encourage everyone to get over that. Present tense in fiction is merely a technique to create immediacy, but we don't need to get technical about it. Otherwise, we could argue that... wait a minute, there's no way a story could be told from a omniscient point of view because none of us is God, and we can't possibility know everything and what everyone is thinking. Again, it's about suspension of disbelief. If you can believe that some God-like creature is narrating an epic fantasy set in some strange land in Middle Earth, then you can believe a narrator is sitting next to you telling you, "and then this happens!"

I presume that it's also possible to create that "now" feel if the author chooses to do so (and somehow words are transcribed to the page as you read magically), but I don't think that's really what present tense is about. I haven't read any work in present tense that tries to simulate the "now, this moment."

That's what I've been trying to debunk, this whole "present tense = happening now, this very second" misconception.

Besides, if you are "aware" that the author has to actually type this out, typeset it, bind the book and deliver it to your hands, or else this can't be real... then you're not really in the moment of the story. So technically speaking, once you're off on the side pondering "it can't be in present tense" or "wait, did the narrator die? How could he tell the story if he did?" or "wait, who is this God-like narrator telling me how these 10 people are thinking?" or "wait, there is no dragon and three-headed trolls," then you're already out of your suspension of disbelief, so it doesn't matter if it's in 2nd person/future tense -- you already disallowed yourself to believe in the first place. There's that resistance to begin with. It's a predisposed prejudice that will forbid you to sink into the story no matter how brilliant it is.

That's the reason why I don't usually read epic fantasy. I always have this predisposed bias against things that are not from this universe (I can suspend my disbelief with SF, however, for some reason). I just can't get into it and suspend my disbelief. It doesn't mean one shouldn't write fantasy. It just means don't count me as your reader. (That's not entirely true -- I did read 1 1/2 book of the Harry Potter series.)

;)

[My-Immortal]

Yup. That's what I said about the notion that "it is happening now as I type" thing that throws a reader, and I encourage everyone to get over that. ;)

All of the post had excellent points - (just saving a little space) - but I think then that the hang-up some have about tense is just as valid as say your hang-up on epic fantasy. To each their own. Not to say I'm unwilling to grow as a reader/writer...however, since I tend to write fantasy, dark and only slightly epic, I probably will not be using the first person present any time soon. And just as you encourage others to embrace something different, I would encourage you to every so often attempt to read a bit of epic fantasy. Assuming the books are well written, as writers can't we still learn from other styles, methods, etc?

[My-Immortal]

wait a minute, there's no way a story could be told from a omniscient point of view because none of us is God.

I'm sorry, what was that again?
I'm a god.
You're God?
I'm A god, not The God...I don't think....


:)

[Dave.C.Robinson]

Personally I think that present tense isn't so much about trying to convince the reader it's happening now as it is to put the reader in the place of the character as the event is occurring. It's more about recreating the character's emotions when the event occurred as the character felt them.

As with all techniques, it works better for some people than with others. This applies to both readers and writers. Some writers do it better than other writers, and some readers enjoy it more than other readers. The less the technique works for a given reader, the better a writer has to be at employing it for it to work for that reader.

I don't care for the technique-- as I've said before some of the drawbacks affect me more than the strengths-- so it needs a very good writer for me to enjoy something in present tense. Having said that, there are genres and writers for whom it does work very well.

[maestrowork]

I have read fantasy, although I do have a natural aversion to it. I liked the Harry Potter books. I find some fantasy movies (e.g. Pan's Labyrinth) rather wonderful, even though I don't believe it in a second. :) But yes, I am willing to try.

So for those who say "I put the book down immediately as soon as I see it's present tense" maybe they can open up a bit, too.

;)

[My-Immortal]

I have read fantasy, although I do have a natural aversion to it. I liked the Harry Potter books. I find some fantasy movies (e.g. Pan's Labyrinth) rather wonderful, even though I don't believe it in a second. :) But yes, I am willing to try.

So for those who say "I put the book down immediately as soon as I see it's present tense" maybe they can open up a bit, too.

;)

Perhaps there should be a different thread to discuss aversions and why people have them (though, I'm guessing there is one buried somewhere already in existence in this forum). I wouldn't say I have an aversion to 'reading' first person present (I've read third person present and after a couple of pages I didn't notice it) - I just haven't run across too many novels in the genres I typically read that contain that pov/tense (though I am willing to try new things too).

