# Past vs Present



## Potty (Jul 3, 2014)

I hold my hands up and admit that my writing naturally falls into present tense. No matter how hard I try to write in the past, I slip back into present. I like the feel of writing it, I like reading it and I just generally prefer the way it makes words seem... upper class (can't think of a better way of putting it)

Now, I'm currently writing a novel which I have every intention of getting traditionally published. My worry is that present tense is often a massive turn off for a lot of people. Coupled with the fact it's also first person I know it's enough to make certain people's hair curl. And I've heard it said that a lot of publishers will generally gloss over work that is present tense as past is the more accepted style.

I'm writing this book with the sole purpose of getting it published, and I don't want some silly little thing ruining my chances. So, I ask, is all this present tense hating a real thing or what? Is it generally a good idea to stick to past to increase your chances of publication?


----------



## popsprocket (Jul 3, 2014)

Don't sweat it. First/present is sort of in vogue thanks to all YA published in the format recently, I'd imagine you won't have any issues.


----------



## TWErvin2 (Jul 3, 2014)

It's not a hating thing. The problem is (especially around forums) that writers don't write in first person present tense very well. It reads stilted or like a play by play. Published examples don't do that. Just as there are folks who don't like certain genres or POVs, tense is something that some people prefer or don't care for. But the average reader? If it's a good story that flows, it really doesn't matter.

Sandra Kring's first novel (Carry Me Home) was written in first person present tense. She's gone on to write and have many more published in different POVs/tenses, but she found an agent and publisher with that POV and tense, because it was done well.

So, Potty, if the story flows better and it's the best way to tell the story, don't let it deter you.

I would recommend (which I am sure you've already done...but for others that stumble across this thread) reading and studying novels written in the same POV and tense, seeing how those authors accomplished the task and then applying what you've learned to your writing style and current project.

Good luck as you move forward!


----------



## Deafmute (Jul 3, 2014)

TWErvin2 said:


> It's not a hating thing. The problem is (especially around forums) that writers don't write in first person present tense very well. It reads stilted or like a play by play. Published examples don't do that. Just as there are folks who don't like certain genres or POVs, tense is something that some people prefer or don't care for. But the average reader? If it's a good story that flows, it really doesn't matter.
> 
> Sandra Kring's first novel (Carry Me Home) was written in first person present tense. She's gone on to write and have many more published in different POVs/tenses, but she found an agent and publisher with that POV and tense, because it was done well.
> 
> ...



I am going to just go ahead and say DITTO here, instead of making some long winded post saying the same thing.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 3, 2014)

Write in the POV and tense that you write best with. That's the most aggressive approach to getting your novel published. Bring your best writing to the table. This way, your writing will stand or fall on its own merits, not on some arbitrary POV/Tense concession you make.

Trying to write in a way that you're less comfortable in will only make your writing weaker. And if there's one thing agents/editors hate more than any POV/Tense, it's weak writing.

You've found your voice. Now, do what you do best! :encouragement:


----------



## Jeko (Jul 3, 2014)

> Trying to write in a way that you're less comfortable in will only make your writing weaker. And if there's one thing agents/editors hate more than any POV/Tense, it's weak writing.



I wouldn't agree with this; when seeking publication, yes, you should write with what you're most comfortable with. But exercising muscles you don't use often, even within a serious work, can help that comfort zone become stronger itself.

A tense is a technique; while it's best to use the techniques you know, using the ones you don't can increase the potential your stories have in the long term.


----------



## aliveatnight (Jul 3, 2014)

If you wish to get published, write in the way you know best. Practicing in the things you aren't good with is wonderful practice, but that's not something you should do if you're looking to be published.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 3, 2014)

Cadence said:


> I wouldn't agree with this; when seeking publication, yes, you should write with what you're most comfortable with. But exercising muscles you don't use often, even within a serious work, can help that comfort zone become stronger itself.
> 
> A tense is a technique; while it's best to use the techniques you know, using the ones you don't can increase the potential your stories have in the long term.



In any other context, I completely agree with you, Cadence. Practicing different styles and techniques is definitely beneficial. 

From what I gather, Potty isn't talking about practice, though. He's talking about altering his preferred writing style in the hope that it may increase his novel's chances of publication.

In that context, I believe doing so will make the writing weaker.

It's like entering a calligraphy contest, finding out that the judges prefer left-handed contestants, and switching your brush from your right hand to your left hand because of it. Unless you're ambidextrous (or an extremely fast learner) your penmanship will probably suffer.

There's a difference between changing your style for practice (which, like you, Cadence, I agree is a good thing), and changing your style because some agents/editors are biased against it.

I say, screw them. These are the same agents/editors who would have rejected Sara Gruen's present tense novel, _Water for Elephants_, which won multiple nominations and awards, topped the NYT Best Seller List, and was made into a movie. The same with Isaac Marion's present tense novel, _Warm Bodies_.

If you like writing in a certain POV/Tense, don't let others discourage you from doing it. There's nothing wrong with present tense.  :encouragement:


----------



## Nickleby (Jul 3, 2014)

Cadence said:


> A tense is a technique; while it's best to use the techniques you know, using the ones you don't can increase the potential your stories have in the long term.



I totally agree. Working in present tense is a decision best made on individual merits, like the tone and the POV. Anything that influences the general narrative, the voice, of a piece goes to the heart of the reading experience. Changing the voice will change the story.

With any luck, by the time you finish the piece, you'll have found your sea legs with any techniques you haven't used before. That's why we do rewrites. Use that confidence, take it from the top, polish it until it shines.


----------



## Morkonan (Jul 5, 2014)

Potty said:


> I hold my hands up and admit that my writing naturally falls into present tense.



That's because it was invented by aliens who seek to weaken our resolve to resist their dominion by damaging our brains with "Present Tense" stuffs...



> Now, I'm currently writing a novel which I have every intention of getting traditionally published. My worry is that present tense is often a massive turn off for a lot of people. Coupled with the fact it's also first person I know it's enough to make certain people's hair curl. And I've heard it said that a lot of publishers will generally gloss over work that is present tense as past is the more accepted style.



Publishers seem to be gushing over present tense works... It's nauseating. It's like watching the pretty girl swoon when the uncaring and dimwitted football jock smiles at her... What's up with that? Who cares, nerd girls are where it's at anyway...

But, seriously, I've seen a lot of recent pubs that are present tense and even well-established authors are cranking out that crap. Some of the more "pulp" authors in certain Sci-Fi/Fantasy genre specials have all stuck a present-tense offering on the shelf in the past two years or so. (When series writing and other commitments permitted, I assume.) I think it's a communist-alien-Illuminati plot, myself.



> I'm writing this book with the sole purpose of getting it published, and I don't want some silly little thing ruining my chances. So, I ask, is all this present tense hating a real thing or what? Is it generally a good idea to stick to past to increase your chances of publication?



How well is it written? That's all that matters, really. For myself, I will not knowingly purchase a present-tense book by an author that I am not intimately familiar with and, even then, I do so with hesitation, requiring a quick pre-read to ascertain their skill level...

For myself, Present Tense is a strike against you. But, for publishers? All indications are, to me, that they are giving much more lenient considerations to certain present-tense offerings, these days. (I think that's because they get confused while reading it and that's when the evil magic can take over the unwary.) I have yet to read one that I liked and, for the few that have been highly regarded in the Awards circuit, I have been thoroughly unimpressed with all aspects of their creative attempts... 

But, write with whatever tense you wish. Just be sure to choose the one with which you feel you are most skilled. Forget all that "Present Tense does this" and "Past Tense does that" crap... It's all hoopla. The only thing that "does" anything is Good Writing, regardless of Tense. (Unless it's Present Tense, which automatically means that it sucks...  )


----------



## bookmasta (Jul 5, 2014)

Do what you want. I write in both tenses without a problem.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 5, 2014)

Morkonan said:
			
		

> Publishers seem to be gushing over present tense works... It's nauseating. [...] even well-established authors are cranking out that crap.



We converse in present tense.

"Hey, Jemma. I'm at the store right now. What do you want me to get?"

We think in present tense.

Brr! It's cold as crap in here!

We write in present tense.

I get what you're saying here, but I have to disagree. I'm a published writer, and I don't need a plan -- I fly by the seat of my pants.

We tell stories in present tense.

"So, I'm walking to the car Thursday night when this guy sprints out of the bushes, looks me dead in the eyes, and jams a knife right into my chest." 

"No effing way!"

"Yeah! But then the knife gets stuck, you know?"

"What!"

"Stuck! Like glue! And I realize, it's my winter coat. The one with the wallet pocket?"

"The blue one?"

"Yeah! The blade is stuck in my billfold!"

There's nothing wrong with present tense. It's a tense we use every single day, throughout our lives.

Some writers refuse to accept it is because they can't get over the logically obvious: that a *present-tense* fictional story can't possibly be happening in the *now*, while the reader is reading it, unless the writer was predicting the future while he wrote it.

This logical inconsistency, however, clashes with another logical inconsistency: that a *past-tense *fictional story couldn't possibly have happened in the *past*, before the reader had read it, otherwise it would have been in the news, in the history books, or listed in a google search.

Fortunately, in fiction, all logical inconsistencies fly out the window. It's fiction, therefore, we, the writers, have the power to bend the rules. We have the ability to describe things that never happened as if they actually did (past tense). We also have the ability to describe things while they happen, even though they actually aren't (present tense).

They're two different ways of suspending a reader's disbelief and immersing the reader in a fictional dream. Each approach carries with it a different tone, a different flavor. 

Yes, there are some lousy present-tense writers. I can't deny that. But there are some lousy past-tense writers, too.

In the end, I agree with you, Mork, that what it really comes down to is the writer's skill. 

But, I have to disagree with you about present tense being "crap." I'll always vehemently argue that both tenses are equally valid.

Think of me as Professor Xavier to your Magneto. 







I'll always be there, in your head, annoying you, telling you that this is not the way. :highly_amused:


----------



## Sunny (Jul 5, 2014)

A story is a story is a story! 

If you write good? Past or present tense, I'll keep reading. I'm not so sure I'd want to avoid an entire genre, and an entirely huge group of successful authors, based on my unwillingness to accept a story told in past or present. 

I find I _become _the character in a story that's been written in present tense, but that doesn't mean I can't fall into a great story of wonderful characters in a past tense novel, either. 

Potty, if you enjoy reading stories in present tense, why isn't that enough of an answer for you?  

You enjoy present tense, and so do a lot of people. Not everyone does, but not everyone enjoys reading past tense either. You should write the way you want to, you should read what you want to, you should stand behind your characters, your world and the novel you busted your butt over. The tense doesn't matter. Compel your readers with the same love of characters and fictional worlds that compel you to keep reading any given book you pick up. 

Your work has your name on it for a reason, *you *made it! Not someone else who comes in with a different idea of how _they_ would have written it. They'll write their own way and stand behind it, and promote it with their belief of how amazing it is. They wouldn't change their past to present, just because you like present tense better. 

Just like any kind of an artist, keep true to yourself, and it will sell.  I bet your present tense story is very gripping!


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 5, 2014)

Sunny said:


> You should write the way you want to, you should read what you want to, you should stand behind your characters, your world and the novel you busted your butt over.



Well said, hot stuff!


----------



## Morkonan (Jul 7, 2014)

KyleColorado said:


> ... There's nothing wrong with present tense.



Yes there is... 



> Think of me as Professor Xavier to your Magneto.



You will never win, Charles. Human nature confounds your idealism and natural law forbids your utopia - Not everyone is created equal and that includes ideas.






