Why do you hate the first person present tense?

[VoireyLinger]

With limited third person, you can at least give some details that the first person might not notice.

The point of LIMITED third is that you are limited to the POV character's thoughts and observations.

 

[Laer Carroll]

It's all a matter of how well done the writing is.

This to me is key. Present or past tense, 1st or 3rd person, all are tools. They are useful for some purposes, useless or harmful for others.

Roxxsmom, thanks for your analysis of the pros and cons of each technique. I found it very helpful.

I've noticed a few novels where the writer deliberately shifts from one to another in large sections. In one the character was being very introspective and present oriented. In another section a different character was reminiscing about past events. But I suspect you have to very expert to pull this off.

 

[kuwisdelu]

The difference between first person present tense and first person past tense, is that when someone reads past tense writing they don't like, they say it's because the writing is bad, and when someone reads present tense writing they don't like, they say it's because present tense is bad.

 

[GraemeTollins]

I find first person a bit tricky mainly because I always feel as though I need some respite from the narrator's voice from time to time. It can be exhausting and, unless the character is very, very interesting, it can become boring and repetitive quite quickly.

The best that I have read have been where the narrator is unreliable - where actions that are observed do not tally with the inner monologue - or simply deranged.

In the present tense I think it becomes even more difficult to appreciate.

One other thing is that too often the narrator can appear over-sentimental or a bit sickly sweet. "I'm the good guy. Love me. Even if I'm the bad guy."

Not my thing, but, horses for courses etc.

 

[lorna_w]

Someone here, a year ago, wrote a fascinating post about reader good will (perhaps whoever it was will jump up and claim it), and the sense of that post I retained was that readers (including agents and editors) start off with pretty good will toward a book, hoping it's good, and each reader then begins to shave points off, depending on their preferences, quirks, and your skills or lack of skills as a writer.

So...if you start a book with a prologue, you've lost some good-will points with me. Start with someone waking up and ablutions, ditto. Start with a dream? Several points lost. Present tense? points off, for me. (I'm fine with first person--a lot of PI novels are first person, and I read many of those.) If you misuse "disinterested" or "nauseous," you lose points with me. Dangling modifier? You might not see me again.

The trick is, you have to engage me with character and story before too many good-will points are lost, or I'm off to another book. The Hunger Games won me over, despite that weakness (and I still think it's a weakness of the book). And this is true in some sense for every reader (though agents and editors, with the volume of stuff they have to sift through, have fewer good-will points to spare, I think.) Not every one loses their good will for present tense or first person, but some do.

A book I can think of that won all those lost points back for me was SJ Watson's Before I Go To Sleep, because the present tense was crucial to the story and made sense because of the amnesia the narrator suffered.

So for me, the problem with present-first is, it seems a lot of new writers just grab for a narrative style without thinking. The default reader expectation for the past 50 years is third person, past tense, limited (one or more narrators). My philosophy is, ignore that guideline only when you have a compelling reason to. Great voice full of wit and crochets? Sure, go with first person. Amnesia? A compelling reason for present tense. A certain comedy style may require a omniscient narrator. (The default, though, might be changing as teens are reading so much present tense. They may grow into adults who consider it the "normal" narrative style.)

Sounds like you have a compelling reason, so I'd say, "go for it." Until it's in print, it can be revised.

 

[Willow M Stevens]

Take this with a grain of salt because I can only remember one book I've read in first person, but I disliked it because it felt like the MC was trying to graft her feelings and reactions onto me, when I would have reacted in a totally different manner. Maybe it was a fail on the author's part (as opposed to the first person part) in that I didn't relate at all with the MC, but it was highly off-putting.

Also, I agree with earlier statements that it's restrictive. Since this was a fantasy, I wanted to see more of the world that just what the MC could.

 

[kuwisdelu]

The default reader expectation for the past 50 years is third person, past tense, limited (one or more narrators). My philosophy is, ignore that guideline only when you have a compelling reason to.

I find that as idiotic as saying the default reader expectation for the past 50 years is a white, heterosexual male main character, so ignore that guideline only when you have a compelling reason to.

There's nothing "default" about third person or past tense. It's just a preference some people have.

...

But then, maybe, you should only use past tense if you have a compelling reason to do so. Maybe you should only use third person if you have a compelling reason to do so. Maybe you should only make any narrative decision if you have a compelling reason to, and not fall back on false defaults.

