# STRUGGLES HELPPPPP



## DaBlaRR (Aug 22, 2015)

I have written my whole first draft in third person present. I was directed to a thread that was previously posted that was a big debate on present vs past. Most seemed to lean towards past. But most of the talk in that thread was referring to first person present and not third. I personally wouldn't never want to write in first person present. But I do like third present.

Anyways, I am not sure if I should change the story from present to past. I have tried a few times to do this on my second round and it is just not flowing for me. It's causing a major block and disruption in getting this done. 

Just to repeat this is third person present not first. Why is it such an issue to write in third person present. When I tried to change this story to past, it separated me from it in a way that just didn't feel right. 

Another thing, in the beginning chapter there is this line of narration:

*He finds it almost comical that his Mother thinks a different place to live, while she works another dead end job, is going to make things different. Can things be different? It is such a frustrating question when the answer always remains the same. Okay, maybe it’s not so comical after all.

*The reason I'm using this as an example is because of the line where it says "his mother thinks a different place to live, etc. etc..."

If I did that third person past, it would read as *He found it comical that his mother thought a different place to live bla bla bla would be better.
*
In the past version, it's almost like the narrator,  by saying thought, is disclosing the fact that this place is going to suck cause he is telling the story and already knows that....Where as THINKS leaves it open, like maybe this place they moved won't suck.... This is just one small example... 

I don't know if I'm explaining myself properly. This is the first time I have been this frustrated with the process...


----------



## Kyle R (Aug 22, 2015)

Anthony Doerr won the Pulitzer Prize with his third-person present novel, _All the Light We Cannot See_.

Jessie Burton's debut novel, _The Miniaturist_, received rave reviews and won several awards. Also written in third-person present.

If third-person present feels right for your story, I say go with it. It's as good a choice as any.

Some authors, like those listed above, work magic with it. So can you. :encouragement:


----------



## Riis Marshall (Aug 22, 2015)

Hello Da

Ditto Kyle - if it feels right, do it.

Also, we're always telling each other here on these fora to read, read, read. Get your hands on the books Kyle suggests, then find some more in your genre writing in the person and tense that interests you and see how others do it.

All the best with your writing.

Warmest regards
Riis


----------



## K.S. Crooks (Aug 22, 2015)

Go with what comes natural to you. I also write in third person present, because past tense feels to me like the story has already happened and I need to catch up on what I missed. But consider that in the end most people don't remember what tense a book they read was in. The only ones I remember are the Narnia books are third-past and the Hunger Games books are first-present.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Aug 22, 2015)

At least it´s not first person present.  
(Insert vomiting noises here)

BTW - Make a new copy.  Word search the whole document.  Change every verb to past.  Read it.  Edit.  (Should take a day/week or so)  How hard is that?  Get back to us as to whether it works better or not.  Easy Peasy.  

David Gordon Burke


----------



## Terry D (Aug 22, 2015)

Remember that any comment in a thread is only opinion and personal preference. There is nothing wrong with 3rd present. Do what's right for your book.


----------



## stevesh (Aug 22, 2015)

Depends, I guess, on who you're writing for. I find fiction written in present tense annoying. What's the purpose of writing your story that way?


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 22, 2015)

When people write in third person past, their point of view is often first person present -- the reader knows that the narration is the main characters thoughts, and the reader knows that past tense is being used to describe the events happening in the "present" of the book. So I am not sure it makes a big difference.

But what most everyone said -- the reader probably isn't going to notice and present tense works fine. One of the main reasons for choosing one over the other is what is comfortable to you -- that's probably what your most skilled at.


----------



## DaBlaRR (Aug 23, 2015)

I have been asking myself the same question. The reason or purpose. My purpose is my gut. The past tense tells a story that the narrator knows and already happened. I don't want the narrator to know. I can't do past. I want to show the reader what happens as it happens. I don't want to tell the reader a story that already happened.


----------



## J Anfinson (Aug 23, 2015)

Tell the story how it wants to be told. If no other way feels right, then you're telling it right. That's what I think.


----------



## bazz cargo (Aug 23, 2015)

I suspect it depends on the effect you are aiming for. Small and claustrophobic, or big and sweeping with lots of characters. 

Best of luck
BC


----------



## John Oberon (Aug 24, 2015)

Nothing wrong with third or even first person present. It's just that, for whatever reason, present tense opens the door for narcissistic writing. That's the main problem for beginners in my opinion. My guess is that beginners get so close to their characters and enjoy "being" their characters so much that they forget they need to tell a story with action instead of letting the characters yammer about themselves. That's the primary problem I've seen over and over again. However, if you can advance a story in present tense, more power to you, and there's no need to change it in my opinion. From the little I've read of your writing, DaBlaRR, you don't seem to have much trouble with narcissistic writing.


----------



## jenthepen (Aug 24, 2015)

As a reader, I like third person present a lot because, as you say, it feels as though the story is unfolding as it is being read. It is much harder to write well in the present tense and I suspect that is why most writers don't attempt it, unless they are writing from a personal viewpoint and using the first person. If it is working for you and you're not coming up against too many descriptive challenges, I applaud you and urge you to listen to your own artistic preference. 

jen


----------



## Bishop (Aug 24, 2015)

I'm personally of the thought process that unless you have a very good, intentional, necessary reason to use something other than third person past, use third person past. Of my novels, nearly all of them are 3rd past, save one. 

But, as said throughout this thread, use what feels right for your story; if you're not comfortable writing a certain way, it'll show to the reader through the way you write it. Personally, reading and writing 3rd past seems the most natural to me; the story comes across like it's being told to me over a campfire. I like that. There's also a certainty to it that I find ineffable and strong: "He moved into the room." To me, it's concrete: he did that. No questions, no interpretations... it happened that way. "He moves into the room..." sounds more like a dungeons and dragons game. 

