# The Argument against Present Tense



## Kyle R (Oct 4, 2013)

*The Argument (for and against) Present Tense*

The following excerpts are from David Jauss' essay, _Remembrance of Things Present: Present Tense in Contemporary Fiction_.

What do _you_ think about the Present Tense? 

*Seven Advantages of Present Tense - by David Jauss
*
1) First, present tense has more “immediacy” than past. Past-tense narration is of course “immediate” in a way, since the events of the characters’ past are happening in the reader’s present. As Mendilow explains, the reader “translates all that happens … into an imaginative present of his own,” turning “he went” into “he goes” and so forth. Still, present tense is considerably more immediate than past, if only because no “translation” is required. It is the simplest solution to what Mendilow calls the most basic goal of writing: “to make the reader forget his own present and sink himself into the fictive present of the story.”

2) Second, the present tense allows us to extend the concept of realism into the realm of time. Virtually all fiction we call “realistic” portrays the passage of time _un_realistically, condensing a year to a sentence, for example, and expanding a moment into a chapter, and for this reason Sartre called for a kind of temporal realism, at least when we’re portraying a character’s stream of consciousness. If we are to “plunge the reader into a consciousness,” he says, “then the time of this consciousness must be imposed upon him without abridgement.” If a character thinks for ten minutes, in short, the reader should read for ten minutes.

3) Third, narrating past events in the present tense helps us achieve originality and intensity through what the Russian formalist critic Viktor Shklovsky calls “defamiliarization.” In his essay on this subject, Charles Baxter defines Shklovsky’s term as “[ making] the familiar strange, and the strange familiar” and suggests that defamiliarization is the principal way we can live up to Ezra Pound’s injunction to “Make it new.” Baxter discusses many ways to achieve defamiliarization, but there is one he doesn’t mention (though several examples of it appear in his fiction): shifting to an unfamiliar, unexpected tense. When this kind of shift was less common, it was more defamiliarizing than it is now, of course, and more original. But even now, it can have a startling effect and increase the intensity of a scene.

4) Fourth, because the present tense can be defamiliarizing and, therefore, disorienting, it is an effective way to convey unfamiliar, disoriented states of minds. When we dream, the familiar becomes the strange, the strange the familiar, and time loses its normal meaning, so it makes sense that present tense works exceptionally well to convey dreams. Delmore Schwartz’s “In Dreams Begin Responsibilities” is a marvelous example of this use of the present tense. The present tense also works superbly in Susan Dodd’s “Potions,” which reports the thoughts of a woman driven to the edge of insanity by grief, and in Victoria Redel’s _Loverboy_, which takes us inside the mind of a woman lying comatose in a hospital.

5) Fifth, present tense can contribute to the characterization of a work’s protagonist. As Joyce Cary said, he chose the present tense for his novel _Mister Johnson_ because its title character lives in the present and he wanted his readers to be “carried unreflecting on the stream of events” just as Mister Johnson is. Cary acknowledged that the “restless movement” of the present tense “irritates many readers” by making them feel that “events are rushing them along before they have time to examine them, to judge them, and to find their own place among them.” But, he explained, “as Johnson does not judge, so I did not want the reader to judge. And as Johnson swims gaily on the surface of life, so I wanted the reader to swim, as all of us swim, with more or less courage and skill, for our lives.” Many of the most successful present-tense novels and stories deal with characters who, like Mister Johnson, are “boxed in the present.”

6) As these comments should suggest, a sixth virtue of the present tense is that it can reflect not only a character’s nature but a work’s theme. One major theme of Baxter’s novel is “the presentness of the past” and therefore the use of the present tense when narrating past events makes excellent sense. Whereas Charlie fears the erasure of the past, his friend Bradley feels the present is, at times, _less_ present than the past and therefore _more_ subject to erasure. “The past soaks into you,” he says, “because the present is missing almost entirely.” In Bradley’s view, the past is eternally present in memory. As he says, “that day was here and then it was gone, but I remember it, so it exists here somewhere, and somewhere all those events are still happening and still going on forever.” Bradley does more than merely state his view that past events continue to happen in the present; he demonstrates it. At one point, after two young lovers, Chloé and Oscar, have been house-sitting for him, he hears the sounds of their lovemaking coming from the basement. He goes to investigate the source of the sounds, and once there, he says, “I felt the two of them passing by me, felt the memory of their having been physically present there …” And then the narrative, appropriately, shifts to present tense: “I follow them up the stairs. I watch them go into the kitchen and observe them making a dinner of hamburgers and potato chips. They recover their senses by talking and listening to the radio. I watch them feed each other. This is love in the present tense …”

7) There is at least one more advantage to present tense that must be acknowledged: It simplifies our handling of tenses. Whereas past-tense stories often contain the majority of our language’s twelve tenses, most present-tense stories employ only four— the simple present, the present progressive, and a smattering of the simple past and the simple future— and many consist almost entirely of the simple present tense. (Diane Williams, for example, shifts away from the simple present tense only three times in “Here’s Another Ending,” each time for no more than a brief sentence.) Using fewer tenses reduces our ability to convey the full complexity of time relationships, of course, but there’s something to be said for this kind of simplicity. One specific advantage is that it allows us to avoid what Monica Wood calls “the black hole of the past perfect.” When we’re writing in past tense, we need to shift into the past perfect in order to move into a flashback, and then we have to decide just how long to stay in the past perfect before shifting to the simple past for the bulk of the flashback, and then we have to decide at what point to shift back to the past perfect to signal the end of the flashback, so we can then return to the simple past to continue narrating our story’s “present.” Sound complicated? Well, often it is. When we’re writing in present tense, however, we can simply shift into the simple past when a flashback starts and then return to the present when it’s finished.