(Beside, I have a cool hat and cool hat guys always win!  )

I agree that it's largely dependent upon the writer. I also believe that relying on simple mechanics to contribute meaningfully to the overall quality of a written work is a child's dream. However, I also believe that if I wish to run a race, the best way to train would be to stop myself from shooting myself in the foot by choosing to write in Present Tense! (Novice writers often choose Present Tense and, for the life of me, I can't see why they'd logically gravitate towards that choice. It's... ridiculous. There have been enough threads here from novice writers asking questions about Present Tense use in their own offerings to tell anyone that it's not a good choice for novice writers... I just broaden that opinion to include all writers!  )


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 7, 2014)

Morkonan said:


> However, I also believe that if I wish to run a race, the best way to train would be to stop myself from shooting myself in the foot by choosing to write in Present Tense! (Novice writers often choose Present Tense and, for the life of me, I can't see why they'd logically gravitate towards that choice. It's... ridiculous. There have been enough threads here from novice writers asking questions about Present Tense use in their own offerings to tell anyone that it's not a good choice for novice writers... I just broaden that opinion to include all writers!  )



Often the POV is the main character in the present. So writing in first person present tense is just a little more direct and has a little more emotional impact. I am willing to accept the restrictions of first person present to get that additional emotional impact.

I read a book where the POV was first person past -- we got a time, like 10:50 PM, and a description of what happened in the last 7 minutes. Hearing that her child vomited on her 5 minutes ago lost impact.


----------



## FleshEater (Jul 8, 2014)

I really don't think first person present tense is much of a turn off anymore. I'm pretty sure every Chuck Palahniuk novel is first person present tense, and he's pretty much a cult icon. 

The key is making the tense disappear, so that when someone reads it, it feels as natural as first or third person past tense. 

I brought this exact question up to a published writer I've conversed with a few times through e-mail. He suggested writing in third person past tense. However, after reading a few paragraphs of my story, he said never mind. The tense did not detract from the story as he imagined. 

So, it all depends on how seamlessly you can write first person, present tense.


----------



## Morkonan (Jul 8, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> Often the POV is the main character in the present. So writing in first person present tense is just a little more direct and has a little more emotional impact. I am willing to accept the restrictions of first person present to get that additional emotional impact.



Really? You mean that if I write in first-person, present-tense, it's more direct and my writing will have more emotional impact?

...

Seriously? A "mechanic" is going to effect the emotional quality of my writing and make it more "direct?"

While I do agree that "First Person" gives you a sense of immediacy and intimacy when experiencing the introspection other internal actions of a narrator, I can not agree that present-tense adds any such qualities. The fact that a PoV affects certain interpretations is self-evident.



> I read a book where the POV was first person past -- we got a time, like 10:50 PM, and a description of what happened in the last 7 minutes. Hearing that her child vomited on her 5 minutes ago lost impact.



_I turned the corner.

vs

I turn the corner._

How much time elapsed?

(PS - The past-tense vs present-tense debate is a long-standing one. So, I don't expect any solution to evolve out of this thread. You are, of course, most welcome to your own opinion, even though it's wrong...   That's a joke, btw. The fact is that, as a writer, what matters is what you write. If you feel more comfortable with a certain style or if you feel it is more appropriate for a given work, that's your business! I will fight for the right for you to write in first-person, present-tense, if that's what it takes. Just don't expect me to like it...)


----------



## Neith (Jul 8, 2014)

I've actually been thinking about this a lot lately, as I'm writing a story where the protagonist's life is in danger. It's in first person POV, _but _I'm beginning to think (as I outline for future chapters) that I may have some POV jumps to the antagonist, which will be in third person POV. 

On one hand, I've enjoyed writing the protagonist's scenes in first person present tense -- I feel it really makes her voice pop (and this is a first for me, usually I write in third person past tense). But, also, since a major conflict is the death threat against her, the present tense seems (to me) make it more suspenseful. I've always felt that first person past tense makes it seem like the protagonist is recounting events after they happen, so of course we know she/he will survive.

I'm just not sure if I'm biting off more than I can chew with a first person present tense that has POV shifts to third person present tense. And I'm not sure third person present tense has the same impact as first person. But I also can't keep rewriting paragraphs between the different POVs and going "um, er, um...?"


----------



## Tettsuo (Jul 8, 2014)

Morkonan said:


> Really? You mean that if I write in first-person, present-tense, it's more direct and my writing will have more emotional impact?
> 
> ...
> 
> Seriously? A "mechanic" is going to effect the emotional quality of my writing and make it more "direct?"


Yeah, it can.  That's the point of doing first-person present.  You're immersed in the character because you can ONLY read their viewpoint (if written correctly) and read their thoughts.

Third is much more detached... because you're looking at the world in hindsight (which we all know is 20/20).


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 8, 2014)

Hi Morkanan, thanks for putting up with this discussion.

Am I clear on this? When I write "I scream", everyone knows that is happening "now" in the world of my book. Writing "I screamed", using past tense, usually means exactly the same thing -- that it's happening now in the world of the book. I think there is a small difference emotionally, you think there is no difference. Right?

Sometimes the writer makes it clear that the event happened in the past, as compared to the now of the book world. Again, my example is the author making it clear that it is 10:50 in the world of the book and the main character is describing what happened in the past 10 minutes. This seems to lose a lot of emotional force. Or at least more than "a little". Do we agree on that?


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 10, 2014)

Morkonan said:


> _I turned the corner.
> 
> vs
> 
> ...



I didn't understand why you were asking this. But I finally realized, when I read "I turned onto Mulholland", I tend to imagine the consequences, which is that the person is driving down Mulholland. When I read "I turn onto Mulholland", I tend to imagine it happening. (So, that takes longer I guess.)

That explains the vomit example. I tend to imagine the consequences of "Jen vomited on me", like having to clean it up. For "Jen vomits on me", I imagine it happening. More emotional impact to present tense.


----------



## Morkonan (Jul 10, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> I didn't understand why you were asking this. But I finally realized, when I read "I turned onto Mulholland", I tend to imagine the consequences, which is that the person is driving down Mulholland. When I read "I turn onto Mulholland", I tend to imagine it happening. (So, that takes longer I guess.)
> 
> That explains the vomit example. I tend to imagine the consequences of "Jen vomited on me", like having to clean it up. For "Jen vomits on me", I imagine it happening. More emotional impact to present tense.



That is one way to interpret it. But, that's not the only way.

"Past Tense" is simply written in the... past tense. We do, naturally, assume that something has already happened. However, it can be read "as something happens" with just as much impact as "present tense." (Warning, I hate present tense, so I will do everything within my power to stand against it!  ) If I "turn" or if I "turned", it doesn't matter. What matters is that I give you a believable portrayal of that action. (Well, it doesn't matter unless you're writing in present tense... which is just plain wrong!  )

There is an argument, within this sense, that people often use that you may find helpful - When reading present tense, we know that this "is happening." When reading past tense, we know that this "has happened." Because we know that this "has happened", then we know that someone was around to record it. If the narrator is the antagonist or not some "ideal narrator", then we "know" that character has survived whatever "has happened." This argument is much the same as the arguments against "flashbacks" in fiction. If you have a flashback, then there is, presumably, no "existential risk" to the character experiencing it, since they obviously survived the encounter so they could later give you a flashback of it... (ie: A flashback of a character who is relating a time when they were in danger of losing their life loses its drama, a bit, since they obviously didn't die.)

But, with the more broad mechanic of tenses, there's no directly inferred "character", just the "story." An anoynymous narrator can simply be the same narrator that relates all of history to us and they'll still be credible, regardless of tense. After all, "present tense" narrators can't be narrating something "as it happens" because then the pages would only pop into existence as you turned them, rather than already being bound within a book...


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 10, 2014)

Mork! I thought you gave up on me.

Okay, to paraphrase you, past tense can work as well as present tense if the reader takes the past tense description as "something happens".

And that's the little effect I was talking about. When people write in past tense, the reader knows that it is present tense. But... they are translating "I screamed" into "I scream." It's more direct in present tense.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 10, 2014)

"I was in Spain, I am France, and I will be in Italy." That's written in "present tense".

Writing in "past tense", the same sentence is, "I had been in Spain, I was in France, and I would be in Italy." Awkward, right?

I write in present first person. I know there are problems with that, because I run into them. But...in present tense, there is a clearly marked "book time". It just seemed a little fuzzy in the book I was reading in past tense. And how do you translate "Yesterday I was in Spain, now I am in France, and tomorrow I will be in Italy?"

*Grammar stuff*

According to Google and his cronies, "I had been in Spain" is past perfect, "action taking place before a certain time in the past". Complicated, right?

"I would be in Spain" is.. Conditional 1? That's defined as "action that *might* take place" But what if I am sure? "Tomorrow, the sun would come up." I am thinking that there is an explanation of this, but this has clearly exceeded Mr. Google's ability. (Where are those grammar Nazi's when you need them?)


----------



## Neith (Jul 13, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> "I was in Spain, I am France, and I will be in Italy." That's written in "present tense".
> 
> Writing in "past tense", the same sentence is, "I had been in Spain, I was in France, and I would be in Italy." Awkward, right?
> 
> ...



This is where I find things get complicated, because a lot of grammar stuff for time related sentences are based on context clues in the English language. From what I understand (and correct me if I'm wrong), when using "would" in the future but using in past tense (Future in the Past), it is "absolute time" -- the action will happen _sometime _in the future, even when referencing in the past, and is not contingent on another event (basically, until you are IN Italy, going to Italy will always be "sometime in the future;" this doesn't change whether you bought tickets or not). So it is constructed like a conditional phrase (and sounds like one), it isn't a true conditional phrase because the emphasis is on the fact that the action will happen in the future and not a cause/effect of actions. (Daydreaming about going to Italy some day is still the future, just as buying tickets means you'll be in Italy _sometime _in the future.)

Here's my theory of why some people prefer present tense or claims it has more "agency": it is easier to write passively in the past tense and oftentimes, active forms sound passive.

Take _I would be in Italy_. Technically, that is active form, because "I" is the subject, however "would be" is often used _passively _(i.e. _The car would be driven by Marcus_) so it _sounds _passive even though it isn't. "Would" is also used to denote plans or for conditional phrases, which also sound passive because they _depend _on something else happening, which takes away from the importance of the subject ("I would like to go to the store, but I'm waiting for Marcy to return"). But there's no correct way to change it in past tense.

In present tense, it simply becomes simple future tense ("I will be in Italy") and "will" denotes promise, which sounds more active.

Of course, the downside of present tense is sentence construction. It's harder to indicate all the types of conditional and/or time referenced sentences using just present tense. For example, flashbacks and POV changes can get tricky. Also, I think you need a better grasp of verb tenses to write in present tense correctly.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 13, 2014)

If the main story is written in present tense, it is remarkably easy to write about events before the main story -- I use past tense (as a tense, not as a style). For example

I wake up. Intercourse with Frederick was different. We weren'tjust doing what we were supposed to because we were married. Instead,we were just trying to enjoy ourselves. And, Theodore liked havingsex. With Frederick, it was like he wanted to have sex with _me_.
I go downstairs. 

Again, in the style of past tense, this would be "I _woke_ up. Intercourse with Frederick _had been_ different...


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Jul 14, 2014)

Potty said:


> My worry is that present tense is often a massive turn off for a lot of people.


I would guess that 'a lot of people' includes the majority of editors and publishing agents etc.  

Reading between the lines, _'I slip back into the present' _gives me the impression that you CANNOT write in the past.  Of course nothing is 100% past since quotes may be in a large part in the present.  Mastering this blend of present past and future in a PAST setting isn't easy.  

So while it may be that some agents / readers etc. have become accepting of the present as a readable tense, I'd guess your chances of standing out from the crowd (when you submit a manuscript that is) increase dramatically by NOT doing what every other YA author is doing.  Today, being retro and traditional is more rebel than followiing the trend (boring)  

My 2 cents
Good luck
David Gordon Burke


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Jul 14, 2014)

KyleColorado said:


> We tell stories in present tense.
> 
> "So, I'm walking to the car Thursday night when this guy sprints out of the bushes, looks me dead in the eyes, and jams a knife right into my chest."
> 
> ...



