I've never written a whole story this way, but I have written chunks like that. In comparison to past-tense, present-tense gives the story immediate immediacy (oh wow, please don't quote me).
What about stories in second-person, present? These are all down the road often not taken, but I don't think any of them are 'bad.'
There _is_ something to be said for third-person, past being the accepted norm, though. People have gotten used to it and so it serves as zero distraction to the reader.
So I guess my answer is a question: why not?
I do look forward to reading why you don't like first person present, though
I've only used it in one story, and actually only just recently changed it from 1stP past to present deliberately. In all honestly though, it was only at the very beginning and at the very end, to orient the narrative--almost as a way to very slightly invoke a subtle 2ndP POV response; that is, to give the reader the impression that this was being told to them by the narrator in the here and now. 90% of the story is told in simple 1stP past, with occaional past perfect where appropriate, but it came off fairly well (I hope). I did, however, find that I had to deliberately downplay it by using very few verbs that referred to the present.
I'm not sure this actually qualifies as what you were referring to (I know I find it very difficult to stay with 1stP present for very long when I'm reading; rather than adding a sense of immediacy, which I think is usually the intention, I think it can add an odd sense of surreal distance), but my example was the first thing I thought of when I read your post, so....
And in fact, one of my biggest problems with first person point of view is the sense of DISTANCE it creates. Ironic, since so many I've asked in the past have said what Rahl said, that they believe it creates a sense of immediacy.
I will stick with that for the moment and keep reading further responses. I will almost certainly elaborate in the near future.
quote:
...rather than adding a sense of immediacy, which I think is usually the intention, I think it can add an odd sense of surreal distance.
That's usually what I get when I read 1st person present. It makes it feel like it's giving directions, somehow. That's not the best way to put it, but it's the only thing I can think of.
So by extension, if you want to use a character like this to tell your story, then using 1st person present is appropriate, and it makes for an interesting voice. An example would be "A Good Knight's Work" by Robert Bloch (which can be found in "The Wizards of Odd" anthology, edited by Peter Haining).
In a similar thread on "Discussing Published Hooks & Books" ( http://www.hatrack.com/forums/writers/forum/Forum30/HTML/000072.html ), there was an example of a short scene written in 1st/present that seemed to work well. It was written more as a news reporter would talk: "I am doing this right now, and then this happens..." etc.
Those are the only examples I can think of where 1st/present would be appropriate. There could be others. I think length is also another important consideration. It would be harder to successfully pull off the longer the work.
--Mel
EDITED to fix link...and typos...
[This message has been edited by MCameron (edited April 06, 2005).]
While written fiction in English has traditionally been written in the past tense (no matter which person), a secondary tradition of using the present-tense in modern literary fiction has been established. Thus, using present tense gives a piece a more "literary" feel. (That may be why my non-spec-fic creative writing teacher thinks my best work was my one present-tense short story.)
Now, the very feeling of literariness may cause some feeling of distance for people who are not fans of that tradition. But if the main tradition for English fiction had been present tense (as it is when telling jokes), and the modern literary tradition was for past tense, then the past tense would seem to have more distance.
Looking beyond the traditions, however, there are some logical reasons why, in most cases, first person present tense rings a bit false:
1. In most cases, the narrator cannot be doing what he says he is doing at the time he says it. If the narrator says he is scuba diving in the Bermuda Triangle with a speargun in one hand and a waterproof treasure map in the other, it's kind of tough for him to be writing down the story as he does so. Therefore, we cannot trust what he says because we know he is lying.
2. Because in most cases the narrator must survive the events he is narrating in order to be capable of writing the account, it reduces the reader's anxiety about the narrator's fate. (This applies to a lesser extent to all first-person fiction, not just first person present tense.)
However, if the logical objections to first person present tense do not apply to the particular circumstances of a story (for example, if the narrator is a computer intelligence capable of multitasking, thus allowing simultaneous narration of its own actions), then only the tradition and literary distance objections remain.
