# past tense or present tense?



## PenCat (Apr 28, 2015)

Any thoughts on how to choose?


----------



## Terry D (Apr 28, 2015)

This isn't going to be a satisfying answer, but you choose the tense which best fits the story you want to tell. Present tense is all the rage now, but past tense has served writers well for generations. There is no one 'better ' way. It's all a matter of personal preference.


----------



## BeastlyBeast (Apr 28, 2015)

Have to agree with Terry on this one, though I don't think it's even personal preference so much as it's just what the story calls for. I tried figuring out how to write my fantasy novel in first person present tense - the problem was POV characters dying. Eventually I came to the conclusion that when I start the book, my best option would simply be past tense third person - it is exceptionally hard to pull of POV characters dying in present tense without feeling cheap. It truly is whether your story calls for it.


----------



## Riptide (Apr 29, 2015)

Terry D said:


> Present tense is all the rage now,



That's great, I didn't know that. A finished novel of mine is present tense and I thought it wouldn't sell- if I ever decide to publish it that is.

Yeah, repeating what they said. Some say present tense is hard to write in. I usually mimic the last book I read, if that helps you any. It's up to you what you decide to do. There's no shame in going back and rewriting a scene in several tenses and POVs to find the right one


----------



## Tettsuo (Apr 29, 2015)

Terry D said:


> This isn't going to be a satisfying answer, but you choose the tense which best fits the story you want to tell. *Present tense is all the rage now*, but past tense has served writers well for generations. There is no one 'better ' way. It's all a matter of personal preference.



I keep reading this and find myself baffled by the statement.  The number of past tense books, new and old, VASTLY outnumbers the books written in present tense.  Past tense is by far the king and present isn't even in the king's court.


----------



## InstituteMan (Apr 29, 2015)

If in dubt, use past tense. It's the standard, and no one will miss your story because they are baffled by your tense. If you write in present tense, do it for a specific reason. 

My most recent foray into a present tense story was to heighten the tension of the story, as well as to present a bit of ambiguity regarding the fate of the narrator at the end. I tried to write the story in past tense, and it just didn't work. Usually, though, I find the scenario (both as a reader and as a writer) is the reverse: present tense just doesn't work as well.


----------



## PenCat (Apr 29, 2015)

and what would be those "good reasons?"


----------



## Jeko (Apr 29, 2015)

The narrative approach should mean something to the story being told and the person telling it. A retrospective first-person narrator, for example, informs us that the character we're following is aware of everything that has happened, while a narrator stuck in the present tense doesn't - unless that narrator is demonstrated to be omnipotent. For the foremost example, said character/narrator may be recounting events to, say, try to make sense of them, and this will affect his style of narration. The second example would be useful if we want to evoke our character's paranoia with regards to the future, the third likewise.

The narrative approach should also be decided by the voice you find most comfortable to use when telling the story. The drafting process will be hampered otherwise.


----------



## PenCat (Apr 29, 2015)

those sound like some good reasons..thank you..


----------



## EmmaSohan (Apr 29, 2015)

Past tense is the language of the Gods. (Literally -- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.). It's more flexible. People are used to it. It has problems, but there are usually work-arounds.

I pretty much always write in present tense. It's a little better at what I want to do, and I have spent days trying to figure that out. With (apparently) no success.

But -- "A man walks into a bar" gets five times and many hits than "A man walked into a bar.")


----------



## Lydia14 (Apr 29, 2015)

I've never written anything in present tense myself, except for synopses of stories I want to write. Just for the heck of it, I ran one through a reading level analyzer, and it ended up almost 4 grade levels higher than when I wrote the actual story in past tense. Make of that what you will -- maybe I'm just weird -- but that seems to indicate to me that present tense might be harder to read on an objective level, because we tend to write past and present tense in different ways. Once again, maybe it's just me, but if I'm trying to get a story out to people, I avoid present tense because I'm afraid it wouldn't be easily readable.


----------



## Greimour (Apr 30, 2015)

I have been reading a lot of amateur work lately. Some good, some bad, some terrible... one or two possibly worth publication. I spotted many mistakes in most. Bad use of ellipses, poor grammar in general — maybe a stream of spelling mistakes like putting 'loose' instead of 'lose' [and vice versa which was extra annoying because was same story].

Thinking back on the stories I'd been reading at a later date, I noted that I was still enjoying most of those poorly written books. What dragged me in to each of them was the story itself. There was a certain level of mystery, intrigue, drama, romance and a dozen other things in each of them. They contained it all. I was dragged into a world that was free to explore and experience.

>>> I just had to get past the bad prose, spellings, poor translations or whatever else may have been wrong with the story.

I share this with you for one reason.

The one thing that NEVER bothered me in ANY of those stories was the tense. Past or Present...made no difference. One of the better stories I read had both. One character was written in the past tense because his story was from 10 years ago. The main character was written in present because it was happening now. The past was affecting the present [like it does] but the present was also affecting the past. 

Was like this:

Present MC: Running away from someone and turns down an alley. 

Past MC: Has vision of guy in future turning down that alley and getting trapped. So he breaks several bricks in the wall at the end which will allow the future person to use the broken bricks like a ladder to climb out.

Present MC: Reaches end of alley and spots the broken and missing bricks. He used them to climb up the wall and over the other side. 

Past MC needs a way to communicate with future MC so leave a message where he will one day find it [thanks to vision]. 

Story continues.

Was epic. Wish I could remember its Title because I never finished it. [was reading it online somewhere but don't remember site either, if any of you recognize the parts I said feel free to mail me what it was. I been searching for it all week.]

Anyway. Past or present? Might as well be asking first person or third person .... Queens English or Americanized.

We all have preferences. What matters is the story. Give it what it requires.


~Greimour. <3


----------



## John Oberon (Apr 30, 2015)

I dislike present tense for the most part because of my Spock mentality. I read something like "I leap over his head and direct a roundhouse to the base of his skull.", and think, "Really? You're writing this down while you do that?" It's like a fly constantly buzzing in my ear. I know it's ridiculous, but for some reason my mind cannot dismiss that apparent contradiction like most other people can. The only time present tense doesn't bother me in that way is when the first person narrator is telling the story after the fact, and he speaks in present tense because that's how he tells a story. If I don't have some kind of linchpin of context like that to justify present tense, then my mind harasses me, and I can't enjoy it. So I'm mostly a past tense guy.

I think it is mostly not good for beginners to write in present tense because they get lost in the fun of "being" the character and forget they need to advance a story. The character yammers about his likes and dislikes and how he's going to increase his likes and decrease his dislikes and how he feels about all that and before you know it, the story is ensconced in a narcissistic nowhere. I always counsel beginners to write and master third person past before trying first person present.


----------



## ppsage (Apr 30, 2015)

> I know it's ridiculous, but for some reason my mind cannot dismiss that apparent contradiction like most other people can.


The idea that a text requires a narrative pretext is so nineteenth century. Makes a really cool spot for humor, if one is able to stomach the slightest whiff of meta-fiction.


----------



## John Oberon (Apr 30, 2015)

What's so difficult to stomach about meta-fiction?


----------



## Jeko (Apr 30, 2015)

> I think it is mostly not good for beginners to write in present tense because they get lost in the fun of "being" the character and forget they need to advance a story.



I think beginners have more trouble with concentrating on needing to advance the story and never investing enough in the characters driving it. But a tense has little to do with that; a writer will get immersed in whatever they want to get immersed in. I have almost always found a retrospective viewpoint far more immersive to write in.


----------



## John Oberon (Apr 30, 2015)

Cadence said:


> I think beginners have more trouble with concentrating on needing to advance the story and never investing enough in the characters driving it. But a tense has little to do with that; a writer will get immersed in whatever they want to get immersed in. I have almost always found a retrospective viewpoint far more immersive to write in.



