# Killing in the name of ... fiction?



## Jon M (Oct 22, 2012)

A recent quote from the workshop:



> Despite the success of "The Hunger Games" and "Fifty Shades of Grey,"  which are written in first-person present, I think that present tense is  a fiction killer.



Why?


----------



## dale (Oct 22, 2012)

i don't know about a fiction "killer", but it seems it would limit a lot of narrative perception. 3rd person past tense lends more perspective into
analysis and thoughts of characters. you may be able to pull off deep thinking imagery and perspective in the present tense, but how many
people really are able to analyze experiences in the present as thoroughly as they would in retrospect? everything's moving right in front of
you so quickly, that you would either have to live in "slow-time" for adequate description, or just not go into too much depth in perspective
of what's happening. it would be best for an action thriller, i guess.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Oct 22, 2012)

The argument I've seen is that, since a story cannot in reality be told until after it's already happened (at least, not as a neat narrative package without a bunch of extraneous, "I blow my nose and wish I'd had time to go to the bathroom, as I wait for the bus" type stuff), past tense is the proper tense for storytelling.

I don't actually believe this, though. People tell stories in present tense all the time when they're talking.


----------



## Arcopitcairn (Oct 22, 2012)

When I read, I like to take my time and enjoy it. Now this is probably just me, but when I read something in first person, I somehow feel rushed. I think I appreciate the reflective over the immediate.


----------



## Kyle R (Oct 22, 2012)

I believe that a good writer can write equally compelling fiction under any tense and pov--first, second, third, past, present, and yes, even future.

Also, The Hunger Games and Fifty Shades of Grey are two of the most successful fiction series of all time. To give you an idea: the success of the entire Harry Potter series dwindles in comparison to each of them. (I know--amazing, right?) 

Fifty Shades of Grey is the best-selling British book of all time.

Anywho, I think first person can sound natural, it doesn't have to be stilted like, "I walk to the window. I close my eyes. I dial on my phone." One helpful trick is to write it as if you are speaking to a friend, on your phone, and telling them what you're doing at the time.

For example, I'll just whip out some first person present tense to show how natural it can sound (this will be my warm-up exercise for today ):


_I haven't been down here before, to this part of the city. The buildings all have a sagging, quiet desperation to them. If I didn't know better, I'd think this district was a ghost town. But that's not the case. This place is full of night-walkers. I can feel their stares on me as I pass down the abandoned street, their hungry eyes watching me from every steel-gated window.

Armen is supposed to call as soon as he gets out, so I keep checking my phone. But the sun keeps sliding closer to the rooftops and pretty soon I know I'll have to find somewhere safe to hole up for the night. This is the fifth time I've done it since lunch, but I check my revolver once again, just in case. 

Four bullets left.

That's three night-walkers, if I can get off clean shots. The fourth one I'm saving for my right temple. 

I hope it doesn't come down to that.


_That was fun. Also, with first person present, you can dip into first person past when the narrator remembers things that happened earlier. There's a lot of freedom and flexibility to it. It's not so bad! :encouragement:


----------



## Jon M (Oct 22, 2012)

I think present tense requires a slightly different way of writing or envisioning the story. Whereas in past tense you can just stay there and tell most of the story that way, present tense, if done similarly, tends to grate after a while, starts to get a _...and then, and then, and then_ quality. A lot of the time I see present tense narratives broken up: story begins in the now, the scene is set, and then it usually moves into past tense, sometimes even to pluperfect, where a lot of the background is conveyed. 

But anyway, I don't agree that present tense is bad, or to be avoided (like his clumsy sister Second-Person). In fact, present tense feels very fresh most of the time. And though I like Third past from time to time, it kind of makes me feel like I'm slogging through mud or something. Slow.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Oct 22, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> Also, with first person present, you can dip into first person past when the narrator remembers things that happened earlier. There's a lot of freedom and flexibility to it. It's not so bad! :encouragement:


Yep - actually I feel like I end up doing this a lot lately, writing a present tense moment of narration in which previous events are related in the past tense. Feels pretty natural to me, to the point where lately, when I read 3rd person past tense narrative, I start to feel suspicious. Like, _well, who is this narrator and what is he doing? Why is he telling me this, anyway?__ Why is he HIDING? _:suspicion:


----------



## Foxee (Oct 22, 2012)

There is no "proper" tense for storytelling but there are tools in the box we use for building stories. I like first-person partially because it's challenging to write, it narrows the amount of information that my POV character knows thus turning up the tension, and it's engaging. All when written well which, as I said, is a challenge. First person is good for thrillers and mysteries, it may not work so well for deeply introspective works.