A good point about jokes being told in the present tense. There's a reason for this, as it turns out. It directly signals to the audience that these events did not occur, and therefore need not be taken seriously. Every line reinforces that message, encouraging the audience to avoid becoming emotionally involved so that the incongruity isn't distorted by any empathic response.
4th person is when the author neglects to include relevant information and the reader has to fill in the blanks instead.
quote:
A good point about jokes being told in the present tense. There's a reason for this, as it turns out. It directly signals to the audience that these events did not occur, and therefore need not be taken seriously. Every line reinforces that message, encouraging the audience to avoid becoming emotionally involved so that the incongruity isn't distorted by any empathic response.
[This message has been edited by Mr_Megalomaniac (edited April 06, 2005).]
In a present tense story, there is no sense of time whatsoever. It all is just happening, now. At the end of the story, the beginning is still happening! That's what gives it the sense of surreal, dream-like distance.
I will argue, however, that first-person present is occasionally appropriate. The thing is, you cannot read it as a story that the POV character wrote (is writing?) as the events occur, but as a stream-of-consciousness device. Of course, this means that in present tense first person, the POV character CAN die--he isn't writing this story, after all; he isn't the narrator, even though the story is in his voice. It's really like an omniscient narrator who is choosing to focus on the actual thoughts (translated into words and sentences) of one character. Well, what the the translation and all, I won't claim that this is realistic. . . . But one effective use I saw of it was where the POV character was an alien sea creature whose people had about as much civilization as dolphins. Time would not have meant the same thing to them.
I think almost half of my stories are written in first person and at least 3 or 4 of those are in the present tense. To answer your question: I like first person present tense when my protagonist is the narrator and I want to limit my options for telling the story. First person -- the reader can only see, hear, think, what the narrator does. It limits how you present your story -- you can't cheat and slip in information the POV character doesn't know like you can in 3rd person. And present tense, to me (I know some of you don't agree), makes the narration more immediate. It limits how you describe what happens. When you are using past tense the action has already happened, the reader knows this and knows that the narrator survives what is being described. In first person nothing is preconceived -- it is happening now and anything is possible.
Another thing about first person, is that you can follow the thoughts of a narrator that is mistaken about something. The reader can follow right along with his or her misconception and not know it until the truth comes out for the POV character. What I like about this is that the reader doesn't feel lied to -- because this idiot thought it was true also. In the third person, in most instances, the reader comes away thinking "He (narrator) knew it was a lie and didn't let me in on it."
I will say that I normally don't consciously choose which one to use. When I begin a story, I automatically start in first person if I am focusing tightly on the protagonist/narrator.
There is another fiction format in which present tense is common...plays of all sorts use the present tense extensively, whether screen, stage, or radio. And it isn't just that the dialogue is often written in present tense (this can be done in any work, after all). All the directions are written in present tense as well. And if you have a one man show, the performer might write his performance notes in first person present tense.
A critical difference between plays and writing is that the script is not ever to be seen by the audience. In a sense, the script is not itself a work of art, it is instructions on how to perform a work of art.
First of all, I so agree that we should not limit ourselves. The present tense, the first person, the third person, omniscient story telling, limited story telling....all these have their merits and I would never just rip one of them out of my belt, not even future tense although I would need a DARN good reason to use it.
For that matter, I have used first person present tense myself. I have used it in two cases: First, in short dream snippets. The distance it creates is perfect for the dreamlike quality I want to demonstrate in that case. Second, and this is a little more interestin (I think)....I used it for an alien race that has a telepathic form of communication when playing back a telepathic recording.
So you see, I have not taken it out of my belt. It tends to need dusting off when I do decide to use it, but I wouldn't dream of throwing it away. In fact, even in a first person narrative written in past tense there is typically a present from which the narrator is telling the story. Sometimes the narrator can slip into the now and talk about it, but in that case he is not out riding a horse, he is sitting at a desk (or someplace) writing a story down. This makes sense and is not a lie.
quote:
I like first person, present tense because it is limiting for the writer. It forces you to think more about what you are writing.