Well, it's not just the tense, it's the POV, first person. I always counsel beginners to write in third person to give themselves some mental distance from the characters. I think a writer can more readily see problems with a story or their writing if their mind is not so absorbed with "being" a character. It brings more objectivity to the fore because they're more in "Observer" mode than "Actor" mode. At least, that's been my experience with beginners.


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 30, 2015)

John Oberon said:


> I dislike present tense for the most part because of my Spock mentality. I read something like "I leap over his head and direct a roundhouse to the base of his skull.", and think, "Really? You're writing this down while you do that?" It's like a fly constantly buzzing in my ear. I know it's ridiculous, but for some reason my mind cannot dismiss that apparent contradiction like most other people can.



A skilled writer, to me, is like an illusionist and a wrecking ball combined. When the writing's good, you believe what you're reading. Disbelief doesn't just get suspended—it gets obliterated. Logic, physics, space and time, these things become pliable (or even moot) in an experienced author's hands. The reader sinks into the story. The words become not just words, but conduits of emotion. Each turn of the page is a step deeper into the writer's (and reader's) imagination.

Sometimes readers have mental blocks in place. Their disbelief isn't a just sheet in the wind, but a wall they've fortified with reinforced steel. At the base of these walls lie the shattered remains of authors who found themselves unable to break through.

But there exist writers who write like giants, who smash through walls of disbelief like freight trains plowing through papier-mâché. To these authors, the reader's sense of logic is just another brick to be crushed underfoot. :encouragement:


----------



## EmmaSohan (Apr 30, 2015)

If you take a story written in past tense, then just change the tenses to present tense, you will probably create problems. And the same for rewriting a story from present tense to past tense. They are just slightly different. But it adds up -- my books end up being a series of scenes, and I have difficulty when I need to describe a series of events.

I suspect you can read all of Mr. Mercedes (Stephen King) and not be bothered by present tense. (I would like to hear if this is not true.) But there was exactly one paragraph in a John Grisham  present-tense novel that, as Morkonan would say, made my head spin.


----------



## J Anfinson (Apr 30, 2015)

I say write the story however it wants to be told. Within the first paragraph or two I usually know which tense would work better.


----------



## Jeko (Apr 30, 2015)

> I always counsel beginners to write in third person to give themselves some mental distance from the characters. I think a writer can more readily see problems with a story or their writing if their mind is not so absorbed with "being" a character. It brings more objectivity to the fore because they're more in "Observer" mode than "Actor" mode. At least, that's been my experience with beginners.



Be careful about forcing a style or method onto people, especially beginners whose early experiences with the craft will shape their future writing lives. The beauty of literature is in all the different haphazard paths people take when improving their artistry.

Some writers don't care about the wider 'story' as they follow their characters while they draft. It's worked for Stephen King.


----------



## John Oberon (Apr 30, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> A skilled writer, to me, is like an illusionist and a wrecking ball combined. When the writing's good, you believe what you're reading. Disbelief doesn't just get suspended—it gets obliterated. Logic, physics, space and time, these things become pliable (or even moot) in an experienced author's hands. The reader sinks into the story. The words become not just words, but conduits of emotion. Each turn of the page is a step deeper into the writer's (and reader's) imagination.
> 
> Sometimes readers have mental blocks in place. Their disbelief isn't a just sheet in the wind, but a wall they've fortified with reinforced steel. At the base of these walls lie the shattered remains of authors who found themselves unable to break through.
> 
> But there exist writers who write like giants, who smash through walls of disbelief like freight trains plowing through papier-mâché. To these authors, the reader's sense of logic is just another brick to be crushed underfoot. :encouragement:



Geezo...kinda violent there, lol.

I don't think my disbelief is a wall, at least not one I consciously built. I think it's just a by-product of years of critiquing. I think, by and large, a writer reads differently than an average, non-writing reader. I know I do. For example, I'm planning to write a romance sometime in the future so I'm reading different authors. I just read a Nora Roberts novel - very good, tight writer...very smart and witty. Now the average reader would rip through that, enjoy it, and on to the next. But me, I'm judging what she says, and how, when, and why she says it. To tell you the truth, I can't recall the last book I read with the abandon you describe. I'm always analyzing, or else things jump out at me, either good or bad, to the point that the story itself almost takes a backseat to how it's told. I notice when dialogue sounds authentic, when something is expressed in a way that makes me pause and re-read just to enjoy that one sentence. I notice when the story lags and judge the reason for it. So it's not because I can't suspend my disbelief or anything like that, I don't think. It's just a symptom of "Critique-Brain", lol. It's just my stupid brain saying, "Hey, you can't be writing this and karate chopping a guy at the same time."

At any rate, a first-person present tense novel that I like is a real rarity. So often, the narrator comes off repulsive to me...very selfish, shallow, and narcissistic, and I want him/her to just shut up and get over whatever's causing angst, lol. Perhaps you all could recommend some first-person present novels that really zinged your strings.

Oh, and Candence...I couldn't force a style or method on anybody even if I wanted to.


----------



## ppsage (Apr 30, 2015)

I suppose the real answer to the original question is that one chooses by informed trial and error. Perhaps another question is how far into the composition can one get without finally deciding on POV and tense, without hopelessly handicapping the writing project? A matter of taste and process I expect, maybe dependent to a large degree on how much composition is done on a subsequent edit. If the first draft is not much more than a heavily notated outline, maybe it won't need these things decided as urgently as a first draft which is a substantially finished text. In any case, editing and redrafting considerable material might prove a small price to pay, for getting far enough in to see the answers clearly. One may not actually know, from the onset, but have to accept the process of exploration and pay the price. Each choice will provide advantages and cost limitations, again mediated considerably by the story and the writer. I think perhaps present tense (and maybe first person) have some tendency to ease the shortening of narrative distance and the creation of immediacy in detail, but also to highlight expository telling in an unfavorable way, which can be quite detrimental. Protagonist characterization might be enhanced, at the expense of a generally flatter cast. Or, given different authorial proclivities, these might all be flipped, whether they are advantageous or not. Trial and error. And paying attention.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (May 1, 2015)

I still run into problems when writing in the past tense.  There are events that happened already and those go in the past.... no problem.  But what about when you are talking about something real and permanent.  My past tense riff keeps getting messed up by the present intruding.  
I think it may be the whole approach .... this happens way too often in 1st person.  Like .... I approached the monument to the unknown soldier which is on front of the Canadian house of parliment.  
If I said WAS then that seems to imply that it isn't anymore.  
My solution?  Leave thise kinds of details OUT.
David Gordon Nurke


----------



## John Oberon (May 1, 2015)

Or just delete "which is".

And "on" should be "in".


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 1, 2015)

David Gordon Burke said:


> I still run into problems when writing in the past tense.  There are events that happened already and those go in the past.... no problem.  But what about when you are talking about something real and permanent.  My past tense riff keeps getting messed up by the present intruding.
> I think it may be the whole approach .... this happens way too often in 1st person.  Like .... I approached the monument to the unknown soldier which is on front of the Canadian house of parliment.
> If I said WAS then that seems to imply that it isn't anymore.
> My solution?  Leave thise kinds of details OUT.
> David Gordon Nurke



When writing in past tense, it is at least somewhat common to put setting in present tense. Commentary can also go in present tense.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (May 2, 2015)

John Oberon said:


> Or just delete "which is".
> 
> And "on" should be "in".