While there is absolutely nothing wrong with speaking that way, it does peg the speaker of being of a certain age and socio-economic range.  I for one never speak that way and find it beyond irritating when someone else does.  Outside of YA I don't see this as being viable.  

That said, I have a short story in the collection I am working on that is in second person / present tense.  Why? As an experiment to see if I could pull it off.  The reader knows it's experimental and if they can get past that, then the experiment was a success.  As said by many, if it works, and is done well, then it works.  Likewise, as a crutch or as simple case of following a trend....?  Bad idea.

Of course my word of advice to anyone is and has always been, go against the trend if you want to be noticed.  Follow the trend if you happen to have the confidence that you are the best.  

David Gordon Burke

David Gordon Burke


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 14, 2014)

David Gordon Burke said:
			
		

> if it works, and is done well, then it works



Exactly. :encouragement:


----------



## FleshEater (Jul 14, 2014)

Neith said:


> I've actually been thinking about this a lot lately, as I'm writing a story where the protagonist's life is in danger. It's in first person POV, _but _I'm beginning to think (as I outline for future chapters) that I may have some POV jumps to the antagonist, which will be in third person POV.
> 
> On one hand, I've enjoyed writing the protagonist's scenes in first person present tense -- I feel it really makes her voice pop (and this is a first for me, usually I write in third person past tense). But, also, since a major conflict is the death threat against her, the present tense seems (to me) make it more suspenseful. I've always felt that first person past tense makes it seem like the protagonist is recounting events after they happen, so of course we know she/he will survive.
> 
> I'm just not sure if I'm biting off more than I can chew with a first person present tense that has POV shifts to third person present tense. And I'm not sure third person present tense has the same impact as first person. But I also can't keep rewriting paragraphs between the different POVs and going "um, er, um...?"



When tackling a story in first person present tense, I've found it's best to remain in first person present tense, following only one character. When changing characters and/or perspectives, it gets messy, and very difficult to write and read. Third person present tense, in my opinion, rarely feels natural. 

If you haven't already, I highly suggest reading Chuck Palahniuk's Survivor. It's about a cult survivor recounting his life on a plane that's running out of gas and about to crash land. Very funny, interesting, and in usual Palahniuk style, well written.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 14, 2014)

Before we go too far down a rabbit hole here, there's no such thing as a past tense 'style' or present tense 'style'. A book's style is composed of many factors: voice, POV, language choice, and others in addition to the choice of tense.

Just for the record, I despise 1st person, present tense. I just can't take it seriously.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Jul 14, 2014)

Terry D said:


> Just for the record, I despise 1st person, present tense. I just can't take it seriously.



I'm about 99% with you there.  Although I have seen it used effectively for passages (Stephen King comes to mind) where the author might be describing a dream sequence or some other limited perspective section of a book, I've never seen it used for the whole book where I thought it was effective.  Of course this is relative to age.  When I was young I thought KISS was the greatest rock group EVER and no one could tell me any different.  They were too OLD.  Today the reality has kicked in because I have a bit of experience....I realize that while they can and have written a few good tunes over the year, they basically suck.  

Check back in 20 to see who is still a.  writing and b. writing in the present.  

David Gordon Burke
PS.  Did you mean 1st person present tense as one entity or 1st person AND present tense.  IMHO 1st person is just a great POV and a real kicker.  Try writing from the POV of a person who is nothing like yourself.  Not easy.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 14, 2014)

A skilled writer can wield any tense or POV to serve the story best.


----------



## Tettsuo (Jul 14, 2014)

David Gordon Burke said:


> Check back in 20 to see who is still a.  writing and b. writing in the present.



Ummm, present tense is not some new popular writing style.  It's been around for ages and is well established.  Also, it's not that common, even today.  The vast majority of books are still written in past / 3rd person.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 14, 2014)

David Gordon Burke said:


> I'm about 99% with you there.  Although I have seen it used effectively for passages (Stephen King comes to mind) where the author might be describing a dream sequence or some other limited perspective section of a book, I've never seen it used for the whole book where I thought it was effective.  Of course this is relative to age.  When I was young I thought KISS was the greatest rock group EVER and no one could tell me any different.  They were too OLD.  Today the reality has kicked in because I have a bit of experience....I realize that while they can and have written a few good tunes over the year, they basically suck.
> 
> Check back in 20 to see who is still a.  writing and b. writing in the present.
> 
> ...



1st and present paired. I sometimes write in 1st person and have no problem with that. 

@Kyle-- That's the kicker isn't it? What one feels serves the story best? First/present feels contrived to me and, in my opinion only, _never_ serves the story best.


----------



## Tettsuo (Jul 14, 2014)

Terry D said:


> 1st and present paired. I sometimes write in 1st person and have no problem with that.
> 
> @Kyle-- That's the kicker isn't it? What one feels serves the story best? *First/present feels contrived to me and, in my opinion only, never serves the story best.*



LOL... Okay, why is that exactly?  Can you pinpoint the reason for feeling that way?


----------



## Terry D (Jul 14, 2014)

To me it's like watching The _Blair Witch Project_, or _Cloverdale_, at first it's unique and interesting, but it quickly takes on an artificial feel. I mean, for godsake drop the camera and run, idiot! As a reader it gives me no sense of my relationship to the story, or the characters. It supposedly puts me inside the character's head, but it doesn't. take the following example:

_The subway platform is cold beneath my feet and I can smell something dead nearby. Probably a rat cut down by a train. God, I hope it's just a rat._

That's not being in someone else's head. That's being _told_ what it's like being in someone else's head. It's still authorial, not fully subjective. The fully subjective way to relate that same scene would be something like:

_Cold. Should'a wore boots. Stinks. Dead rat? Hope so. (_But even that's not how people really think._)_

First/present tries to tell me a story from a perspective I can never really share in a way that is unnatural (telling a story in past tense is _very_ natural). I hope this poor explanation helps a bit.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 14, 2014)

Terry D said:


> As a reader it gives me no sense of my relationship to the story, or the characters. It supposedly puts me inside the character's head, but it doesn't. take the following example:
> 
> _The subway platform is cold beneath my feet and I can smell something dead nearby. Probably a rat cut down by a train. God, I hope it's just a rat.
> 
> ...



I think it comes down to personal preference. Rewriting that same passage in Third Past leads us to this:

_The subway platform was cold beneath his feet and he could smell something dead nearby. Probably a rat cut down by a train. God, he hoped it was just a rat.
_
To me, it's pretty much the exact same thing, just in a different tense and POV.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 14, 2014)

Terry D said:


> Just for the record, I despise 1st person, present tense. I just can't take it seriously.



Is that even for jokes?

And what about sports announcers? They see something, it happened, and yet they usually [true?] describe it in present tense. It think they do that probably for the same reason I write in present tense.


----------



## Tettsuo (Jul 14, 2014)

Terry D said:


> To me it's like watching The _Blair Witch Project_, or _Cloverdale_, at first it's unique and interesting, but it quickly takes on an artificial feel. I mean, for godsake drop the camera and run, idiot! As a reader it gives me no sense of my relationship to the story, or the characters. It supposedly puts me inside the character's head, but it doesn't. take the following example:
> 
> _The subway platform is cold beneath my feet and I can smell something dead nearby. Probably a rat cut down by a train. God, I hope it's just a rat._
> 
> ...



_Damn it's cold out here! Shit, that's what I get for trying to be cute in the dead of winter. Now, each step I take makes my already frozen toes ache with a dull throb.  Yet, as bad as my toes feel, I quickly forget about the pain as the scent of the long dead seeps into my nostrils.  Is that dead rat?! Must be a damn big rat to smell like this._


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 14, 2014)

Terry D said:


> It supposedly puts me inside the character's head, but it doesn't. take the following example:
> 
> _The subway platform is cold beneath my feet and I can smell something dead nearby. Probably a rat cut down by a train. God, I hope it's just a rat._
> 
> That's not being in someone else's head....



Thanks, extremely interesting! To me, you give a paragraph which is better suited to past tense than present tense. And, to write well in first-person, I think you have to crawl inside the person's head. I'm not sure that's happening here. How does the person know the platform is cold? The person was told? And if I have cold feet, I usually don't think about or know why. The author does not seem to be trying to give us the experience of standing somewhere and realizing that it smells like something dead is near by.

I know I tend to be too critical, but here it leads to us agreeing about this paragraph. And I hear you, you don't like first person present even when it's well done, that seems like a different issue.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 14, 2014)

KyleColorado said:


> I think it comes down to personal preference. Rewriting that same passage in Third Past leads us to this:
> 
> _The subway platform was cold beneath his feet and he could smell something dead nearby. Probably a rat cut down by a train. God, he hoped it was just a rat.
> _
> To me, it's pretty much the exact same thing, just in a different tense and POV.



It is the same thing, but without the pretension of trying to convince the reader he's seeing a story rather than being told one.



EmmaSohan said:


> Is that even for jokes?
> 
> And what about sports announcers? They see something, it happened, and yet they usually [true?] describe it in present tense. It think they do that probably for the same reason I write in present tense.



I thought this thread was about fiction.



Tettsuo said:


> _Damn it's cold out here! Shit, that's what I get for trying to be cute in the dead of winter. Now, each step I take makes my already frozen toes ache with a dull throb.  Yet, as bad as my toes feel, I quickly forget about the pain as the scent of the long dead seeps into my nostrils.  Is that dead rat?! Must be a damn big rat to smell like this._



Well re-written, but it still sounds, to me and only in my opinion, contrived. The reason for that is spelled out below.



EmmaSohan said:


> Thanks, extremely interesting! To me, you give a paragraph which is better suited to past tense than present tense. And, to write well in first-person, I think you have to crawl inside the person's head. I'm not sure that's happening here. How does the person know the platform is cold? The person was told? And if I have cold feet, I usually don't think about or know why. The author does not seem to be trying to give us the experience of standing somewhere and realizing that it smells like something dead is near by.
> 
> I know I tend to be too critical, but here it leads to us agreeing about this paragraph. And I hear you, you don't like first person present even when it's well done, that seems like a different issue.



The purpose of first person present tense, to my understanding, is to put the reader inside the body of the POV character and have her/him experience the story. In my opinion it fails as soon as the writer uses the word 'I' for the first time. There is no way around the fact that as soon as the author writes, "I quickly forget about the pain...", the reader is no longer experiencing the tale, but having it told to him. First/present is supposed to be a characters thoughts, feelings, and experiences. No one thinks, feels, or experiences anything in complete sentences and paragraphs. We do, however, with varying degrees of skill, relate the things we think, feel, and experience in that format. First/present is a literary attempt at virtual reality, and it comes across, to me, just as contrived as putting on a set of clunky goggles and watching animated characters jump around. If you like it, use it. Read it. Enjoy it.
I don't.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 14, 2014)

Terry D said:


> ...First/present is a literary attempt at virtual reality, and it comes across, to me, just as contrived as putting on a set of clunky goggles and watching animated characters jump around. If you like it, use it. Read it. Enjoy it.
> I don't.



If I understand you correctly, you have no trouble with first person past tense or third person present, it's just first person present that you don't like. Correct?


----------



## Terry D (Jul 15, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> If I understand you correctly, you have no trouble with first person past tense or third person present, it's just first person present that you don't like. Correct?