Take care -

[maestrowork]

Maybe you should read outside of your genres. :)


:poke:

[Hillgate]

I find some fantasy movies (e.g. Pan's Labyrinth) rather wonderful, even though I don't believe it in a second. :) But yes, I am willing to try.

;)

Hi Maestrowork - I think Pan's Labyrinth is much more than a fantasy movie: in fact, I wouldn't even describe it as such. It's a teeth-grindingly realistic portrayal of the brutality prevalent in Franco's Spain and one little girl's attempt to hide away from it, which she does by inhabiting her own fantasy world. It got a 25min standing ovation when it premiered last May and I was one of the people standing there in a dickie-bow with tears in their eyes. Believable? You Bet!). ;)

[scarletpeaches]

So while you can argue passionately that readers and writers are shortchanging themselves by avoiding first-person, or present-tense works, someone else can argue just as passionately that they believe otherwise.

They'd be very unwise if they did. It's impossible to judge whether this is better than that if you stick to this and never read that.

If person A said you're shortchanging yourself by not reading this book, no-one can argue otherwise, because Person B can't make an informed choice. How anyone can deny they're shortchanging themselves by avoiding a particular book beats me; they'rearguing against something they know nothing, or little, about. "I'm not missing out by refusing to be open-minded?" Hmm. Well, how do you know? You MIGHT be missing out, you might not be, but you can't possibly know unless you're informed...and if you're informed, you're no longer avoiding the genre or style from a position of ignorance.

In fact it's not even about what's better. If I said "I prefer Dickens to Dostoevsky," that would be an unfair assertion because I've never read Dostoevsky.

To make an informed choice, one must open-mindedly listen to both sides of the argument and look at evidence from both sides.

There is no right or wrong, there is no 'better' in this argument. It's about what people prefer, though I fail to understand how some people can say what they prefer when they've never read, or rarely read, in the style they're dissing.

[Hillgate]

They'd be very unwise if they did. It's impossible to judge whether this is better than that if you stick to this and never read that.

In fact it's not even about what's better. If I said "I prefer Dickens to Dostoevsky," that would be an unfair assertion because I've never read Dostoevsky.

To make an informed choice, one must open-mindedly listen to both sides of the argument and look at evidence from both sides.

There is no right or wrong, there is no 'better' in this argument. It's about what people prefer, though I fail to understand how some people can say what they prefer when they've never read, or rarely read, in the style they're dissing.

Well said!

[My-Immortal]

Maybe you should read outside of your genres. :)


:poke:

Naturally, (since I write fantasy) I read fantasy and some science fiction. I read action/thrillers, mysteries, and some horror. I read Shakespeare from time to time, and lots of non-fiction (usually related somehow with something I'm currently working on - weather patterns, world geography, religions, crime scenes, sailing ships - I don't understand when people say fantasy writer's don't need to research). I do on occasion read literary novels but admittedly they are not my first choice to read. I have read some romance/historical romance and paranormal romance but again, it is not my first choice (though the few I have read were good).

Honestly, I don't really pay attention to the POV choice or tense when I pick a book to read...If the book jacket/outside blurb catches my attention, and the first paragraph or two hooks me regardless of pov/tense, I'll continue to read.

[maestrowork]

That's my boy.

[My-Immortal]

That's my boy.

Daddy....?

:)

[scarletpeaches]

I'm guessing that's not something Maestro needs to hear. ;)

[My-Immortal]

I'm guessing that's not something Maestro needs to hear. ;)

Hey! I didn't ask for cash or the car.....
or even where he's been all my life....

;)

[Matt McKee]

Present tense gives me the willies. Maybe that's why it works so well when I read it in a great piece of writing. I say: Roll the dice.

[alaskamatt17]

Hi Maestrowork - I think Pan's Labyrinth is much more than a fantasy movie: in fact, I wouldn't even describe it as such. It's a teeth-grindingly realistic portrayal of the brutality prevalent in Franco's Spain and one little girl's attempt to hide away from it, which she does by inhabiting her own fantasy world. It got a 25min standing ovation when it premiered last May and I was one of the people standing there in a dickie-bow with tears in their eyes. Believable? You Bet!). ;)

There's nothing wrong with viewing Pan's Labyrinth as a fantasy movie. I am personally inclined to believe that the fantasy aspect was "real." Ofelia escapes from a locked, guarded room using her magic chalk. The Captain also interacts with the chalk, which was given to Ofelia by the faun. The other characters also manage to interact with the mandrake root.