Then again, I play a lot of DnD...


----------



## Sam (Aug 24, 2015)

What you have to remember, as Bishop hinted at above, is that third-person past is industry-standard across the board. You will rarely come on third-person present. If you do, it will more than likely be in young adult or children's books. If you're writing for adults, and you have no compelling reason to write anything other than third-person past, write in third-person past, as Bishop said.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 24, 2015)

Sam said:


> *...do...as Bishop said.*



That's the takeaway here.


----------



## Terry D (Aug 24, 2015)

Most of Stephen King's,_ Mr. Mercedes_ is told in third/present, as is Dan Simmons', _Black Hills_. It's a choice that is becoming more popular, and I think it will continue to do so (along with 1st/present) as the newer generations of writers who are currently learning to love reading start making their tense/POV choices. I write all my novels in third/past, but I often make different choices for my short stuff.


----------



## Kyle R (Aug 25, 2015)

Bishop said:
			
		

> . . . unless you have a very good, intentional, necessary reason to use something other than third person past, use third person past.





			
				Sam said:
			
		

> If you're writing for adults, and you have no compelling reason to write anything other than third-person past, write in third-person past . . .



I'm not a _total_ fan of this advice. I know it's often recommended, and it's almost always advised in a well-intentioned way. Some of my favorite authors even espouse it. "Third-person past is familiar. Why reinvent the wheel? Use it because it's common and proven, unless you have a good reason not to."

But this implies that third-person past is somehow the "default" POV/tense for stories, while all other POVs/tenses require justification.

The problem I have with that is: there's no such thing as a default story. Each story is different, and may have different needs.

Yes, I totally agree that a writer should have a good reason for choosing their POV/tense. But I believe third-person past should be scrutinized (and it's use justified) just as much as any other narrative approach.

Third-person past shouldn't get a free pass (or be promoted to the front of the pack) simply because it's popular. It should be weighed and considered just like any other narrative choice.

Just because it's the popular choice for other writers, that doesn't somehow make it the right choice for your own story. It might be! But it could just as easily not be.

The only default POV/tense (in my opinion) is the one that serves the story best. :encouragement:


----------



## Sam (Aug 25, 2015)

What you have to remember when choosing any POV is that the unfamiliar is as much a curse as it is a blessing. Readers are used to third-person past. It's the style in 90 - 95% of third-person books on the market. So when you do something different, something that readers aren't used to, it can jerk them out of the story; distract them; make the read exhausting. In other words, it draws needless attention to the style instead of the story, and while that can work for shorter fiction, in a novel it becomes tiresome. 

When you write any kind of fiction, the last thing you want to do is draw your reader away from the story because they're concentrating on something else. The majority of people read third-person past without any thought whatsoever, because they've been reading it that way their whole life, but when it comes to third-person present, it calls attention to itself in a way that forces a reader to think about what they're reading. 

So unless you have a reason for shooting yourself in the foot, don't shoot yourself in the foot.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 25, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> Third-person past shouldn't get a free pass (or be promoted to the front of the pack) simply because it's popular. It should be weighed and considered just like any other narrative choice.



It's not because it's popular, it's because it's the default for nearly every style of writing that an average person ingests in a day. News articles, textbooks, lab reports, historical analysis, the vast majority of fiction, gossiping with your deskmate, memos at the office... all of them utilize it as the primary mode of writing. Yes there are exceptions: Many news articles have the reporter take on a personal role in the story, but standards just... exist. If you work for the New York Times and write that article about the NYC Marathon in first person present, your editor's going to ask for a damn good reason before firing you--and it better be that you were writing it while in the process of running the marathon. ("My legs are getting very tired at this point, my shoes flexing with wear. This pen is bouncing all around the page, and the girl next to me shoots me a stink-eye.")

It's important because of the old adage "don't break the rules until you've mastered them". Much of what you say and read is in 3rd person past, or at the very least, 1st person past ("What did you do last night?" "I went to see Jack. He was sitting on the porch, drinking tea."). The last time I deviated from that is when I decided it would be fun to annoy Bishopette and narrate my life as I went along ("I walk into the door, and she looks me dead in the eye. 'Still with this narration?' she tells me. 'Of course,' I say. ... Hours later, I find myself preparing the couch as my makeshift bed..."). So when someone's setting out to tell a story for the first time, what should their starting point be? 2nd Person present? It might feel right for the story, but that person's going to be fighting uphill to get that coherent.

3rd past, like it or not, is often a natural way of speaking, moreover a natural way of telling stories. Stories began as oral tradition, a tradition that spoke of legends and history, all of which predicated on the use of a 3rd person past. When in school, learning about just about anything BUT math, you're getting doses of 3rd person past--hell, even in math: "Pythagoras discovered the this equation..."

But you have a point; what serves the story best is what should be used. But there are times where a writer might not be able to use the "ideal" POV. So, thereby the story suffers and suddenly it's not exactly right for the story's quality. In my opinion, requiring "good reason" to use another POV is a dividing point because otherwise it just fits with how people perceive stories. It's a natural, traditional extension of eons of mankind telling stories in that way; it augments itself with the learned speech patterns and understanding that's ingrained in your mind since birth, and builds on existing skills.

Then again, I suppose there are some people out there for whom first person present feels most natural... but I think like left handed people, that's not the norm.


----------



## DaBlaRR (Aug 25, 2015)

Thanks for all the input guys.

The one common statement I hear from you guys here, and other places, is that "you should have a good reason." I would love someone to enlighten me with an example of these reasons. 

I didn't originally really know what my reason was, it was more so the writing was just flowing in that tense. I rewrote two chapters in past. I found that I completely got separated from the story. So I got one of my beta readers to read through it without me saying anything about being separated from it, she felt the same way. 