First/past is fine. I'm not a big fan of present tense writing. Not for any technical reasons, just personal taste.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 15, 2014)

Terry D said:


> The purpose of first person present tense, to my understanding, is to put the reader inside the body of the POV character and have her/him experience the story. In my opinion it fails as soon as the writer uses the word 'I' for the first time. There is no way around the fact that as soon as the author writes, "I quickly forget about the pain...", the reader is no longer experiencing the tale, but having it told to him. First/present is supposed to be a characters thoughts, feelings, and experiences. No one thinks, feels, or experiences anything in complete sentences and paragraphs. We do, however, with varying degrees of skill, relate the things we think, feel, and experience in that format. First/present is a literary attempt at virtual reality, and it comes across, to me, just as contrived as putting on a set of clunky goggles and watching animated characters jump around. If you like it, use it. Read it. Enjoy it.
> I don't.



I get what you're saying, Terry, but it sounds like you're confusing first person with second person.

This isn't a fault of yours (maybe you've read stories where authors themselves have muddled the effect), but I feel like it's a distinction that should be clarified.

Here are the ways I define it:

_First person_ - *The character is speaking to the reader
*
This is all about voice. It's not about virtual reality or making the reader the character. It's about the writer creating a character who interacts directly with the audience, telling their own story to the reader.

Let's look at the opening paragraph of Isaac Marion's hugely successful first-person, present-tense novel, _Warm Bodies_:

I am dead, but it's not so bad. I've learned to live with it. I'm sorry I can't properly introduce myself, but I don't have a name anymore. Hardly any of us do. We lose them like car keys, forget them like anniversaries. Mine might have started with an "R," but that's all I have now. It's funny because when I was alive, I was always forgetting _other_ people's names. My friend "M" says the irony of being a zombie is that everything is funny, but you can't smile, because your lips have rotted off.

Here we can see the reader is not "R." Instead, "R," the character, is talking directly _to_ the reader.


_Second person_ - *The reader is told they are the character
*
Here we'll consult a second-person, present-tense paragraph from Jennifer Egan's Pulitzer Prize-winning, _A Visit From the Goon Squad_:

Drew leans over and gives Sasha a wet kiss, and you can tell the hash is getting him horny because you feel it too -- it makes your teeth ache in a way that will only let up if you hit someone or get hit. In high school you'd get in fights when you felt like this, but no one will fight with you now -- the fact that you hacked open your wrists with a box cutter three months ago and nearly bled to death seems to be a deterrent. It functions like a forcefield, paralyzing everyone in range with an encouraging smile on their lips. You want to hold up a mirror and ask: _How exactly are those smiles supposed to help me?_

We can see that the "you" is not only the character, it's also the reader. _This_ is the virtual reality attempt of the POV's, the method meant to put the reader explicitly into the character's skin. Second person is the _Cloverfield_​ effect you talked about earlier.


Just to double-check the intended effect of first present again, I'll consult another professional author. Here is an excerpt from award-nominated writer Matthew Sturges' first-person, present-tense story, _Cleansed and Set in Gold_:

When you think "hero," you think Russell Verlaine. You don't think think of me. I'm not particularly good-looking. I don't have a fascinating origin story, and I don't even have a constant set of powers that you can put on a trading card. "David Caulfield, The Wildcard. Powers: variable" is what the League Reserves card they did for me reads. You can buy it for a penny on eBay.  Shit, I don't even wear a costume. I go around fighting criminals and monsters in jeans and an AC/DC concert tee. I am nobody's favorite hero.

Again, we see a character talking directly to the reader. The reader isn't being fed the pretense that they _are_​ the character—it's more like the reader is involved in a conversation with the character himself. :encouragement:


----------



## Terry D (Jul 15, 2014)

I'm sure you are right, Kyle. It's good that you set the record straight for anyone who's read my blather above and gotten the wrong impression. Of the three excerpts you show above the second person example is the worst by far, but if I picked up either of the other books I'd stop reading instantly. The only book I've ever finished that made much use of first/present is The House of Sand and Fog, and I did a lot of skimming.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 15, 2014)

I've always thought that those who dislike certain POVs/tenses could be cured of their distaste for it by reading well-written stories that use them. My logic was that it had to be from experience reading poorly written work.

Maybe, though, it's like food, and the dislike is purely subjective, something that can't be discussed away. Some people simply don't like the way mushrooms taste, no matter how expertly they are cooked. :encouragement:


----------



## Morkonan (Jul 15, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> Mork! I thought you gave up on me.



Sorry, my internet time is limited, these days. So, I pop in and out of existence, much like a vacuum particle... Sort of appropriate, I guess. 

[quote[...It's more direct in present tense.[/QUOTE]

Ah, really?

That reads more like an "opinion" than fact, doesn't it? OK, read over what you wrote about past-tense and the Reader's interpretation of it. Now, read what you wrote, here. Tell me - Why is present-tense more direct, again? 

(Disclaimer - I have to include that I hate present-tense, so my opinion is obviously biased and I take great pains to demonstrate that fact at every opportunity... Forgive my zealotry.)


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 15, 2014)

Terry D said:


> Before we go too far down a rabbit hole here, there's no such thing as a past tense 'style' or present tense 'style'. A book's style is composed of many factors: voice, POV, language choice, and others in addition to the choice of tense.



I a not sure what other terminology to use. When a book is said to be written in present tense, I worry that some people think that all of the sentences will be in present tense. (Even though it's obvious that when a book is written in past tense, not all sentences are in past tense.) Do you have a suggestion for what I can say better than "past tense style" and "present tense style"?


----------



## Terry D (Jul 17, 2014)

Sorry it took so long to reply. I don't think there's any need to create any terminology. "Present tense" and "past tense" are universally understood among writers, so trying to define them as 'styles' only generates confusion. There is no need, in my opinion, to invent new terminology to discuss established concepts.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 17, 2014)

Terry D said:


> Sorry it took so long to reply. I don't think there's any need to create any terminology. "Present tense" and "past tense" are universally understood among writers, so trying to define them as 'styles' only generates confusion. There is no need, in my opinion, to invent new terminology to discuss established concepts.



If someone is writing in present tense, they can write past tense without going into past tense. But if someone is writing in past tense and they write present tense, they have gone into present tense.

That seems too confusing to me. I think I will stick with using "style" so people know whether I am talking about a sentence or the overall style. But I see your initial criticism, and I would be glad to hear of a different way of talking about style of past tense versus a sentence written in past tense.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 17, 2014)

duplicate


----------



## Terry D (Jul 17, 2014)

You are making this way too complicated. A book can be written in present tense, past tense, or a combination of both by switching POV at a scene, or chapter break. Of course you can call it whatever 'style' you want, but understand that you'll be speaking a language you don't share with other writers.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 17, 2014)

When I talk about the problems of describing the past of the past of the past, I am not making things more complicated than they need to be. I am talking about a real problem that writers using the style of past tense have to face. As near as I can tell, they don't handle it very deftly. I could be wrong, and I would LOVE to hear how writers here solve this problem.

If you are writing in the style of past tense, then a sentence in present tense marks a shift to the style of present tense. I am guessing this is usually done for setting. I would LOVE to hear about if anyone here uses it and why. But if you are writing in the style of present tense, then any sentences in the past will just be interpreted as talking about the past of the time in the story. Right? So you can't get an abrupt change in style, and so that's not a technique writers can use. That's all I was saying in my (hopefully confusing) sentence in my last post.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 18, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> When I talk about the problems of describing the past of the past of the past, I am not making things more complicated than they need to be. I am talking about a real problem that writers using the style of past tense have to face. As near as I can tell, they don't handle it very deftly. I could be wrong, and I would LOVE to hear how writers here solve this problem.
> 
> If you are writing in the style of past tense, then a sentence in present tense marks a shift to the style of present tense. I am guessing this is usually done for setting. I would LOVE to hear about if anyone here uses it and why. But if you are writing in the style of present tense, then any sentences in the past will just be interpreted as talking about the past of the time in the story. Right? So you can't get an abrupt change in style, and so that's not a technique writers can use. That's all I was saying in my (hopefully confusing) sentence in my last post.



When a writer using past tense writes about a time before 'story time' (to use your word), she can simply use the past perfect (or pluperfect) tense:

As I turned the corner from Wellington onto Ambrose I saw what remained of Charring Tower, that thin, ragged, accusing finger of brick and stone where my father *had been* chained for most of my youth. A shattered ruin now, that vile keep *had once been* the bloody symbol of everything *Diadus stood* for.

The bolded bits are pluperfect (the past of the past). At the end of the passage, after having established the past perfect tense, you can drop the implied 'had' in "everything Diadus had stood for".

I don't know why anyone would want to shift from past tense to present tense for a single sentence, or passage. I wouldn't call that a technique, just bad writing.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Jul 18, 2014)

The confusion in this thread (of which there is much) is relative to a very simple issue. Excuse me for being blunt and just a bit snotty but.....why is it that the people today feel the need (or believe they have the right) to throw out the established norm, ignore the rules and re-invent the wheel for everything. I suspect that there would be no conversation if people just decided to walk before the tried to run. 

Writing from the Past perspective is the NORM...has been since the time of Aristotle. The present tense POV is the exception and is as timeless as the Twilight series. (sarcasm in case you missed it.)

If you have trouble writing in the past then you have trouble writing...period. You've been reading the wrong books and emulating the wrong authors. 

9 times out of 10, I hear people say "I don't like" such and such related to their particular choice of artistic expression....(music, dance, art etc) when what they really are trying to say is "I can't" or "I don't know how to." 

Here's a metaphor for what I'm talking about.
Check out these vids.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYSoJmSMctU

Amazing. The Late Great Stevie Ray Vaughn.

What about this guy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3F9bzeCgTQ

The obvious difference is that the guitarist in vid two, while technically proficient, is playing a bunch of soulless nonsense with no stylistic relation between section to section and obviously took the easy route. He didn't study the blues for 25 years, mastering all the licks from the greats. He chose flash and speed over soul.  And to add insult to injury, he is copying Stevie in many ways.  In 25 years no one will remember this guy. In 250 people will still be trying to master Stevie Ray's style. 

The same goes for writing. As the Ventures said "Walk, Don't run." 

David Gordon Burke


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 18, 2014)

David Gordon Bourke said:
			
		

> why is it that the people today feel the need (or believe they have the right) to throw out the established norm, ignore the rules and re-invent the wheel for everything. ...
> 
> Writing from the Past perspective is the NORM... The present tense POV is the exception ...
> 
> If you have trouble writing in the past then you have trouble writing...period. You've been reading the wrong books and emulating the wrong authors.



It's okay to dislike the present tense. We all have our own preferences.

But when we begin asserting that present tense is _wrong_ and past tense is _right_, we've lost objectivity and moved into the realm of ignorance.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Jul 18, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> It's okay to dislike the present tense. We all have our own preferences.
> But when we begin asserting that present tense is _wrong_ and past tense is _right_, we've lost objectivity and moved into the realm of ignorance.



Who said it was wrong? It can be done effectively. I'm guessing it has never been done effectively by someone who never mastered the standard, time honored past point of view.

What I did say (or imply in a very obvious way) is that there are those people who deny / lie / lie to themselves about the obvious truth. Have you read 20 books in your life? 50? 100? 200? 300? How many of them were written in first person? I'd guess less than 10% (a high estimate unless everything you read was published within the last 5 to 10 years within the YAPR or similar genres) 

Is it safe to say that having this limited range of influence is wrong? You decide. Would it be safe to say that if your aspiration is to become and actor that you might be advised to watch something other than the latest Adam Sandler or Chris Schneider movies? You decide. 

Just out of curiosity - isn't the ultimate ignorance that of Youth (assuming those mostly influenced by the YAPR present tense trend to be under 30) to believe that the limited view of 'how things are' is the be all end all? Present is a trend that will never a surpass a limited percentage of certain genres.  While some folk on this thread are stating that they HATE present, I earlier said that I have used it and find it acceptable in limited usage if and when an author has also mastered the standard. 