----------



## Kyle R (Oct 22, 2012)

lasm said:


> Feels pretty natural to me, to the point where lately, when I read 3rd person past tense narrative, I start to feel suspicious. Like, _well, who is this narrator and what is he doing? Why is he telling me this, anyway?__ Why is he HIDING? _:suspicion:



Lol.

Breaking the fourth wall!

[video=youtube;eRXZkUy9NaE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRXZkUy9NaE[/video]


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 22, 2012)

Jon M said:


> A recent quote from the workshop:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?



I recently read "The Windup Girl" by Paolo Bacigalupi. It has received all sorts of awards, including the Hugo and Nebula. Well, I tried to read it, really I did. I slogged through about half of it then I put it down - I realized that the Hugo and Nebula councils are susceptible to BS and shoddy promotion just like anyone else. The book is..."cute." Oh, not the story itself, the way it's told. It's so damn insistent on painfully placating modern memes with an artsy-fartsy "present tense" diction that it makes you want to scrub your eyes after you're done. It's.. shameful.

But, a bunch of people liked it. If anyone here liked it, I'm sorry if I offend you. Obviously, yours is the more brilliant intellect and I am just a lowly Morlok. I accept my inadequacies in being unable to enjoy such a well regarded.. "book."

This whole "present tense" crap.. Really, most everything I have ever read written in the present tense was done purposefully just to gain attention by being "different." What's the point? It adds no immediacy, no inherent drama and is painfully difficult to read if one is used to conventional past-tense, sensible writing.  It's distracting. Anything that is distracting is not promoting.

I call "present tense" a fad. I may be a slack-jawed Luddite, but that's the way I see it.

Oh, I saw that "Shades of Grey" and "The Hunger Games" have been mentioned. Those are crap, too. "The Story of O" has already been done and, for @$%@ sake, what sort of idiotic setting is in The Hunger Games? "The Lottery", touted as one of the most famous pieces of short fiction in modern literature, was a wonderfully crafted tale with more angst, more drama, more emotionally and socially relevant meaning, more damn things to say than a hundred crappy "The Hunger Games."

Yes, I'm ranting. But, I'm a slack-jawed Luddite Morloc who is expected to go around gibbering rants that make no sense... Except, this one is perfectly reasonable.

_Stories will carry themselves no matter what tense they are written in_. Unfortunately, as of late, most "present tense" stories seem to rely on the novelty of that chosen style more than their own substance.

As far as being a "fiction killer",  to get back to answering the question in the OP, I don't think that, in itself, "present tense" is a fiction killer. That's just plain wrong. "Fiction Killers" are badly written stories, like Fifty Shades of Grey and The Hunger Games, that happen to catch the audience at a vulnerable moment. Then, they get elevated to Golden Calf status, make fortunes and unduly influence the genre when they should be buried deep in a slushpile somewhere, if it was only on artistic merit. But, art doesn't sell any darn books and editors obviously know what they're doing as these titles have made fortunes. 

No, present tense, is not a "fiction" killer. Bad stories kill fiction. One could write a story in cow poop and if it was good enough, people would line up to read it. Then again, they'll actually pay money for Fifty-Shades of Grey and The Hunger Games, so I don't suppose I should rely on them to vindicate my opinion.


----------



## Jon M (Oct 22, 2012)

Morkonan said:


> This whole "present tense" crap.. Really, most everything I have ever read written in the present tense was done purposefully just to gain attention by being "different." What's the point?


Well I'm not sure any viewpoint or tense has a point beyond its usefulness to the story. Would you agree that some stories (not all) seem to have a 'correct' way of being written, which is to say they make the greatest sense, function the best, with a point of view / tense that complements its subject matter?

Your criticism of the _Hunger Games_ has got me thinking, though. Does the story lose anything if it was converted to past tense? Why do you suppose it was written in present tense in the first place? My guess is it probably had something to do with the games -- maybe Collins was hoping present tense would add some sort of immediacy to that portion of the book. Or maybe that is just her preference overall.


----------



## dolphinlee (Oct 22, 2012)

I was well into chapter three before I realised that I was writing in the present tense. How’s that for observant?

Because my story is told through the eyes of my heroine everything that the reader needs to know has to happen to the heroine, be told to the heroine or be seen by the heroine. This can make for some interesting conversations. 
I think you are right about present tense being more immediate. 

He ran to the scene of the accident. We the readers are ‘rushing’ with him.