So my reason, #1 was my gut. It's something I feel has to be told as it happens, not after the fact. Other than that, I don't have a solid reason. It's just a solid feeling. 

As far as tenses go. The only one I HATE is first person present. I never read anything in the second person, so can't judge. I have a hard time seeing how that would work, or if I'd like it. Anyone have or know of a short story that is written in the second person that is decent?


----------



## Terry D (Aug 25, 2015)

DaBlaRR said:


> Thanks for all the input guys.
> 
> The one common statement I hear from you guys here, and other places, is that "you should have a good reason." I would love someone to enlighten me with an example of these reasons.
> 
> ...



That's reason enough in my book. :salut:


----------



## Bishop (Aug 25, 2015)

DaBlaRR said:


> I never read anything in the second person, so can't judge. I have a hard time seeing how that would work, or if I'd like it. Anyone have or know of a short story that is written in the second person that is decent?



Go to your local library and grab any "Choose Your Own Adventure" novel.  Oh! Or play a game of Dungeons and Dragons...

As for your reasons, there's no concrete list of "acceptable" reasons. You just need to have that purpose, and move forward with it. The rub lies in that coming across effectively to the reader, without you ever saying so.


----------



## Kyle R (Aug 25, 2015)

I'm grateful for the variety of tenses and POVs available to writers (and, by extension, to readers). I'd find the world of literature a pretty boring place if every story were written the same.

Is third-person past common and proven? Absolutely. That's why I find divergences from it so darn refreshing. Beat to the rhythm of your own drum, please. I thank you all the more for it.

I believe it's important for a writer to trust their instincts. As Oscar Wilde famously said, "Be yourself; everyone else is already taken."

If your instincts lead you down the path of the tried and true? More power to you! You're in the company of kings. If your instincts lead you off the beaten path? Way to go! Plant a flag on your new land. Let the world know where you've been.

Now if we're talking about what's traditional or most common, I can put forth the argument that life itself is the most common experience we all share. Writing, reading, eating, sex . . . life encompasses it all, and more. And we experience life in one singular way: first person, present tense.

What greater narrative choice than the POV/tense of human experience?

But that's just my own personal preference. We all have our own. And thankfully so! It gives us more things to [strike]argue about[/strike] . . . ahem, objectively discuss. :distracted:


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 25, 2015)

Sports announcers often use present tense. Jokes? "A man walked into a bar" got 45,000 hits on Google, "a man walks into a bar" got 236,000.

If you want to decide between tenses, you should understand the problems with past tense. In my experience, that is not a popular topic. And you have to know how to handle those problems, so there is something to be said for staying in the tense you are familiar with.

Do readers get jolted? I think I'm not sure they even notice. I think I read 50 pages of the Racketeer without realizing it was first person present. King writing in present tense got a 0 on the Richter scale.

I'm not arguing for one versus the other. But if DaBlaRR is comfortable in present tense and doesn't like his writing in past tense, present tense seems like a good choice for him.


----------



## Sam (Aug 25, 2015)

The problem with past tense? 

There is no problem with past tense. That's why it's been the standard for hundreds of years.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 25, 2015)

EmmaSohan said:


> If you want to decide between tenses, you should understand the problems with past tense. In my experience, that is not a popular topic. And you have to know how to handle those problems, so there is something to be said for staying in the tense you are familiar with.



I honestly don't know of any "problems" with any tense. Each can be limiting in its own way, save possibly for Third Omniscient, which can include any and all you want... the issue at hand is its place in storytelling. Traditionally, stories are told in third person past--yes, that's changing with modern writing styles, but it remains the one most accessible to new writers and to all readers. I hear readers often enough complain that they can't stand books written in certain tenses or POVs... but I've never heard someone say, "Wow, I couldn't put that book down fast enough. I hate third person, past tense."


----------



## Tettsuo (Aug 25, 2015)

Bishop said:


> I honestly don't know of any "problems" with any tense. Each can be limiting in its own way, save possibly for Third Omniscient, which can include any and all you want... the issue at hand is its place in storytelling. Traditionally, stories are told in third person past--yes, that's changing with modern writing styles, but it remains the one most accessible to new writers and to all readers. I hear readers often enough complain that they can't stand books written in certain tenses or POVs... but I've never heard someone say, "Wow, I couldn't put that book down fast enough. I hate third person, past tense."



Present tense is what all plays are written in.  So no, it's a not some new fangled thing that only folks new to writing want to do.

Sorry, I'm just getting sick of viewpoint being repeated.


----------



## Tettsuo (Aug 25, 2015)

Sam said:


> The problem with past tense?
> 
> There is no problem with past tense. That's why it's been the standard for hundreds of years.



You do know that present tense has been used for just as many years as past, right?


----------



## Bishop (Aug 25, 2015)

Tettsuo said:


> Present tense is what all plays are written in.  So no, it's a not some new fangled thing that only folks new to writing want to do.
> 
> Sorry, I'm just getting sick of viewpoint being repeated.



That's why earlier I said "vast majority" not "all of". Moreover, plays in the written form are meant to be a guide for performance, and the true art of which is built upon by the actors and setup of the production as a whole. I studied Shakespeare for four years, and I can tell you right now: Reading a play does not have even close to the effect of seeing it performed.

I could just as easily say music lyrics are often written in past tense, but that has no bearing on literature, it's an entirely different medium.


----------



## Tettsuo (Aug 25, 2015)

Bishop said:


> That's why earlier I said "vast majority" not "all of". Moreover, plays in the written form are meant to be a guide for performance, and the true art of which is built upon by the actors and setup of the production as a whole. I studied Shakespeare for four years, and I can tell you right now: Reading a play does not have even close to the effect of seeing it performed.
> 
> I could just as easily say music lyrics are often written in past tense, but that has no bearing on literature, it's an entirely different medium.



Not sure if I'm understanding your point.

