POV preferences

[Oberon]

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I haven't found it. I started my present WIP in first person present tense, partly to try it out, see how it works. I wanted to get into my MC's head, his thoughts, as if he were talking to himself. It's not easy. I keep tripping over tense shifts and keeping a consistent style. Most of the stuff I have read with this POV is the hard-boiled detective kind of thing.

From what I have read here at AW it seems that agents will not like this POV. Is that true? If so, I may have to do some major rewriting.

"When in doubt, have two guys come through the door with guns." Raymond Chandler.

[Azraelsbane]

There are plenty of extremely popular 1st person works out there. Agents like strong characters, plots, and good writing above all else. If 1st person gets you these things, I'd say stay with it. If you're having trouble with 1st person, try 3rd limited. You can get inside your chars head just fine, but some people find it easier.

[Lady Cat]

I agree with Azraelsbane. I've read a lot of great novels written in 1st person POV, and a lot of them written in 3rd person. Agents are looking for great writing, not the POV.

A lot of times it depends on the story you're telling. Sometimes an idea will lend itself more to one point of view than the other. If you're not sure, try it both ways to see which one works best.

[necia phoenix]

You know, personally, I really dislike writing 1st person, I don't care for reading it either. HOWEVER, it is a good way to get inside characters heads, I will write it to get a better understanding of my characters. The bottom line is, in my unprofessional opinion, if it is written well it will sell.

Ever read the Garrett PI series by Glen Cook? Or his Black Company series? both are written 1st person and are great books. Nerilka's Story by Anne McCaffery is also written in 1st person and have a good emotional kick to them. To get a feel for writing it, read it.

[Dave.C.Robinson]

If you write in first person present you will find some agents, and potential readers, who will hate it. Some don't like first person, others don't like present tense. It doesn't matter, provided you do it well enough.

It's a matter of taste. If you're able to pull off a good novel in first person present you will be able to sell it. If you write a bad novel in third person past you're going to have many agents and publishers hate it. Write it well.

The problem you face is that many people find that present tense magnifies faults in your writing. It's less forgiving than past tense, so for many it has to be better written to get over the hurdles.

If you can write it well enough, go ahead and use it. If you can't, either write something else or work on learning how to write it well enough.

[Simon Woodhouse]

I'm not a fan of first person perspective in general, but having said that, when it's done well it's really effective. The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath always springs to mind as an excellent example of first person.

I think you've got to have top-notch characters to make it work. If the characters aren't there, first person is a real hard slog to get through.

[JasonChirevas]

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I haven't found it. I started my present WIP in first person present tense, partly to try it out, see how it works. I wanted to get into my MC's head, his thoughts, as if he were talking to himself. It's not easy. I keep tripping over tense shifts and keeping a consistent style. Most of the stuff I have read with this POV is the hard-boiled detective kind of thing.

From what I have read here at AW it seems that agents will not like this POV. Is that true? If so, I may have to do some major rewriting.

"When in doubt, have two guys come through the door with guns." Raymond Chandler.

My current WIP is Third Person Objective, but I will absolutely return to First Person POV. I enjoy writing and reading it.

I think a writer's level of success with First Person has a lot to do with his ability to relate to, captivate, and entertain people in direct communication. That's all First Person is, a long letter to the reader. It's all dialog. If you're not good with dialog, you should probably give First Person a wide berth.

As for tense, I would never read or write anything in present tense. To much of a stunt to me.

-Jason

[Marion]

I changed my first chapter to present tense just to see how it flowed. In my opinion it became tedious, so I changed it back.

I think it's ok for a couple of paragraphs either at the beginning of the book, or at the end, or even in a prologue. Other than that - nuh, don't do it.

[ClaudiaGray]

I've seen excellent first-person present tense -- look at the recent YA novel Bloom by Elizabeth Scott for a very fine example -- but I think present tense is a lot more demanding. If you can pull it off, you rock.

That said, I stick to past tense, at least so far.

[maestrowork]

I changed my first chapter to present tense just to see how it flowed. In my opinion it became tedious, so I changed it back.

I think it's ok for a couple of paragraphs either at the beginning of the book, or at the end, or even in a prologue. Other than that - nuh, don't do it.

"Don't do it" is very strong. I personally don't find present tense tedious. My novel was written almost entirely in first/present. Works fine.

Like Simon said, first person is always about the narrating character and his/her voice. If you have an engaging narrator, you can pull it off beautifully and give your readers a really close experience alongside your POV character.

[Shady Lane]

I love first person, and I love present tense.

TONS of YA is written like this.

[reenkam]

I find present tense annoying. There are usually sentences that just sound really strange and I'll get caught on them mid-reading and realizing I'm reading, which ruins the reading experience.

I don't have a problem with first person, though.