Posting via android cell. Fat fingers, small letters.  Typo.  Sorry.
DGB


----------



## Kyle R (May 2, 2015)

David Gordon Burke said:


> I still run into problems when writing in the past tense.  There are events that happened already and those go in the past.... no problem.  But what about when you are talking about something real and permanent.  My past tense riff keeps getting messed up by the present intruding.
> I think it may be the whole approach .... this happens way too often in 1st person.  Like .... I approached the monument to the unknown soldier which is on front of the Canadian house of parliment.
> If I said WAS then that seems to imply that it isn't anymore.
> My solution?  Leave thise kinds of details OUT.
> David Gordon Nurke


Mentioning something in the past tense doesn't have to imply that it no longer exists. It simply means it exists in the time of the story.

Unless you're writing a story that intentionally alternates between the present and the past, you can simply ignore the present as if there is no such thing.

For example, let's take the Statue of Liberty and write about her in the past tense (even though she's still around today).
The Statue of Liberty loomed high over the water, so high that George's neck hurt to look up at her. "God!" he said. "What a beauty!" The decades had streaked her copper skin, and the flames of her torch had taken on a new synthetic luster, but she was still _her_, as grand and large and stomach-quivering as she'd been the first time he'd seen her. "Fourteen years," he cried out. "Do you remember me, girl?"

But Liberty ignored him, like all the women did. She fixed her grim, lidless eyes on the horizon as if George didn't exist at all.
​
Whether or not the Statue of Liberty is around in the present is irrelevant in this case, because the present isn't part of the story. It never has to be, if you don't want it to. :encouragement:


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 2, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> Mentioning something in the past tense doesn't have to imply that it no longer exists. It simply means it exists in the time of the story.
> 
> Unless you're writing a story that intentionally alternates between the present and the past, you can simply ignore the present as if there is no such thing.
> 
> ...



I think the problem comes when you say the Statue of Liberty was a symbol of freedom.

Or that there was a boat to take tourists to what was called Liberty Island, which was in the state of New York.

I'm not saying readers can't just read over it. "My name was Ishmael" usually doesn't puzzle readers about what his name is now. But it's still awkward and at least some authors avoid it.


----------



## scrub puller (Jun 13, 2015)

Yair . . . 

 All this comes together when you write a synopsis of course . . . it must be presented in present tense for conventional agents/publishers.

Cheers.


----------



## Mesafalcon (Jun 14, 2015)

This is from a blog I read called - Immerse or Die. I never liked present tense and had to agree with this-


Now obviously, plenty of people are able to relate just fine to present tense stories, so it would be absurd to suggest that there’s any kind of genetic predisposition to hearing stories in past tense only. But the point about increasing the verisimilitude is one I feel strongly about. Stories told in the present tense do not feel true to me in the way that past tense accounts do. In fact – and here’s where the “silliness” thing comes in – well, here’s what I said at the time:

By contrast, present tense story telling conveys a more anecdotal, inconsequential feeling to me.*So there I am, a chicken in one hand and a squirrel in the other, when my belt lets go and my pants drop to my knees. What am I supposed*to do?*

For me, present tense always feels like the setup to a joke, and that makes it harder for me to take the story seriously.

It doesn’t have to feel that way to you, but it does to me, and that’s the only truth I can report. But I know I’m not alone. For every*email or*internet comment I got saying that I was being unfair about present tense, I got an equal number saying “Amen to that!” and “I’m with you, brother!” That doesn’t make present tense a “mistake.” It just means that if you use it, there are going to be some people who won’t like your book. And that is just something every writer has to learn to accept, because every choice you make as a writer is a decision that will close the door to some readers, while opening a door to others.


----------



## Mesafalcon (Jun 14, 2015)

I missed this part which i really like :



Anyway, in the original article, I then went on to discuss the historical issue…

Worse, it conflicts with the cultural tradition of storytelling. I believe that we humans are hard-wired for stories. They are a form of early-warning system, in which important cultural lessons are accumulated and passed down. It goes back to the warrior, returning from the hunt, and relating how he crept under the banyan tree on the trail of a gazelle, only to have a tiger leap on him from the overhanging branches. Survival lesson: don’t go under a banyan tree without checking the branches first. These stories are always conveyed in the past tense, and that subtle cue gives them veracity. It*did*happen. The narrator*was*there. It was real. And this story is the lesson he brings to share with me*from that harrowing experience.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jun 14, 2015)

Mesafalcon said:


> By contrast, present tense story telling conveys a more anecdotal, inconsequential feeling to me.*So there I am, a chicken in one hand and a squirrel in the other, when my belt lets go and my pants drop to my knees. What am I supposed*to do?*



I'm not convinced this author knows how to write in present tense.  Really, the word _there_? Isn't that anti-immersion? It sounds like someone who normally writes in past tense and doesn't realize the difference.

I proudly hold up a chicken in my right hand and a squirrel in my left. They're squirming, but I'm holding tight. Everyone's looking at me. Then . . . oh shit, I feel my pants drop down to my knees. I let go of the chicken (WRONG, he flies at my mother) and I try to pull up my pants (WRONG, the squirrel scratches my face) and everyone starts roaring with laughter. I am humiliated beyond imagination.

It's like -- do you want to tell a story of what happened, or do you want to put the reader inside the character's head? Present tense seems to be a little better for putting your reader inside the character's head.


----------



## Mesafalcon (Jun 14, 2015)

EmmaSohan said:


> I'm not convinced this author knows how to write in present tense.  Really, the word _there_? Isn't that anti-immersion? It sounds like someone who normally writes in past tense and doesn't realize the difference.
> 
> I proudly hold up a chicken in my right hand and a squirrel in my left. They're squirming, but I'm holding tight. Everyone's looking at me. Then . . . oh shit, I feel my pants drop down to my knees. I let go of the chicken (WRONG, he flies at my mother) and I try to pull up my pants (WRONG, the squirrel scratches my face) and everyone starts roaring with laughter. I am humiliated beyond imagination.
> 
> It's like -- do you want to tell a story of what happened, or do you want to put the reader inside the character's head? Present tense seems to be a little better for putting your reader inside the character's head.



He is a guy who has a forum which critiques Indy novels. He is on 50+ reviews. They focus on keeping the readers immersion and I learned more from his site in a month than a year of reading writing forums. 

He concentrates on logic, echoes, repeating head words, declarative parades and other things that are less opinion and more plain to see why they hurt or break immersion.

The site is highly recommended, and most cases he makes are very hard to disagree with when looked at logically. 

This happens to be more of an opinion, but nonetheless, makes sense to me. The site it "Creativity Hacker : Immerse or Die. And highly recommended.

I admit that I personally dislike present time, mainly cause of this - we know these stories didn't happen, but past tense allows us to imagine them as more real.

Like Game of Thrones of LOTR to me has that "real" feel, they are written so well, they feel like they could have happened. I bet you can think of some other books writen in past tense that people actually believe in a matter of life or death actually happened. 

Had those books been writen in present tense, I bet they would have an entirely less believable feel...


----------



## PenCat (Jun 14, 2015)

scrub puller said:


> Yair . . .
> 
> All this comes together when you write a synopsis of course . . . it must be presented in present tense for conventional agents/publishers.
> 
> Cheers.



Why's that?


----------



## Kyle R (Jun 15, 2015)

PenCat said:


> Why's that?


http://classroom.synonym.com/verb-tense-use-write-fiction-3817.html :encouragement:


----------



## PenCat (Jun 15, 2015)

Ah..of course..thank you for that link!


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jun 15, 2015)

Mesafalcon said:


> Like Game of Thrones of LOTR to me has that "real" feel, they are written so well, they feel like they could have happened. I bet you can think of some other books writen in past tense that people actually believe in a matter of life or death actually happened.
> 
> Had those books been written in present tense, I bet they would have an entirely less believable feel...




When I read a book, I like to feel like the story is happening at that moment and I am in the story. I thought that was what "immersion" meant. When I am done with the book, I always know it's fiction and that doesn't bother me.