*Ten Disadvantages of Present Tense* - by David Jauss

1) The first, and principal, problem posed by the present tense is that it restricts our ability to manipulate time, especially two of its most important elements, order and duration. Altering chronological order and varying duration both work against the primary purpose of present tense, which is to create the feeling that something’s happening _now_. It seems natural to alter the chronology of events in past tense, when the narrator is looking back from an indeterminate present at many past times, but it seems unnatural to do it in present tense, when the narrator is speaking from and about a specific present. In his past-tense novel _Chronicle of a Death Foretold_, Gabriel García Márquez reports everything that led up to and resulted from a murder before he finally reports the murder itself. This reordering of chronology works beautifully to provide us with the fullest possible context in which to understand the act. If the novel were in present tense, however, the reordering of events would defeat any attempt to convey the feeling of presentness. A present-tense chapter which takes place chronologically _before_ a previous present-tense chapter would feel “past” to the reader despite the tense used.

2) Second, while it is certainly possible to create complex characters in present-tense fiction, it’s more difficult to do so without natural access to the basic techniques that allow us to manipulate order and duration. These techniques allow us to convey our character’s subjective experience of time and thereby achieve more psychological depth and realism. They also help us complicate a character by placing her in a larger temporal context. The more we know about a character’s past, for example, the more we can understand her present. Some present-tense works, like Porter’s “Flowering Judas,” do manage to convey a lot of a character’s past, and the result is what Gass calls a “thick present,” which he defines as “a present made up of a deep past.” But in most present-tense works, he says, “one present follows hard upon another the way a hard rain falls, and all those things that thicken the present with their reflective weight … are omitted,” and the result is a “thin present”— not to mention characters as thin as that present. In short, without the kind of context flashbacks provide, our characters tend to become relatively simple, even generic: types. Lorrie Moore is a master of the present-tense story, but even she is not immune to this problem. In her twenty-page story “How to Be an Other Woman,” we learn only the following six facts about her character’s past: When she was six she thought the word _mistress_ meant “to put your shoes on the wrong feet”; her second-grade teacher once said, “Be glad you have legs”; in high school she was “runner-up at the Junior Prom”; she was a member of Phi Beta Kappa; she has had four previous lovers; and she once saw a Barbra Streisand movie. Good details, all. But I don’t think they’re enough to put sufficient flesh on her fictional bones. All too often, maintaining the illusion that the story is happening “now” keeps us from providing enough information about our characters’ pasts to make them seem truly complex.

3) Third, because present-tense narrators do not know what is going to happen, they are unable to create the kind of suspense that arises from knowledge of upcoming events. The narrator of _Doctor Faustus_ provides a good example of this kind of suspense: “The truth is simply that I fix my eye in advance with fear and dread, yes, with horror on certain things which I shall sooner or later have to tell …” Carolyn Chute laments that we have to “sacrifice” this particular kind of suspense when we use present tense. What we gain in immediacy, she says, we lose in “tension.” Present-tense fiction can create another kind of suspense, of course— the kind we feel when no one knows the outcome— but not this kind. And in many stories, this kind of suspense would be a plus.

4) Fourth, as Ursula K. Le Guin says, “The present tense, which some writers of narrative fiction currently employ because it is supposed to make the telling ‘more actual,’ actually … takes the story out of time.” It does so, she implies, because it resembles two specialized forms of the present tense, the “generalized” present and the “historical” present. We use the generalized present to talk about an act that is repeated throughout time, as in the sentence “I write every morning.” The tense is present, but the events described are not. Hence they are unmoored from their actual places in time. The same thing happens in the historical present, in which we refer to an event from the past as if it were happening now. For an example of this you need look no farther than the beginning of this paragraph, where I preface my quotation from Le Guin’s 1980 essay with the words “Le Guin _says_,” not “Le Guin _said_.”

5) Fifth, as Le Guin says, the present tense tends to limit the speed of a narrative to “the pace of watch hand or heartbeat.” As a result, it leads not only to a lack of complexity in the handling of time but also to a lack of variety in tempo. Whereas past-tense fiction can shift “from adagio through lento and andante to presto” (as Macauley and Lanning put it), everything in present-tense fiction seems to happen at the same pace— and that pace is _fast_. Many writers have turned to the present tense, I suspect, in order to create a sense of speed and urgency— Joyce Carol Oates’s “August Evening” is a good example— but the more present tense dominates our fiction, the more that sense of speed and urgency dissipates. To quote Macauley and Lanning again: “No one seems to be going very fast when every car on the highway is traveling at seventy.” Also, as I suggested earlier, it’s more difficult to convey the relative importance of events if we cannot vary their duration sufficiently.