The fact that it begins and ends with a narrator also lends credibility to the idea that it is actually a fantasy movie. We only have one scene to the contrary (won't spoil it), and even the evidence from that scene could be explained easily in terms of the faun's capabilities and

Saying that Pan's Labyrinth is "much more than a fantasy movie" seems like a slight to fantasy movies. Isn't it fine to say that it's a really good fantasy movie? Even if the focus of the movie is on the brutality of Franco's Spain, the story exhibits a lot of traditional fantasy sensibilities.

Sorry for steering the discussion off-topic.

As far as present tense goes, read short fiction. It seems to work best with first person, but I've seen some downright disturbing serial killers do their work in gritty first person. To me, that really seems like the best use of it--someone or something that's supposed to put readers in the fetal position.

[Hillgate]

There's nothing wrong with viewing Pan's Labyrinth as a fantasy movie. I am personally inclined to believe that the fantasy aspect was "real." Ofelia escapes from a locked, guarded room using her magic chalk. The Captain also interacts with the chalk, which was given to Ofelia by the faun. The other characters also manage to interact with the mandrake root.

The fact that it begins and ends with a narrator also lends credibility to the idea that it is actually a fantasy movie. We only have one scene to the contrary (won't spoil it), and even the evidence from that scene could be explained easily in terms of the faun's capabilities and

Saying that Pan's Labyrinth is "much more than a fantasy movie" seems like a slight to fantasy movies. Isn't it fine to say that it's a really good fantasy movie? Even if the focus of the movie is on the brutality of Franco's Spain, the story exhibits a lot of traditional fantasy sensibilities.

Sorry for steering the discussion off-topic.

As far as present tense goes, read short fiction. It seems to work best with first person, but I've seen some downright disturbing serial killers do their work in gritty first person. To me, that really seems like the best use of it--someone or something that's supposed to put readers in the fetal position.

Sorry! I didn't mean to slight fantasy movies, which I love. It's just a fantastic movie and it's going to win an Oscar for best foreign film or I'm a Dutchman...

[scarletpeaches]

*polishes Hillgate's clogs and books him a windmill holiday*

[Hillgate]

*polishes Hillgate's clogs and books him a windmill holiday*

I have bought a book on lowland reclamation in preparation...

[maestrowork]

There's nothing wrong with viewing Pan's Labyrinth as a fantasy movie. I am personally inclined to believe that the fantasy aspect was "real."


I think that's why I liked it -- that even though it's fantasy, it feels real. I can deal with imagination as fantasy. I want to something to sink my cynical/realist mind into, something I can't do with something totally set in a different universe. That's why I liked Narnia, too, I guess. Yes, it's still a fantasy, what with the Snow Queen and faun and all, but it's set against a realistic world through a magical portal -- so I was willing to suspend my disbelief.

Okay, now we're seriously off topic.

Speaking of psychopath/serial killer stories using present tense -- how about American Psycho?

[scarletpeaches]

Novels aren't really about creatures of the night, or murder, or ghosts, or romance...they speak a deeper truth of which we are all aware - the characters are nought but window dressing.

Wow. That was deep. What's come over me?

[maestrowork]

You've drunk the Maestro Kool-Aid.

[scarletpeaches]

I'm sure there's a punchline about getting a refill.

[Hillgate]

Cut it out you two or I'm going to have to take a cold shower:tongue

[JerseyGirl1962]

So for those who say "I put the book down immediately as soon as I see it's present tense" maybe they can open up a bit, too.

;)

That used to be me until I received Elizabeth Bear's futuristic trilogy (Scardown, etc.) a couple of Christmases ago. Now, the entire novel isn't in present tense; parts of it are also in 3rd person past. But even though my yuck meter came on, I decided to read on and see if it worked.

It did. The MC is a gritty cyborg, set in a scary, rundown future. The present tense worked because of the character and the circumstances.