You mention credentials, but do not address the issue of the word _there_. Isn't that a strange word to use in first person present to for a person to describe where they are? _I am there_? Who says that?

Finally, the test. Anyone can say they don't like present tense. The real test is to read some of _Mr. Mercedes_, by Stephen King, and still say that. (The "prologue" is past tense, then the rest of the book is present tense.) I'm not saying you won't pass this test. But I would like to hear the results.


----------



## Terry D (Jun 15, 2015)

EmmaSohan said:


> I think the problem comes when you say the Statue of Liberty was a symbol of freedom.



Perhaps that's why he didn't write that. Writing of currently existing places and objects in past tense doesn't have to be clunky and disorienting any more than any other aspect of writing. You can write anything poorly. The trick is to not do so.



> Or that there was a boat to take tourists to what was called Liberty Island, which was in the state of New York.



Same thing goes here. _The ferry took tourists from the mainland to Liberty Island, the smallest bit of New York in the harbor. _See, still past tense but no confusion.



> I'm not saying readers can't just read over it. "My name was Ishmael" usually doesn't puzzle readers about what his name is now. But it's still awkward and at least some authors avoid it.



Melville's actual line is, "Call me Ishmael." Problem solved by the man who wrote it.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jun 15, 2015)

Terry D said:


> Perhaps that's why he didn't write that. Writing of currently existing places and objects in past tense doesn't have to be clunky and disorienting any more than any other aspect of writing. You can write anything poorly. The trick is to not do so.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Clancy's actual line is, "The Afghans are a handsome people whose forthright features and ...."  (the first page of The Cardinal and the Kremlin)

I am saying it is awkward to write "The Afghans were a handsome people...."

Can you explain your disagreement with me?

I will also say that it was perfectly okay for Clancy to write that line. Is that the source of our disagreement?


----------



## Terry D (Jun 16, 2015)

EmmaSohan said:


> Clancy's actual line is, "The Afghans are a handsome people whose forthright features and ...."  (the first page of The Cardinal and the Kremlin)
> 
> I am saying it is awkward to write "The Afghans were a handsome people...."
> 
> ...



I'm not disagreeing with you (I also don't remember, and can't find, any mention of that line by Clancy). The line you quote is correct as written by Tom Clancy. No one writes in the manner you are complaining about, at least no one who sells any books. 

The thing you need to remember -- it's a knowledge which is almost subconscious for readers and writers -- is that there are two time frames being dealt with in a story written in past tense: there is the past -- the 'story time' the time frame in which the action takes place -- and the narrator's present. The narrator exists in some undefined -- for the reader -- time frame. So, in the narrator's 'present' the Afgans are a handsome people, but the story about them takes place in the past.

The narrator's present is not our present, or it doesn't have to be. The only time frame which matters in keeping a story consistent is the narrative past.

You are creating confusion where none should exist. Yes. It would be very poor writing to write something like, 'Wrigly Field stood at the corner of Clark and Addison on Chicago's north side, not far from where the waves on Lake Michigan lapped at the beach.' That's why proficient writers don't write sentences like that. _Unless_ in the narrator's present (perhaps a future narrator looking back on some catastrophe) the baseball field and the lake no longer exist.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jun 16, 2015)

Terry D said:


> The thing you need to remember -- it's a knowledge which is almost subconscious for readers and writers -- is that there are two time frames being dealt with in a story written in past tense: there is the past -- the 'story time' the time frame in which the action takes place -- and the narrator's present. The narrator exists in some undefined -- for the reader -- time frame. So, in the narrator's 'present' the Afgans are a handsome people, but the story about them takes place in the past.
> 
> The narrator's present is not our present, or it doesn't have to be. The only time frame which matters in keeping a story consistent is the narrative past.
> 
> .



To me, the narrator is a fiction -- no one can know everyone's thought, be in two places at once, and have a verbatim memory of conversations. Narrator's time is also a fiction, but even worse -- when is the narrator time for a science fiction story?

I worry that it is not a harmless fiction. We usually want our readers immersed in our stories, and creating a fictional narrator in their minds takes them out of that immersion.


----------



## Terry D (Jun 16, 2015)

EmmaSohan said:


> I worry that it is not a harmless fiction. We usually want our readers immersed in our stories, and creating a fictional narrator in their minds takes them out of that immersion.



Nonsense. Utter and complete nonsense. Every narrator is a fiction and every reader understands that. You just told all of us that there are no books ever written in past tense that achieved immersion. That's a ridiculous position. I think thousands of authors and millions of readers would disagree with you.


----------



## Sam (Jun 17, 2015)

EmmaSohan said:


> To me, the narrator is a fiction -- no one can know everyone's thought, be in two places at once, and have a verbatim memory of conversations. Narrator's time is also a fiction, but even worse -- when is the narrator time for a science fiction story?
> 
> I worry that it is not a harmless fiction. We usually want our readers immersed in our stories, and creating a fictional narrator in their minds takes them out of that immersion.



Past tense is industry-standard for a reason. 

It works. And it's been working a hell of a lot longer than present.


----------



## Kevin (Jun 17, 2015)

> We usually want our readers immersed in our stories, and creating a fictional narrator in their minds takes them out of that immersion


It's _a_ way to lead them in.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jun 17, 2015)

Terry D said:


> Nonsense. Utter and complete nonsense. Every narrator is a fiction and every reader understands that. You just told all of us that there are no books ever written in past tense that achieved immersion. That's a ridiculous position. I think thousands of authors and millions of readers would disagree with you.



Well, you obviously did not understand what I was trying to say. Sorry. It's complicated.

In Revival, Stephen King creates a narrator. His name is Jaime (the main character). He can remember dialogue perfectly, can be in two places at once and has see the nature of life after death (which involves giant ants) using special electricity. We know when he writes.

There is no such person. Really! Stephen King has created a fiction, not much different from the other fictional characters in his book.

In most books, say Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card, the author does not create a narrator in the book. And then you can simple say there is no narrator and things are simple. If you feel some emotional need to say there is a narrator, you might feel compelled to create one. But that would be irrelevant to the book, irrelevant to anyone else's reading experience.

Trying to say how tall this narrator is, or when this narrator wrote, is about as meaningful as trying to decide how many imaginary people can fit in an imaginary room. You can make up whatever you want, it's your fiction. You can say that the narrator lived in the year 3000 (as long as that is after the formic wars).

You can have a story that ends with the end of the universe. That creates problem for about 100 people in the whole world -- the people who want to say the narrator exists after the story is over. Readers will have no problem with that.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jun 17, 2015)

EmmaSohan said:


> It's complicated.



When people told the story of the Iliad, were they narrators? Can a book have a 100 narrators? But when you read that book, none of those real narrators is the narrator of what you are reading. Right?

If someone makes an audiobook of Revival, are they a narrator? Then there are two narrators, the person reading and the narrator that King constructed.

Well, if someone makes an audiobook of Ender's Game, at least there is only one narrator. Note that this narrator is using past tense to describe events happening in the future.

I have no problem with readers, or fictional narrators, using past tense to describe events in the future. It's the language of telling a story.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jun 17, 2015)

EmmaSohan said:


> It's complicated.



Not really, but it's hard to say no to the idea of a narrator.

Basically, if I am telling a story, verbally, about something that happened to me, "now" refers to my  present, not the present of the story time. And "here" refers to where I am as I tell the story. I am pretty sure the same it true for King's narrator.

Ironically, in the narration of a story, "now" usually refers to story time. And "Here" refers to story location. The irony is that a story is different from when there actually is a narrator. The very metaphor breaks down. Announcer is probably a better metaphor.


