# Writing in Past Tense



## EmmaSohan (Jul 11, 2014)

There seems to be two threads here on present tense and none on past tense. Sorry if I am a newbie and have not discussed this topic.


Am I saying the obvious here? In present tense, there is a "booktime". Events in the present are written in present, events in the past of the booktime are written in past tense, and events in the future are written in future tense. For example,

"I was in Spain, I am in France, I will be in Italy."

Writing in past tense, events in the present of the booktime are written in past time. Events in the past of booktime are written in past perfect (action taking place before a certain time in the past). Events in the future of booktime are written, I guess?, in some other tense I can't identify. But

"I had been in Spain, I was in France, I would be in Italy."


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 11, 2014)

...the history of the summer really _begins_ on the evening I _drove_ over there to have dinner with the Tom Buchanans. Daisy _was_ my second cousin once removed, and I'_d known_ Tom in college. And just after the war I _spent_ two days with them in Chicago."

I think the first sentence is written in present tense. Right? But the next two sentences are written in past tense? The story in general is written in past tense.

Shouldn't "spent" be "had spent"?

This paragraph seems to be typical of this writer -- I see lots of potential confusions. I will do another.

"Why they came East I _don't_ know. They _had spent_ a year in France for no particular reason, and then _drifted_ here and there unrestfully....

The first sentence is written in present tense. Again, these are rare in the book. The second sentence is written in past tense, and again "drifted" should be "had drifted".


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 13, 2014)

Past tense tends to make me think of consequences and end results. Present tense tends to make me think of the event as it is happening. So, "I _saw _my best friend die" leads me to think about the psychological consequences of that trauma. "I _see _my best friend die" leads me to imagine myself in the actual traumatic event.

So, from a skilled author (I think) "I _parked _in the lot to my apartment building." I am supposed to imagine her now being in the parking lot of her apartment. The same sentence in present tense -- "I _park _in the lot to my apartment building" -- doesn't work very well, because it's boring to think about the actual act of parking. (Unless that's important, of course, but it wasn't in this story.)

Now consider "A wave of nausea _slid _through my stomach." In past tense, this tends to say she is just nauseous. In present tense -- "A wave of nausea _slides _through my stomach" -- tends to emphasize the feeling as it happens.

Now, this skilled author actually wrote "I _felt _a wave of nausea _slide _through my stomach." She knew the limitations of past tense and avoided the problem.

Note however that her sentence is more complicated than the present tense sentence.


Sorry if this is obvious and has been said so many times before, I am new here and this is new to me.


----------



## Morkonan (Jul 13, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> ...Am I saying the obvious here? In present tense, there is a "booktime". Events in the present are written in present, events in the past of the booktime are written in past tense, and events in the future are written in future tense. For example,
> 
> "I was in Spain, I am in France, I will be in Italy."
> 
> ...



So, if you have this thing called "booktime", then when are the pages of the book created? I mean, if I'm reading in present-tense and that is somehow "book-time", why am I holding a book that has a lot of unread pages in it? Are they blank and the ink just happens to coalesce in the instant that I turn the page?

It's worth noting, as you touch on in your posts, that "past-tense" words can be used in "present-tense" sentences. Sometimes, words are not as hard-and-fast about paying attention to what tense they're in.

"I spent" is past-tense, right? I "_did spend_" is the present-tense version? But, "I spent" could also be used in present-tense, without much trouble. At least, I don't think you'd be flogged by a Reader for writing that.

(IMO, writing in absolute present-tense would be disgusting to read... (Then again, I hate present-tense and make no excuses for that burning enmity... I would burn every present-tense book I own if I weren't as equally opposed to book-burning...and if I didn't own so few present-tense books that the calories expended for searching for them wouldn't yield fruitful results.)




> "Why they came East I _don't_ know. They _had spent_ a year in France for no particular reason, and then _drifted_ here and there unrestfully....



The speaker is speaking directly to history, not to present events. So, they can say "had spent" quite handily, since that is the truth and writing it in "present tense" would make the statement a lie... IOW - These events the speaker is speaking of are implicit historic qualities of a thing that are only applicable and true if spoken in the past-tense.

If I was writing in the present-tense, which would be impossible, yet nonetheless, then how am I going to describe that fact that I had talked to you prior to an event taking place in a story? Am I to refer to all past-histories in a present-tense story as having taken place in the present? The story would be highly confusing if that were the case, right?


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 13, 2014)

Whoever invented these terms should be shot. When I write a story in present tense, _as a style_, the events of the main story are written in present tense. When I describe events in the past of my main story, I use past tense. That doesn't change my writing style to past tense -- it's just how people write in present tense. Again, I use future tense for describing the future.

When people are writing in the style of past tense, the events of the main story are written in past tense. When they want to refer to events before that main story, they usually use past perfect. (Well, inconsistently.) Also, they don't use future tense for events in the "future". They use, I guess, conditional.