I'm pointing out the fact that present tense is not a few form of writing that new writers are using nowadays.  It's just as old as past tense.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 25, 2015)

Tettsuo said:


> Not sure if I'm understanding your point.
> 
> I'm pointing out the fact that present tense is not a few form of writing that new writers are using nowadays.  It's just as old as past tense.



I wasn't saying the tense was new, what I was saying was that new writers (IE one just starting within the craft) would likely be more adept at using 3rd past because it's used much more widely in a daily environment, as well as a literary one. Similarly, I did mention that present tenses are beginning to rise in popularity as of late, and because the conventions of literature have rapidly changed within the last 100 years, a lot more within the craft is made available to readers--mostly because technological advances in publishing have allotted for a wider variety of available.

Linguistics wise, of course present tense is as old as past tense. Within the craft, its popularity and usage is relatively new. Note the word 'relatively'.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 25, 2015)

Sam said:


> The problem with past tense?
> 
> There is no problem with past tense. That's why it's been the standard for hundreds of years.



1. If you are describing the "book present" in past tense, and you want to do a flashback, you can use past of the past tense (past perfect). If you then want to describe something that happened before the events in the flashback, you are out of tenses.

No one is saying that is a big problem, but it is a problem, more so if you have a lot of flashbacks. The solutions can be awkward, and I have been confused more than once. (And of course, if you are describing the present of the book in present tense, then flashbacks get the simpler past tense and you still have past-in-the-past for events occurring before the "present" of the flashback.)

2. It's fine to write "Megaltha was the capitol of Xess" in your science fiction book taking place 1000 years in the future where is it the capitol. It's a little awkward to write "Washington was the capitol of the United States" in a book taking place in the present. Beginning writers do ask about this problem. And "My name was Ishmael" is even more awkward. Huge problem, no.

3. You and I know that, writing in past tense, you can write something like "John was now running harder." Authors don't think twice about how past tense can be used to describe an event happening *now*. (Same issue for "here.) But a beginning writer might not know to do that, and it's probably important to learn.

Or, more generally, we want the reader to think of the events we are describing in past tense as happening now. So -- oddly enough -- you can write in past tense, but don't take it too seriously.


----------



## J Anfinson (Aug 25, 2015)

EmmaSohan said:


> 1. If you are describing the "book present" in past tense, and you want to do a flashback, you can use past of the past tense (past perfect). If you then want to describe something that happened before the events in the flashback, you are out of tenses.



I would say if you have that many flashbacks then you're not starting the story in the right spot.


----------



## Terry D (Aug 25, 2015)

EmmaSohan said:


> 1. If you are describing the "book present" in past tense, and you want to do a flashback, you can use past of the past tense (past perfect). If you then want to describe something that happened before the events in the flashback, you are out of tenses.
> 
> No one is saying that is a big problem, but it is a problem, more so if you have a lot of flashbacks. The solutions can be awkward, and I have been confused more than once. (And of course, if you are describing the present of the book in present tense, then flashbacks get the simpler past tense and you still have past-in-the-past for events occurring before the "present" of the flashback.)
> 
> ...



*Nobody writes like that*. Nobody sets them-self up for such a convoluted situation. You are creating an issue where there is none. You are not clarifying anything for novice writers, you are, in fact, creating the confusion you are worried about. I promise you that if there are any beginning writers reading this, your post will be the most confusing one they read here.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 25, 2015)

EmmaSohan said:


> 1. If you are describing the "book present" in past tense, and you want to do a flashback, you can use past of the past tense (past perfect). If you then want to describe something that happened before the events in the flashback, you are out of tenses.
> 
> No one is saying that is a big problem, but it is a problem, more so if you have a lot of flashbacks. The solutions can be awkward, and I have been confused more than once. (And of course, if you are describing the present of the book in present tense, then flashbacks get the simpler past tense and you still have past-in-the-past for events occurring before the "present" of the flashback.)



The simple solution to this:

_Five years earlier..._

Bam. We're in a different time as the main plotline. Use the same ole past tense you've been using the whole time and we know it's five years before the main narrative.



EmmaSohan said:


> 2. It's fine to write "Megaltha was the capitol of Xess" in your science fiction book taking place 1000 years in the future where is it the capitol. It's a little awkward to write "Washington was the capitol of the United States" in a book taking place in the present. Beginning writers do ask about this problem. And "My name was Ishmael" is even more awkward. Huge problem, no.



That's not a problem at all. Specifically because if the book is in the present, there's no need to clarify that point. Just say "We were in Washington when the first bombs fell..." Instead of "Were in the capitol, Washington DC, when the first bombs fell." Hell, even the second example is perfectly fine--little redundant for an American audience, but nice to clarify for someone who might be unfamiliar with US geography. 



EmmaSohan said:


> 3. You and I know that, writing in past tense, you can write something like "John was now running harder." Authors don't think twice about how past tense can be used to describe an event happening *now*. (Same issue for "here.) But a beginning writer might not know to do that, and it's probably important to learn.
> 
> Or, more generally, we want the reader to think of the events we are describing in past tense as happening now. So -- oddly enough -- you can write in past tense, but don't take it too seriously.



So... don't. 

"John ran harder, pushing his legs to their physical limits." Or even, "John ran harder."

And we know that at that point in the story, he's running harder. That's it. No need to bring "now" into it at all. These aren't problems with the tense, but instead mistakes that someone might make. Unclear statements that are no fault of the tense at all. As I said before, there's no PROBLEMS with a tense, only how the reader and writer perceive them. And the blunt reality is that 3rd past is a longstanding, easy to understand and easy to write format. Sure, not for EVERYONE, but for a vast majority.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 25, 2015)

J Anfinson said:


> I would say if you have that many flashbacks then you're not starting the story in the right spot.