And, just recently, I read an excellent short story in Realms of Fantasy (can't remember the name of the writer, but I recognized the name). This was in 3rd person present and it worked; I was at the end of the story before I realized it. This time, it wasn't gritty, futuristic society, but a sort of other worldly place where magic was part of everyday life. There wasn't any gritty, rundown feeling to the story, but present tense fit it very well. There was a sense of forboding throughout, so maybe that's why it worked for me. :)

Would I read a novel entirely in present tense? I don't know. But I think, at this point, I can handle three or four pages of it at a time.

As to the OP...what everyone else said: Write in whatever fits for your particular story.

Good luck with it! :D

~Nancy

[Dave.C.Robinson]

I've read the first to of Elizabeth Bear's trilogy and plan to get the third soon. I enjoyed the books enough that I won't consider present tense a turn-off when she writes it.

Having said that, I won't buy anything by LE Modesitt in present tense. I like the stuff he writes in past, but not present.

I'll read it, but I prefer not to -- and yes all else being equal it will be the reason I put a book down.

[lfraser]

So, for those of you who don't like present tense and would abandon a book written in it, can you expain why you find it so objectionable?

I find it really interesting that a tense could be disliked to such an extent.

[alaskamatt17]

Just today I was rewriting the opening of my Orion's Key trilogy and I realized that the rewrite was in *gasp* present tense!

Oh, the horror!

[Mud Dauber]

So, for those of you who don't like present tense and would abandon a book written in it, can you expain why you find it so objectionable?

I find it really interesting that a tense could be disliked to such an extent.

I was wondering the same thing. I'm of the opinion that it's writers who despise it so much. I'll bet if you set up a polling station at Barnes and Noble or your local library and asked the average patron whether or not they would read something in first person-present tense, most would go, "Huh?" Honestly, I think a lot of avid readers probably don't even give it a second thought.

Seems to me (I think Maestro said it somewhere in this thread) that if the tense is all you're aware of after reading the first few pages of a book, then the author hasn't done his job in pulling you into the story. I prefer first person, but I've picked up plenty of third person books, started reading them, and became so drawn into the story, I completely forgot that I wasn't reading my 'preferred' tense.

[scarletpeaches]

The last book I bought - Kate Harrison's "Brown Owl's Guide to Life" is - *GASPIFICATION*...

...written in PRESENT TENSE!!! And I had to really look hard to find it. You don't notice when reading it. Yep, some writers, if they're good enough, get away with such heinous crimes as using an unpopular tense.

Probably 'cause she's damn good at it. Bit heavy on the ol' dialogue attribution, to be the pot calling the kettle black. But that's another thread entirely!

[lfraser]

'There she weaves by night and day
A magic web with colours gay.
She has heard a whisper say,
A curse is on her if she stay
To look down to Camelot.
She knows not what the curse may be,
And so she weaveth steadily,
And little other care hath she,
The Lady of Shalott.'

I wonder if Tennyson was cast aside by readers who didn't like present tense?

[scarletpeaches]

A lot of my posts are written in FUTURE TENSE. Ever think of that?

"I'm going to get up from this computer desk and make a cup of tea. Then I'll edit chapter seventeen and later on this evening, watch some television."

Oooooh the horror!

[lfraser]

A lot of my posts are written in FUTURE TENSE. Ever think of that?

"I'm going to get up from this computer desk and make a cup of tea. Then I'll edit chapter seventeen and later on this evening, watch some television."

Oooooh the horror!

Oh, no. That's different. Present tense is just fine, but you'll never catch me reading anything written in future tense. That's just too risque.

[maestrowork]

Me neither. Thus I don't read Scarlet's posts.

:p

[Dave.C.Robinson]

So, for those of you who don't like present tense and would abandon a book written in it, can you expain why you find it so objectionable?

I find it really interesting that a tense could be disliked to such an extent.

I'll try to answer. When reading a novel I personally find present tense to be much more intrusive than past tense. It puts more attention on the words than the story. Like many I need the suspension of disbelief, what I call the "reader's trance," to get the most out of a book. Because it's harder for me to ignore the writing in present tense, the book has to be better written for me to fall into that trance if it's written in present tense.

It won't make me abandon a book that I'm already well into (not on its own) but it is something that will make me less likely to purchase the book I've just picked up in a bookstore.