Again: Writing in the style of present tense: "Yesterday I was in Spain, today I am in France, tomorrow I will be in Italy."
Writing in the style of past tense: "Yesterday I had been in Spain, today I was in France, tomorrow I would be in Italy."


----------



## popsprocket (Jul 13, 2014)

You might be over thinking it a little.

So long as it is clear what tense you are writing in, you'll be fine.

Of course, no one ever claimed English was a brilliantly fool-proof language, so you have plenty of wiggle room.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 14, 2014)

popsprocket said:


> You might be over thinking it a little.
> 
> So long as it is clear what tense you are writing in, you'll be fine.
> 
> Of course, no one ever claimed English was a brilliantly fool-proof language, so you have plenty of wiggle room.



Laughing, I know I can overthink. But, if someone is writing in the style of past tense, don't they have to be aware of the problems to use it well? 

Here is a paragraph by a bestselling author. The main story takes place in 2008, and is written in past tense. This is a description of a dinner in the mid-sixties. So the first sentence is (correctly) written in past perfect. But look at the rest of the sentences.

"The night Charles _had asked_ her to marry him, he _had taken_ her there for dinner and _had planned_ such a lovely evening. She _had just been crowned_ Miss Alabama, and when she _walked_ in, the band _played_ 'Stars Fell on Alabama' in her honor. She _was_ on cloud nine. They _danced_ all night and after the last dance, when they returned to their table, upon his instructions, a black velvet box with a large diamond engagement ring _had been placed_ on her dessert plate."

By the middle of the second sentence, the tense has changed from past perfect to past. That means the frame of references -- the "past" in "past perfect" -- changed from 2008 to the mid 60's. Do writers always do that? Sometimes? This was a special needs?

Where does the changeover occur? Since the first four verbs are past perfect, one might think that the changeover occurs after the fourth verb. But if you analyze the whole thing -- something readers aren't going to do -- the changeover probably occurs after the third verb, and the fourth verb refers to an event occurring in the past of this dance story.

When I read the last sentence, I thought the ring appeared after she sat down. When I carefully analyzed the tenses -- something readers aren't going to do -- I realized it probably appeared before she sat down.

When I looked at a writer who seemed to handle the past tense style well, one of her principles seemed to be "Keep it simple". In general, the problem with writing about events occurring in the past of the past of the past is fuzziness. Here, there was also a loss of meaning for something emotionally important.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Jul 14, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> ...the history of the summer really _begins_ on the evening I _drove_ over there to have dinner with the Tom Buchanans. Daisy _was_ my second cousin once removed, and I'_d known_ Tom in college. And just after the war I _spent_ two days with them in Chicago."
> 
> I think the first sentence is written in present tense. Right? But the next two sentences are written in past tense? The story in general is written in past tense.
> 
> Shouldn't "spent" be "had spent"?


No. It's at the same time that he drove over to see them in Chicago, so it's past.

The first sentence is in present tense because it's the narrator's present--the time at which the story is being told, which comes after the events being recounted in past tense.



> "Why they came East I _don't_ know. They _had spent_ a year in France for no particular reason, and then _drifted_ here and there unrestfully....
> 
> The first sentence is written in present tense. Again, these are rare in the book. The second sentence is written in past tense, and again "drifted" should be "had drifted".


Same thing. The narrator still does not know, at the time of narration, why they came east, so this is in present. The year in France occurred prior to the drifting, so the tenses are correct.

You should name the works and authors you're citing, by the way. Fitzgerald won't mind.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 15, 2014)

Sorry again if I am saying the obvious. Some writers, when the write their book in the style of past tense, write some of their setting in the style of present tense. In my opinion, Janet Evanovich does this brilliantly in Book 20 of the Stephanie Plum series. Yet Book 1 does setting in past tense (and it's painful to read). Book 3 has a little of the setting in present, Book 15 has most of the setting in present.

I thought she was unique until a few days later I discovered another modern book with some setting in the present. So, duh, there must be other writers doing that. Like, "I mistrust all frank and simple people..." (Hemmingway); "The water is warm" (Steinback); "It is a way I have of driving off the spleen and regulating the circulation." (Melville).

But Evanovich does it the best, she uses the transition into present tense for effect.


----------



## Kingstonmike (Jul 15, 2014)

I think what trips people up is that there is the past tense in the sense of the story being told after the facts and there is also the past tense of recalling events that occurred before the events of the story. So, in essence, two levels of the past.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 17, 2014)

There is a "present" for a story. And when authors put something in the past of that, it bleaches out emotion. At least for me.

Imagine some exciting start. "I looked down the sight of my rifle, centered it on my victim, and pulled the trigger." Now imagine the same start preceded by "Four years ago..."

It just doesn't have the impact.