6) Sixth, as Casparis notes, the “watch hand” pace of present-tense narration leads us to focus on “perception” rather than on “cognition,” on “a sequence of action” rather than on “recognition” of the events’ meaning. Gass makes this same point, stating that one of the “principal perils” of the present tense is “its absence of mind”—mind”— the fiction’s focus is on action and dialogue: the filmic scene rather than the mind experiencing it. Gass is of course ignoring the many present-tense interior monologues that populate contemporary fiction. Still, we see this “absence of mind” in many (but far from all) of the stories scholars tend to file under the heading “minimalist.”

7) Seventh, although neither Gass nor Casparis mentions it, present-tense narration often has an effect diametrically opposed to the one they discuss: Rather than a focus on external events that leads to an “absence of mind” or “cognition,” it often focuses so much on the character’s inner life that the exterior world becomes only a bit player, an extra. In many present-tense stories little happens in the character’s world but a lot happens in his mind. And much of it, alas, is expository summary rather than vivid scene. 

8 ) Eighth, the use of present tense encourages us to include trivial events that serve no plot function simply because such events would actually happen in the naturalistic sequence of time. As a result, a present-tense story sometimes seems, in the words of Macauley and Lanning, “less the work of an author than an unedited film.” This is true, I believe, of Kate McCorkle’s slice-of-life story “The Last Parakeet,” in which for no apparent reason we watch the _Today_ show with the narrator while she eats a bowl of Rice Krispies. The principle of selection can be applied more readily, and ruthlessly, in past tense.

9) Ninth, because present tense makes first-person narrators simultaneously actors and observers, it creates an odd sense of detachment that often works against the very emotions the narrators are trying to convey. It is natural for past-tense narrators to be detached from their past selves— they are, after all, no longer who (or where) they were— but it seems unnatural for present-tense narrators to be detached from their _current_ selves. At times, of course, this kind of detachment is appropriate, as in the opening section of Baxter’s _The Feast of Love_, which aims to convey the dream-like sense of self-dissociation the narrator feels upon wakening. But all too often it merely seems odd, as if the narrator is doing a play-by-play broadcast of his own actions. (Imagine passing someone on the street and saying not “Hi” but “‘ Hi,’ I say as I pass you on the street.”) And the more dramatic the event the narrator’s describing, the greater the sense of detachment that will result. 

10) Tenth, and last: As my “play-by-play” analogy suggests, first-person present-tense narration seems aimed at an audience, even when there’s no audience there to hear it. This is the case in much past-tense fiction as well, of course, but there’s an important difference: We usually don’t know precisely where a past-tense narrator is in time or place, but we do know where and when the present-tense narrator is speaking. In past tense, the fact that the narrator addresses an audience detached from him in time and place seems natural because he is himself detached in time and place from the events he narrates. In present tense, however, addressing an audience who is not there seems unnatural because he is there. It’s odd enough to be narrating your actions as you perform them, but it’s odder still to announce them to the empty air. What’s more, by transplanting into a present-tense story the past-tense technique of narrating to an absent audience, we make the story’s “present” seem “past,” something remembered, not something that’s happening now— remembrances, in short, of things present. And by doing so, we compromise the very goal of the present tense.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Oct 4, 2013)

Well we need examples to help present the argument. This falls under prescriptive grammar or rule based grammar. What you described just now is prescriptive. You need examples. That, is no pun intended, called descriptive grammar. That is the best way to learn grammar almost generally speaking but both are needed. Since this is a grammar topic, you need to focus on getting examples to help explain, elucidate, or further elaborate. However, this sounds like a very good topic to show examples. Sadly I cannot be of good assistance since I have not yet mastered these tenses with techniques.


----------



## Kyle R (Oct 4, 2013)

Hi, Glass. That's true, grammar plays a part in tense usage, but this discussion is more about narrative effect, and the advantages/disadvantages of choosing present tense over past tense. 

Each choice can influence the readability, and the telling, of your story in ways that go beyond grammar. It can impact mood, style, even the chronology and duration of your scenes. :encouragement:

_A gunshot echoed through the building._ 

_A gunshot echoes through the building.
_
Two similar sentences, but with one notable difference. The first sentence, to me, opens up possibilities for a more reflective, after-the-fact telling of a story. Exposition could follow, perhaps a brief mention of the historical silence of the building and how rare anything like a gunshot would have been to those inside the premises. Or description of the building could follow. Perhaps a compressed snapshot of the aftermath.

With the present tense sentence, for me the most logical conclusion is an immediate real-time response. Facial expressions of those nearby, the sound of hammering footsteps, an alarm being pulled. Instead of there being a narrative distance from the event, the present tense would influence me, as a writer, to stick to the temporality of the scene like glue, wringing it for all it's worth. That can yield a powerful scene, but also limit my ability to tell in a broader scope, or with poignance.

And so on...


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 4, 2013)

I agree with the idea of "immediacy."  And it works the best in plots with lots of action.  But consider one schizophrenic slant.

In many stories events happen that surprise the lead character.  While the author is writing the story in past tense, the lead character is living it in real time.

Throw in a flashback scene on how the lead was first surprised and your wristwatch will run backwards so fast it will melt.

Frankly, I like narration, although it works the best in movies.  While panned, I think the voice-over in Blade Runner intensified the action.  I was always told to "show, not tell," however I think spelling it out for the reader occasionally adds another layer of depth.