Sometime? My memory is that the initial part of _Lisey's Story_, by Stephen King, interleaves her current life with her memories of her husband. That's one of the places where, when I was analyzing one passage, I discovered I had misunderstood it. _Mr. Mercedes_, also by King, I think has a lot of flashbacks. It's hard to argue with King in any case, but I think he was making the right choice for these two books. (He wrote _Mr. Mercedes_ in present tense, so the flashbacks could be in simple past tense, avoiding the tense confusion.)


----------



## J Anfinson (Aug 25, 2015)

EmmaSohan said:


> Sometime? My memory is that the initial part of _Lisey's Story_, by Stephen King, interleaves her current life with her memories of her husband. That's one of the places where, when I was analyzing one passage, I discovered I had misunderstood it. _Mr. Mercedes_, also by King, I think has a lot of flashbacks. It's hard to argue with King in any case, but I think he was making the right choice for these two books. (He wrote _Mr. Mercedes_ in present tense, so the flashbacks could be in simple past tense, avoiding the tense confusion.)



I haven't read King in a while so I'm unfamiliar with those, but a master storyteller can do anything well. My point, though, is that a story should move forward as much as possible. Flashbacks are fine if used well, but if they're bogging down forward momentum you're likely writing a snooze fest, IMO.


----------



## Loulou (Aug 26, 2015)

You should write in the tense/person that is right for the story.  The thought of anyone writing in third person past tense just because most books are written this way is ridiculous (and anyway they're not, not today, I've read plenty of present tense books recently, plenty of first person, plenty with a mixture.)  But choosing an obscure and difficult tense or person just for the sake of it is also silly.  Write what works best for your story.  Present tense gives an immediacy, and makes it easier where occasions of looking back are needed.  First person gives a narrow viewpoint which may work if the main character has a strong voice that you want to shine through.  Third person might suit a book with a huge cast.  As long as you write it well, write it consistently, and make it work, never ever be limited by things you 'shouldn't do', or things that most don't do.  Good God, imagine how boring books would be if we all went with the most done way?  My debut novel is written via three POVs - first person/past tense female, third person/past tense male, and a first person (occasionally present tense) diary.  This sounds pretty complicated, but it isn't.  It was the right way to tell my story.  Be adventurous, be brave, but do it bloody well.


----------



## Sam (Aug 26, 2015)

Hi, Louise. 

We're not saying don't use anything other than third-person past. Promise. 

What we're saying is: don't reinvent the wheel unless you have a bloody good replacement in hand. Third-person past works. It's a seamless tense insofar as the reader doesn't even notice it, which is usually a good thing unless you're writing literary fiction. Third-person present, on the other hand, is much rarer and harder to come on.* That makes it immediately more noticeable, but noticeable can segue into confusing and jarring. 

That's all. We're saying use whatever tense you want, but be aware that it carries risk. 

*Take fifty books off a random bookshelf, and I'd wager a thousand quid that at least forty of them are third-person past. Excluding, of course, first person.


----------



## Loulou (Aug 26, 2015)

Then we're saying more or less the same thing, Sam.  Risk is good though, don't you think?  Because even if it fails, you tried.  And you can then try it a different way.


----------



## Sam (Aug 26, 2015)

It's good to look at it that way, yeah. 

If people didn't take risks, writing wouldn't be where it is today.


----------



## Kyle R (Aug 26, 2015)

‎





			
				DaBlaRR said:
			
		

> . . . I do like third present.
> 
> Anyways, I am not sure if I should change the story from present to past. I have tried a few times to do this on my second round and it is just not flowing for me. It's causing a major block and disruption in getting this done.



There is a voice inside of you
That whispers all day long,
"I feel this is right for me,
I know that this is wrong."
No teacher, preacher, parent, friend
Or wise man can decide
What's right for you—just listen to
The voice that speaks inside.

— Shel Silverstein

​:encouragement:


----------



## Terry D (Aug 26, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> ‎
> There is a voice inside of you
> That whispers all day long,
> "I feel this is right for me,
> ...



Yeah. Serial killers say the same thing...


----------



## Tettsuo (Aug 26, 2015)

Sam said:


> Hi, Louise.
> 
> We're not saying don't use anything other than third-person past. Promise.
> 
> ...


Every tense can be confusing and jarring if written that way.

First person present works.  If done well, the reader won't notice it either.

Do you believe that first person present is harder to write than third past?


----------



## Kyle R (Aug 26, 2015)

There's a difference between changing your story to third-person past because you feel it improves the story (good!), and changing your story to third-person past because other writers have told you to conform (not so good).

I believe the author should go with whatever approach serves them, and the story, the best.

Take any considerations of norms or standards off the table. Choose what works best for you and the work.

If you do this, you will always end up with the best possible version of the story. :encouragement:


----------



## KellInkston (Aug 26, 2015)

Worry not, strong and mighty, quite capable writer- I too am a third person present-tense writer. People will tell you this forever, but they're not your readers anyway- and if they mind that much, then you probably don't even want them to be reading your stuff.

Good luck and keep going. I know you can do it.


----------



## Terry D (Aug 26, 2015)

I haven't seen any suggestion to conform in this thread. In fact, everyone has said do what your story needs. If your story can only be told in second person, then write it that way (personally I don't think there's any one 'best' way to write any story. I can write the same story in a variety of tenses, POVs and styles). This is a website populated, for the greatest part, by hobby writers, serious beginning writers, and semi-pro published authors. For those with aspirations toward getting published, or when published of actually selling books, it is best to understand the reality of reader (including agent and publisher) expectations.