To argue / debate otherwise is the real ignorance and is a lie. Or are people of the opinion that the present tense is about to replace past as the standard? (that's just bloody funny)

David Gordon Burke


----------



## Jeko (Jul 18, 2014)

> Or are people of the opinion that the present tense is about to replace past as the standard? (that's just bloody funny)



The ignorant thing here is that no tense replaces another, and no tense is 'standard'. A tense is chosen because it's the tense a writer wants to use. 

Writers who choose something because it's 'standard' will become no more than 'standard' writers. Not that trends should have no influence, but the study of them goes far deeper than just finding what is 'standard' or 'popular'.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 18, 2014)

David Gordon Burke said:


> To argue / debate otherwise is the real ignorance and is a lie. Or are people of the opinion that the present tense is about to replace past as the standard? (that's just bloody funny)



I enjoy writing (and reading) in both past tense and present tense. They each have their own flavors, as well as their own techniques.

I consider both tenses to be valid approaches to narrative fiction. As for whether or not one tense is the _standard_​? To me, that's irrelevant.

_Quality of execution_ is the measuring stick I use. :encouragement:


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 18, 2014)

Terry D said:


> I don't know why anyone would want to shift from past tense to present tense for a single sentence, or passage. I wouldn't call that a technique, just bad writing.



If you write in the style of past tense, you can just ignore the possibilities of present tense. But you would be better off mastering them, right?

I see no oustanding value when Hemingway or Steinbeck or Fitzgerald put in a sentence or paragraph in present tense. I suspect it is still good craft. But the last line of "The Fault in our Stars" is present tense, and I think it's brilliant. (If the last line in The Great Gatsby is present tense, I think that's really good too.)

And it's too long to explain, but I think Janet Evanovich uses the brief switch to present tense brilliantly in book 20 of the Plum Series.


----------



## ppsage (Jul 18, 2014)

I find that present tense has greater limitation, the overcoming of which may often contribute to the strength of the work. One is often forced into clever showing, when past tense would allow routine telling. Not that there's anything wrong with routinely clever telling. Past, third, omniscient seems the least limited, in what can be told, but so often in art, it's the limitations which are crucial in forming the experience. I'd say this especially of present tense in shorter fiction.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 18, 2014)

Terry D said:


> As I turned the corner from Wellington onto Ambrose I saw what remained of Charring Tower, that thin, ragged, accusing finger of brick and stone where my father *had been* chained for most of my youth. A shattered ruin now, that vile keep *had once been* the bloody symbol of everything *Diadus stood* for.
> 
> The bolded bits are pluperfect (the past of the past). At the end of the passage, after having established the past perfect tense, you can drop the implied 'had' in "everything Diadus had stood for".



I think this illustrates the potential grammatical problems of the past tense style. "saw" refers to a particular point in time, actually corresponding to "now". Past perfect (past in the past, pluperfect) is used to refer to events that happened before this time. But what do we make of  "everything *Diadus stood* for" Is Diadus standing for [whatever] in this "now"? Or had he stood for it in the past of the now? I mean, Diadus could be alive, or dead for 1000 years.

Grammatically, this should be a no-brainer. The author used past tense in this sentence, which the author was using to describe "now"; the author could (would? should?) use past perfect (past in the past) if Diadus stood for this back in the past.

In fact, as the author explains, the "had" was just dropped, but it is supposed to be there. Authors can just drop it. And they do. But dropping it creates ambiguity. Unless the reader doesn't know it can be dropped, and then it is just misleading.

BTW, this is just past in the past, not past in the past in the past. Try writing this is a flashback, starting with "As I had turned down... I had seen..."


----------



## Jon M (Jul 18, 2014)

Terry D said:


> I don't know why anyone would want to shift from past tense to present tense for a single sentence, or passage. I wouldn't call that a technique, just bad writing.


Curious (not really) how this differs from a story shifting from present to future tense, which I _have _seen done occasionally, and done well.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 19, 2014)

ppsage said:


> I find that present tense has greater limitation, the overcoming of which may often contribute to the strength of the work. One is often forced into clever showing, when past tense would allow routine telling. Not that there's anything wrong with routinely clever telling. Past, third, omniscient seems the least limited, in what can be told, but so often in art, it's the limitations which are crucial in forming the experience. I'd say this especially of present tense in shorter fiction.



Interesting. I had been thinking about one of my lines in the Colors of Fiction contest: "My hands are trembling." I didn't like it. (Actually, I imagined Terry D not liking it and I agreed with him.)

Now I understand better. To me that line works good as showing rather than telling in third person past tense ("Her hands were shaking") and even first-person past tense. But I don't like it in first-person present.

But, "I'm really frightened" works reasonably well in first person present. In third person, I think we would rather have a show than a tell.

And it's still possible to show rather than tell, it is just indirect. "I tried to stop my hands from trembling, but I couldn't." That's what I should have written. And that line doesn't work well in third-person, right?


----------



## TKent (Jul 19, 2014)

What genre are you writing, just curious?  

I definitely feel more emotion with first person vs. third person (to the point I'm actually choosing one book to read over another because it is in first person).  But as far as first person present vs. first person past, I think it is a personal preference as they are both good to me personally if done right. 

Or do both if the situation warrants it   One of my favorite reads in 2012 was Sister by Rosamund Lupton.  She writes a her sister in first person present, and is being interviewed by detectives in first person present, but the entire time she is retelling events in first person past.  Back when I read this, I had not yet decided to write, so I read it strictly as a consumer with no thought to the how or why it was being done a certain way.  It worked for me...wow I love that book.  This makes me want to read it again.  I can't imagine anyone evoking that kind of emotion in 3rd person, but then again, I haven't read much 3rd person in years.



> _Often the POV is the main character in the present. So writing in first person present tense is just a little more direct and has a little more emotional impact. I am willing to accept the restrictions of first person present to get that additional emotional impact._


----------



## Terry D (Jul 20, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> But what do we make of  "everything *Diadus stood* for" Is Diadus standing for [whatever] in this "now"? Or had he stood for it in the past of the now? I mean, Diadus could be alive, or dead for 1000 years.
> 
> In fact, as the author explains, the "had" was just dropped, but it is supposed to be there. Authors can just drop it. And they do. But dropping it creates ambiguity. Unless the reader doesn't know it can be dropped, and then it is just misleading.



It's the author's job to make sure the reader knows (or soon learns) just how Daidus fits into the story's timeline and to eliminate any ambiguity. Past perfect is just a tool in our grammatical tool kit, and, just like any tool, how well it works depends on the skill and experience of the person wielding it.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 20, 2014)

Terry D said:


> It's the author's job to make sure the reader knows (or soon learns) just how Daidus fits into the story's timeline and to eliminate any ambiguity. Past perfect is just a tool in our grammatical tool kit, and, just like any tool, how well it works depends on the skill and experience of the person wielding it.



Yeah, but there would have been no ambiguity if you had started out your passage in present tense. Yes, the reader can use other cues to locate an event in time, but the tense of the sentence is supposed to help. When it doesn't, things can get fuzzy.

Hmmm.  "I sit in my room, remembering my 10th birthday. Ten kids came to my party. I had thought there would be more."

Starting out in past tense: "I sat in my room, remembering my 10th birthday. Ten kids had come to my party. I _____ there would be more." I had had thought? Starting in past tense, you run out of tenses. Good authors, as far as I can tell, avoid this problem by not going there -- no complicated flashbacks.

And what about the future tense? "I want to be good. Tomorrow my daughter will come home."

The future-in-the-past tense is the same as conditional. "I wanted to be good. Tomorrow my daughter would come home."

But what if it really was conditional? "I want to be good. My daughter would come home. " No problem, obviously conditional. Starting out in past tense, "I wanted to be good. My daughter would come home." Perfect ambiguity.

It's a small thing. Right, a good author who is aware of these problems will probably do well. Sometimes there are easy solutions. But sometimes there aren't.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 20, 2014)

Terry D said:


> To me it's like watching The _Blair Witch Project_, or _Cloverdale_, at first it's unique and interesting, but it quickly takes on an artificial feel. I mean, for godsake drop the camera and run, idiot! As a reader it gives me no sense of my relationship to the story, or the characters. It supposedly puts me inside the character's head, but it doesn't. take the following example:
> 
> _The subway platform is cold beneath my feet and I can smell something dead nearby. Probably a rat cut down by a train. God, I hope it's just a rat._
> 
> ...



Terry makes some good points here, and now I find myself sometimes listening to him on my shoulder telling me a sentence isn't working.

I wouldn't write the first sentence he describes. But people do, right? If that sentence doesn't count as okay first-person present, then first-person present is really hard to write in.

And right, if I wanted to crawl inside a person's mind, I should write like the second sentence. For internal dialogue, we do that except clean up the grammar. "I'm cold. I should have worn boots, then my feet wouldn't be cold. Ugh, something stinks. I hope it's not a dead rat. No, I hope it is."

But then I have my first-person narrator doing description and narration. "Pete meets me at the airport and drives me to our house. It's a large old adobe structure." There's little mind inhabitation there, it's narration and description. (I just changed it to past tense. Can I do that?)


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Jul 20, 2014)

Cadence said:


> The ignorant thing here is that no tense replaces another, and no tense is 'standard'. A tense is chosen because it's the tense a writer wants to use.
> 
> Writers who choose something because it's 'standard' will become no more than 'standard' writers. Not that trends should have no influence, but the study of them goes far deeper than just finding what is 'standard' or 'popular'.



I usually get a lot out of your posts / replies.  Not this time.  For how long has the past tense perspective been the (for lack of a better word) standard?  Over the years there have been a few exceptions but the vast majority of literature has been past POV.  

Along comes the current trend and everyone things it's going to be here forever?  It's called a trend because it's just that...a fad, a phase etc.  
My point (which is the little point that seems to be getting lost) is that where you state it is the writer's choice, it can hardly be a choice if the writer isn't comfortable with that POV.

David Gordon Burke


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Jul 20, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> I enjoy writing (and reading) in both past tense and present tense. They each have their own flavors, as well as their own techniques.
> 
> I consider both tenses to be valid approaches to narrative fiction. As for whether or not one tense is the _standard_​? To me, that's irrelevant.
> 
> _Quality of execution_ is the measuring stick I use. :encouragement:



Just a point...I originally posted my reply to the person who started this thread who stated that they were not confortable with past tense narrative.  Call it standard, call it classic, call it the vast majority of prose since the dawn of time.  The past prose seems to be 'natural' since ...well how are you going to tell me a story if it hasn't happened yet?  Isn't the present POV contrived?  

Seems a lot of talk for nothing.
While some people may be able to write in both present and past POV, how many are looking for validation to not learn one or the other?  

David Gordon Burke


----------



## Morkonan (Jul 20, 2014)

David Gordon Burke said:


> ....
> My point (which is the little point that seems to be getting lost) is that where you state it is the writer's choice, it can hardly be a choice if the writer isn't comfortable with that POV.
> 
> David Gordon Burke



Ah, a voice of reason, deserving to be heeded.

But, then again, pure hatred for present tense has its place, too! :twisted:

(I know, I just had to jump in and screw up a perfectly reasonable discussion. Sorry. It's just that I find so little worthy of reason that present-tense is being used for these days. It's a bandwagon that a great many people seem to be jumping on, but I haven't read a competent modern driver, yet. It's an extremely difficult tense to use effectively, in my opinion. That might change, but not with me.)


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 20, 2014)

Morkonan said:


> . It's a bandwagon that a great many people seem to be jumping on, but I haven't read a competent modern driver, yet. It's an extremely difficult tense to use effectively, in my opinion. That might change, but not with me.)



I don't mind if people jump on the bandwagon of third-person present tense, but I admit I don't want to see first-person present tense become the norm.