He had run to the scene of the accident. We the readers know it has already happened.

Having said that, if the writing flows I don’t mind which tense it is in.


----------



## Foxee (Oct 23, 2012)

dolphinlee said:


> I was well into chapter three before I realised that I was writing in the present tense.
> 
> Having said that, if the writing flows I don’t mind which tense it is in.


That's the thing. Whatever tense the story's written in should feel natural and not intrude on the story. If it doesn't work in the tense it's written in or the author has struggled with it it'll be difficult if not impossible for readers to immerse themselves in it.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Oct 23, 2012)

Morkonan said:


> I recently read "The Windup Girl" by Paolo Bacigalupi. It has received all sorts of awards, including the Hugo and Nebula. Well, I tried to read it, really I did. I slogged through about half of it then I put it down - I realized that the Hugo and Nebula councils are susceptible to BS and shoddy promotion just like anyone else. The book is..."cute." Oh, not the story itself, the way it's told. It's so damn insistent on painfully placating modern memes with an artsy-fartsy "present tense" diction that it makes you want to scrub your eyes after you're done. It's.. shameful.



I quite liked The Wind-Up Girl. The world felt pretty vivid and unique and I liked most of the characters.

My only problem was the physical restrictions on the titular character (overheating, mostly) were a bit inconsistent from scene to scene, and she was bizarrely fetishized by the author. But it was a very enjoyable read. I hadn't even realized it was in the present tense.

Though maybe I've become numb to it. I write a lot in the present tense and it feels kinda weird to switch back sometimes.


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 23, 2012)

Jon M said:


> Well I'm not sure any viewpoint or tense has a point beyond its usefulness to the story. Would you agree that some stories (not all) seem to have a 'correct' way of being written, which is to say they make the greatest sense, function the best, with a point of view / tense that complements its subject matter?



I would agree with that. But, past-tense is what's most commonly used because it's what we, ourselves, commonly use in everyday communication. (Certain exceptions allowed.) When you step outside that convention, it had best be for a good reason, in my opinion. I'm all for artistic flair and imagery, but I don't want to whack a reader on the head with a frying pan just to get them to see stars.



> Your criticism of the _Hunger Games_ has got me thinking, though. Does the story lose anything if it was converted to past tense? Why do you suppose it was written in present tense in the first place? My guess is it probably had something to do with the games -- maybe Collins was hoping present tense would add some sort of immediacy to that portion of the book. Or maybe that is just her preference overall.



Quick note - My post was purposefully sarcastic in true "rant style."

I don't know why present tense was chosen. I don't know why present tense is chosen in many full-length works. I can understand its use in a more short, easily digestible, artistic style. But, for a full length novel, I find it unpalatable. This may be just a personal preference. My brain may not do "Present Tense" very well. I don't know. But, while I don't see present-tense as a fiction killer, I do see it as unnecessarily burdensome for all participants.

It could be that it's just her preference of style. It could be that she found some sort of spark in present tense she couldn't find in more conventional forms. If so, then that's great.. for her. But, for myself, it's kryptonite.




			
				Staff Deployment said:
			
		

> I quite liked The Wind-Up Girl. The world felt pretty vivid and unique and I liked most of the characters.
> 
> My only problem was the physical restrictions on the titular character  (overheating, mostly) were a bit inconsistent from scene to scene, and  she was bizarrely fetishized by the author. But it was a very enjoyable  read. I hadn't even realized it was in the present tense.
> 
> Though maybe I've become numb to it. I write a lot in the present tense and it feels kinda weird to switch back sometimes.



Forgive me if I seem to have done it an injustice. Its style hit me immediately, without warning, as soon as I turned to the first page. I've been understandably resentful, ever since.  I found a few interesting ideas within what I read of the story, but I felt as if was being force-fed by someone who was drawing off of present-day memes and pop-culture a bit too readily. I'm also not very fond of steampunk, though I truly love a good dystopic novel.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Oct 23, 2012)

Morkonan said:


> I don't know why present tense is chosen in many full-length works. I can understand its use in a more short, easily digestible, artistic style. But, for a full length novel, I find it unpalatable.



I use present tense because the story is meant to be filtered through the mind of the protagonist. It fits well for a psycho-horror first-person narrative. Is that a reasonable explanation?



Morkonan said:


> steampunk



Not enough zeppelins. It's more... culturepunk.

I spent like five minutes staring blankly into space trying to think up of a suitable "noun"-punk description of the book and that was the best I could come up with.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Oct 23, 2012)

> *Morkonen: *But, past-tense is what's most commonly used because it's what we, ourselves, commonly use in everyday communication.