To that end, I must admit I have trouble writing in present tense.  I read it back (especially out loud) and it sounds like a cheesy documentary.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Oct 4, 2013)

This is very well written after I understood your very last point. I did have little understanding of Narratology. I do own an introduction to Narratology, by Mieke Bal. However I like how each point of this article has applications for point of view. Case in point here is what I like from what you wrote in the article, however this first point I quote I found the most important and was more a good conclusion that it is a good way to manage tenses and as you put it well, mood. Thanks for sharing. It's a very good and helpful article to improve:




> ) Third, narrating past events in the present tense helps us achieve originality and intensity through what the Russian formalist critic Viktor Shklovsky calls “defamiliarization.” In his essay on this subject, Charles Baxter defines Shklovsky’s term as “[ making] the familiar strange, and the strange familiar” and suggests that defamiliarization is the principal way we can live up to Ezra Pound’s injunction to “Make it new.” Baxter discusses many ways to achieve defamiliarization, but there is one he doesn’t mention (though several examples of it appear in his fiction): shifting to an unfamiliar, unexpected tense. When this kind of shift was less common, it was more defamiliarizing than it is now, of course, and more original. But even now, it can have a startling effect and increase the intensity of a scene.
> 
> 
> Hi, Glass. That's true, grammar plays a part in tense usage, but this discussion is more about narrative effect, and the advantages/disadvantages of choosing present tense over past tense.
> ...


----------



## annik (Oct 4, 2013)

Kyle, These point about present and past tense are really intesting.. I too would like to see some examples for the other points. It would really help me understand them better.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Oct 4, 2013)

I think a big problem with a lot of the disadvantages he cites is that he assumes that the moment of narration is the same as the narrative moment in the present tense; in other words, that the narrator's telling coincides with the action. And though some texts do try to simulate this coincidence between acting and telling, not all texts do. Palahniuk is a very clear example of someone who uses the present tense throughout (at least in _Fight Club_ and I think also in _Survivor_) without pretending that the narration coincides with the events, since the first scene shows the narrator during the climax or end of the novel, and this is followed by the events which led to the climax. But all this is told in present tense, regardless of the fact that it obviously must be understood as the narrator's past.

If the present tense doesn't mean telling coincides with action--and I don't think it necessarily does--then his entire list falls apart. There's no reason we can't compress time, can't refer to "future" action, can't build suspense, can't cut scene, etc. He's imposing a lot of false limits based on a faulty assumption.


----------



## Jeko (Oct 4, 2013)

The story I'm working on at the moment has a narrator who is telling past events in third-person present tense, like a storyteller crouched over a campfire encircling a crowd of marshmallow-fueled children.

Not sure how much of this applies, then.


----------



## annik (Oct 4, 2013)

Cadence, I'm something like this. Can you post a few lines that illustrate it well?

I agree that there is no reason to remain fixed in the moment. After all the present includes a past and a future. In my story I go into future telling a lot like: he runs over a mouse and would later find out that mouse was the mother of the family of magic mice living under the porch. 
Right now i'm grappling rewriting to be completely in the present or leaving my constant switching in. I'm going to check out fight club. Thanks for the info.


----------



## bookmasta (Oct 4, 2013)

I think its more of a challenge to write in present tense and it's seldom seen at least amongst the books I read. I feel that present tense can be very challenging especially when it comes to beginning writers. The Hunger Games is the only book series I've seen written in present tense. Either way, I don't mind as long as the book is worth reading.


----------



## annik (Oct 4, 2013)

I started writing in the present tense because I was writing in french for beginners. I wanted to avoid all the conjugations involved in writing in the past tense. For english this isn't an issue. However, now that I'm writing in the present tense, I really enjoy it and enjoy learning about the in's and out of it. I'm to understand that it's a current topic for the writing world and the rules are yet to be solidified?


----------



## popsprocket (Oct 4, 2013)

I actually find that present tense has the opposite effect on me. It feels _less _immediate and I have quite a bit of trouble getting into the story.


----------



## Jeko (Oct 5, 2013)

> Cadence, I'm something like this. Can you post a few lines that illustrate it well?



Since I'm in the drafting stage at the moment, I don't think any of my work would illustrate anything well. But overall I'm trying to focus on speech, description and action, more so than usual. Putting narrator comment in third-person present feels unnatural. That or I can't do it justice yet.


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 6, 2013)

KyleColorado said:


> ...What do _you_ think about the Present Tense?
> 
> *Seven Advantages of Present Tense - by David Jauss
> *
> 1) First, present tense has more “immediacy” than past. Past-tense  narration is of course “immediate” in a way, since the events of the  characters’ past ...



This  is completely illusory - Everything the Reader reads is "Present Tense"  from the Reader's perspective. No argument in favor of "literary  immediacy" is valid - It's the Reader we're concerned about!



> 2) Second, the present tense allows us to extend the concept of  realism into the realm of time. Virtually all fiction we call  “realistic” portrays the passage of time _un_realistically,  condensing a year to a sentence, for example, and expanding a moment  into a chapter, and for this reason Sartre called for a kind of temporal  realism, at least when we’re portraying a character’s stream of  consciousness. If we are to “plunge the reader into a consciousness,” he  says, “then the time of this consciousness must be imposed upon him  without abridgement.” If a character thinks for ten minutes, in short,  the reader should read for ten minutes.