----------



## Terry D (Jun 17, 2015)

EmmaSohan said:


> Well, you obviously did not understand what I was trying to say. Sorry. It's complicated.
> 
> In Revival, Stephen King creates a narrator. His name is Jaime (the main character). He can remember dialogue perfectly, can be in two places at once and has see the nature of life after death (which involves giant ants) using special electricity. We know when he writes.
> 
> ...



It's not complicated at all. First off, all narrators in fiction are fictional. Just as everything else in the book is fiction. How could they not be? The narrator in a story told in present tense is just as fictional. Second, the protagonist in Revival is never in two places at the same time. He may know of what happened at other places, but only because he learned of it later (one of the advantages of past tense -- the narrator can know of things he wasn't actually party to in his past). Third, there is a narrator in every book ever written. They are the ones generating the narrative -- narrative = narrator. Once again you are trying to twist, or ignore the basic conventions of writing. I don't know if you do this because you want to make writing seem more complicated than it is, or if you simply do not understand the basics.



EmmaSohan said:


> When people told the story of the Iliad, were they narrators? Can a book have a 100 narrators? But when you read that book, none of those real narrators is the narrator of what you are reading. Right?
> 
> If someone makes an audiobook of Revival, are they a narrator? Then there are two narrators, the person reading and the narrator that King constructed.
> 
> ...



Yes, a book can have as many narrators as the author wishes to create. Each time the writer changes POV the narrator changes. Many books stick with just one POV, that of the protagonist, throughout the story. Those books have just one narrator. Some shift POV as often as they change underwear. Those books have several narrators.  



EmmaSohan said:


> Not really, but it's hard to say no to the idea of a narrator.
> 
> Basically, if I am telling a story, verbally, about something that happened to me, "now" refers to my  present, not the present of the story time. And "here" refers to where I am as I tell the story. I am pretty sure the same it true for King's narrator.
> 
> Ironically, in the narration of a story, "now" usually refers to story time. And "Here" refers to story location. The irony is that a story is different from when there actually is a narrator. The very metaphor breaks down. Announcer is probably a better metaphor.



The word narrator works just fine. Most people have no problem with the concept. For most readers the narrator is invisible unless the writer does a very poor job and draws attention to him/her. Call that voice an 'announcer' if you want, but don't expect anyone else to understand... or to care.


----------



## Mesafalcon (Jun 18, 2015)

EmmaSohan said:


> When I read a book, I like to feel like the story is happening at that moment and I am in the story. I thought that was what "immersion" meant. When I am done with the book, I always know it's fiction and that doesn't bother me.



Yes, the bottom line is we always know it's fiction. This a more subconscious feeling I argue for that it "could have happened."

Immersion means you are not distracted by anything else or thinking of anything else as you are reading/or doing whatever you are immersed in. Not that you literally need to be "in" something. 

If someone wrote it before it got into my hands - I know it isn't happening now. So, while I "know" past tense is fiction. I am not constatnly reminded of that as I read. My mind can let go for just a moment that this fiction with past tense. And... by the way, _not every book states if it was based on a true story or not_. 

I guess you can write a true story and tell it in first person, but that doesn't seem natural. People usually speak in past tense when they talk about actual events. Which is why the atticle mentions jokes, because when you tell a joke, many times you use present tense.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jun 18, 2015)

Terry, I have no idea what you are talking about.

_The Cardinal and the Kremlin_ begins:



> They called him the Archer. It was an honorable title, though his countrymen had cast aside their reflex bows over a centuay before, as soon as they had learned about firearms.


Since you say there must be a narrator and a "narrator present" and someone other than the author to collect all the details of the story -- who is the narrator?

The point of view shifts. A few pages later:

_The missile screamed its readiness at the Archer now, but still he was patient. He put his mind into that of his target, and judged that the pilot would come closer still before his helicopter had the shot he wanted at the hated Afghans._

This is now POV of the Archer. Is the archer now the narrator?

A page later the POV switches to the helicopter pilot. Is he now the narrator of that section? ("Each time the writer changes POV the narrator changes.")


Anyone can answer.


----------



## Bakslashjack (Jun 18, 2015)

I've only seen present tense work in 1st person. Otherwise it's just better to write in past tense.


----------



## Mesafalcon (Jun 18, 2015)

Bakslashjack said:


> I've only seen present tense work in 1st person. Otherwise it's just better to write in past tense.



I agree with the second part especially.

I like to look at present tense as a fad.

_I'm glad it exsists for the sake of variety_... that's the best I can say about it.


----------



## Sprobve (Jun 18, 2015)

*past tense or present tense*

I learned something new today:        Past tense comes in two forms: -di and -mi. -di indicates that you saw the action, -mi indicates that you heard about it so youre transferring information. Example: Birisi oday temizlemi.  Somebody cleaned the room. O valizini toplad.   She packed the suitcase  or is it her suitcase?? O, ödevini bitirdi.   She finished her homework.  Feel free to add more examples here:


----------



## Sam (Jun 18, 2015)

No, don't feel free. 

This is an English-speaking forum, designed to help people improve their _English. _While I'm sure the Turkish language has many nuances that we're not familiar with, this is not the forum to discuss them. I'm sure there are many forums on the Internet that will accommodate such discussion. We're not one of them. 

In other words: "English, dude, English."


----------



## Kevin (Jun 18, 2015)

> Since you say there must be a narrator and a "narrator present" and someone other than the author to collect all the details of the story -- who is the narrator?
> 
> The point of view shifts. A few pages later:
> 
> ...


  --- The narrator is no one. It is an 'unspecified entity',  just how the author speaks while telling the story. Unless they insert a name and start speaking with I or you, this is "third person omniscient", which means that whomever (the unspecified entity) is not a specific character _and _they know everything that is going on, including thoughts, actions.

 In the second passage you may notice that 'he' is used. The perspective is not that of the archer. It is the perspective of someone outside who is both observing the action while knowing the thoughts of the character.  

In the first passage the narrator refers to 'they', 'they' think that or 'they' did this, and in the second, 'he' did this or 'he' felt that. They're the same perspective: from the outside, while being able to know from the inside, without being part of the story. 'Omni'- which means all or everything, and 'scient' which means knowing or seeing. The difference in the two passages is what they are looking at, not who is telling it or how it is told.


----------



## Terry D (Jun 18, 2015)

EmmaSohan said:


> Terry, I have no idea what you are talking about.
> 
> _The Cardinal and the Kremlin_ begins:
> 
> ...



The narrator doesn't matter. Forget about the narrator, your readers will. The only things your readers should be caring about are your characters and your story. There is nothing to be gained from nit-picking 'who' the narrator is, or what their time frame is. Broken down into fine enough detail, nothing in fiction makes logical sense. None of the events are happening, or have ever happened. The characters are not real. The author has made it all up and put it into a book. Readers are reading it because they want to believe and are willing to suspend their disbelief to enjoy the story. The concept of the narrator -- or storyteller -- is one of the basic conventions readers accept. Logically it makes no sense, not in third person past tense, or first person present tense, or in any other combination, but that's okay because readers accept, and even expect, those conventions.


----------



## JustRob (Jun 18, 2015)

Oh gosh, this thread has me confused. I can't think about present tense without recalling Damon Runyon's very distinctive style, but tense was only one part of that. Surely a _story _is expected to be in the past tense and anything else is intended to produce a specific effect, to stand out. 