So, as near as I can tell, and I know the cant about everyone being different, you shouldn't put things in your backstory that are supposed to be emotionally important. And you shouldn't talk about how someone in the future is narrating your book.


Now, the miracle of past tense writing is that it is used to describe the "present" of the book. That's why "Four years ago" puts that start in the past.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 10, 2014)

It turns out, when writers write in the style of past tense (the events of the story are written in past tense), they sometimes put commentary and/or setting in present tense. Dickens did both. Hemingway did setting. It seems common in modern writing. People writing in this style should know they have this option.

Really, it is a little odd to say, "Paris was the capital of France." Do you write _My name is Ishmael_ or _My name was Ishmael_? (Or rewrite the sentence to avoid the whole problem?

It doesn't sound so bad to say "Nam was the capital of Ssidon" if both are imaginary. But to me, "Nam is the capital of Ssidon" is slightly more powerful.


----------



## bookmasta (Aug 10, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> It turns out, when writers write in the style of past tense (the events of the story are written in past tense), they sometimes put commentary and/or setting in present tense. Dickens did both. Hemingway did setting. It seems common in modern writing. People writing in this style should know they have this option.
> 
> Really, it is a little odd to say, "Paris was the capital of France." Do you write _My name is Ishmael_ or _My name was Ishmael_? (Or rewrite the sentence to avoid the whole problem?
> 
> It doesn't sound so bad to say "Nam was the capital of Ssidon" if both are imaginary. But to me, "Nam is the capital of Ssidon" is slightly more powerful.



I come across this every now and then with books featuring scenes in real places. Its more correct to me. For example, saying Sacramento was the capital of California infers that it isn't anymore and implies that there may be a new city that is the capital, when in actuality Sacramento still is the capital of California. Its also the same for describing real monuments that are still standing, like the Washing Monument in D.C. As in the monument _stands_ x feet tall rather than stood. I hope this helps.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 10, 2014)

bookmasta said:


> I come across this every now and then with books featuring scenes in real places. Its more correct to me. For example, saying Sacramento was the capital of California infers that it isn't anymore and implies that there may be a new city that is the capital, when in actuality Sacramento still is the capital of California. Its also the same for describing real monuments that are still standing, like the Washing Monument in D.C. As in the monument _stands_ x feet tall rather than stood. I hope this helps.



Have you tried writing of imaginary places in present tense?


----------



## bookmasta (Aug 10, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> Have you tried writing of imaginary places in present tense?



I have not. Grammatically, that's the difference between a fiction based place that isn't real and writing about a place in fiction that exists in non-fiction when it comes to writing in past tense. So basically a fiction based place is past tense because its fiction, along with the rest of the book. However, a non-fiction place, like a capital or a building put into a fiction based story are written in present tense rather than past tense with the rest of the book, as they are real and continue to exist.


----------



## Sam (Aug 11, 2014)

When writing past tense, events that happen prior to the timeline of the story don't always need to be written in the past perfect (AKA pluperfect). It's something that any proponent of past tense will know from experience. You can use past simple instead: 

Past perfect: _I had gone to work yesterday. _

Past simple: _I went to work yesterday. _

Past perfect: _Before_ _going to school, I had eaten a big breakfast. _

Past simple: _Before going to school, I ate a big breakfast. _

Where there is no ambiguity in a sentence and you can use the past simple, do it. When ambiguity becomes a problem, past perfect is necessary. 

Past perfect: _By the time John had finished his studies, he had been in New York for five years. _

Past simple: _By the time John finished his studies, he was in New York for five years. _

Past simple makes that sentence confusing. Was he in New York after he finished studying or before? That's where 'had' and the past participle become necessary to remove doubt or ambiguity surrounding a sentence. 

Moreover, if action taking place in the past perfect occurred at a specific time, and either 'before' or 'after' is used in the sentence, past perfect is not necessary: 

Past perfect: _He had visited his Irish relatives once in 2001 before he saw them again in 2005. _

Past simple: _He visited his Irish relatives once in 2001 before he saw them again in 2005. _

Both are correct. However, if the past perfect is not referring to an action that took place at a specific time, simple past cannot be used. 

Past perfect: _He had never seen a wolf before he moved to America. _(Correct)

Past simple: _He never saw a wolf before he moved to America. _(Incorrect)

Ah, the joys of the English language.