Wow... That's... ridiculous.

I'm  sorry, but it is. Jauss is welcome to come and defend his position, of  course. (Or, I could read his book/article, which isn't likely, now that  I've read this.) This is another attempt at literary shenanigans.

If  I write about a group of characters taking a long journey, does the  Reader have to read through three months of "step, step, step, after  boring step, step...?" Of course not! Someone is digging very deep here, in order to come up with these wildly grasping excuses for writing in Present Tense.



> 3) Third, narrating past  events in the present tense helps us achieve originality and intensity  through what the Russian formalist critic Viktor Shklovsky calls  “defamiliarization.”...it can have a startling effect and increase the  intensity of a scene.



Or, instead of using mechanical contrivances in order to handle the hard work for one, one could just write better...



> 4) Fourth, because the present tense can be defamiliarizing and,  therefore, disorienting, it is an effective way to convey unfamiliar,  disoriented states of minds.



Err... Writing better, yeah, that's the ticket. How about using that? You know, "_Write Better_" instead of "_Shoehorn  in a giant piece of pink-elephant poo, just because I think it does  something I can't do any other way using the English Language."_ Come on, these excuses are just plain bad. 

Hey  guys, listen up! I'm going to write a really great scene without having  to rely on my manipulation of the English language to carry the day for  me! YAYZ! Writing is_ easy!_



> 5) Fifth, present tense can contribute to the characterization of a work’s protagonist... "



Correction  - The work's "Narrator." That doesn't have to be the Protagonist in a Present-Tense story. I know, quibbling... But, if we're talking  professional stuffs, here, then let's talk 'em. 

I do agree,  however, that Present Tense can bring a certain flavor all its own to  the Narrator, but that's not a strong enough reason to champion the  stuff. It's functional in a limited way, in this capacity. It's not  going to do it without... writing. And, if you can write it right, you  can write it in sensible Third-Person, Past Tense like all the Cool Kids  do... 



> 6) As these comments should suggest, a sixth  virtue of the present tense is that it can reflect not only a  character’s nature but a work’s theme. ...This is love in the present tense …”



/snore
/snort
/sputter
..
Wut?

Lemme  see, he wrote all that to say that "Present Tense" is writing in  "Present Tense?" And, this is somehow relevant to the work's "Theme?" 

OK, someone please show me the Back-Cover Copy of any Present Tense Novel that say's _"Now,  in living Present Tense Theme in order to be in Present Tense! EXCITING  PRESENT TENSE AHEAD! Present Tense Character Development, Right Around  the Present Tense Corner! It's all happening NOW, thanks to Modern, New  and Improved, Present Tense! 

Literary Alert - Present Tense Themes Ahead - If you don't look 35 years old, you can't buy this book without an I.D."
_
/waiting



> 7) There is at least one more advantage to present tense that  must be acknowledged: It simplifies our handling of tenses. .... Sound  complicated? Well, often it is. When we’re writing in present tense,  however, we can simply shift into the simple past when a flashback  starts and then return to the present when it’s finished.




Huh? He's joking, right? Did you guys read the same thing that I did? 

"When  we're writing in present tense, however, we can simply shift into the  simple past when a flashback starts and then return to the present when  its finished..?" Did you guys read that? Really? 

OH NOES!  Writing is too hard to write! I must throw a bucket of Present Tense  Paint all over my manuscript, otherwise I just can't manage to figure  out how to write flashbacks correctly! INCOMING PAINT STORM!

This  is why the majority of present-tense books I have read are crap.... Or,  more likely, they just don't get finished by me. I am a self-professed  Present Tense Hater. Sorry, that's my bias and I know it's not popular,  these days. But, seriously, it's just too awkward a style for everyone  and just doesn't lend a strong enough positive variable to a work in  order to make up for the literary shennanignas one has to go through in order to fix all of its weird problems.

Yes, it could be used to some positive effect in certain literary situations. But, that's it. For everything else, it sucks

(Will come back later and take up the gauntlet again. Pressed for time, tonight.)


----------



## Kyle R (Oct 7, 2013)

Morkonan said:
			
		

> But, seriously, it's just too awkward a style for everyone and just doesn't lend a strong enough positive variable to a work in order to make up for the literary shennanignas one has to go through in order to fix all of its weird problems.



What kind of weird problems?


----------



## Nickleby (Oct 7, 2013)

Not sure if Morkonan's post is sarcasm or really a "Present Tense Hater." Or both?

What I don't see in this thread is the standard caveat for these sorts of rules and pronouncements. Present tense is hard to use in some situations, and it's not suited for some types of stories. However, present tense is suited for other types of stories. Whether it's hard to use really depends on the skill of the writer, not the story.

In other words, if you don't want to write in present tense, use literary past, but don't tell me I can't use present. As far as I'm concerned, it's nothing but a matter of perspective. Changing the tense doesn't materially change the story.


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 7, 2013)

KyleColorado said:


> What kind of weird problems?



(Disclaimer - I'm biased against Present Tense, intensely.  )

It's just not natural! 