This is just one example of written language enforcing information content where the author doesn't want or need to provide it. One cannot write without tense just as there are no person-related genderless pronouns. We are forced to state whether a person i_s _or _was_ doing something and whether they are/were _male_ or _female_ at the time even though it may have no relevance to the _story_. In my novel I get away with not revealing the colour of a character's skin but am forced to reveal their gender by the language even though neither is relevant. Similarly tense is forced upon us even though it is often a redundant feature of the language for our purposes. What is the tense of a film? How does its absence of tense affect our immersion in it? Film-makers have their own problems unique to their medium. They would find it difficult to conceal the colour of a character's skin but not too difficult to conceal their gender by employing an androgynous actor. They have to use contrivances to pass information directly to the viewer, a task which is easy for us and our readers by the accepted means of narrative. It is possible to use a narrator in a film but that can itself seem an intrusion on the immersive experience. These remarks all point to the fact that both literature and film-making are themselves contrivances, ways of communicating the experience and the _story, _in a flawed fashion accepted by both the provider and recipient. Given that it seems appropriate to use the conventions most often adopted to avoid the unwanted side-effects of the flaws becoming prominent. In the case of literature past tense appears to achieve this best. 

Runyon's work is endearing to read because it draws attention to the way that it is written, but does that style contribute to the _stories _as such or just the total experience? I recently watched the entire trilogy of the film version of _The Hobbit _in 3D_. _It was an experience but as for the story, all that technology didn't do much for it really. So what's the discussion about here, the story, its presentation or the total experience?

I tend to write in third person subjective and one aspect of that is that the viewpoint is not omniscient and therefore I am not required to tell the truth. I assume that the omniscient is intended to be god-like rather than devil-like and hence truthful by convention, but that's too onerous for me. The thoughts in individual character's minds can always be erroneous so there's no obligation to adhere to absolute truth, whatever that is. The subjective viewpoint is based on thoughts and they have no tense in themselves, so writing about them is bound to be a flawed process. I suspect that sometimes I may stray from the past to present tense simply to remind the reader that they are thoughts, not pure narrative, even though they are not tagged and encapsulated as thought. Film-makers have a problem with thoughts as well of course. Let's just be grateful that we're just writing literature and get on with telling good stories.

Well I did state that this thread had / has me confused. I'm not sure which tense to use even there now.


----------



## Kyle R (Jun 18, 2015)

I love present-tense fiction. I love past-tense fiction, too. They both have their uses. But the argument against present-tense writing ("How can the story be happening while I read it? It's illogical.") seems silly to me.

When I read fiction, I'm reading it because I want to read a story, to feel emotions, to fall in love with new characters. By picking up a book, I've already declared my willingness to experience something imaginative, something born of the author's imagination.

The, "Hey! This can't be happening! This author is trying to trick me!" thought-process makes no sense (to me, at least). I _want_ the author to trick me. That's the whole damn reason I'm reading their writing in the first place. :read:


----------



## Terry D (Jun 18, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> I love present-tense fiction. I love past-tense fiction, too. They both have their uses. But the argument against present-tense writing ("How can the story be happening while I read it? It's illogical.") seems silly to me.
> 
> When I read fiction, I'm reading it because I want to read a story, to feel emotions, to fall in love with new characters. By picking up a book, I've already declared my willingness to experience something imaginative, something born of the author's imagination.
> 
> The, "Hey! This can't be happening! This author is trying to trick me!" thought-process makes no sense (to me, at least). I _want_ the author to trick me. That's the whole damn reason I'm reading their writing in the first place. :read:



I agree, Kyle. That argument against present tense is just a life-preserver people latch on to when they don't like that format, but can't really justify why. I'm not a big fan of present tense, but it's simply my own taste, not because there is anything wrong with it. I've read present tense work that I liked, just not much of it.


----------



## Tettsuo (Jun 18, 2015)

Just to add to all of the knowledge here...

All comics are written in present tense, as are all scripts (plays and movies).


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jun 18, 2015)

Terry D said:


> The narrator doesn't matter. Forget about the narrator...



Yes, please.

I admit that a lot of times, the idea that every book as a narrator is harmless. But sometimes it isn't. That's a problem.

So my questions aren't nitpicking. They are supposed to be like asking how Santa can visit every house in just one night. I was hoping that, although people might be disappointed to learn there was no invisible narrator entity, they would then realize how silly the whole idea is. I think that might help us understand books better.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jun 18, 2015)

Kevin said:


> --- The narrator is no one. It is an 'unspecified entity',  just how the author speaks while telling the story. Unless they insert a name and start speaking with I or you, this is "third person omniscient", which means that whomever (the unspecified entity) is not a specific character _and _they know everything that is going on, including thoughts, actions.
> 
> In the second passage you may notice that 'he' is used. The perspective is not that of the archer. It is the perspective of someone outside who is both observing the action while knowing the thoughts of the character.
> 
> In the first passage the narrator refers to 'they', 'they' think that or 'they' did this, and in the second, 'he' did this or 'he' felt that. They're the same perspective: from the outside, while being able to know from the inside, without being part of the story. 'Omni'- which means all or everything, and 'scient' which means knowing or seeing. The difference in the two passages is what they are looking at, not who is telling it or how it is told.



So, I was reading this book, with what you would call an unspecified entity as narrator. At the end, the main character explains that she learned to read and write in prison and that's when she wrote the book.

Now, here is the important question. Does that mean that there was no unspecified entity as a narrator? Or there still is an unspecified narrator, and that unspecified narrator is narrating that the main character wrote the book. (That would help with the flawless memory of dialogue happening years ago.)

Then this same question would apply to a first-person present narration.


----------



## Sam (Jun 18, 2015)

If they were giving out medals for over-thinking every facet of writing, Emma, yours would be innumerable. 

Forget about unspecified entities, narrators, and anything else you can think to ask about. 

WRITE THE STORY. 

First, second, third, omnisicent, limited, past, present, future -- none of it matters a damn if the story is rubbish.


----------



## ppsage (Jun 19, 2015)

In third person, 'narrator' is shorthand for narrative voice. The quality of the narrative voice is something very much in the necessary purview of any author. Not that it's any good overthinking it.


----------



## Terry D (Jun 19, 2015)

EmmaSohan said:


> Yes, please.
> 
> I admit that a lot of times, the idea that every book as a narrator is harmless. But sometimes it isn't. That's a problem.
> 
> So my questions aren't nitpicking. They are supposed to be like asking how Santa can visit every house in just one night. I was hoping that, although people might be disappointed to learn there was no invisible narrator entity, they would then realize how silly the whole idea is. I think that might help us understand books better.



What part of "forget about the narrator" is hard to understand? There _is no_ problem, except for the confusion _you_ keep trying to generate. The only "silly" aspects of this whole discussion are your attempts to redefine, or ignore, basic concepts of literature. This whole idea can be summed up in just a few words:

Every book has a narrator -- the voice telling the story.

'Who' that narrator is is determined by the the tense (past or present) and narrative form (first person, second, third) the author chooses to use.

That's it.


----------



## Kevin (Jun 19, 2015)

> So, I was reading this book, with what you would call an unspecified entity as narrator. At the end, the main character explains that she learned to read and write in prison and that's when she wrote the book.
> 
> Now, here is the important question. Does that mean that there was no unspecified entity as a narrator?


 Unless she included a mention of herself like "I'm writing this now..." early on as part of the story, _she_ was the unspecified entity, as are you as are you or anyone else who writes a story where they don't say, 'So then I did this...' That she later says that she was inspired by, or used her experiences of doesn't change the form she used.



> same question would apply to a first-person present narration.


 A first-person by definition is not unspecified. You may start out not knowing who they are exactly, but the story becomes their experiences, first hand, which makes them a character in the story.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jun 19, 2015)

Kevin said:


> Unless she included a mention of herself like "I'm writing this now..." early on as part of the story, _she_ was the unspecified entity, as are you as are you or anyone else who writes a story where they don't say, 'So then I did this...' That she later says that she was inspired by, or used her experiences of doesn't change the form she used.
> 
> A first-person by definition is not unspecified. You may start out not knowing who they are exactly, but the story becomes their experiences, first hand, which makes them a character in the story.