Sam is right, the vast majority of published novels have been written in third person past tense, so anyone who reads should expect that any given book they pick up will be written in third person past tense. Anything other than that requires an adjustment to the reader's expectations. One they may not be willing to make, particularly for an author without a track record of providing a good product. Reading Cormac McCarthy will shatter a reader's expectations when it comes to style, but his reputation provides some assurance that the effort will be repaid. The same goes for King, Palahniuk, Joyce, and any other well know writer who chooses to write in an unconventional manner. Yes, third person present tense is an accepted, legitimate choice, but simply because of it's relative scarcity, it must be considered unconventional in a practical sense.

Unconventional is good. I encourage everyone to try writing in unconventional ways. It trains your writer's mind, and it teaches you what works for you and what doesn't. But we have to be aware that breaking with convention will alienate some readers right from the start. That is a real risk, so when we make choices for our work we need to evaluate our goals in terms of those risks and our intended audience. If I choose write my next book in third/present I need to understand that some people will choose not to read it because it 'sounds' funny to them. Perhaps one of my readers who has read and enjoyed my other books will stick with it until they get accustomed to that different 'sound', perhaps not. If that reader is an agent, or a publisher the risks -- to my career -- are exacerbated. 

Take risks with your writing -- I do -- but don't ignore the fact that they are risks.


----------



## DaBlaRR (Aug 26, 2015)

This forum is awesome, first off. 

I love how the tense questions always cause big debates. Thanks for all your input. 

I almost wish I could change it to past.... But every time I try to, I realize it is wrong. 

But who knows, I just started working on the second draft, so I still have time to change my mind.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 26, 2015)

To augment what Terry said... I've never heard a reader say this: "I took a look at that book, but the minute I started reading it, I had to put it down. I can't stand stories written in third person past tense." I have, however, throughout my lengthy studies as an English major and in my wife's experiences teaching English, heard many readers, students, audiences toss books aside because they were in first person and/or present tense. 

There's nothing wrong with the tenses, and they might be THE ONLY way to write your story... but I promise, some people will be turned off. As with anything, though, you cannot please everyone, even if you adhere to the lowest common denominator. It's just a law of the universe.


----------



## Kyle R (Aug 26, 2015)

Bishop said:
			
		

> I've never heard a reader say this: "I took a look at that book, but the minute I started reading it, I had to put it down. I can't stand stories written in third person past tense."


Really? I've heard many first-person lovers say they don't enjoy third person. And vice versa. And then you have the readers who like both, or simply don't notice the difference, as long as the story is good.

To me, the number of books written in third-person past doesn't reflect the preferences of readers. It reflects the preferences of the writers who wrote them.

If you want to truly know the tastes of readers, ask readers. Sure, some will tell you they love this, or hate that. Definitely. Many, though, will inform you that POV/tense isn't really something they pay attention to.

Mostly, it seems to be the stuff that writers talk about with other writers. Readers (from what I've seen) generally talk about other things, like character and plot.

Which is why I say, go with whatever narrative choice serves the story the best, and don't worry about what POV/tense is popular or standard. Tell a great story, in whatever way you can. _That's_ what readers want, in my opinion. A page-turner they can't get enough of.

Growing up, I loved both H.G. Wells and Michael Crichton, among others. Wells mainly wrote in first person. Crichton mainly wrote in third person. I didn't notice the difference. I just knew I loved reading them both. The characters, the different worlds. Picturing it all in my imagination. Such fun! First person or third? Past or present? Didn't matter to me—as long as I had more great stories to read! :encouragement:


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 26, 2015)

I tried to look at excerpts from books in the NY Times top 5 for fiction (ignoring the category of just ebook sales). 6 of the 15 books were third person present. That was the most, but still it means 9 books that weren't 3rd person past.

first present 3
first past  4
third present  2
third past  6

GO SET A WATCHMAN  Third person past
The girl on the train.  1st person past
Silver Linings.  1st person past
Who do you love.  1st person present
Alert.  1st person past.
All the Light we cannot see. third person present
Grey. First person present.
The Martian. Firt person present
THE ALCHEMIST  Third person past
BIG LITTLE LIES  Third person past
EVERYTHING I NEVER TOLD YOU  third person present
MEAN STREAK  3 person past
NEVER DIE ALONE 3rd person past
UNLUCKY 13  first person past
OBSESSION IN DEATH  third person past
LOVE LETTERS  first person past


----------



## Jon M (Aug 26, 2015)

Can't speak for the others so much, but _The Martian_, a terrible book by the way, is a combination of First and Third Omni.

For whatever it's worth.


----------



## FWriter (Aug 27, 2015)

I don't think I've read a book in third present, but now I am curious about it.

DaBlaRR - Good luck with your story.  If you're still not sure, maybe have a few others read it and get a census from them.  

:smile2:


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 27, 2015)

Hi Bishop. What advice do we give to an author struggling to write in third-person past for the first time? Saying there are no problems doesn't naturally segue into a discussion of how to deal with them. Isn't your post here the only one with specific techniques for writing in third person past?



Bishop said:


> The simple solution to this:
> 
> _Five years earlier..._
> 
> Bam. We're in a different time as the main plotline. Use the same ole past tense you've been using the whole time and we know it's five years before the main narrative.



Yes, this is one way of writing a "flashback" in past tense. But when you do that, you lose tense as a marker for when the "flashback" ends. Is the last sentence in the following something that happened in the past, or something that is happening in the "now" of the story?

I was a broker. Five years earlier, I was a real estate agent. I was thinking about my life as a real estate agent when I realized . . .



Bishop said:


> That's not a problem at all. Specifically because if the book is in the present, there's no need to clarify that point. Just say "We were in Washington when the first bombs fell..." Instead of "Were in the capitol, Washington DC, when the first bombs fell." Hell, even the second example is perfectly fine--little redundant for an American audience, but nice to clarify for someone who might be unfamiliar with US geography.
> 
> So... don't.



There is a well-known issue of describing setting, when writing in past tense; people come to this website wondering what they should do, and writers are not consistent.