 

[eyeblink]

The default reader expectation for the past 50 years is third person, past tense, limited (one or more narrators). My philosophy is, ignore that guideline only when you have a compelling reason to.

I find that as idiotic as saying the default reader expectation for the past 50 years is a white, heterosexual male main character, so ignore that guideline only when you have a compelling reason to.

There's nothing "default" about third person or past tense. It's just a preference some people have.

What Kuwisdelu says. Third past limited is not some norm all techniques deviate from; it's a technique like any other. And it wasn't until I read an AW thread that I realised that apparently some people won't even read first person. First person novels go back to the beginning of the form in English.

Present tense goes back decades. Dickens uses it in third omni for half of Bleak House (the other half is in first past). There are other examples in the first half of the twentieth century - Joyce Cary's Mister Johnson for example, Damon Runyon's short stories. John Updike was aware that present tense (third in this case) was unusual when he wrote Rabbit Run over fifty years ago: he said he pictured his novel as scenes from a film, and screenplays are always written in present. I'd suggest that present tense being used more and more over the last half-century or so may have something to do with writers being influenced by the cinema.

I also think it's a fallacy that first person is always someone telling a story to someone else or "writing it down". Yes, certainly in many cases they might be, but first is just as easily interior monologue. And that's something Joyce and Woolf were doing ninety-odd years ago. First present fits perfectly for interior monologue.

I've even read an autobiography in first present: Eva Hoffmann's Lost in Translation, in which she emigrated from Poland to the USA. Cut off from her past, she was losing her fluency in her native tongue before becoming fluent in English. Present tense was ideal for that book.

I'll grant you that some techniques are more "invisible" than others, but that doesn't prevent them from being perfect for a particular story when done well.

 

[kuwisdelu]

I also think it's a fallacy that first person is always someone telling a story to someone else or "writing it down". Yes, certainly in many cases they might be, but first is just as easily interior monologue. And that's something Joyce and Woolf were doing ninety-odd years ago. First present fits perfectly for interior monologue.

I just can't get into writing first person if I think of it as telling a story to someone.

I always think of my first person narratives as inner monologue, and default to present tense.

I'll grant you that some techniques are more "invisible" than others, but that doesn't prevent them from being perfect for a particular story when done well.

Yep.

As I often try to point out, first person present isn't any "harder" than first person past. There are no additional requirements to doing it well (although one should certainly approach it slightly differently stylistically).

When people point to present tense "done well," all they're point at is good writing period.

Present tense done poorly is almost invariably still going to be poor writing if it were written in past tense. The only difference is more people will take the time to pick up on the actual flaws rather than blaming it on the tense and moving on.

 

[Jehhillenberg]

I just can't get into writing first person if I think of it as telling a story to someone.

I always think of my first person narratives as inner monologue, and default to present tense.



Yep.

As I often try to point out, first person present isn't any "harder" than first person past. There are no additional requirements to doing it well (although one should certainly approach it slightly differently stylistically).

When people point to present tense "done well," all they're point at is good writing period.

Present tense done poorly is almost invariably still going to be poor writing if it were written in past tense. The only difference is more people will take the time to pick up on the actual flaws rather than blaming it on the tense and moving on.

Yes. Yes. I don't think one is harder than the other. You just approach it differently. I like both first-person present tense and past-tense. I also think past-tense may be a little more common -- or comfortable, so when people read present-tense they're more alert to how it's written, noticing the writing. At least I am when reading it.

 

[bearilou]

I also think past-tense may be a little more common -- or comfortable, so when people read present-tense they're more alert to how it's written, noticing the writing.

Yep. That's how it works for me.

I don't hate first person but it's not my preferred POV. As such, when choosing books to read, the first thing I notice is the POV. I'm much more forgiving of third and will more often than not pick the book. If it's first, it's got a much deeper hill to climb to impress me to continue out the door with it. Which means, the writing will have to do double duty to land it in my lap. Hence, why I say I like well-written first POV. Third doesn't have to work as hard to keep me interested as first does.

Funny how many of my favorite books are first considering how much more picky I am about reading the POV.

 

[WriteMinded]

I dislike present tense, snakes, and a woman named Jan. I can't tell you why.

First person + present tense = a book I will not read. This is why: It keeps me thinking about how the book is written, instead of the story on the pages.

IMO, there is a genre element to be considered. I write fantasy and that is done in third past, though there may be some exception somewhere. While I read other genres, I avoid YA and MG where - and I might be wrong - first present is more popular.