----------



## Seedy M. (Aug 11, 2014)

Something I learned years ago, when having a professional editor friend who helped me with these things, was that much of the argument about past tense is due to the writer trying to place a time of a happening. If a whole story is in the past, establish that immediately, then write as if it were in the present. Past tense and future tense and so forth are used when such things are necessary _within_ a story.
"I remember, it was nineteen eighty one. Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon was on the turntable (Remember Vinyl?). The desk phone rang ... well, here's what happened:"
Write the rest of the story as though it were present tense. Use other tenses from the viewpoint of the established tense of the story.
It is important to express a happening in terms of most effective response - but don't get so wrapped up in each sentence that you lose the story. Over-indulgence in the "proper" use of the language makes your story sound like a high school English class.
Because you know every detail needed in playing a violin doesn't mean you can play the violin. You can program it on a synthesizer, but you end up with something that sounds like a synthesizer. You can program to a very good piece of music - that sounds like a synthesizer. It sounds like a formula thing.
I'm trying to say the story and construction of plot and such are more important than English lessons and formulas. Write what sounds right to you. Don't bog yourself down in "Proper" form. There ain't really no such thing except on an academic level.


----------



## Terry D (Aug 11, 2014)

Write it so that it makes sense and stop worrying about it. Tense is a tool. Wield your tool with skill, but be careful not to hit your thumb.

_Booky's next stop was Sacramento. He glanced at his watch; if he left now, he'd be at the capitol by noon._


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 11, 2014)

Sam said:


> When writing past tense, events that happen prior to the timeline of the story don't always need to be written in the past perfect (AKA pluperfect). It's something that any proponent of past tense will know from experience. You can use past simple instead: ....



The problem is, when you write the main story in past tense, and a flashback in past perfect (past in the past, pluperfect), then you run out of tenses to describe, in the flashback, events happening before the flashback.

The so-called "solution" is to switch to past tense in the flash back. The main problem with this is that you are using past tense for the flashback and for the main story; there are other sources of confusion.

In Lisey's Story, Stephen King flops back and forth between the present and the past. One sentence I put in the present when I first read read it. When I reread it, I found a good clue that in fact in was in the past. (A hard bed was more likely to be in a motel room than a large loft.) Note that tense is supposed to help us know the meaning of the sentence; we are not supposed to be using the meaning of the sentence to figure out the tense.

Another sentence, I simply could not figure out whether it was past or present even after studying it.

King also had two sentences about the present, followed by a sentence that could be either past of present (for other reasons), which was then disambiguated because the next sentence was in the past. But the next sentence was a new paragraph! So any reader who stopped at the end of the paragraph to figure out meaning would get this sentence wrong.

There is no consistent pattern for when authors switch from past perfect to past in a flashback.

So, this problem really occurs.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 11, 2014)

bookmasta said:


> I have not. Grammatically, that's the difference between a fiction based place that isn't real and writing about a place in fiction that exists in non-fiction when it comes to writing in past tense. So basically a fiction based place is past tense because its fiction, along with the rest of the book. However, a non-fiction place, like a capital or a building put into a fiction based story are written in present tense rather than past tense with the rest of the book, as they are real and continue to exist.



When I discovered Evanovich describing her setting in present tense, I thought she was doing something new. When I found it in another author 4 days later, I decided it was common. I didn't check if Hemingway was describing real setting or imaginary setting in present tense, I should do that. Here is another: ""Now off their harbour there _lies _a wooded and fertile island not quite close to the land of the Cyclopes, but still not far. It _is _overrun with ..."

So you have a choice.


----------



## Seedy M. (Aug 12, 2014)

Thanks for mentioning Evanovich. She is a genius when it comes to comedy with a plot and story. She is an excellent example of a success who said the formula writing of today can go to hell.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 14, 2014)

To me, putting something in the past bleaches out the emotion. Imagine "I take out my rifle, find my target, and center him in my sights. I slowly pull the trigger." Against: "Four years ago I took out my rifle, found my target, and centered him in my sights. I remember slowing pulling the trigger."

This isn't a criticism of past tense, because in the style of past tense, the past tense sentence refers to the "present" of the story. Really, you can say, "Now I was taking out my rifle." The term "now" refers to that time in the main timeline when the person is taking out the rifle. (Same for words like "yesterday" and "here".) There is nothing bleached about "I took out my rifle, found my target, and centered him in my sights. I slowly pulled the trigger."

The problem, if there is one, is thinking that there is nothing wrong with putting your story in the past. A frame isn't so bad, readers forget about those. But if you constantly wave in the reader's face that you are talking about the past, I think you have problems. Unless you don't care about emotions and just want facts with implications.


----------



## Terry D (Aug 15, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> There is no consistent pattern for when authors switch from past perfect to past in a flashback.
> 
> So, this problem really occurs.



As long as the meaning of the passage is clear, there is no problem. There is no one way to write in any tense. Each writer decides for him/herself how they want to do it. That's why there's no such thing as the 'style' of past tense. It is in the handling of such issues that an author's style is developed. King writes his past-tense passages in the manner which works best for his stories, Sohan writes her's her way, and I write mine my way. There is no problem to be solved here.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 15, 2014)

Terry D said:


> As long as the meaning of the passage is clear, there is no problem. There is no one way to write in any tense. Each writer decides for him/herself how they want to do it. That's why there's no such thing as the 'style' of past tense. It is in the handling of such issues that an author's style is developed. King writes his past-tense passages in the manner which works best for his stories, Sohan writes her's her way, and I write mine my way. There is no problem to be solved here.