 This may seem true, but if you listen to people talk about something exciting or scary that happened to them, they will very often switch to present tense without even thinking about it. "So I was walking through the park, and I saw this dollar bill lying on the ground. So I go to pick it up, right, and all of a sudden it pulls away from me! And there's this jerk holding the dollar bill on a string, laughing at me!" People do this all the time, to convey, I think, that they are mentally still caught up in that moment. And I would say that this is what present tense does: it catches people up in the moment.

I wonder if there's a relationship to the invention of cinema as well - an idea of story as a temporal unit that is infinitely repeatable, in which you can go back and forth at will and the past (what was filmed) becomes an alternate present that coexists with the everyday.

From what I can tell, some people just seem to hate anything that has a detectable style. Personally, I like style.


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 24, 2012)

Staff Deployment said:


> I use present tense because the story is meant to be filtered through the mind of the protagonist. It fits well for a psycho-horror first-person narrative. Is that a reasonable explanation?



Well, a "reasonable" explanation could be that it's just your personal preference. The only wrong way to write is to write purposefully so the reader doesn't want to read what's written.  As I've said, I have some sort of personal distaste, some kind of connection that is just not being made, when it comes down to "present tense." I can take it in small doses, only.



> Not enough zeppelins. It's more... culturepunk. I spent like five minutes staring blankly into space trying to think up  of a suitable "noun"-punk description of the book and that was the best I  could come up with.



And, not enough leather, brass and analog dials, either. I think the wiki had a good word for it: "biopunk science fiction"  



lasm said:


> This may seem true, but if you listen to people talk about something exciting or scary that happened to them, they will very often switch to present tense without even thinking about it. "So I was walking through the park, and I saw this dollar bill lying on the ground. So I go to pick it up, right, and all of a sudden it pulls away from me! And there's this jerk holding the dollar bill on a string, laughing at me!" People do this all the time, to convey, I think, that they are mentally still caught up in that moment. And I would say that this is what present tense does: it catches people up in the moment.



Excellent example! But, there's also a sort of denouement, afterwords, isn't there? There's a period that allows the listener to gather in, organize and digest what has happened. Present tense does not allow that moment - Everything is happening *now*! It takes a lot of work to separate one's self from the "present" in order to write the past down in their brain. And, when they think of that past, which they have read in the present tense, do they easily think of it in past-tense?  That's a kicker, ain't it? 

"Let's see. OK, the character was going to the store... No, that's not right. They "did go" to the store, right? Yeah, OK. And, they.. no, it was "I." Yeah, that's it. So, "I" walked. No, wait, they were "walking." No, dangit! They were "I!" What the heck was it that happened again?"

So, the reader has to be once-removed in order to compile all this history together. And, what about those key words that evoke scenes and memories? They're all going to be in the present tense, right? No, not as easy at all to stuff in the appropriate mental filing cabinets..

But, again, it's just my personal opinion and, obviously, I'm testing it. I want to know what you and others think. Am I wrong? If so, I will change my opinion in the face of a good argument. But, that doesn't mean I will ever purposefully buy a book I know is written in the present tense. 



> I wonder if there's a relationship to the invention of cinema as well - an idea of story as a temporal unit that is infinitely repeatable, in which you can go back and forth at will and the past (what was filmed) becomes an alternate present that coexists with the everyday.



Yup, that's a good companion to what I was saying, above. But, there's a physiological difference. In film, the audience sees the scene being acted out before them. It is as natural as any normally witnessed experience. We are finely tuned to memorize such experiences. We can interpret them in rapid-fire fashion and have automatic responses to the action on the screen. (Ever dodge a thrown object on the screen while watching a movie?) However, with reading, things are a bit different. There are verbal components that must be decoded, areas of the brain that are required to do double-duty, physiological limits such as the number of syllables that can be scanned and translated per second (14, IIRC, or something like that, due to the eye's field of view and capability of discernment as it moves across a page.), etc... While some visualization does occur in the brain in the recognition of certain unfamiliar words, a vast number are shunted straight through into processing, no visualization needed and very little, if any, verbal processing comes into play. In short, and in a very amazing way, reading is almost pure symbols game. This is a much different perspective when compared to how we used to believe the brain processed written information. Thanks to functional MRI and other techs, we can watch the brain work and it's baffling how we managed to come up with such a system in the first place! (There are some hints regarding possible evolutionary influences wrapped up in how we process symbols today.) 