Anyway, what did you think of Stephan King's latest book, _Mr. Mercedes_? Is that incompetent?


----------



## Morkonan (Jul 20, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> I don't mind if people jump on the bandwagon of third-person present tense, but I admit I don't want to see first-person present tense become the norm.
> 
> Anyway, what did you think of Stephan King's latest book, _Mr. Mercedes_? Is that incompetent?



I agree, regarding tenses.

I didn't read King's latest. I'm not a big fan of his fiction, though I acknowledge he is the master of rapid character building and his characters are some of the most wonderfully constructed that I have ever read. Plus - I don't read present tense, ever. I will pick up a present-tense offering from an author I know or like, but only to skim through it in some hopes that it will cure me of this terrible bias... So far, none have had the medicine I would need... (I'm not kidding when I say I "hate" present tense, at least as far as recreational reading goes. Artistically, I have no issue with it and authors are free to use the tools they wish. I just wish more would seem to use them competently. I think King probably would have, given his obvious talents. But, I've said it before, a lot of well-known authors are pumping out present-tense offerings for no other reason, it appears, than to have at least one in their stables.)


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 20, 2014)

David Gordon Burke said:


> Along comes the current trend and everyone thin(k)s it's going to be here forever?  It's called a trend because it's just that...a fad, a phase etc.



This is a common misconception. Present tense has actually been around since as early as 19 B.C., when Virgil used it in _The Aenid_. That's over 2,000 years ago. 

Even today, critics still argue about Virgil's use of it. The guy was clearly ahead of his time.


----------



## Jon M (Jul 20, 2014)

Lately I find myself perusing these writerly discussions in which the citizens of WF (hereafter pronounced _Whiff_, as in _"What's that smell?"_) rail against theme and tense, and, I have to say, I am so inspired! So eager to read the work of these arteets who hold the craft (hereafter pronounced _crap_, as in _"That's the smell."_) in such high esteem. 

One thing to say you have no confidence in a particular tense, but to suggest practitioners are just hopping on a bandwagon, chasing a trend, is super-duper offensive. So you can't work magic when the werds end in _es _and not _ed. _Leave the rest of us magicians alone who can, and do.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 21, 2014)

Jon M said:
			
		

> So you can't work magic when the werds end in _es and not ed. Leave the rest of us magicians alone who can, and do._


----------



## Sunny (Jul 21, 2014)

To be honest, when I joined this site, I thought I had the best seller on my hands. I just needed to learn a little more from the gifted writer's of WF. 

Over time, I realized I didn't know what I thought I did about writing. I learned that I still had a lot to learn about writing. Whether it was my plot or my style or the tense in which I chose to write my story. 

After years and years on this site. After my confidence was stripped away by threads like this. Making me doubt myself as a writer. I learned something more valuable. 

We are all the same! You, you and you and you. Most of us users here are amateur writers that want more than this. We want to be published one day. 

I tried to change my novel to past tense because someone had told me it sells better. I tried to change it to third person, because someone had said first person stinks. 

But guess what? Not everyone is the same. We don't all write the same. I happen to love writing in first person. I love writing in present tense. I love reading in first person present tense. Does that make me some kind of dumb dumb that doesn't know any better? Is everyone who's ever written a book, a story, a poem, a love letter in present tense, somehow in the wrong? 

I wouldn't be so bold as to tell someone else that their past tense or their third person is a thing of the past and get to with the times and write in first person present tense. There are many readers out there that love all of these different kinds of themes, dialogues, and tenses that are so widely discussed on this forum. Why would you put down other potential readers of your work, potential friends, one day--colleagues that like something different than you? 

Some people on this site need to check themselves. Just because you like to write a certain way, doesn't mean that the other writers who don't are wrong and are some kind of morons because they don't write like you.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 21, 2014)

Morkonan said:
			
		

> I don't read present tense, ever.



That doesn't help your argument against it, Mork. 



David Gordon Burke said:


> Isn't the present POV contrived?



Assuming we're talking about fiction, I have to say: fiction, as rule, is contrived, regardless of tense.

When I open a book of fiction, I expect to dive into whatever imaginative tale the author cooked up. 

I know it's not real. 

Just because something's written in past tense, that doesn't make me suddenly say to myself, "My God, did this _really_ happen? I thought it was fiction, but then I saw it was in _PAST TENSE._ Now all my certainties have been erased! Since it's written in the past tense, it suddenly seems more real!"

The contrivance is there from the moment the words are put onto paper. Past, present, future tense. It's all the same. It's all fiction. It's all contrived.

The choice of the matter comes down to how the author wishes to _present_ the contrivance.

What camera angle does the writer want to work with? A wide-angle lens? Maybe a close-up shot?

Shall we give the narrator an after-the-fact perspective? Or maybe dump the narrator directly into the story as it unfolds? :encouragement:


----------



## Morkonan (Jul 21, 2014)

Jon M said:


> _..._Leave the rest of us magicians alone who can, and do.



Lord Voldemort? 



Even though I might detest your methods, your reasoning is sound. 

Honestly, one of the biggest problems with writing in present tense, especially first-person, is that it's obscenely difficult to do well. Yet, many new writers and first-timers jump at present tense, believing that it makes something they're writing more "immediate" or more full of "action" or whatever positive quality it is that they feel they will find within its dark maze. The fact is that writing well in present tense is difficult and it's generally a discouraged tense for new writers. That doesn't mean, however, that there's anything wrong with it or that it's somehow a bad choice, simply due to its mechanics. As anyone should know, bad writing is a bad choice, in any format. 

But, bad writing is easier to accomplish in present tense... (I gotta peddle something that is purely opinion, after all.)


----------



## Terry D (Jul 21, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> Starting out in past tense: "I sat in my room, remembering my 10th birthday. Ten kids had come to my party. I _____ there would be more." I had had thought? Starting in past tense, you run out of tenses. Good authors, as far as I can tell, avoid this problem by not going there -- no complicated flashbacks.



This is where I believe you are over complicating things. In the above you have already established the time frame for the thought--'remembering my tenth birthday'--you have used the past perfect to lock it down--'Ten kids had come to my party'--so all you need to say is, 'I thought there would be more'. That's perfectly clear, and simple, for the reader.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 21, 2014)

Morkonan said:


> writing well in present tense is difficult


 
Personally, I feel writing in present tense is neither easier, nor harder, than writing in past tense—just different.

But, let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that your statement is true. "Writing well in present tense is difficult."

If that's so, then _what_ about it makes it so difficult to write well? What about the present tense makes things harder?

Let's take a past tense passage and test it out. Here's an excerpt written by Hemingway:

The doctor held him up for me to see. He held him by the heels and slapped him.

Switching it to present tense, we have:

The doctor holds him up for me to see. He holds him by the heels and slaps him.

Is it really that much worse? Has the tense made these two sentences suddenly "bad writing"?

Here's a passage by King:

George craned his neck away from that final blackness and began to scream into the rain, to scream mindlessly into the white autumn sky which curved above Derry on that day in the fall of 1957. His screams were shrill and piercing, and all up and down Witcham Street people came to their windows or bolted out onto their porches.

Here's the same passage in present tense:

George cranes his neck away from that final blackness and begins to scream into the rain, to scream mindlessly into the white autumn sky which curves above Derry on this day in the fall of 1957. His screams are shrill and piercing, and all up and down Witcham Street people come to their windows or bolt out onto their porches.

To me, I don't see any obvious difficulties, or any in inherent flaws in the change. There's a different flavor, a different sense of fictional time between the two passages, yes. But I don't feel either example is blatantly superior or of a higher quality than the other.

IMO, it's just a matter of taste. Yes, present and past have their differences, but I don't buy the "one is harder than the other" argument. I just don't see it. 

You can switch back and forth between the two rather seamlessly, if you want to. :encouragement:


----------



## Bishop (Jul 21, 2014)

A while ago, I would have agreed with some of the nay-sayers of present tense, but then I started writing little noir pieces. There was a little transition period, where I would write in past tense every few sentences and had to hit the backspace button a few times, but once my fingers got used to hitting 's' instead of 'd' I found that it was just as easy, only with a different flavor, like Kyle says.

As I've said in the past... I used to hate 1st present, but when I decided to write a noir piece, I had to use 1st present. It just... felt noir. And when I started writing that way, and getting that fresh voice and perspective across, I found its benefits. I think there's even more to it than Kyle said. Take this sentence:

"I walk out of the dime store and the rain starts pelting my brim again."

VS

"He walked out of the dime store and the rain began to pelt his brim again."

Basically the same, right? But I feel like there's an ineffable flavor or voice that differentiates them. One sounds like a noir styling to me. I should mention, that all of my novels are written in 3rd past. All of my sci-fi, actually, is written in 3rd past. Because that's what makes sense for that story, what makes sense for its voice.

I don't think they're just two ways of doing same thing, I think they're more like gels in front of a light. Each one adds a different type of color to the same basic image.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jul 21, 2014)

> The doctor held him up for me to see. He held him by the heels and slapped him.




This sentence seems more natural to me. It's probably because only a VERY small percentage of all the books I have ever read were written in present tense.



> Switching it to present tense, we have:
> 
> The doctor holds him up for me to see. He holds him by the heels and slaps him.



This sentence makes me think that at some point in the very near future, the narrator is going to wind up speaking in third person. I don't know why that is.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 21, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> Anyway, what did you think of Stephan King's latest book, _Mr. Mercedes_? Is that incompetent?



Interesting comment. _Mr. Mercedes_ is the next book up on my reading list. If it's written in 1st/present I may have a challenge ahead (as an unabashed, unrepentant King fan).


----------



## Morkonan (Jul 21, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> ...To me, I don't see any obvious difficulties, or any in inherent flaws in the change. There's a different flavor, a different sense of fictional time between the two passages, yes. But I don't feel either example is blatantly superior or of a higher quality than the other.



Note: You're translating, not writing.



> IMO, it's just a matter of taste. Yes, present and past have their differences, but I don't buy the "one is harder than the other" argument. I just don't see it.
> 
> You can switch back and forth between the two rather seamlessly, if you want to. :encouragement:



Hard and easy is relative, when we're talking about individual talents or preferences. If you can write in present tense, from scratch, with the same quality as past, or even better, then that's great! If you can write in first person, present tense, with equal ease, that's even more remarkable!

But, I don't regard present tense as being as easy or easier to write in than past tense. Yes, it's "different", but there are difficulties in present tense you don't encounter in past tense, or at least difficulties that have easy fixes in past tense. Adding "first person" to that just compounds every problem... 

So, I hate present tense.  Not that there's anything wrong with that....


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 21, 2014)

Morkonan said:


> there are difficulties in present tense you don't encounter in past tense, or at least difficulties that have easy fixes in past tense.


 
I believe this depends on the writer. What you may find difficult, others may find easy (and vice versa). 

To me, tenses and POVs are like chess openings. The more experience you gain using them, the easier they get, and the more skilled your handling of them becomes. :encouragement:


----------



## J Anfinson (Jul 21, 2014)

I write however the story comes out easiest. Sometimes it's present tense, sometimes past. I don't think either way is better or worse than the other. Sometimes present doesn't feel natural to the story I want to tell so I won't use it. Same with past tense. I say just do what feels right for your story.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 21, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> The doctor holds him up for me to see. He holds him by the heels and slaps him.
> 
> Is it really that much worse? Has the tense made these two sentences suddenly "bad writing"?



Bad, no. Good? That's an important question. The person wouldn't see his or her newborn child for the first time and be thinking about the doctor's motives or even noticing how the doctor held the baby. This passage is, roughly, a description of what was happening. That's standard for third person and fine for first person past tense (where the person could be describing an event in the past). Is it okay for first person present? I don't know what the standards are. First person present invites a description of this person's reaction to seeing the newborn.