Consider the last sentence of, "I assembled my rifle, sat at the window and waited for my target to walk by. Uncle Looie had first asked me to be an assassin 20 years ago. I was strong, fast, and willing."

Does the lastsentence refer to the "present", when he is sitting on the roof? Or the past, when Uncle Looie first asked him? As we all seem to agree, it's ambiguous -- the tense does not help.

Now, the author can easily rewrite the sentence to show the correct meaning,_ if the author becomes aware of the problem_. Shouldn't we be warning authors of this problem?

The next sentence _might _show which meaning is intended. And that _might _work -- if the reader got the meaning wrong, the next sentence might wake the reader up to the correct meaning. But those are two mights. Sometimes there is no way to know when something happened, and sometimes I get it wrong even when there were clues as to what was right.

And you still have that tense is nice for helping the reader understand. If you easily get into a situation where it doesn't help, that's not good.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 16, 2014)

Anyway...You might think that writing in past tense places your main story in the past, and since that works fine, it's okay to place a story in the past. Actually, writing in style of past tense (usually) places the story in the here and now, the reader reads the story that way. And that _if _you make your reader see that the story is in the past, that bleaches out emotions. Or maybe it's just me, but...some examples:

I am currently reading On the Road, by Jack Kerouac. Ever so often he mentions something that he knows will happen in the future, implying that he is writing after the story is over, not telling it as it happens. I find these annoying. It breaks the contract.

I found two books which broke their chronological story into two parts, telling two stories at the the same time -- the main story line (starting in the middle chronologically) and a second story of flashback. To me, neither book worked very well, I think because the flashback (chronological first half) lost emotion. I mean, one of these was one of my favorite authors, writing lush metaphors and imagery that should be required reading for authors. But it didn't work as a story.

I found one story where the talented author was telling about exciting events, but putting them a few minutes in the past. (It is now 11:40, in the last ten minutes this happened to me...) Again, the story didn't have the impact it should have.

And once, at the end, the main character told us that after all of the events of the story, she learned to read and write and wrote the story. It spoiled the story for me! I'm still unhappy with that author.


So, bottom line. Writers think they can casually remind their readers that the story is in the past with no harm. I think they are wrong.


----------



## Jeko (Aug 16, 2014)

> Consider the last sentence of, "I assembled my rifle, sat at the window and waited for my target to walk by. Uncle Looie had first asked me to be an assassin 20 years ago. I was strong, fast, and willing."
> 
> Does the lastsentence refer to the "present", when he is sitting on the roof? Or the past, when Uncle Looie first asked him? As we all seem to agree, it's ambiguous -- the tense does not help.



I think everything after the first sentence is flawed, because if someone is waiting for a target to walk by, they aren't going to dream about their past unless they're a very distracted assassin.

I'm actually reading about this issue right now in Genette's _Narrative Discourse; _when a paragraph of retrospective narrative shifts from the 'present' story into its 'past', it can be disorientating unless handled properly. Chronology should be signified with recognizable subtlety, so that neither it nor any failure on its part gets in the way of the actual story. So:

_I assembled my rifle, sat at the window and waited for my target to walk by. Uncle Looie first asked me to be an assassin 20 years ago. I was strong, fast, and willing.
_
Eliminating the 'had' makes it slightly clearer, because there isn't a juxtaposition between 'had' and 'was'. '20 years ago' is what takes us into the 'past' of the story, so the characters evaluation of himself must be of that 'past' as well. Else, there's isn't a very clear succession of points in the paragraph. 

But still: he's a very distracted assassin.




> I am currently reading On the Road, by Jack Kerouac. Ever so often he mentions something that he knows will happen in the future, implying that he is writing after the story is over, not telling it as it happens. I find these annoying. It breaks the contract.



How? It would only validate it. Homodiegetic retrospective narration implies the presence of the speaker existing in the 'future' of the story, forming this 'future' version of the character as the narrator for the story. If you find that annoying, don't read past tense; or, read something that doesn't take full advantage of its mechanics and potential.

No narrator writing in past tense is telling it as it happens; that's what present tense is for. The power of past tense, done well, is that it creates the _illusion _that the events are happening in real time. When a narrator breaks this illusion, the effect, done well, can also be very powerful. McEwan's _Enduring Love_ comes to mind; part of the whole point of the novel is that we understand that Joe Rose is telling this story for his own satisfaction. So, attention is drawn to him as the 'future' narrator of the 'present' story that happened in his 'past'.




> And once, at the end, the main character told us that after all of the events of the story, she learned to read and write and wrote the story. It spoiled the story for me! I'm still unhappy with that author.