"Reading"  is not instantaneous. There's really a very small arc-second of text  that we can actually see and, at the most, we can digest about seven  syllables or so, at a glance. But, on the page, it's just letters that  create words that have to be processed in our language centers and,  depending on what they're describing, we may have to bring in some  imagery. It takes a bit of time, obviously, for the words to soak in.  Often, we have to reflect what we've just read, even if we're reading  aloud, like a bunch of lizard-brained mouth-breathers. Present Tense is  not _present_, regardless how it's written. Books are not movies.

 Grammatically, there doesn't have to be any significantly weird  problems. (Can't think of any, atm.) I grant that. But, taken as a  whole, isn't it obvious? Everything on Page One has already happened,  hasn't it? If it hadn't, there wouldn't be "a rest of the book" yet. I  see no _general_ advantage in writing in Present Tense. The only  possible advantage it could have would be to lend a particular artistic  or literary flavor to specific sorts of works. In general writing, it's  horrid. (This is my personal preference.)

But, naturally?  Forgetaboutit... When you tell someone what you did, today, how do you  do it? Imagine speaking to someone who has asked you the question "What  did you do, today?" How do you tell them what you did? What "tense" do  you naturally use? Is that only because it happened in the past, earlier  that day, or is it because it's more formally understood to be readily  digestible in Past Tense, over Present, than we care to think about? Go  ahead, tell a story to someone. What's your preferred, automatic, use of  tense? Of course, you're relating the past. But, you're also relating  the past in a book - It's already been printed by the publisher - The  story is over. (Depending...) 



Nickleby said:


> Not sure if Morkonan's post is sarcasm or really a "Present Tense Hater." Or both?



Yes, above I used "absurdity" in  order to illuminate my arguments against the "Advantages" listed in that  article. (I didn't try to argue *to* the absurd, too much, when rebutting it.) I did use sarcasm in the same manner and, yes, I am a Present Tense hater - I will not read novels written in present tense and, in the most extreme of cases, I would only write in it for artistic or literary effect.



> What I don't see in this thread is the standard caveat for these sorts of rules and pronouncements. Present tense is hard to use in some situations, and it's not suited for some types of stories. However, present tense is suited for other types of stories. Whether it's hard to use really depends on the skill of the writer, not the story.



I agree, wholeheartedly.



> In other words, if you don't want to write in present tense, use literary past, but don't tell me I can't use present. As far as I'm concerned, it's nothing but a matter of perspective. Changing the tense doesn't materially change the story.



It changes the story's presentation from what is likely an "expected" format, to one that may be more difficult to deal with, depending on the skill or proclivities of the Reader. For myself, for instance, I just plain hate present tense. So, when I mistakenly buy a work of fiction written in present tense, I throw it away. (Well, I really try to just give them away.)

What I_ am_ against is the casual declaration by a growing group of writers who insists that Present Tense is "generally suitable" for fiction. It's just not... It _can_ bring a certain "something" to specific sorts of works, but I just can't see all these "advantages" that proponents crow about. For instance, if some hack can't figure out how to write a flashback in normal, natural, imminently beautiful and wonderfully articulate Past Tense and feels that Present Tense gives them a "_Get Out of Writer's Jail_" free card, they're doomed, anyway, and no amount of Present Tense is going to save us from their horrible writing.

_"Hi, I'm Fred. I just wrote a book! I used Present Tense because it made constructing by Flashback Scenes so much easier," said Fred.
"That's nice. We'll get back to you," droned the Editor._


----------



## Folcro (Oct 8, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> (Disclaimer - I'm biased against Present Tense, intensely.  )
> 
> It's just not natural!



*Like*

I couldn't stomach The Hunger Games. A first person narrative has a tendency to let the reader know the teller will survive the story. She tries to make up for this by making it present tense. The end result is awkward and frankly, quite phony. That's my biggest problem with present tense. It's a harsh attempt to authenticate the story and has the direct opposite effect.


----------



## Kyle R (Oct 8, 2013)

Morkonan said:
			
		

> (Disclaimer - I'm biased against Present Tense, intensely. :wink: )



I know you do. I like that about you, because it makes you passionate, and leads to very interesting discussions. :encouragement:



			
				Morkonan said:
			
		

> It's just not natural!



Don't you mean, "It _was_ just not natural"? Otherwise, you've just naturally spoken in present tense. 



			
				Morkonan said:
			
		

> "Reading" is not instantaneous. There's really a very small arc-second of text that we can actually see and, at the most, we can digest about seven syllables or so, at a glance. But, on the page, it's just letters that create words that have to be processed in our language centers and, depending on what they're describing, we may have to bring in some imagery. It takes a bit of time, obviously, for the words to soak in. Often, we have to reflect what we've just read, even if we're reading aloud, like a bunch of lizard-brained mouth-breathers. Present Tense is not _present_, regardless how it's written. Books are not movies.



Again, everything you've written is in present tense here. I only point this out because it's easy for people to forget how Present Tense is one of the most natural ways of communicating.



			
				Morkonana said:
			
		

> I see no _general_ advantage in writing in Present Tense. The only possible advantage it could have would be to lend a particular artistic or literary flavor to specific sorts of works. In general writing, it's horrid. (This is my personal preference.)