[Raphee]

I have nothing against any POV. I read in all and enjoy them. However if given a choice the last thing I would like to read is present tense.
Having said that I recently read a novel Heat and Dust which was later adapted for a movie; and it used 1st person past and present tenses and in two POV's.
I thoroughly enjoyed that.
It's the skill of the writer, in weaving the story.
My only issue is that a lot of people get turned off by present tense while picking books from a book store. OK change that to ...I tend to do that.

Second is to avoid self indulgence that creeps into 1st person present.

[wayndom]

Are people still writing novels in present tense? I thought that was a fad started by young writing students, who didn't want to be told by "the man" how to write...

As far as POV is concerned, whatever works. Raymond Chandler didn't have a problem with first-person. In fact, it's what made his books (I don't think anyone has ever figured out what's going on in The Big Sleep).

But present tense? C'mon... Past tense is natural, because when a storyteller tells a story, it's told as something that already happened, and our brains are ready to receive it that way. There may have been some big successful books written in present tense, but I can't imagine that the tense is what made them successful. For most readers, present tense is like the writer constantly reminding them they're reading a story. In other words, it's a distraction from the story, not an enhancement.

Let the flaming begin...

[Shady Lane]

Are people still writing novels in present tense? I thought that was a fad started by young writing students, who didn't want to be told by "the man" how to write...

As far as POV is concerned, whatever works. Raymond Chandler didn't have a problem with first-person. In fact, it's what made his books (I don't think anyone has ever figured out what's going on in The Big Sleep).

But present tense? C'mon... Past tense is natural, because when a storyteller tells a story, it's told as something that already happened, and our brains are ready to receive it that way. There may have been some big successful books written in present tense, but I can't imagine that the tense is what made them successful. For most readers, present tense is like the writer constantly reminding them they're reading a story. In other words, it's a distraction from the story, not an enhancement.

Let the flaming begin...

Not here to flame, because it's not really an opinion I'm arguing here.

Honestly, sometimes I feel like I'm living in a world with different books than you guys have.

Present tense is huge in YA, like I said.

I promise.

At least in my world.

[HopelessDreamer]

But present tense? C'mon... Past tense is natural, because when a storyteller tells a story, it's told as something that already happened, and our brains are ready to receive it that way. There may have been some big successful books written in present tense, but I can't imagine that the tense is what made them successful. For most readers, present tense is like the writer constantly reminding them they're reading a story. In other words, it's a distraction from the story, not an enhancement.

Let the flaming begin...

I agree. I'm not exactly sure why; maybe it's because so many novels are written in past tense and it just seems like "the norm" (our brains are conditioned to recieve information from books in the past tense), so when we read a book in present tense it just doesn't seem to fit. When I read a book in present tense, I always feel as though everything is rushed. I don't have anything against people writing in present tense, it's just not my preference.

[seun]

What about second person, future tense?

Or am I just taking the piss?

[maestrowork]

Are people still writing novels in present tense? I thought that was a fad started by young writing students, who didn't want to be told by "the man" how to write...


Oh yeah, and by famous and award-winning authors, too. Not your everyday high school kids.


But present tense? C'mon... Past tense is natural, because when a storyteller tells a story, it's told as something that already happened, and our brains are ready to receive it that way.


Here we go again... the tense, to me, has nothing to do with whether a story has already happened or in real time. It's about a feeling of intimacy and immediacy. Also, it works better with first person because that's how people talk.

Look at this site. Most posts are written in present tense. It's natural for people to write in present tense when they speak in first person.


There may have been some big successful books written in present tense, but I can't imagine that the tense is what made them successful.

The same can be said about past tense. I doubt that the "past tense" is what makes books like Harry Potter successful. It's the storytelling. The tenses are just tools, like POVs, and each story calls for different tools. There's no way you can say if the big successful book would have been even bigger and more successful had it been written in past tense.

In fact, I can't imagine Fight Club, for example, to be written in anything but first person/present tense. Just can't. It would have lost its soul, in my opinion. We'd have missed the immediacy as if the narrator was right there speaking to us. I could even smell his breath.


For most readers, present tense is like the writer constantly reminding them they're reading a story. In other words, it's a distraction from the story, not an enhancement.


I don't think you can speak for "most" readers. For you, perhaps. For me, I am perfectly engaged with first/present. Read many books written in present tense and they were great reads.

[Dave.C.Robinson]

I personally find a sense of artificial immediacy in present tense, and for me the artifice comes out more clearly than anything else. I prefer to read in past because I find it more transparent and so I can focus more on the story than the writing.

I believe the right tense for any story is whichever one is most transparent. You want the reader to be wowed by your story, not your tricks of language.

I've read and enjoyed books in both past and present tense, but I find that present magnifies the writer's flaws. All this means is that for me, a book written in present has to be better written to induce that all-important reader's trance.