Again, why? How else would the story have been told to you if the narrator hadn't narrated it? Such an example of realism may end up ineffective, but I can't imagine it spoiling a whole story.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 16, 2014)

Wow, we are different. I was reading Enduring Love, which you suggested. The author has a number of interesting techniques for distancing the reader from the story, and I twice put it down in disgust, intending to read it no more.

I picked it up again, and I finally got to the interesting part. The author also has a real skill of, I don't know, seeing the philosophical in things. It was good. It was moving. It was poignant.

Then the second chapter began, "Let's give the half minute after John Logan's fall careful consideration." WHAM! I was taken out the story. I was a reader, holding a book, written by someone else who was telling a story.

I want to be immersed in a story. For the _third _time, I put down this book in disgust, this time vowing not to read any more of it.


----------



## Jeko (Aug 17, 2014)

> Wow, we are different. I was reading Enduring Love, which you suggested.  The author has a number of interesting techniques for distancing the  reader from the story, and I twice put it down in disgust, intending to  read it no more.
> 
> I picked it up again, and I finally got to the interesting part. The  author also has a real skill of, I don't know, seeing the philosophical  in things. It was good. It was moving. It was poignant.
> 
> ...



You've found, and missed, the purpose of the story. Immersion is something Joe relishes in when he wants to in the narrative; otherwise, he's telling the story to make sense of it for himself. The withdrawl from immersion is so that he himself (rather selfishly) can understand what has happened in his life; ur understand is then a bi-product of his greater goal. 

I didn't enjoy it much myself, but I understnand the artistic value of the narrative, and the brilliant use of tense and order in the novel; but thats mainly because I had to study it for a year.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to be immersed in a story, but seeing that as the be all and end all of literature is very limiting. Sometimes, distance is the most powerful tool a writer uses. Likewise, the metafictional (a book is a book) perspective is something either modernist or post-modernist, maybe both; just as plays can cleverly remind you you're watching a play, and movies can cleverly remind you you're watching a movie, for all sorts of artistic reasons (though usually at the cost of immersion/illusion), many books I love enforce the realism of the story being written as a book; _Gatsby_ does it with cherishable subtlety; _The Book Thief_ opens up all kinds of questions pertaining to the godliness of narrators; _The Curious Incident_ not only immerses me i nthe story, but immerses me in the visualisation and conceptualisation of the notion that the narrator wrote this story himself as well.

Many have failed to capture the potential of metafiction in prose; but those who have succeeded have explored the art of fiction in depths that no immersion-centred storyteller could ever reach.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 17, 2014)

In _Lisey's Story_, Stephan King wrote a flashback story in present tense, even though the main timeline was in past tense. Strange, right?

People pretty much agree that King is amazing storyteller. What was he thinking?

Maybe, maybe, he was solving the problem that putting a story in the past bleaches emotion. He of course wanted emotion.

Like I said, I know of two books that made it obvious that half of the story was in the past (and kept reminding us). Maybe they could have written the past part of the story in present tense? (Just an idea.)


----------



## Jeko (Aug 18, 2014)

> Maybe, maybe, he was solving the problem that putting a story in the past bleaches emotion. He of course wanted emotion.



I have never encountered this problem, and I'm pretty sure the thousands of years of literary history that are written in past tense haven't encountered it either. The reason a writer fails to capture emotion is because of bad writing, not because of the tense they choose. The idea that a tense can 'bleach' emotion is not just unevidenced; it's disproved by almost every writer who's ever put pen to paper.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 18, 2014)

Cadence said:


> I have never encountered this problem, and I'm pretty sure the thousands of years of literary history that are written in past tense haven't encountered it either. The reason a writer fails to capture emotion is because of bad writing, not because of the tense they choose. The idea that a tense can 'bleach' emotion is not just unevidenced; it's disproved by almost every writer who's ever put pen to paper.



Well, right, but that wasn't what I said. I said that when a book is written in the style of past tense, the readers perceive the sentence as being in the here and now. So there's no bleaching.

The problem is when the writer makes the reader see that an event is in the past of the main timeline. So the writer talks about her husband being missing, then does a flashback to when she first met him. Then she goes back to him being missing. Then does a flashback to another time with him. The story about the past didn't work as well as it should have.

So this isn't a criticism of the style of past tense. But I did worry about the danger in what you perhaps seem to be doing -- thinking that since people write in the style of past tense and it works, that there's no problem locating an event in the past.


----------



## Jeko (Aug 19, 2014)

> The problem is when the writer makes the reader see that an event is in the past of the main timeline. So the writer talks about her husband being missing, then does a flashback to when she first met him. Then she goes back to him being missing. Then does a flashback to another time with him. The story about the past didn't work as well as it should have.



Whether it works or not depends on how the story and narrative are handled as a whole; manipulation of the narrative's chronology has no inherent effects. You're placing responsibility for the success of the narrative on one element out of a hundred.