That's a fair statement. We're all entitled to our own likes and dislikes.  Though, I feel the same way about Past Tense. Not that I _dislike _it, but that I see no general advantage in it, at least, no more than Present Tense. They each have their inherent abilities and difficulties. Some stories work excellently in Past Tense. Some in Present Tense.



			
				Morkonan said:
			
		

> But, naturally? Forgetaboutit... When you tell someone what you did, today, how do you do it? Imagine speaking to someone who has asked you the question "What did you do, today?" How do you tell them what you did? What "tense" do you naturally use?


 
I would use Past Tense if they asked me what I did today. I'd use Present Tense if he asked me what I'm doing right now. I'd use Future Tense if he asked me what I'm going to do today. Each tense would be natural, depending on the narrative.

Just as stories aren't limited to using only certain types of landscapes, neither (I feel) should they be limited to using only certain tenses.



			
				Morkonana said:
			
		

> But, you're also relating the past in a book - It's already been printed by the publisher - The story is over. (Depending...)



There's an interesting point! I believe it segues into a reason why some authors _choose_ Present Tense: to destroy the implication that the story is over, and to create the illusion that the story exists _now_, in the Present, while the reader is reading it.

As a writer, what could be more powerful than creating such an illusory effect? To transport your reader, so thoroughly, so completely into a story that it appears to be happening to them, around them, _as_ they read it?


----------



## Jeko (Oct 8, 2013)

> (Disclaimer - I'm biased against Present Tense, intensely. :wink: )
> 
> It's just not natural!



Treat it like speech. It'll make more sense.


----------



## Sintalion (Oct 8, 2013)

> As a writer, what could be more powerful than creating such an illusory  effect? To transport your reader, so thoroughly, so completely into a  story that it appears to be happening to them, around them, _as_ they read it?



I think you achieve that effect with either tense. For me at least, when I'm lost in a really good book, I honestly don't pay any attention to what tense it is. I'm too captivated by the story itself. 

That said, I do think you're onto something here in that present tense is often used as an attempt to convey that the reader is journeying with the narrator, as opposed to being informed after the journey's completed. Not always, but sometimes (and you could do this in past tense, too). 

It reminds me of All Quiet on the Western Front. Present tense. Narrator dies in the end. There is no way our narrator could tell us the story after he finished living it, barring journal entries or recordings. We're along with him for the ride, and honestly the tense isn't that unnatural. But again, once I start any novel it usually takes me a chapter or two to get used to the author's writing style. I'd hardly notice the tense if the story is interesting.


----------



## Myers (Oct 8, 2013)

Have any of the present tense haters read _Rabbit, Run, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, The Handmaids Tail or The House of Sand and Fog?_ In my opinion, all outstanding books written in present tense that are not _Fight Club_ or _The Hunger Games_. I'm sure there are more. I say if you're on the fence about this, read a couple of these books. It might be good to be aware of the pros and cons, but I wouldn't get too caught in the arguments or be swayed by the haters. It can be done well and to good effect.


----------



## Jeko (Oct 8, 2013)

> It reminds me of All Quiet on the Western Front. Present tense. Narrator dies in the end.



Whoa! Spoilers!

:-o


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 8, 2013)

KyleColorado said:


> ..Again, everything you've written is in present tense here. I only point this out because it's easy for people to forget how Present Tense is one of the most natural ways of communicating.



Sure, when you're discussing opinions - Those are sort defaulted into the present tense. But, when it comes down to actions, it's a bit different, isn't it? Stories are all about Something Happening(ed).  Or, Something Happened(ing)?



> There's an interesting point! I believe it segues into a reason why some authors _choose_ Present Tense: to destroy the implication that the story is over, and to create the illusion that the story exists _now_, in the Present, while the reader is reading it.
> 
> As a writer, what could be more powerful than creating such an illusory effect? To transport your reader, so thoroughly, so completely into a story that it appears to be happening to them, around them, _as_ they read it?



I just can't "feel" that, you know? I don't "feel" the immediacy of Present Tense as having added anything to the story. There's no desirable flavor for me in reading it. When comparing my opinion with that of others, here, I find that... interesting.

I started reading at a very early age. I never stopped. I don't know how many books I have read, but they'd probably fill a swimming pool or two. As a child, I've always read above my age group and, as an adult, I read several books at once, usually in the categories of fiction, science and history. I've also taken to adding another book to my Current Reading list - Classics. (I need to brush up on some, currently reading the wonderful Horatio Hornblower series! Woot!)

The reason I mention all this extensive reading junk is that I can't help but think that there's something going on with my speech/language centers that is "different" than those who profess to adore Present Tense. I'm not certifiably crazy, disconnected from reality or emotionally troubled... much. I have no tumors that I know about and haven't had any injuries to my head that appear to have caused lasting damage. (I do have tinitus, though, which can be linked to several sorts of problems not involving the inner ear, but I don't think that's significant in any way, atm.)

Here's the rub: We all have likes and dislikes. However, my "dislike" for Present Tense is much more than just joshing around with fellow lovers of Writing. I can't stand it. I can't see any benefit that I'd desire from it and only sparingly acknowledge it might have its uses. Present Tense is the Black Licorice in the Jar of Writing Mechanics as far as I'm concerned.