So, in a long-winded and completely disjointed sort of way, what I'm saying is that viewing a scene and reading a line of text are functionally two very different physiological things, even though we feel that the outcomes of those processes have similar results. 



> From what I can tell, some people just seem to hate anything that has a detectable style. Personally, I like style.



I love style. I love being comfortable with a writer's style. In fact, I choose books to read based upon what I know of the writer's style. When I'm re-reading a book, my choice usually has something to do with the type of style that I'd like to read that evening. Style is the active fingerprint of another human being on a piece of work that is resting in my hands and providing me enjoyment. I want that. I don't want some dry, sterilized piece of work laying on the page, doing nothing and taking me nowhere. I want the author's flavor as much as I want their work. It matters.


----------



## GonneLights (Oct 25, 2012)

Morkanen and Lasm's grating of wheels are very interesting, here. He noted that our default for telling stories is in past tense, and we have to make the effort to write in present tense, and she noted that our default for telling stories is in present tense. Whats going on here? Is this culture, or age difference? Everything you read in essay style is certainly past tense, and everything I hear from my New York friends and lovers is in present tense. '_So I'm talkin' to this guy... I sez...' _- where I'm from we tend to mix tenses in the most ungodly way. _'He says, he did... He turns round and said, like...' _and I adore that. My Polish friend tells all of his stories in future tense. '_You know what he's gonna do, I bet you, he is going to...' - _he's somewhat clairvoyant, I suppose. 

Who said that, by the way? I feel kinda bad to join everyone in disagreeing with him =/ But I do disagree with him. No offence to the guy!

I agree with everyone that no tense is incorrect. We should all write in future-tense, second person. Get into the Pipe Dream market. _'You're gonna be a regular hero...'_

I write primarily in Present Tense, with intentional, frequent peppering of past tense. I write sort of non-linear, at the minute. You'll have the scene and it'll Proust off into distant memories and provide some serious background, and slip in and out of past-tense, present-tense. That's only partial, though. I write past and present tense about as much, and first and third person, strict and non-strict, bizarre and straight. A good writer can do that. One of my friends, who's very autistic, is impeccable at Second Tense, and she's recently been experimenting with Unreliable Narrator. I envy that ability, I'm intimidated to try second tense and I've been unsuccessful with Unreliable Narrator so far...

Anyway, yeah. Nah.


----------



## Kyle R (Oct 25, 2012)

KarKingJack said:


> I write primarily in Present Tense, with intentional, frequent peppering of past tense. I write sort of non-linear, at the minute. You'll have the scene and it'll Proust off into distant memories and provide some serious background, and slip in and out of past-tense, present-tense. That's only partial, though. I write past and present tense about as much, and first and third person, strict and non-strict, bizarre and straight. A good writer can do that. One of my friends, who's very autistic, is impeccable at Second Tense, and she's recently been experimenting with Unreliable Narrator. I envy that ability, I'm intimidated to try second tense and I've been unsuccessful with Unreliable Narrator so far...
> 
> Anyway, yeah. Nah.




I agree, it's beneficial for a writer to have the freedom to oscillate between different POV styles at will. That doesn't mean one _has_ to, but it's nice to have the option, because POV can affect how a story is told, and by extension, how the story affects the reader.

Same thing with past, present, and future tense.

I've read a few Chuck Palahniuk stories where he switches between past, present, future, first, second, and third, all in _the same story_.

Palahniuk demonstrates there are no rules and you can break them as freely as you wish. It just takes a little more skill to do so without losing your reader, is all.

I don't go that far but I do try to write in a different POV and/or tense with each story. It's like chess openings--why play the same one over and over again? Different openings offer different possibilities, and lead to different strategies of play. It keeps things fresh and interesting. Same thing with different POV's and tenses. :encouragement:


----------



## Jon M (Oct 25, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> I don't go that far but I do try to write in a different POV and/or tense with each story. It's like chess openings--why play the same one over and over again? Different openings offer different possibilities, and lead to different strategies of play. It keeps things fresh and interesting. Same thing with different POV's and tenses. :encouragement:


We should duel sometime, Kyle of Colorado. I, too, like chess. Prefer the 960 version of the game, but I'm down for anything if you are, good sir.

re: the topic -- point of view is so fun to dabble in. Creates so many possibilities, and once you get a handle on that and psychic distance and tense and how they all mesh together, man that's when storytelling gets fun. Funner than it already is, I should say.


----------



## Newman (Oct 27, 2012)

I don't agree at all. Present tense is not a fiction killer.


----------