> But I did worry about the danger in what you perhaps seem to be doing -- thinking that since people write in the style of past tense and it works, that there's no problem locating an event in the past.



There isn't. If it benefits the story, then do it. Of course, there's a problem with doing it ineffectively, but there's a problem with doing everything ineffectively.

The use of chronology in _Gatsby _comes to mind; at one point in the story, the narrator changes (and is cleverly flagged) to someone who recount events that the normal narrator didn't experience, which happen previously to the immediate chronological location of the story. There's no bleaching of emotion or 'problem' with this; rather, the discourse acts as a solution for the progression of the narrative.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 21, 2014)

bookmasta said:


> I have not. Grammatically, that's the difference between a fiction based place that isn't real and writing about a place in fiction that exists in non-fiction when it comes to writing in past tense. So basically a fiction based place is past tense because its fiction, along with the rest of the book. However, a non-fiction place, like a capital or a building put into a fiction based story are written in present tense rather than past tense with the rest of the book, as they are real and continue to exist.



Right for Hemingway -- all of the present tense I found for setting was real places in present tense. "Everything on the menu is a dime except soup..." This is about a real place (the Perla).

Of course, he writes in present tense about something that was in the past and isn't true now. It is a lot safer to write in present tense about fictional places, where the statement can remain eternally true.

I did find one example of Steinbeck using present tense for fictional places: "Elm Street runs at an angle into High Street two blocks from the old Ethan Allen Hawley house."

But none of that is the issue. There is no rule, and contemporary authors describe fictional places in present tense. The question is if it reads better in present tense.


----------



## Lyra Laurant (Nov 10, 2014)

My story is written in 1st person, past tense.
If, at the first chapter, I write something like "I was a man..." because, at the end of the story (the narrator's present) the protagonist is now a woman (silly example, sorry), is it a big spoiler right at the first chapter? :scratch:
On the other hand, if I write "I am a man", isn't it wrong, as the narrator is not a man in her present?

Or I may just write it in the past because the reader will not notice anyway?


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Nov 10, 2014)

Lyra Laurant said:


> My story is written in 1st person, past tense.
> If, at the first chapter, I write something like "I was a man..." because, at the end of the story (the narrator's present) the protagonist is now a woman (silly example, sorry), is it a big spoiler right at the first chapter? :scratch:
> On the other hand, if I write "I am a man", isn't it wrong, as the narrator is not a man in her present?
> 
> Or I may just write it in the past because the reader will not notice anyway?



If it is only at the end you go into present tense, I don't see how the first chapter could be seen as a spoiler.


----------



## Morkonan (Nov 11, 2014)

Lyra Laurant said:


> My story is written in 1st person, past tense.
> If, at the first chapter, I write something like "I was a man..." because, at the end of the story (the narrator's present) the protagonist is now a woman (silly example, sorry), is it a big spoiler right at the first chapter? :scratch:
> On the other hand, if I write "I am a man", isn't it wrong, as the narrator is not a man in her present?
> 
> Or I may just write it in the past because the reader will not notice anyway?



Lol

Nice question. 

No, it won't be considered a "spoiler." For it to be a spoiler, the Reader would have to know that its significant. The Reader won't see a simple statement of fact as significant. It's even a natural fact to relate to a Reader in a First-Person POV.

And, "No", it is not wrong to "lie" like that. For the Reader, the story is happening in the present, anyway.


----------



## Lyra Laurant (Nov 11, 2014)

mrmustard615 said:


> If it is only at the end you go into present tense, I don't see how the first chapter could be seen as a spoiler.



I don't go into present tense. All the book is in past tense. What I have here is the pretty common situation of a narrator who already knows how the story he is telling ends, because it is his past. So, the narrator's present is different from the story's present.



Morkonan said:


> Lol
> 
> Nice question.
> 
> ...



So, past or present, both are just fine? XD
Okay. I feel better leaving it in the past, because it is "right". But, if I use present, I think I could suppose the narrator is actually getting closer to the protagonist's mind at that time, even if the protagonist is her younger self. Wow, omniscience gets weird when it is in 1st person... :shock:


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 11, 2014)

Lyra Laurant said:


> if I use present, I think I could suppose the narrator is actually getting closer to the protagonist's mind at that time, even if the protagonist is her younger self. Wow, omniscience gets weird when it is in 1st person... :shock:




It's November, 2004, and Lyra Laurant has just woken up. Ten years from now, she'll post on Writing Forums and ask about present tense -- but today, she's having a box of Cheerios. 

She pours milk over the tiny hoops of grain and watches the birds outside her window.


----------



## Lyra Laurant (Nov 11, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> It's November, 2004, and Lyra Laurant has just woken up. Ten years from now, she'll post on Writing Forums and ask about present tense -- but today, she's having a box of Cheerios.
> 
> She pours milk over the tiny hoops of grain and watches the birds outside her window.