----------



## Sunny (Jul 21, 2014)

Morkonan said:


> Lord Voldemort?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't understand your logic. 

When you say first time writer, do you mean a "beginner" at the craft of writing, or do you mean a first time published author? Can I assume you're saying "first time writers" as anyone who writes in first person present tense? They all seem to be lumped together in your post.

When I read the books that I do, and the majority of them that I do read are in present tense, with a smaller portion of them being first person. These are all traditionally published books. Not self published "beginners" that couldn't get a traditional contract. These are writers that were deemed "better" than the rest of us. They made it! These authors did what the unpublished couldn't do. They've found success in the publishing world, hitting shelves everywhere, yet the still-unpublished writers call it "bad writing". 

I'm not following how this is "bad". 

If it were bad writing, would it not sit on slush piles to grow old and mouldy? Would it not be tossed aside for the pros of the writing world? You know those writers... The big guns! The muscles of the writing world... Come on, you know... those writers that spin words of past tense so perfectly. 

I understand your dislike of present tense and first person. I understand your inability to be drawn into a world of first person present. But I don't understand how you can call it all "bad writing". That is such a bold statement, and one that is hardly true. You don't have to like it, for sure! But just because you don't like it, doesn't mean the people that write it are below or somehow the children beginners of the writing world. Some of those first person present tense authors have been writing circles around these other past tense writers for years and years. 

And just because you find it difficult to read, doesn't mean the rest of us flock to first person because we're after a challenge of writing the "difficult" stuff. I find it easier to write present than past tense. I find I can get my characters thoughts out better. I feel like I'm in the moment more. That's not because I'm a _newbie_, it's the way I write. The same reason I'm sure that you're more comfortable writing in past tense.


----------



## Morkonan (Jul 22, 2014)

Sunny said:


> I don't understand your logic.
> 
> When you say first time writer, do you mean a "beginner" at the craft of writing, or do you mean a first time published author? Can I assume you're saying "first time writers" as anyone who writes in first person present tense? They all seem to be lumped together in your post.



By "First Time Writers" I would mean "First Time Writers" or, if you prefer, beginners. It shouldn't be any secret that quite a few first-timers attempt to wet their feet by jumping in the bottomless pool that is First-Person, Present Tense. And, their reasons are usually straight out of mythology "It's more intimate and immediate at the same time!" There's a good deal of anecdotal evidence to support this in a Google search of instructor's comments, if nothing else. For quantitative evidence, we could look at the number of posts in these forums from new writers who have chosen first-person, present-tense and have asked for help, for just that reason... Writing is hard, writing in first-person, present-tense, is like driving a car with a blindfold on while beneath a sea of peanut-butter... with a chimpanzee hitting you over the head with a dead buffalo... or something. (That last bit is pure opinion, by the way. I don't know any chimpanzees that can lift a dead buffalo.)



> When I read the books that I do, and the majority of them that I do read are in present tense, with a smaller portion of them being first person. These are all traditionally published books. Not self published "beginners" that couldn't get a traditional contract. These are writers that were deemed "better" than the rest of us. They made it! These authors did what the unpublished couldn't do. They've found success in the publishing world, hitting shelves everywhere, yet the still-unpublished writers call it "bad writing".



Someone linked an article, either here or elsewhere on the board, that had a nice quip from a creative writing student that went something like this: "Aren't all new books supposed to be written in present-tense? Past-tense is sooo ancient, isn't it?" (Or something like that.) There is nice surge on the shelves for present-tense lovers, no mistake about it. Publishers publish for a number of reasons. Sure, they want to publish a good story. But, they'd rather publish something that will sell well, given a forced choice. 



> I'm not following how this is "bad".



Me either. But, then again, it's your argument you've presented, not mine. As I said, I have nothing against those who like or excel at producing work in present-tense. That's fine! I just hate it and think that the market is somewhat infatuated with it these days. I may be incompetent at writing in present-tense, but I wouldn't know because I don't do it on purpose. (But, I do exercise regularly and eat right, as wel as practice necessary writing skills, even distasteful ones.)



> If it were bad writing, would it not sit on slush piles to grow old and mouldy? Would it not be tossed aside for the pros of the writing world? You know those writers... The big guns! The muscles of the writing world... Come on, you know... those writers that spin words of past tense so perfectly.



But, will it blend? That's what the publisher wants to know. They take pride in what they do, of course, but selling stuff keeps the light bill paid. I've got a stack of crap from respectable publishing houses that isn't worth reading. But, it sold and got bound, nonetheless. I read quite a bit, essentially all the time, and I run across embarrassing stuff all the time. It's not that those writers don't deserve their break! They do! I cheer for them. But, that doesn't mean what they broke-out with was worth reading... And, in the Present Tense Subgenre, I've seen quite a bit of junk. That's anecdotal and I am heavily biased, which I continue to try to remind everyone of. So, I'm not being sneaky or trying to prove something, here. Morkonan hates present-tense and first-person, present-tense, is the work of the Devil! (That's a joke and you're supposed to smile. If you didn't, let me know and I'll try to give ya a better one.  )



> I understand your dislike of present tense and first person. I understand your inability to be drawn into a world of first person present.



Ah, but it's not my shortcomings that are at fault! It's... the dark plains of present-tense and the horrible screams of suffering first-person, present-tense voices, yearning for release...



> But I don't understand how you can call it all "bad writing". That is such a bold statement, and one that is hardly true. You don't have to like it, for sure! But just because you don't like it, doesn't mean the people that write it are below or somehow the children beginners of the writing world. Some of those first person present tense authors have been writing circles around these other past tense writers for years and years.



Where did I call an entire tense "Bad Writing?" A tense isn't "writing."



> And just because you find it difficult to read, doesn't mean the rest of us flock to first person because we're after a challenge of writing the "difficult" stuff. I find it easier to write present than past tense. I find I can get my characters thoughts out better. I feel like I'm in the moment more. That's not because I'm a _newbie_, it's the way I write. The same reason I'm sure that you're more comfortable writing in past tense.



I can, in no possible way, attempt to make sweeping claims of all writers who prefer a certain tense. If I did that somewhere, it was a mistake and you should quote it so that I can correct it. What I wrote was:



> ...The fact is that writing well in present tense is difficult and it's  generally a discouraged tense for new writers. That doesn't mean,  however, that there's anything wrong with it or that it's somehow a bad  choice, simply due to its mechanics. As anyone should know, bad writing  is a bad choice, in any format...



See? I wasn't criticizing all present-tense writing as "Bad" nor was I implying that writing in present-tense makes the writing bad. What I wrote was that writing bad makes it bad... Bad writing has nothing at all to do with the tense that is chosen.


----------



## Tettsuo (Jul 22, 2014)

First person present tense is hard if you're trying to tell the story with a third person past tense state of mind.


----------



## Bishop (Jul 22, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> This passage is, roughly, a description of what was happening.



Yup, that's Hemingway.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 22, 2014)

> _writing well in present tense is difficult_



Since most speech is in present tense, I don't see how this holds weight.



> _I don't read present tense, ever._



Unless, of course, you're reading speech, which is mostly present tense.

This is what I've always said to present-tense-skeptics; treat it like speech. View it as 'conversational'. It's just a different way of going about the illusion of literature. It works for some better than others, and is therefore in no way intrinsically more difficult than writing in the past.


----------



## Sunny (Jul 22, 2014)

Morkonan said:


> By "First Time Writers" I would mean "First Time Writers" or, if you prefer, beginners. It shouldn't be any secret that quite a few first-timers attempt to wet their feet by jumping in the bottomless pool that is First-Person, Present Tense. And, their reasons are usually straight out of mythology "It's more intimate and immediate at the same time!" There's a good deal of anecdotal evidence to support this in a Google search of instructor's comments, if nothing else. For quantitative evidence, we could look at the number of posts in these forums from new writers who have chosen first-person, present-tense and have asked for help, for just that reason... Writing is hard, writing in first-person, present-tense, is like driving a car with a blindfold on while beneath a sea of peanut-butter... with a chimpanzee hitting you over the head with a dead buffalo... or something. (That last bit is pure opinion, by the way. I don't know any chimpanzees that can lift a dead buffalo.)



Just going from my own experience as a long-time reader, I do like to jump into first person present tense. I guess it seems natural, more intimate, and all that good stuff you mentioned. 

Why? Because that's what I decided was better for me. That's what pulled me into all of the novels I read. That's what hooked me. 

I didn't want to emulate those authors that wrote hard and fast past tense (the king of the writerly world). Myself -- as only a reader, and never a writer before -- I had no idea about tenses, style, plot, or any of those things we discuss here so much. 

Now, as a writer, I'll follow what I believed when I knew nothing of the craft. I want to make my readers feel what I felt when reading first person present. I personally care more about pleasing readers than other writers. 



> Someone linked an article, either here or elsewhere on the board, that had a nice quip from a creative writing student that went something like this: "Aren't all new books supposed to be written in present-tense? Past-tense is sooo ancient, isn't it?" (Or something like that.) There is nice surge on the shelves for present-tense lovers, no mistake about it. Publishers publish for a number of reasons. Sure, they want to publish a good story. But, they'd rather publish something that will sell well, given a forced choice.



Yes, but one creative writing student does not represent all new creative writers. 

I think publishers sell for their own reasons. Unless you are a publisher, you don't know what goes into those decisions. I bet there are many reasons a publisher chooses to print something. It may have more than one component. Possibly that this person is already a best-seller? You know you can't seem to get into the publishing world without some kind of credentials these days! Who knows. But I'm sure they believe that money will make them a lot of money regardless, yes. 

Ultimately the publishers must believe in the story if they are going to stand behind it.



> Me either. But, then again, it's your argument you've presented, not mine. As I said, I have nothing against those who like or excel at producing work in present-tense. That's fine! I just hate it and think that the market is somewhat infatuated with it these days. I may be incompetent at writing in present-tense, but I wouldn't know because I don't do it on purpose. (But, I do exercise regularly and eat right, as wel as practice necessary writing skills, even distasteful ones.)



You may be incompetent at writing first person present, but that doesn't mean everyone else is. 

And since you admit that you are incompetent at it, doesn't that imply you aren't qualified to criticize it? 

I'm not trying to be sassy here, but it seems like common sense. Just like I'm not a third person writer, so I'm not qualified to criticize it, either.



> But, will it blend? That's what the publisher wants to know. They take pride in what they do, of course, but selling stuff keeps the light bill paid. I've got a stack of crap from respectable publishing houses that isn't worth reading. But, it sold and got bound, nonetheless. I read quite a bit, essentially all the time, and I run across embarrassing stuff all the time. It's not that those writers don't deserve their break! They do! I cheer for them. But, that doesn't mean what they broke-out with was worth reading... And, in the Present Tense Subgenre, I've seen quite a bit of junk. That's anecdotal and I am heavily biased, which I continue to try to remind everyone of. So, I'm not being sneaky or trying to prove something, here. Morkonan hates present-tense and first-person, present-tense, is the work of the Devil! (That's a joke and you're supposed to smile. If you didn't, let me know and I'll try to give ya a better one.  )



It's all relative. I might read things that you like and, while you might think they are the best ever, I might dislike them. Personal taste is subjective like that.



> I wasn't criticizing all present-tense writing as "Bad" nor was I implying that writing in present-tense makes the writing bad.



Superb. We agree it's not all bad.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 22, 2014)

I was in past tense hell. The author was flopping back and forth between the present and the past, and it just wasn't working for us. [Facts for just one page or two: I thought one sentence described the present, but when I studied the passage carefully, there was a subtle cue it was about the past. One sentence I could never figure whether it was about the past or the present. There were two sentences that, by meaning, had to be about the present, but there was no warning for that change back to the present. They were followed by an ambiguous sentence (legitimately), that I thought was about present, because those previous two sentences had been in the present, but the next sentence (in a new paragraph!) showed that the previous sentence was about the past. So I was confused about when she was hearing voices.]