All I really insist on is that the tense doesn't change within a paragraph. Different scenes can be written in different tenses, but never change tense by accident.

[maestrowork]

All I really insist on is that the tense doesn't change within a paragraph. Different scenes can be written in different tenses, but never change tense by accident.

It depends, but I agree that it has to make sense:

"I hear her coming in, the bell on the door ringing three times. She looks absolutely beautiful in the dress she bought yesterday. She went all the way to the East Side to find that dress, and it's perfect for her. I love that woman. I'll marry her today if she'd let me."

Here, we have mixed tenses, but it sounds natural. The story is essentially told in first person/present, but it doesn't mean it's present tense all the way. The right tense has to be used. In essence, I think first person/present is very much like an omniscient narrator -- it's about the voice and the consistency and the sense of closeness. First person/present, to me, is like having the narrator sitting next to you and say, "Hey, buddy, how are you doing? And listen..."

And above seems to lose something if it's written in past tense:

"I heard her coming in, the bell on the door ringing three times. She looked absolutely beautiful in the dress she'd bought the day before. She'd gone all the way to the East Side to find that dress, and it was perfect for her. I loved that woman. I'd have married her that day if she'd let me."

It doesn't read the same.

[Spiny Norman]

I find myself agreeing with maestrowork an awful lot when the tense can of worms is opened.

Anyways, I usually write in first person/past, and slip into first/present when it comes to memories or flashbacks. I think I may have absorbed that tactic from John le Carre, who also uses present flashbacks with 3rd limited. The reasoning behind it is that when it comes to flashbacks or memories then it's happening to the character in a much more immediate and intimate sense than any action in the story's world. I especially use it in my current WIP, because he reflects heavily upon how purpose, memories, and linear progression works, and he considers certain memories or past events to be still happening because they're still controlling what he's doing in the present.

I like first/past a lot as well because it gives me the opportunity to really create a character's voice in detail. I'm citing Catcher in the Rye here as an example of that. You want to make a character whose voice is so magnetic and so charismatic that you'll sit through and listen to him talk about the use of the words "fuck you," or, with Chandler and Marlowe, about the different kinds of blondes there are, and which ones listen to Hindemith. You can only get that level of charisma with first person.

[Mud Dauber]

Honestly, sometimes I feel like I'm living in a world with different books than you guys have.

Present tense is huge in YA, like I said.

I promise.

At least in my world.

LOL I agree! A lot of chick lit is written in present tense, too.

If a story draws me in, I don't even notice the tense. First person present has never irritated me the way it goads some people here. To the OP: this subject comes up from time to time on AW, and the majority of members (or at least the responses) are always against it. But judging by many popular/successful novels out there, there's obviously a market for it. So don't sweat it. Do what feels right.:)

[Spiny Norman]

When it comes to art (how pretentious is this start, huh?) if you notice the method then it's not being used effectively. Zooms and camera angles and lighting in movies, tenses and pacing and word use in writing, other stuff I don't know a whole lot about in sculpture - these are tools that are supposed to be used towards an end. If you do it badly, they're going to stick out like a Smothers Brother in a White Panther convention. Do it well, you get sucked in and only notice in repeat viewings/readings. Or if you're unfortunate enough to know a little before you start and pay a lot of attention.

That's my two cents on almost any methodology in writing. From characters to dialogue to whatever.

[aadams73]

If a story draws me in, I don't even notice the tense.

Ditto. Or the POV.

Although lately I'm a little tired of first because it's starting to sound a little samey in certain genres.

[scarletpeaches]

For me, present tense is a piece of piss. It's the most natural, the easiest thing in the world for me to write.

First person, though...that's another story (if you'll pardon the pun).

I'm forcing myself to write in third limited past now, even though that's not my default setting as it's the most popular, the most easily-accepted, so I figure I can start the experimentation once I'm established and people are more willing to try new things for the sake of a well-liked author.

Although for me of course, present tense isn't an experiment, it's just what I do when I don't think about POV and tense.

[maestrowork]

Here's my thought: Do it well, and anything is possible. Do it poorly, not even the most traveled roads will save you.

And writers should take risks and push the limit. At least try.

[Dave.C.Robinson]

I agree with Spiny Norman, that's what I was getting to earlier with "transparency" in writing. The goal is to make the reader focus on what you're saying, not how you're saying it. The reason present tense gets a bad rap is not because it's bad, it isn't, but because it's more noticeable. The sheer number of anti-present posts where people put the book down on the first page because they notice it's in present is evidence it's more noticeable to a large enough segment of readers that it's something to consider.

If you want to write it, go ahead and use it. Some stories can only be told in present.

[Spiny Norman]

Sometimes I notice some of the more pretentious attempts out there are done in present. Not because it fits the story, but because, well, I'm not sure... because it's the more "cerebral" tense?