Haha, but it's more like:
"I rolled my eyes and put the book back on the shelf. No way I was going to read that. *I hate books in 1st person*. Why would I want to be trapped inside a teenage girl's mind for the whole book? I'm already inside one and I don't like it.
I picked another book, hoping it was in 3rd person and had some sword fights."

The "2014 me" doesn't hate books in 1st person. That sentence alone is a lie in my present. But, as I'm inside the "20?? me" mind for the rest of the paragraph, I can say it was part of my 20?? thoughts (the story's present, when the statement is still true).

Not sure if I can apply that to my story, though


----------



## EmmaSohan (Nov 11, 2014)

Right. Do you write "My name _is _Ishmael" or "My name _was _Ishmael"? Or do you write around it? Here, can't you just take out the sentence? People rarely say they are men or women.

BTW, I haven't see any good reason you have to think of your main character as talking from the end of the book. Your MC can also be doing a running commentary. I think thats how the reader wants to think of it. And yes, sportscasters who do running commentaries often use past tense. You just lose omniscience about the future -- which I think is a bad idea because readers don't want to think of your character as talking from the end of the book.


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 11, 2014)

Lyra Laurant said:


> Haha, but it's more like:
> "I rolled my eyes and put the book back on the shelf. No way I was going to read that. I hate books in 1st person. Why would I want to be trapped inside a teenage girl's mind for the whole book? I'm already inside one and I don't like it.
> 
> I picked another book, hoping it was in 3rd person and had some sword fights."
> ...



Tense applies to thoughts, too. So, if you're not going to use italics and you're writing past tense, *all thoughts get changed to past tense*, as well:

I rolled my eyes and put the book back on the shelf. No way was I going to read that. I hated books in first person. Why would I have wanted to be trapped inside a teenage girl's mind for a whole book? I was already inside one and I didn't like it.

I picked another book, hoping it was in third person and had some sword fights.

But, if you want to keep *thoughts in present tense* and *narration in past tense*, you can italicize the thoughts (a common practice in a lot of Young Adult fiction), like so:

I rolled my eyes and put the book back on the shelf. _No way am I going to read that. I hate books in first person. Why would I want to be trapped inside a teenage girl's mind for a whole book? I'm already inside one and I don't like it._

I picked another book, hoping it was in third person and had some sword fights.

:encouragement:


----------



## Lyra Laurant (Nov 12, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> Right. Do you write "My name _is _Ishmael" or "My name _was _Ishmael"? Or do you write around it? Here, can't you just take out the sentence? People rarely say they are men or women.


LOL I said it was just a silly example. My protagonist doesn't change gender. But all my question is because I think it makes sense to use "is" if his name is still Ishmael.



EmmaSohan said:


> BTW, I haven't see any good reason you have to think of your main character as talking from the end of the book. Your MC can also be doing a running commentary. I think thats how the reader wants to think of it. And yes, sportscasters who do running commentaries often use past tense. You just lose omniscience about the future -- which I think is a bad idea because readers don't want to think of your character as talking from the end of the book.



It affects how much control the narrator has in the way he can tell the story. If the narator is very close to the present action, he can tell about a couple drinking wine together and - surprise! - the woman drinks first and dies. When the narrator has a higher level of omniscience, he could tell the story the same way the other narrator did (actually, he can do it for most of the time). But, if he wanted to, he could let you know the wine bottle was poisoned, and make you watch the man kindly serving wine to the woman he loves, unaware he is going to kill her.
It is a different way of building tension, and depends on the desired effect.



Kyle R said:


> Tense applies to thoughts, too. So, if you're not going to use italics and you're writing past tense, *all thoughts get changed to past tense*, as well:
> 
> I rolled my eyes and put the book back on the shelf. No way was I going to read that. I hated books in first person. Why would I have wanted to be trapped inside a teenage girl's mind for a whole book? I was already inside one and I didn't like it.
> 
> ...



Yeah, both are good options 
I'd italicize those parts if they were direct thoughts, but I don't need to italicize them if they are actually the narrator's omniscience, the narrator's interpretation of what is going on inside the characters' minds. But I have to admit I think that approach is not so popular in YA or genre fiction in general. All the examples I can recall are from literary fiction.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Nov 12, 2014)

Lyra Laurant said:


> LOL I said it was just a silly example. My protagonist doesn't change gender. But all my question is because I think it makes sense to use "is" if his name is still Ishmael.



Right, you can definitely do setting (like names) in present tense. Dickens also did his philosophical commentary in present tense (as did Evanovich at least once).


----------



## xlwoo (Apr 13, 2015)

when using "have been", the event really happened in the past. 

In the past, if there were two events, the event that happened before the other uses the past perfect tense. The other uses past tense.


----------