The problem: This author was using past tense to describe the present, and a mixture of past tense and past perfect (pluperfect, past in the past) to describe the past. So a sentence in past tense could be about either the past or the present.

It could be that the author, Stephen King, simply doesn't know the mechanics of writing. I certainly was thinking he was a poor writer as I read this. But the reality is, he was caught in the same hell as me. Authors who write in the past tense not only "can" drop the word "had", they sometimes have to.

Then I skipped ahead and found a story about the past written in present tense. It was great -- Stephen King can really tell a good story (as many have suspected). That, ironically and I suspect brilliantly, left him writing in past tense to describe the present and writing in present tense to describe the past.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 24, 2014)

To me, present tense suggests thinking about an event happening, and past tense suggests thinking about the consequences. "She drives to the airport" -- I see her driving in the car. "She drove to the airport" -- I see her at the airport.

So, the follow doesn't work very well in present tense, I think.

_Jonathan drives me to the airport and stays with me while I check in. Now we're standing before the security gates._

Better: _Jonathan drove me to the airport and stayed with me while I checked in. Now we're standing before the security gates. _

But I want present tense for this:

_We hug. Then we both say at the same time, "Call me if you need anything." Then we laugh._

And of course I want the reader imagining all of these things happening. If this sentence gets speed-reading, it doesn't work.

I guess I am saying that in addition to the obvious limitations of present tense, I think there might be subtle problems. Depending on what you want to write.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 24, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> So, the follow doesn't work very well in present tense, I think.
> 
> _Jonathan drives me to the airport and stays with me while I check in. Now we're standing before the security gates._
> 
> Better: _Jonathan drove me to the airport and stayed with me while I checked in. Now we're standing before the security gates. _



Jonathan drives me to the airport, stays with me while I check in. Like mannequins, we stand before the security gates, inches apart. :encouragement:


----------



## Ixarku (Jul 24, 2014)

Personally, I dislike present tense in general, but I'm learning that there are times when it can not only be useful but can feel natural as well.  In the narrative / non-dialogue parts, if I'm writing in first person, I tell the story in past tense, but occasionally I might interject some commentary from the p.o.v. character in present tense.  For example:

"I walked to the store to buy some beer.  Even to this day, I still hate making that walk, but I was buzzed and out of beer, and in no shape to drive."

I try to keep a consistent voice as much as possible, but there are still occasionally some moments where it seems appropriate to switch tense.

But third person / present tense?  No way.  I would personally never write that way, and I dislike reading it immensely.  I'm not one to say that other writers should or shouldn't use it, but it's a big turnoff for me.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Jul 24, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> This is a common misconception. Present tense has actually been around since as early as 19 B.C., when Virgil used it in _The Aenid_. That's over 2,000 years ago.
> Even today, critics still argue about Virgil's use of it. The guy was clearly ahead of his time.



Wow.  As far as weak arguements goes, that takes the cake.  Having been around since 19 B.C. hardly makes it the less trendy.  
Please, poll the POV of all  classic works created since the dawn of time.  Poll the POV for YAPR novels in the last ten years.  
Fast forward 25 years or so and see if the stats are up or down on Present prose.  

Anecdotal evidence makes the current trend no less of a trend.  And again, regardless... (and I repeat myself ad infinitum) no one writes good present if they cannot write good past.  

David Gordon Burke


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 24, 2014)

You implied that present tense wouldn't be around forever.

It's been around for over 2,000 years so far, and counting.

I'm not sure how many millennia a tense needs to be around for before you consider it valid, but in my book, present tense has already reached that point.

If you want to argue it's a trend, that's fine. We can check back in a decade or so to see where things stand. Maybe you're wrong. Maybe you're right.

Only time will tell. :encouragement:


----------



## Hunted (Jul 25, 2014)

I have mixed emotion's about past and present my past is rough my present strange yet amusing and I like that I can go back and forth.


----------



## Hunted (Jul 25, 2014)

We are after all individuals so do what you do best I'm still figuring this out for myself so no judgment.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 25, 2014)

> Fast forward 25 years or so and see if the stats are up or down on Present prose.



If you're going to talk statistics, actually have some statistics. Else you're just making assumptions.

I read one author estimate that around 60-65% of YA is now written in present tense, which is a dramatic increase from five or ten years ago. Sure, present tense has increased in popularity due to successful examples of its usage. But to think that it will die away because it's a 'trend' is a poor judgement; if, within this 'trend', more successful present-tense novels get published, the tense will only continue to thrive, just as past-tense continues to thrive as well.

I'm happy that THG and the like have made present tense more palatable for our generation of readers. It's certified that present tense is here to stay. I do, however, agree that there is more misuse of the tense than I'd like. But there's more misuse of everything than I'd like, and as long as present tense continues to be used, we'll keep getting great examples of its usage.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 26, 2014)

The style of past tense is quirky. You can write "Now Sylvia was in Germany," and everyone will understand what you mean, even though it's contradictory -- now can't be in the past. Basically, the "here and now" of the story is written in past tense.


----------



## Morkonan (Jul 27, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> The style of past tense is quirky. You can write "Now Sylvia was in Germany," and everyone will understand what you mean, even though it's contradictory -- now can't be in the past. Basically, the "here and now" of the story is written in past tense.



But, if you use a comma... "Now, Sylvia was in Germany." It makes a lot more sense, right?


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 27, 2014)

Morkonan said:


> But, if you use a comma... "Now, Sylvia was in Germany." It makes a lot more sense, right?



I'm not sure if you are playing on words. To be clear, "Right now Sylvia is in Germany" is how we talk in real life. "Right now Sylvia was in Germany" is contradictory yet exactly how people right in the style of past tense -- "now" refers to a time they describe in past tense.

Same thing, suppose you told your friend, "I landed in London last Monday. It was rainy here. Tomorrow I went to see Buckingham Palace." Your friend would be confused. Because when there is an obvious narrator, "now", "tomorrow", and "here" refer to the narrator.

But in a story, "now" refers to story time, and "here" refers to story place. There was be no trouble with "Now I was in trouble. I had to get out of here."


----------



## bookmasta (Jul 27, 2014)

On the topic of past vs. present tense in writing, I don't really care. I write both. So what. I do it, as its my will as an author that I feel is best for the project and its representation in the way I wish to capture it. From my experience it doesn't matter what you do or what you say. Someone else will always have a contradictory opinion with a view opposite to yours for their own reasons. Whether its from The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins to Stephen King and his many novels, someone will always have an adverse view. Now on the purpose of being published, content will always take precedence over style. But since I don't know the genre, I can't make a proper assessment as to which tense it should be. However, if it is young adult, then go for it. First person present tense is the more popular form of writing in said genre.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 28, 2014)

bookmasta said:


> On the topic of past vs. present tense in writing, I don't really care. I write both. So what. I do it, as its my will as an author that I feel is best for the project and its representation in the way I wish to capture it. From my experience it doesn't matter what you do or what you say....



I want to know the problems and weaknesses of present tense, and how to avoid or solve those problems. Not just the obvious, but also the little things.

People can take my criticisms of the past tense style as trying to win some epic battle, but don't the people who write in past tense want to know the same thing about their style?

Really, it is probably a mistake to identify a narrator. Really, if you are writing an emotional important story as a backflash, the only successful one I saw was written in present tense. Really, if you are writing your backflash in past perfect, keep the time line simple. Really, think about describing your setting in present tense. Really, authors are inconsistent in how they switch into first person present internal thoughts.


----------



## Terry D (Aug 2, 2014)

I thought you might get a kick out of what I found as I was scrounging around some of my older work here on the forums, EmmaSohan. It's the opening two paragraphs from one of my LM entries. Until I found it I would have sworn to you that there's no way I would ever use first person present tense. Obviously I do, but I think my not realizing that speaks to my larger point, which is; I think it's counter productive to spend much time worrying about the minutia of writing. Be aware, sure, but don't linger on it, just write in the words and style that comes naturally. Your writer's brain will sort out all the rest.

Now here's the opening of my story, _Strings_:

_I found it when I cleaned out the guestroom closet.  It still said ANDREW clearly enough though the marker had bled into the cardboard over the years, getting faded and fuzzy, like memories do.  I can still see stains on the lid – three of them.  Isn’t it strange how something as insubstantial as tears can leave marks that last so long?

A wing chair sits by the window and I sit in it with the box on my lap.  Sunlight oozes through the glass, warming my skin.  The view is pleasant, but not spectacular.  I can see the clothes-line, a corner of the garden, and the fence where wild grapes grow between our place and Hoskin’s clover field.  The field is dotted with pixels of violet amid variegated green.  It’s easy to see why Andy liked to sit here for so many hours.  The wing chair takes up just a little more space than his wheelchair did._ 

After this opening the story slips into first person past tense and finishes back in first/present.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 3, 2014)

Terry D said:


> ...speaks to my larger point, which is; I think it's counter productive to spend much time worrying about the minutia of writing. Be aware, sure, but don't linger on it, just write in the words and style that comes naturally. Your writer's brain will sort out all the rest.



When I spend _a lot_ of time worrying about the minutia of writing, I get a little better at writing. I think.

So my last short story was in past tense, and I didn't even notice. All the hours I spent thinking about this topic and studying it -- and it's a lot -- had only one small effect. One writer, writing in past tense, was doing "pops" into present tense. I realized I was kind of doing that, so I tweaked things (like the title) to emphasize the pop. Will anyone notice? Unlikely, it's a really small thing. But the story is better, and I was thrilled.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 3, 2014)

Terry D said:


> I thought you might get a kick out of



Yeah, the story is awesome.

You basically put your frame in present tense, then the story of the past in past tense. But you have a few past perfects (He'd). Those are wrong, agree? Almost no effect on your story, I agree. (Or did you do the past perfects on purpose?)


----------



## Terry D (Aug 4, 2014)

The plueperfect were intentional. Couldn't see a better way to write it.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 4, 2014)

Terry D said:


> The plueperfect were intentional. Couldn't see a better way to write it.



One of the lines in question is _“Dad?” he’d asked._

You could have written it as _“Dad?” he asked._

The second one is simpler, more direct, and I think correct. You wrote your frame in present tense, so this is just past tense. This is not past-in-the-past.

If readers ignore whether a sentence is past or pluperfect, then there is no harm at all. But then you have the problem that your readers are forced to ignore a potential useful clue.

Again, I really like the story a lot, this is just a really tiny thing, I am thinking that studying tense might help a little.


----------



## Terry D (Aug 4, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> One of the lines in question is _“Dad?” he’d asked._
> 
> You could have written it as _“Dad?” he asked._
> 
> ...



But I wasn't telling the past tense section of the story as a narrator, I wrote it as a memory, or flashback, of the man sitting beside that window holding the boxed marionette. In that case I feel the past perfect works well to keep the reader with the father. A small difference, but one I think works for the story.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 4, 2014)

When you write in past tense, as you usually do, the first sentence of a flashback should be in pluperfect, to signal the flashback.

Here, you are writing in present tense, so the first sentence of a flashback should be past tense. Are you saying that even when the story is written in the present, the flashback should be written in pluperfect?

If you feel that pluperfect signals a flashback better, you may be right, that's interesting. It still isn't right, there is no past established for this to be the past of.

Do you have the same feeling for your other two uses of pluperfect?

Laughing, and I kind of get your point, this is a lot of discussion about 3 d's.


----------



## Terry D (Aug 4, 2014)

I don't know if it technically 'should' be in pluperfect (I'm no grammarian), but I think it works best for this story... it sounds right to my inner critic.


----------