It's certainly hard to write well in, I believe. Pynchon used a lot of it (I think - I cannot for the life of me remember much of Gravity's Rainbow, or at least what I read of it) so I think it may be considered the "hip" style. My mind also strays to Joyce and Frank McCourt, though I'm too lazy to check right now.

This is a great time to use the metaphor "if the shoe fits the foot." It would be sort of like wearing glitzy high heels with size twelve flat feet when a pair of decent boots or sneakers would work much better and feel more comfortable.

Now is your chance to make an amusing Athlete's foot addendum.

[Mud Dauber]

The sheer number of anti-present posts where people put the book down on the first page because they notice it's in present is evidence it's more noticeable to a large enough segment of readers that it's something to consider.


This might re-hash everything that's been said in other posts about this subject, but I gotta say it... I think AW has its own little core group of present tense protesters b/c as writers they are simply more aware of it than the layperson--the average reader-- the non writer, if you will.:D It has been my experience, that with many of my well-read friends and/or family members, most of them do not even notice the tense, POV, etc. While I'm sure many readers might notice something is "off", it's probably due to the story not engaging them immediately. In short, I agree with what everyone else is saying--if you write your story well, you can make it work. Except, of course, for the handful from AW who will toss your book aside just b/c it's written in first person present.;)

[maestrowork]

I agree, Mud. And the fact that these first/present books are selling in millions mean people are reading them.

I think as writers, sometimes we're more sensitive than others when we read. I've noticed, for example, that adverbs really jump at me now. And I read a James Patterson novel and the first thing I said was, "the dialogue is stilted, and he switched tense midway through!" and I closed the book. In the past I might not have noticed.

Past tense is more comfortable, that's for sure. But it's not the only way to write. If we say the majority of books are 3rd/past, then it doesn't really leave us a lot of room, does it?

Do it badly, even 3rd/past is excruciating to read.

[Shady Lane]

On, and for the record, they're some fantastic YA books written in 2nd person present, such as Freewill by Chris Lynch and several by Francesca Lia Block. They've won awards.

[Danger Jane]

Ray is so on the ball. And Shady's totally right about YA.

I write in first/present because it's natural for me. As a reader, before I started writing, it bothered me for a while, but one day I picked up a book that was first/present and didn't notice until I was about halfway through--it didn't bother me anymore, maybe because I'd found a book that interested me so much that I wasn't nitpicking about the tense. It wasn't because the books I'd read before weren't as well-done; rereading them, I love the writing. I think it might just be one of those things that has to click and until it does, you're going to struggle to read books that are written that way. I think my WIP would read really weird if I had tried to write it in third/past just because that's more widely accepted.

[Dave.C.Robinson]

I'm going to share a secret: I don't look for tense when I'm reading. I look for story, and if I don't notice the tense it's a good thing. What I do find interesting is the number of posts I'm seeing comparing first/present to third/past. What about first/past and third/present? I know I've got two novels in third/past and am working on a third that's first/past.

It's all about writing the story the way that works.

[maestrowork]

First/past is just a more intimate version of close 3rd limited.

I find third/present a little more difficult -- it does, in general, read a bit pretentious and unnatural:

He goes to work, and finds his boss murdered. Taking the subway, he decides to escape.

It only works if you have a very strong narrative voice, I think. Again, it's this "someone is sitting next to you saying 'hey buddy, want to hear something?'" voice that may work with 3rd/present. But I find 3rd/present an odd choice because at once you want to distant the readers (3rd) but create the immediacy/closeness (present). So it's a bit contradictory there, I think.

[Shady Lane]

First/past is just a more intimate version of close 3rd limited.

I find third/present a little more difficult -- it does, in general, read a bit pretentious and unnatural:

He goes to work, and finds his boss murdered. Taking the subway, he decides to escape.

It only works if you have a very strong narrative voice, I think. Again, it's this "someone is sitting next to you saying 'hey buddy, want to hear something?'" voice that may work with 3rd/present. But I find 3rd/present an odd choice because at once you want to distant the readers (3rd) but create the immediacy/closeness (present). So it's a bit contradictory there, I think.

Agree agree agree agree.

[Oberon]

Wow! I guess I opened a can of worms. I am grateful for all the opinions. What I am going to do (first person future) is finish the damn thing, let it rest, go back and see how it reads. It started out, as I said, as a kind of exercise, as I had never tried it before. After a few "I say" and "She says," I began to wonder if it would work. It sounds kind of coarse somehow, maybe I mostly associate it with noir detectives and such. We are mostly unconscious of the standard "I said," we don't even read it half the time. So it goes. Thanks again.

"A writer is rarely so well inspired as when he talks about himself." Anatole France.

Mea culpa