[My-Immortal]

When reading a novel I personally find present tense to be much more intrusive than past tense. It puts more attention on the words than the story.

I was thinking about this thread last night and had some similar thoughts. When I read, I like to forget that I am reading - and if a specific style of writing calls attention to itself, then I start paying more attention to the individual words rather than the picture the words as a whole create. Perhaps if one reads (or writes) in present tense often, they are more accustomed to this style and therefore do not notice it - whereas those that read (and write) in past tense do. Again, I'm not saying present tense is 'bad' or past is 'better' - it is simply a matter of taste/preference - but I think it is good to attempt to analyze the 'why' one likes or dislikes something than to simply accept those opinions unexamined.

Take care all -

[lfraser]

But do you think that your perception that present tense is more intrusive might be due to its being relatively uncommon in comparison to past tense?

(Oops. My-Immortal managed to get that post in just before this one, thus addressing my point).

[My-Immortal]

But do you think that your perception that present tense is more intrusive might be due to its being relatively uncommon in comparison to past tense?

For me, yes. I do read an assortment of genres, but mostly fantasy. I can't think of a 'present' tense fantasy book offhand (first person past, yes - just not 'present').

[Dave.C.Robinson]

I couldn't say for sure that that's the reason, but relative rarity is certainly a possibility. I do read primarily SF and Fantasy where it does seem less common.

[lfraser]

That's interesting. Most of the examples I came up with off the top of my head were science fiction. Go figure.

[akaSylvia]

Most attempts at present tense are very clunky. That's not to say I refuse to read present tense, simply that it often is not executed very well. I would think very hard about my own ability to keep the reader with me (and not make the reader breathless) by keeping it in the present tense.

It's most noticeable when you want to slow down the action, at which point the pace can often feel wrong. I suspect this is why people are happy enough with a short piece but a novel, not so much.

[Philip64]

So, for those of you who don't like present tense and would abandon a book written in it, can you expain why you find it so objectionable?

I find it really interesting that a tense could be disliked to such an extent.

I think the main reason why some people are uncomfortable with present tense is that when used in the wrong place, or in the wrong way, it can come over as deliberately 'writerly'. Past is the normal, straightforward choice for a good reason: stories are told after the events they describe, not as they happen. To pretend otherwise is, at a subtle level, inaccurate or even pretentious. "After driving around for an hour he parks the car and hurries into the bank." Obviously this has already happened. How else could it be in a book?

In novels the present tense is often used most successfully to provide contrast.
"Nicholas Branch sits in the book-filled room, the room of documents, the room of theories and dreams. He is in the fifteenth year of his labor and sometimes wonders if he is becoming bodiless." This 'framing' character in Don DeLillo's 'Libra' takes up at most 3% of the novel. But he sits outside the main action of the story (fifteen years later, in fact); so DeLillo writes about him in a different tense.

Margaret Atwood also writes the story of Simon, the feckless psychiatrist in "Alias Grace" in present tense. This is slightly less successful; but the intention is similar. It sets Simon's story apart from Grace's (the latter being a first-person narrative, mainly in the past tense). Clearly Atwood is anxious to give the two sides of the book as different a feel as possible. The contrasting tense helps.

This is how I think of present tense: as a means of providing contrast where contrast is helpful. It can sometimes provide more immediacy, but this is by no means automatic.

[maestrowork]

Perhaps if one reads (or writes) in present tense often, they are more accustomed to this style and therefore do not notice it - whereas those that read (and write) in past tense do.

I think you just nailed it.

If you're not used to Chinese food, your first or second trip to a Chinese restaurant would probably be very uncomfortable and you will probably think Chinese food is weird tasting. You probably prefer burger and fries over wonton soup and General Tso Chicken. It doesn't make one better than the other -- they are just different. The less accustomed you are to something, the more self-aware you are.

It also depends on your "first time." I still have an aversion to Mexican food because I had a bad experience the first time I had it. Slowly I am warming up to it but it's taken a long time. My first experience definitely put a dent in my overall impression of the cuisine.

There are badly-written novels out there, and if one happens to be in present tense and you just happen to read it as your first present tense novel, it will definitely put a very bad taste in your mouth.