It would be interesting to open up the brains of Present Tense lovers and dig around a bit, or, more practically, use an FMRI to see if there are any appreciable differences in how we interpret the written word in story form. I want to know if there is something lighting up in your brain that is dull as a post in mine, or vice-versa. 

Note: I am perfectly serious about physiological differences in FMRI studies between Present and Past Tense lovers. I'd love to see if anyone has done any study like that.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Nov 24, 2013)

Past tense is for simple readers. Kids, grandmas, bogans. People who throw a hissy fit if something seems out of the ordinary or unpredictable.

I hover between them depending on the story (or sometimes within the story, if I'm playing around with time). Present tense serves a deeper and more fundamental purpose than the article lets on, and than what Morkonan hates. Present tense is the immediate and the visceral. It's like ripping out someone's eyes and plugging them into your own skull.

What the writer of the original article was attempting to say with #7 was that the present tense gives opportunities to directly explore themes that necessarily can only exist in reference in the past tense, like the individual perception of time, or the way that we percieve expression, or the mentality of a person at a specific moment. It adds a lot to the psychological. Sometimes a sentence or paragraph can change its meaning entirely if you switch from present to past.



> I've forgotten his face: he is a blank slate, completely generic. Unaccountable. His features indicate that he's a person, but not that he is any person in particular.


----------



## popsprocket (Nov 24, 2013)

Staff Deployment said:


> Present tense is the immediate and the visceral. It's like ripping out someone's eyes and plugging them into your own skull.



Holy generalisations Batman!

Present tense has the opposite effect on me. It serves as a constant reminder that the things I am reading _aren't_ presently happening and I am ripped out of the story, left to watch from a distance.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Nov 25, 2013)

Amendment: when done well. It's only effective when it's built into the thematic intention of the story. I figured that would be obvious.


----------



## Jeko (Nov 26, 2013)

> It serves as a constant reminder that the things I am reading _aren't presently happening and I am ripped out of the story, left to watch from a distance._



I don't treat present tense as immediate action; I treat it as the narrator telling me their life as if it is happening before their eyes. Hence the story becomes more mimetic overall, and sometimes I get entirely lost in their words. The effect it has in Fight Club, for example, is incredible.


----------



## Robdemanc (Dec 29, 2013)

I am with Morkman on this.  A story is something that has already happened, something that you are being told by someone who may or may not have experienced what they are telling you.  If you change it to present tense then what you are doing is giving a report on something that is happening now, which means it is yet to be a story.

Humans have been telling and listening to stories for as long as we have been talking (presumably), and in those hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, of years the past tense has come about naturally as the way to tell a story.  

When I have read another work in present tense it comes across to me as a bit of a gimmick. It is as though the author decided to use it to make their story more exciting for the reader.  I don't think it worked in the Hunger Games, and I've never read a book that made me think it was the best way to tell the story.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Dec 29, 2013)

Closed-perspective narrator dies at the end (in a realistic setting).
Story is framed as an ongoing mental journal (fantasy or sci-fi).
Main themes of the story are mental compartmentalization, or the perception of time.
Style is meant to emulate the feel of a screenplay or stageplay.

If you use past tense on any of these then you have absolutely no idea what you're doing.


----------



## Jeko (Dec 30, 2013)

> A story is something that has already happened, something that you are being told by someone who may or may not have experienced what they are telling you. If you change it to present tense then what you are doing is giving a report on something that is happening now, which means it is yet to be a story.



One concept of present tense is the thought that it is happening right now - this extends King's argument of telepathy into a new dimension of intensity. Writing is just thoughts to paper; hence present-tense can be a constant representation of stream-of-consciousness.

Likewise, McEwan's narrator in Enduring Love writes that he's 'delaying the information' - present-tense - while telling a story in the past tense. This leaks the narrator into the action, a key device that McEwan uses throughout the novel. He also uses present tense for a particular chapter when he leaves his perspective for Clarissa's, evidently imagining her view of events as a first-hand experience in his head; in this case, present-tense is essential.

Steinbeck's use of the tense holds another key concept - representing a the cyclic nature of a setting. Both Of Mice And Men and Cannery Row open with present-tense descriptions, either evoking the belief that these locations survive to this day (in the way that they functioned during the course of events yet to be portrayed) or channeling the reader into the past through a similar belief. Thinking that this is a 'lie' and hence incorrect is missing the fact that the setting is already a lie; so is the story.

Disliking the use of a whole tense is technique-fascism. Regardless of personal preference it is widely accepted in all markets of fiction, and I'll bet any agent worth his or her salt doesn't discriminate so plainly or irrelevantly. The power of words goes beyond retrospective narration.


----------



## Robdemanc (Dec 30, 2013)

I know I am being too ruthless and I have not read enough present tense novels to make a fair comment.  But when I do read present tense I hate it.  I have even entertained the idea that if a novel of mine is accepted by a publisher on the condition I change it to present tense I will turn them down.


----------



## Jeko (Dec 30, 2013)

> But when I do read present tense I hate it.



I have a few friends who often speak Chinese to each other, and while they have every right to, I can't say I like it when they do. Simply because I can't understand them.

Which is the better solution? Shunning the language, or learning it?

I advise you (and all who are adverse to present-tense) to become more acquainted with the technique; the more you absorb it, the more you will understand it and be able to see it in both effective and ineffective use.


----------