So, _The Old Man and the Sea_ (presumably) has a narrator, and it isn't the old man or Hemingway. Let's call this supernatural entity SE. Now, for the audio book, Donald Southerland narrates, and he is called the narrator in the description. Is SE still the narrator? Are they both narrators, but different kinds of narrators?


And, the narrator of Revival creates an imaginary world. One of the imaginary people in this world is Jaime. According to the narration in this imaginary world, Jaime wrote the book after the events in the book. Is the narrator creating Jaime and imaginary narrator? Or is Jaime the actual narrator? Can an imaginary person narrate a real book?

I think answers to these questions might help me understand.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jun 19, 2015)

Or not. I think I better say my point. If the narration is unreliable, people say there is an unrealizable narrator. That's a dead end -- all that tells you is that the narration was unreliable, which is where you started. It's a harmless game, I guess, unless the people could be using their time more usefully.

But

Just as people watching a movie know that there is a cameraman and the actors are just reading lines, readers know it's just a book with a fiction story. But they want to temporarily believe that the imaginary world is real, and they want to think the events are happening now, and they want to care about the characters.

If you create a narrator within your book, you are telling your reader that it is just a story being told. They don't want to think of it as a story. So you are harming the reader's immersion. (Or whatever you want to call it.) Just so you know.


----------



## Terry D (Jun 19, 2015)

Emma, you couldn't possibly be more wrong. But it is obvious you don't care to learn even the basics of story structure, so, I'm mot wasting anymore time here.


----------



## lzbeth97 (Jun 20, 2015)

I personally prefer past.  Even when I try to write in present I find myself going to past, but I think the type of story plays into which you should choose.  That and your personal preference.


----------



## boristofu (Jun 20, 2015)

I haven't read much books in my life, practically ignorant in understanding structures and the technical stuff. 

Reading past tense seems most natural in storytelling for me, however, present tense creates this magical atmosphere as if the story happens as it is being told. 

The last book I read was _Madness_ by _Marya Hornbacher. _Is it different because it is a memoir ?

Oh, and for the sake of not being a complete idiot. Madness considered as present tense, right ? except where she comments things from the time writing the story and not from the narrator perspective. Uhhhhh I'm confused, does that makes sense ? 

Anyway, I'm trying to write in a style like that but have troubles because naturally I tend to write stuff as if they happened in the past, describing the past. 
Any tips on writing in present tense ?


----------



## scrub puller (Jun 20, 2015)

Yair. . .* 

EmmaSohan.  

*As folks on here are trying to explain . . . story telling has different forms and structure and how the writer tells it doesn't matter a damn so long as it works. If it is done well the reader will become immersed within the story. 

The biggest problem I have is with a form of "unreliable narration". 

That is to say:- people (mostly young folks) writing of things about which they don't have a clue. 

They haven't driven a team of horses or shot .44 handgun or have ever been thirsty or hungry and then they have the hide to write about it and describe it and expect me to believe it. 

The fact that *MOST* of the readers will be content to take their word for it makes it okay for their purpose  . . . but it don't cut no ice with grumpy old farts like me.

This is one of the reasons (I think) that some of the fantasy genres are running strong. That is to say (within reason) the details just don't matter, things can happen. 

 I speed and flip-read a lot to keep up with current trends and I must say among the crap there is some very good writing out there.

 If some of those kids live a life and continue with their craft they will even be able to write about the real world.

Just as an aside on this off topic post there was, for a while, the style of writing where the narrator bought the reader into the story by addressing them as "dear reader", such as . . . "And then dear reader, Artimus made a very strange decision ect. ect."


Cheers.


----------



## Sam (Jun 20, 2015)

EmmaSohan said:


> If you create a narrator within your book, you are telling your reader that it is just a story being told. They don't want to think of it as a story. So you are harming the reader's immersion. (Or whatever you want to call it.) Just so you know.



It _is _just a story being told. Every reader who has ever lived has known and accepted that. 

But despite the fact that it's just a story being told, every reader knows that they have to suspend reality in order to read and enjoy it. It's the exact same thing as watching at television show or going to a movie. We know the characters aren't real. They're actors pretending to be someone else. But if the performance is good enough, we suspend reality for that one, two, or three hours and believe that the character is real and not just someone paid to act that way. 

That's what suspension of reality is. It's knowing that something cannot possibly be real, but accepting it because there is no other way to project those mediums; mediums that are invariably fictional by their own nature. Saying it harms reader immersion is patently BS. 

In other words: you can't cast a real serial killer in the role of a fake one, and you cannot _*tell*_ a story without a narrator. So, for the thousandth time, stop trying to reinvent the wheel and write the story the way stories have been written since time immemorial.


----------



## ppsage (Jun 20, 2015)

Details always matter.


----------



## scrub puller (Jun 20, 2015)

Yair . . . 

*ppsage

*Details don't matter in fantasy.

 Writers can (and do) rearrange their universe and how it functions any way they want . . . it doesn't have to relate to "reality" as we know it is the point I make.

Cheers.


----------



## ppsage (Jun 21, 2015)

Details are always important in fiction even when they have no relation to reality. Fiction, even fantasy, is made out of details and they are always important. They may be most important, when they're completely imaginary. The importance of imaginary details to fiction cannot be over-stressed. They're what makes it seem real.


----------



## scrub puller (Jun 21, 2015)

Yair . . .

Gotcha*  ppsage. *I see where you are coming from.

May I reword that to say that in fantasy the details are important in as much as they should remain constant within the duration and context of the tale. 

There is no need for said details to have relevance in this or any other universe or dimension.

Cheers.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jun 21, 2015)

In first-person present tense, you could think of the main character as narrating the story to the reader.

Or, you could think of the story as being the thoughts of the main character.

The two are very similar. But if the author is trying to portray thoughts, and you the reader are thinking of it as narration, I don't think that's going to work very well.

Authors tend to lean one way or the author, but most seem to mix the two. (I have been looking at this this weekend.)

Examples of things that are hard to explain as the main character narrating to the reader include nonrhetorical questions and comments to other people.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jun 21, 2015)

> I see a few friends -- people who I used to think were my friends -- but they look away. Think fast, think fast.



You can take the first sentence either way -- as what she is telling the reader, or her perception of what is happening. But in the second sentence, she is talking to herself, not the reader. (from _Speak_)



> Who would send me a shoebox of audiotapes? No one listens to audio tapes any more. Do I even have a way to play them?
> The garage! The stereo on the workbench.



His thought processes. He is, like we all do, asking himself a question and then answering it. He is not talking to the reader. If you want a narrator -- the narrator is telling us his thoughts. (from _Thirteen Reasons Why_)

And you can contrast those to when the main character is obviously talking to the reader.

I am a lawyer, and I am in prison. It's a long story. [then starts main character telling the story]

(_The Racketeer_, by John Grisham.)


----------



## bazz cargo (Jun 21, 2015)

Hi Pencat,
you ask an interesting question. Tense, like all other grammar devices are just tools that a writer uses to craft their work. You work with the one you think is best for the job. 

Hi Emma,
I'm still experimenting with my work, probably will never  stop. I lean towards past tense but have worked some in the present. I  suspect there is no hard and fast rule as to which tense works best,  just which one suits the writer best.

And as to the Narrator,  that is a complicated situation. The Narrator can be just one, or two or  many different voices. The Narrator can be a character within the  story, an observer of the story and even a blend of both. You can even have an unreliable narrator. Don't believe a word the say.

The choice of what tense, what kind of narrator and many other facets of a story are purely down to the writer. 
Best of luck
Bazz


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Jun 21, 2015)

Riptide said:


> I usually mimic the last book I read, if that helps you any.