 

[Devil Ledbetter]

It used to bother me, but I grew up and got over it. It can be a powerful tense, as Nic Sheff proves in Tweak.

As it happens I am writing a YA book in first person present tense right now, and don't give a crap what the haters say. You can't please everybody, so just do your best to write a good story and write it well. Use whatever POV and tense best suits your story.

The only inferior tense is the one that doesn't serve your story.

 

[slhuang]

IMO, there is a genre element to be considered. I write fantasy and that is done in third past, though there may be some exception somewhere.

Like two of Robin Hobb's trilogies? Or the entire Dresden Files series (actually, come to think of it, a huge chunk of the UF subgenre)? Or some of Diana Wynne Jones' books (Deep Secret and The Merlin Conspiracy come to mind)? That's just off the top of my head, and it spans a variety of fantasy subgenres.

Sorry, I'm not trying to be an ass, but I don't think it's at all accurate to say that fantasy "is done" in third past.

 

[kkbe]

I dislike present tense, snakes, and woman named Jan. I can't tell you why.

First person + present tense = a book I will not read. This is why: It keeps me thinking about how the book is written, instead of the story on the pages.

IMO, there is a genre element to be considered. I write fantasy and that is done in third past, though there may be some exception somewhere. While I read other genres, I avoid YA and MG where - and I might be wrong - first present is more popular.

I don't know my YA from my MG so I won't touch that but darn it, WriteMinded. Darn anybody who says, as a blanket statement, I don't like first person present tense.

I keep wanting to respond, WAIT, no fair, all fp/pt novels are not created equal and anyhoo, I WRITE FP/PT and I think they ain't so bad, give me a chance. . .

Of course, this ain't about me. This is about a stylistic choice, right? Yeah, and readers are free to read what they like, just as writers are free to write as they like, but--

It's almost like somebody saying to me, I don't like lima beans. I never did. I never will. I'll never eat those fuckers. (Actually, that's a horrible analogy as I hate lima beans and always will. ) So let's move on. Back to your statement, WriteMinded, that FP/PT keeps you thinking about how the story's written, instead of the story itself. I keep thinking of Elmore Leonard, what does he say?

If it sounds like writing, I rewrite it.

I think that applies to any kind of fiction writing. Any POV, any tense. You don't want the writing to get in the way of the story and I think if you are a skilled writer, it won't. So maybe the novels you've read kind of tripped up a bit. I don't know.

I do know this: some books written in first person present tense are really good. And someone named Jan has helped a ton of AW writers with her wisdom, skill and expertise. And some snakes around here are rather interesting.

I still say lima beans suck, though.

 

[Anna Spargo-Ryan]

I love first person, present tense.

I also love thinking about how a book has been written, while I'm reading it.

These things could be linked, I guess?

 

[Manuel Royal]

Generally, I hate first person, present tense. As noted, it usually feels contrived, it takes me out of the story, it makes me very aware of the writer's presence. In a novel-length work, it makes it feel as if each incident happens in a timeless "now"; I don't feel the chronological narrative thread.

Occasionally it's called for. I've used it exactly once, for a very short piece that was essentially a vignette, not a narrative. (This one..)

There's nothing wrong with first person, of course. Hard to imagine Huckleberry Finn without Huck's particular "voice". And, as noted, thanks to long-established conventions of fiction, it's not at all necessary for the narrator to, within the fictional world, actually be telling somebody the story or writing it down. (I tried to explain this to an editor once; she rejected a story because she just didn't see why the narrator would have written it down. She honestly thought that needed to be explained in the story.)

ETA: As usual, I should note that if you're Thomas Pynchon writing Gravity's Rainbow, you can do whatever the hell you want. Throw it all in there.

 

[Manuel Royal]

I still say lima beans suck, though.

I was required to eat lima beans as a child, based on the unsupported claim that "they're good for you". Decades later, I remember the taste, but haven't touched them in my adult life. Nor yellow squash, nor eggplant. There are advantages to being a grown-up.

 

[SBibb]

I don't mind first person, present tense. I've read several (YA) stories and enjoyed it.

For the recent manuscript I finished, I actually wrote it that way, and loved doing that, especially for the character. Granted, part of it was how I wanted to present the story. The other manuscripts in that series have been first person past tense, because the ultimate idea is the MC is telling us what happened after the events took place. For the latest one (in which the MC (a different character) dies at the end and wouldn't be able to tell us), I have it take place in present tense. He's telling them as they happen.