[JerseyGirl1962]

Seems to me (I think Maestro said it somewhere in this thread) that if the tense is all you're aware of after reading the first few pages of a book, then the author hasn't done his job in pulling you into the story.

I think this is what turned me off on present tense in the past (and I'm still not sure I'd read an entire novel in present tense). I think the examples I gave further up the chain here are particularly well done stories where I didn't notice the tense until after the story was over. I think that might be one of the keys for me.

Another key is that I've read so many stories in 3rd person past (esp. when I was a teenager) that it was cemented in my brain that that was the only way to go (although once I finally read and finished a book in 1st person, I found I liked that, too). It's only very recently that I've chipped away at that idea.

~Nancy

[CheshireCat]

They'd be very unwise if they did. It's impossible to judge whether this is better than that if you stick to this and never read that. *** If person A said you're shortchanging yourself by not reading this book, no-one can argue otherwise, because Person B can't make an informed choice. How anyone can deny they're shortchanging themselves by avoiding a particular book beats me; they'rearguing against something they know nothing, or little, about. "I'm not missing out by refusing to be open-minded?" Hmm. Well, how do you know? You MIGHT be missing out, you might not be, but you can't possibly know unless you're informed...and if you're informed, you're no longer avoiding the genre or style from a position of ignorance.

In fact it's not even about what's better. If I said "I prefer Dickens to Dostoevsky," that would be an unfair assertion because I've never read Dostoevsky.

There is no right or wrong, there is no 'better' in this argument. It's about what people prefer, though I fail to understand how some people can say what they prefer when they've never read, or rarely read, in the style they're dissing.

To me, this is where the whole discussion goes off the rails. If I say I dislike a particular style or POV or genre, I am not dissing it. I am simply expressing my own tastes. My tastes are formed by what I am and am not exposed to, sure. What I've read and loved, and read and disliked or hated.

I can tell you I dislike literary fiction. Have I read literary fiction? Yes, some. What I read I didn't like. Therefore I stopped reading it. Will I miss some gems by not going to that section of the bookstore from now on. Maybe.

So what? I'm not going to enter into a debate on the merits of literary fiction because it doesn't interest me, as a reader or a writer.

Look, life is short. I've been a writer a long time, a reader even longer, and I've got a lot of books under my belt in both cases. Am I going to go out and read something I'm not interested in only to be able to make an "informed choice" about whether I like it? No, of course not.

Again, so what?

Years ago, an extremely well-read reviewer and friend encouraged me to read SF. Though I enjoyed various SF movies and TV series, I'd read some bad SF novels and had thereafter avoided them. He sent me a box of books, culling old favorites, classics, the best of the best. Asked me to read them. I did. And I thoroughly enjoyed most of them.

I don't read SF today. Just doesn't interest me.

Again, I'm not going to enter into debate on the relative merits of this or that SF title. I already made my "informed" choice, and choose not to read SF.

Do I argue against other writers or readers enjoying SF novels? Why on earth would I? If SF or literary fiction or urban fantasy is your story of choice, that's cool.

Do I believe that, as a writer, I have a responsibility to read every genre, every type of fiction, in order to be able to make an "informed" judgment about it?

No.

Do I believe that in reading every sort of fiction out there I can improve my own work? No.

Not that my own work can't be improved, but it won't be from reading, it'll be from butt-in-the-chair hard work.

To make an informed choice, one must open-mindedly listen to both sides of the argument and look at evidence from both sides.

The problem with this statement as it applies to fiction is that there is no "evidence" to look at. There is only opinion. Taste in fiction is entirely subjective. So while your mind is open, you are not weighing and evaluating facts or evidence, you are weighing and evaluating opinions and tastes.

Which is, or should be, virtually useless in forming your own tastes and preferences. You don't do that by listening to the preferences of others, you do it by exposing yourself to the fiction in question.

If you want to.

I know I'm focusing on a very narrow point in this discussion, but I feel it's an important one. Whether you do or don't like a particular genre, or POV, or tense is entirely subjective and highly individual. And I really don't understand why anyone would argue to change that.

[maestrowork]

I must reinstate my argument that there really is no right or wrong, just a matter of taste/preference. I do have a problem when people say "present tense (or fill in the blank with your favorite writing device) is unreadable -- don't do it, or you won't get published or have any readers because most people hate it." That I really do object.