You suggest writing around the problem. (My joke: Should you write "My name is Ishmael", "My name was Ishmael", or just try to write around the problem?) But we should be giving the advice that it is also okay to write setting and commentary in present tense.



Bishop said:


> "John ran harder, pushing his legs to their physical limits." Or even, "John ran harder."
> 
> And we know that at that point in the story, he's running harder. That's it. No need to bring "now" into it at all.



This I think is not good advice. We are usually hoping to draw our readers into the story, so they momentarily think the characters are real and the action is happening in the here and now. Wouldn't using the words "now" and "here" be good for that purpose? (I think Kyle once gave a link to this.)



Bishop said:


> These aren't problems with the tense, but instead mistakes that someone might make.



I intentionally focused on problems specific to writing in past tense. No one writing in present tense is (1) confused which tense to use for setting (2) trying to write around the word "now", or (3) learning tricks for doing flashbacks.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 28, 2015)

EmmaSohan said:


> Hi Bishop. *What advice do we give to an author struggling to write in third-person past for the first time?* Saying there are no problems doesn't naturally segue into a discussion of how to deal with them. Isn't your post here the only one with specific techniques for writing in third person past?



The exact same advice I would give to anyone writing in ANY tense, past, present, future, first, second, or third: Read a lot and write a lot. Read what works--in whatever tense and POV you want, and learn from it. Then, practice it in your own writing. That's been the advice all along. The actual statement I made was, if you aren't sure which tense/POV to use, go for 3rd past. Because it's what you've most likely read and digested the most of, by way of sheer statistics.



EmmaSohan said:


> Yes, this is one way of writing a "flashback" in past tense. But when you do that, you lose tense as a marker for when the "flashback" ends. Is the last sentence in the following something that happened in the past, or something that is happening in the "now" of the story?
> 
> I was a broker. Five years earlier, I was a real estate agent. I was thinking about my life as a real estate agent when I realized . . .



There's no confusion here, because you included "my life as a real estate agent". By saying that, we know it's referring to the real estate agent part of the narrator's life. This also is less a flashback in the traditional sense... it's more just a recollection on the narrator's part. A flashback, at least as I've always known them, is when the narrative shifts to a whole different time period. Usually with a chapter break. And right after the word "Chapter #" I would (and do) write "Five years earlier..." which then tells the reader that this section, until otherwise indicated, is a part of that flashback.



EmmaSohan said:


> There is a well-known issue of describing setting, when writing in past tense; people come to this website wondering what they should do, and writers are not consistent.
> 
> You suggest writing around the problem. (My joke: Should you write "My name is Ishmael", "My name was Ishmael", or just try to write around the problem?) But we should be giving the advice that it is also okay to write setting and commentary in present tense.



"Call me Ishmael." A classic line, for sure. But a poor example, because the writing of Moby Dick is written in such a way that the narrator is "speaking" directly to the audience, telling a story that happened to him. Another masterful example of this type of writing is Heart of Darkness by Conrad. In this book, the first chapter is the "now" present, with a group of men sitting down and one of them begins to tell a tale. Which really makes the ENTIRE book one long line of dialogue from that narrator as he tells his story to the men around him. So, it's first person past narration within his dialogue, but the actual overall of the story is first person present (from the perspective of another man listening to HIS tale), since he's just talking the whole time. Now THAT'S messing with tense.



EmmaSohan said:


> This I think is not good advice. We are usually hoping to draw our readers into the story, so they momentarily think the characters are real and the action is happening in the here and now. Wouldn't using the words "now" and "here" be good for that purpose? (I think Kyle once gave a link to this.)



"John was now running harder." Hm. "Was running" is my issue with this sentence, far more than "now". First, there's nothing ACTUALLY wrong with "John was now running harder" as "now" can just indicate "in the current situation" with "current" being in perspective to the time of the story's events. It's not necessarily indicative to the overall tense. Sure, it might be grammatically loose, but it works with a sense of understanding from the reader. But as I indicted before, it's vestigial anyway, so to avoid confusion, let's toss it--I mean, we're nit-picking here anyway  . Next, "was running". Not incorrect, it's a continuous action and he was doing it in the past, but it adds unnecessary words and a passive feeling to the statement. But, for the sake of argument, let's try another example: "I loved her." Well, loving someone is a continuous act, for the most part... so "I was loving her" indicates that continuity better, but sounds weird. I really prefer "John ran faster now, pushing his legs to their physical limits." THAT draws us in, because now, we're doing more than stating he's running faster, we're seeing an effect of it! I'm reading that, and on some level I'm thinking "I've run that hard before, feeling the strain in my legs, trying with every ounce I have," rather than "Huh, I guess he's running faster." 

But ALL of that is nearly NOTHING. That's micromanaging fiction to an Nth degree that I, frankly, dislike. Why? Because a reader will never toss a book aside because I used "now" in the past tense, or said that my name was Ismael... what they WILL toss aside is something they're uncomfortable reading. And while that's not necessarily a particular tense or POV, it WILL be uncomfortable if the writer is uncomfortable writing in that style. It's the same reason that people who never read usually don't write as well. They're not comfortable with how fiction is laid out in text, because they're not immersing themselves in it. THIS is my point: *there is nothing wrong with ANY tense, only mistakes that writers uncomfortable writing within that tense will make*. So when someone asks me the question: "What tense or POV should I write in?" I say, write in the one you've most likely experienced throughout your entire life: 3rd person past. It's how stories are told, more often than not. IF it's not right for your story, write in something else. 



EmmaSohan said:


> I intentionally focused on problems specific to writing in past tense. No one writing in present tense is (1) confused which tense to use for setting (2) trying to write around the word "now", or (3) learning tricks for doing flashbacks.



1) Yes, they can be. "I move my hand to the table where the amulet sat." Is the amulet there right now? Or did it sit there a few seconds ago and was picked up by John? Sure, it should be "had sat" but this mistake gets made--a lot.