I found it fun to work in both, and I see uses for both tenses.

 

[bearilou]

I don't know my YA from my MG so I won't touch that but darn it, WriteMinded. Darn anybody who says, as a blanket statement, I don't like first person present tense.

I keep wanting to respond, WAIT, no fair, all fp/pt novels are not created equal and anyhoo, I WRITE FP/PT and I think they ain't so bad, give me a chance. . .

Of course, this ain't about me. This is about a stylistic choice, right? Yeah, and readers are free to read what they like, just as writers are free to write as they like, but--

It's almost like somebody saying to me, I don't like lima beans. I never did. I never will. I'll never eat those fuckers. (Actually, that's a horrible analogy as I hate lima beans and always will. ) So let's move on. Back to your statement, WriteMinded, that FP/PT keeps you thinking about how the story's written, instead of the story itself. I keep thinking of Elmore Leonard, what does he say?

If it sounds like writing, I rewrite it.

I think that applies to any kind of fiction writing. Any POV, any tense. You don't want the writing to get in the way of the story and I think if you are a skilled writer, it won't. So maybe the novels you've read kind of tripped up a bit. I don't know.

I do know this: some books written in first person present tense are really good. And someone named Jan has helped a ton of AW writers with her wisdom, skill and expertise. And some snakes around here are rather interesting.

I still say lima beans suck, though.

So, let's go with your lima bean analogy.

I say, I make a killer mess of lima beans. I can make lima beans so damn good you just want to kiss ya mamma.

Does the fact that I, one person out of hundreds, thousands, who fix lima beans and make them good encourage you to change your mind? Especially in light of the fact that the reason you perhaps hate lima beans is the lima beans you've eaten just weren't fixed tastily?

Does me saying 'but but but, I make good lima beans' change your mind and make you want to give lima beans another chance?

For the general You, no, it doesn't. For the general reader, all they have to do is get a hold of a few instances where first present was done poorly before they're turned off of it and don't want to give it any more chances.

Or for a reader like me, the author really needs to be on their game in regards to first present and catch my attention and overcome my prejudice against the POV to stand a chance at my continuing on. In the meantime, I will gravitate to those POVs I more enjoy and have had better experiences with.

Does ALL first present suck? No. Of course not. No one can make that adjudication because they most likely haven't read ALL instances of it. But they've read enough to know that it doesn't do anything for them. If all the instances they have read were poorly done to begin with, it would be hard to dissuade them that there are actually instances that are good since the reader is now already inclined not to think that.

I don't see how making the reader feel guilty because they've read enough to decide it's just not something they like really serves anyone. 'Just try this one. You'll love it!' doesn't endear the recommender who doesn't respect that I'm very particular at this point about my first POV experiences.

But really, if you gave my lima beans a chance, you'd love them....

 

[SomethingOrOther]

WHY did I put down the book that was written in first-person present tense?

Well because I wanted to read one in first-person present relaxed!

 

[quicklime]

I dislike present tense, snakes, and woman named Jan. I can't tell you why.

First person + present tense = a book I will not read. This is why: It keeps me thinking about how the book is written, instead of the story on the pages.

IMO, there is a genre element to be considered. I write fantasy and that is done in third past, though there may be some exception somewhere. While I read other genres, I avoid YA and MG where - and I might be wrong - first present is more popular.

I believe every single Vlad Taltos book, which are first past

 

[quicklime]

first present for me seems distracting...it feels like some sort of logical fallacy (if you're telling me what happens to YOU, in real time, aren't I, uh, there? Can't I just watch you? How would that work?) so the literalist tends to get hung up.

Write it well enough, and I will forget the literalist....but it makes things much harder.

So far I have only written first and third past, but i have added a few third present scenes in things like flashback, where someone is remembering a particular moment of their life in college for example, because I liked the way it changes tone and immediacy. But I haven't tried first present...and might for the same reason in a first-person book, but it would be a "little bites" kind of thing

 

[skydragon]

I don't hate it. I've read some amazing books written in first person present. As long as the author can pull it off, I don't see the problem.

 

[Axordil]

As long as the author can pull it off, I don't see the problem.

Pretty much.

Its relative rarity overall suggests present tense is harder to do well over the length of a novel. Beyond that, whatever POV does the job is the best. Genre and form may constrain choices to some extent, but that only makes successful exceptions more noteworthy.