Wow.  I really wish I was able to do that - I'd just read the greats all the time and then channel them.
On the same note, be damn careful what you are reading then.  Nuff said.

David Gordon Burke


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Jun 21, 2015)

We've been over this past vs. present thing many times.
The first time I heard it I read someone state that if a book was written in first person they were likely NOT to read it and if it was first person present they definitley wouldn't touch it.

Aside from certain genres like detective novels a la Raymond Chandler, I absolutely refuse to read any more first person tripe.  That goes double for present tense (with the exception of some very rare exceptions)

Present tense and first person is all TELL and no SHOW.  It's all vomiting backstory by the characters instead of subtle exposition.  It no longer has any of the lessons that I want to learn.  

Take into account that a good portion of the well-read-educated crowd will likely have a similiar opinion.  Ok, your YA audience might like it, you might even sell a bunch but then it will be instantly forgotten.

I'd rather write Stairway to Heaven then Who let the dogs out.
David Gordon Burke


----------



## Mesafalcon (Jun 22, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> But the argument against present-tense writing ("How can the story be happening while I read it? It's illogical.") seems silly to me



It's not so much "an argument" as it is a feeling I get that takes away from it.

Expressing the way something makes me feel, is not really arguing. It's saying : _it doesn't work for me, here's why ..._


----------



## Kyle R (Jun 22, 2015)

Mesafalcon said:


> It's not so much "an argument" as it is a feeling I get that takes away from it.
> 
> Expressing the way something makes me feel, is not really arguing. It's saying : it doesn't work for me, here's why ...



Oh, I don't think we're arguing, either, Mesa. Not in that way.

When I say "argument," I mean a process of reasoning. Not "argument," as in a verbal disagreement. Same word, different meanings. :encouragement:


----------



## Kyle R (Jun 22, 2015)

David Gordon Burke said:


> Present tense and first person is all TELL and no SHOW. It's all vomiting backstory by the characters instead of subtle exposition. It no longer has any of the lessons that I want to learn.
> 
> Take into account that a good portion of the well-read-educated crowd will likely have a similiar opinion. Ok, your YA audience might like it, you might even sell a bunch but then it will be instantly forgotten.


I'd say those things depend on the writer.

Not all present-tense fiction is written in a blundering, forgettable manner.

A skilled writer can work wonders with whatever tense he or she chooses to use. :encouragement:


----------



## Tettsuo (Jun 22, 2015)

David Gordon Burke said:


> Present tense and first person is all TELL and no SHOW.  It's all vomiting backstory by the characters instead of subtle exposition.  It no longer has any of the lessons that I want to learn.
> David Gordon Burke



Are you saying that 1st person-present's default is to show and not tell?


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jun 22, 2015)

David Gordon Burke said:


> We've been over this past vs. present thing many times.
> The first time I heard it I read someone state that if a book was written in first person they were likely NOT to read it and if it was first person present they definitley wouldn't touch it.
> 
> Aside from certain genres like detective novels a la Raymond Chandler, I absolutely refuse to read any more first person tripe.  That goes double for present tense (with the exception of some very rare exceptions)
> ...



Stairway to Heaven is obviously present tense, and probably first person. ("And it makes me wonder")


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Jun 23, 2015)

Tettsuo said:


> Are you saying that 1st person-present's default is to show and not tell?



I´d say first person is TELL.  The narration by definition is telling.  Getting around that is bloody tricky.  Present is not really a factor here but it´s being overdone lately.  
If you can show me a good example of 1st person that is not all telling, I´d love to read it.  
These days I am horrified if I pick up a book and it´s 1st person.  Other than a few genre specific styles, I stay away.  Far away.
David Gordon Burke


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Jun 23, 2015)

EmmaSohan said:


> Stairway to Heaven is obviously present tense, and probably first person. ("And it makes me wonder")



That was a tongue in cheek, sarcastic comment right?  You realize I was talking about a classic vs. pop tripe as oppossed to the tense of the songs?
What works in a song has little to do with what works in literature.  

David Gordon Burke


----------



## Kevin (Jun 23, 2015)

Which part? that  it really makes her wonder or that you consider it tripe? They do mention Mordor in another song.  Okay... I'm just playing. 

First person can be about not what they're telling. There's so many things that can be implied without coming right out and saying it, so it is possible. The narrator can imply a lot things, which, I think by definition is not telling.  You can also have a first person narrator that is mistaken, or lying, on purpose, purposefully_ by the author. _The narrator can describe things or situations without comprehending what the reader would. He could lie, or draw wrong conclusions/have mistaken ideas that the reader would pick up on, and yet the narrator does not. 


I've seen it in third person, too, where two characters agreed on something and they were mistaken; their math was wrong. The author had done this on purpose in my opinion, to show their fallibility, imperfection, and therefor humanity. He didn't have to prove it, he just had them say it and it was wrong and obvious. I thought it was really cool, and humourous. They were baffled by their own b.s.


----------



## ppsage (Jun 23, 2015)

According to this hopeless definition, all texts are telling; there is no showing. First person narration doesn't preclude imagery, which is how showing works. Often the ease with which the narration assumes personality in first person creates highly effective showing tropes. The pretension of this can be harder to mask in third person, where characterizing lingo isn't expected.


----------



## Terry D (Jun 23, 2015)

I give you first person present tense. I think this is showing. A bit purple, but showing none-the-less.

_The clouds pull themselves down from the sky in veils of rain and they pull my spirit with them. Mud tugs at my boots with each step as heavy as guilt, as thick as memory. I cross the crest of a low ridge and see a village squeezed against the bank of the river by the forest. Black smoke rolls from holes burned in slumped roofs and from un-shuttered windows that look like dead eyes. A sluggish breeze pushes the pall up the face of the ridge in thin, greasy tatters which carry the charnel-house stench of scorched flesh. “Not here,” I pray. “Please don’t let me find her here.”_


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jun 23, 2015)

David Gordon Burke said:


> That was a tongue in cheek, sarcastic comment right?  You realize I was talking about a classic vs. pop tripe as oppossed to the tense of the songs?
> What works in a song has little to do with what works in literature.
> 
> David Gordon Burke



I thought it was a nice "show" -- that you could like something written in first-person present and not even realize it was written that way. And you did that show in first person present tense!

I was studying Clancy a little. He often wants to tell us what his MC is thinking, so we get sentences like _Ryan thought that..._ That's a little clunky and can be handled better in first-person present. And when he needs to, he writes out thoughts in first person present. Using italics. That's clunky too, compared to first person present.

Those probably never bothered you. One of the skills of a writer who uses third person POV is knowing when to write in first-person present and being able to do it well.

(I'm not touting first person present -- I have to deal with the parts of my book that work much better in first-person past tense.)


----------



## Arrakis (Jul 7, 2015)

Terry D said:


> This isn't going to be a satisfying answer, but you choose the tense which best fits the story you want to tell. Present tense is all the rage now, but past tense has served writers well for generations. There is no one 'better ' way. It's all a matter of personal preference.



I second this post.

I personally prefer past tense, but occasionally I'll write mine short stories in present tense.

Choose whichever strikes your fancy.


----------



## DaBlaRR (Aug 22, 2015)

This is my biggest struggle that I am dealing with with my story. Why does everyone however, always refer to it as first person present. Does no one do third person present?


----------



## Kyle R (Aug 22, 2015)

DaBlaRR said:


> Does no one do third person present?


I see it a lot in Literary Fiction, and also in Historical Fiction.

Though first-present stories are, in the grand scheme of things, more common.

The exception would be screenwriting—as all screenwriters write in third-person present. :encouragement:


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 22, 2015)

Mr. Mercedes, by Stephen King, is in third person present.


----------