2) Worrying about any one word on this level is micromanagement at best, and totally useless and confusing at worst--especially since "now" can be just as confusing in first person, in dialogue, in second person, in past, present, future...

3) Flashbacks are tricky in any tense. It's just easier on the reader AND the writer to indicate what the time period is outright. And if you have a past moment to show in the text... well, do as you did before! Use context indicators.

But NONE of these are problems with the tense. Or any tense. There are no problems with concepts like this, only the problems we invent as flawed writers. And there are an infinite number of them in ALL tenses and POVs. Because we are INFINITELY FLAWED.


----------



## Kyle R (Aug 28, 2015)

Bishop said:


> 1) Yes, they can be. "I move my hand to the table where the amulet sat." Is the amulet there right now? Or did it sit there a few seconds ago and was picked up by John? Sure, it should be "had sat" but this mistake gets made--a lot.


Better would be: I move my hand to the table where the amulet sits.

Even better still: I reach for the amulet.

Best yet: When I reach for the amulet, it vanishes in a glittering plume of smoke. I stumble back and yell out, "Holy cheese!" Am I seeing things, or did that just happen?

"Aye," the one-eyed pirate says, "That just happened."

Apparently, the one-eyed pirate is a mind-reader, too. Fantastic. I should have stayed in the damn car. "Hey, freak," I tell him, squinting at his good eye (which, by the way, isn't really _good_ by any standard), "I don't know what you're pulling here, but I need that amulet right now."

"Ah, that just be a MacGuffin," the pirate drawls, his beard glinting in the firelight. "What ye _truly_ need is . . . " He reaches into his coat.

Alarm bells blare in my head, and I take a step back toward the door. What's he got in that coat? A sword? A pistol? A man-eating houseplant named _Steve_? "Easy now," I say, showing him my palms. I point at my jacket pocket, as if I'm concealing something of my own. It's true—I _am_ carrying something. But unless there's a way to disarm a one-eyed, mind-reading pirate with a half-eaten pack of gum, it probably won't be much use.

The pirate grins, then yanks his arm from his coat with a flourish. In his grimy hand, which he holds up to the light: an instructional book on writing fiction. "What ye need is this!" he shouts. "Tenses. Point of view. All sorts of buried treasure for ye writers to argue about." He peels back the cover and flips through the pages. "There even be pictures for ye," he says. A photograph of a topless mermaid slips out from between the pages and flutters to the floor. "Argh," the pirate says, scooping it up. "Actually, the pictures are me own."

:geek:


----------



## Bishop (Aug 28, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> I tell him, squinting at his good eye (which, by the way, isn't really _good_ by any standard),



Is that a quip?







We are not amused.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 29, 2015)

Bishop said:


> THIS is my point: *there is nothing wrong with ANY tense, only mistakes that writers uncomfortable writing within that tense will make*. .



Yeah, I was reading a website which said the problem with first person present is too much irrelevant detail. Hello? But then I had to try to handle a problem in my own story caused by writing in first person present tense.

Can I call them issues instead of problems? The passage below contains two sentences written in past tense instead of past perfect. The first one is because it actually is something taking place in the present of the story, not the narration of events in the past of the story.

But the second sentence? I'm pretty sure the author (or editor) thought there were too many 'hads'. So one got taken out, turning the sentence into past tense.

Experienced writers would know about this solution. But it is not an elegant solution -- if you sometimes refer to the past in past tense and sometimes in past perfect, the tense of the sentence becomes unreliable for knowing whether a sentence refers to the present of the story or the past. (So the only way we know that first sentence refers to the present is content, not tense. We know the second sentence refers to the past by either content or momentum.)



> The night-long flight through the jungle had left him scratched and foul-tempered. He had managed only a short nap after arranging this meeting.
> 
> "He had better not be late," Gil *grumbled* as he climbed to the third landing. After fleeing the campsite of the Americans, Gil had reached a dirt track in the jungle just as the sun finally rose. Luckily, he *stumbled* upon a local Indian with a mule and a crooked-wheeled wagon. A handful of coins had bought him passage to the village. Once there, Gil had telephoned his contact -- the man who had arranged for Gil's infiltration onto the Americans' team. They had agreed to a noon meeting at this hotel.



In the next passage, I suspect the reader by momentum is going to take both of the sentences in past tense as referring to the past (of the story), despite them being in past tense. But a reader could decide that the last sentence refers to the present. Or it will just be fuzzy.



> Hank had raised Sam since his parents had died in a car crash when he was nine years old. Henry's own wife had died of cancer the same year, about four months earlier. Drawn together in grief, they *developed* a deep bond. The two had become nearly inseparable. So it was to no one's surprise that Sam *pursued* a career in archaeology at Texas A&M.


----------



## J Anfinson (Aug 29, 2015)

I don't find those confusing. The context makes it clear.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 29, 2015)

EmmaSohan said:


> Can I call them issues instead of problems?



You can call them anything you like... personally, I don't think they exist. Saying that there's a problem or issue with a tense is like saying there's a problem or issue with a wrench. It's far more likely that the wrench is fine, someone just might not know how to use it properly.

As for the example, I agree with J. No issues, no confusion. Context takes us the whole way.


----------



## Terry D (Aug 29, 2015)

It's the writer's job to make the narrative easily understood. That doesn't mean the author can't skip a few 'had's' when using pluperfect. This isn't as complicated as some would like to make it. Yes, just about any sentence _can_ be interpreted differently from the author's intent if the reader decides to do so. We can't control every reader, all we can do is make our intent as clear as possible and not worry about those who choose to dissect every choice we make and inject unneeded complexity. Stop worrying about perceived "issues" with any tense and just write the damned story in the clearest way you are able. If it doesn't work, fix it so it sounds right.


----------