You will have to explain this to me. Why don't we think about our writing when we write in any other tense and person?
quote:
First person -- the reader can only see, hear, think, what the narrator does. It limits how you present your story -- you can't cheat and slip in information the POV character doesn't know like you can in 3rd person.
I wouldn't say you *can't* cheat. Honestly, I've seen it even in first person. I flag it if I'm critiquing and cringe if it's published, but there it is. Also, properly executed third person limited shouldn't cheat either, if you write it properly. I suppose I can't imagine picking a certain style of writing because I need artificial restrictions to keep me in line. *I* keep me in line.
quote:
When you are using past tense the action has already happened, the reader knows this and knows that the narrator survives what is being described. In first person nothing is preconceived -- it is happening now and anything is possible.
I'm going to respectfully disagree. The trouble is that unless you've got some framework for first person present such as the alien one I described above, I'm going to assume that the narrator is writing all of this after it happened just like in past tense but for some reason feels that a proper story should be told in present tense or is lying to me. I still think it's cheating ot kill off a first person narrator in present tense, in other words.
quote:
Another thing about first person, is that you can follow the thoughts of a narrator that is mistaken about something.
This has nothing to do with tense. It has to do with person, and in fact I would argue that you could do the same in any person (first, second, third...) I have followed the mistaken thoughts of characters in third person limited. (Omniscient would be more difficult to do this in, but also possible....it would just indicate that the narrator is somewhat less than trustworthy and is skewing the story.) Still, that leaves you with many ways of doing just this. I find the easiest style to do this in is third person limitd past tenes myself.
quote:
In the third person, in most instances, the reader comes away thinking "He (narrator) knew it was a lie and didn't let me in on it."
Only in omniscient. Not in limited. There really is a reason that writers use third person past tense limited viewpoint a lot...it seems to have the best of all with the disadvantages of none. But I do still agree that it is not the end all be all.
quote:
I will say that I normally don't consciously choose which one to use. When I begin a story, I automatically start in first person if I am focusing tightly on the protagonist/narrator.
Wince. I must say that I think this is a mistake. Well, not entirely. I often write exploratory drafts without knowing exactly where a story is going or what it will be about and in that case I will probably just start in my standby of third person limited. But at some point I think that actively choosing a tense and a person is very important. And in the end, even if *I* disagree with your choice, I would think that you should have a reason for choosing it. Not so you can defend yourself per se, but so you are taking an active role in the writing process. How can you improve as a writer until you know why things work/don't work and why you do the thigns you do?
Perhaps another reason is that for the past decade we have been typing 1ppt messages (such as this one) to our cyber friends and we are used to reading their 1ppt replies? But those of us who succumb to this familiarity fail to make the distinction between chat and fiction.
[This message has been edited by keldon02 (edited April 07, 2005).]
The other thing I want to mention is that, if you choose to write in an unusual tense or person, you should NOT be able to effectively translate it to 3rd past (or any other choice) just by going through and changing the tense, etc. If you are able to do this without losing anything, then it should have been in 3rd past to start with. For example, a first person story should have a distinctive voice that would be lost if changed to 3rd person. If it only has your usual narrator voice, then why have it be first person to start with? Third person limited is just as restrictive, if that's what you're going for. Likewise, if you want a dreamlike quality, present tense might be a good choice. But if you want immediacy--or at least, if you want the READERS to feel immediacy whatever you may feel--stick with past tense.
Maybe we're running across a different group of new writers. The most common mode I've seen with new writers, especially in scifi, is 3rd person omniscient and then once they figure out what POV is they go to third person limited.
On the tense thing, I said that I tend to slip out of present tense to past tense, not to third person past tense.
You have a bias towards 3rd person past tense - nothing wrong with that, but I don't agree that it is always the best way to go. I'll ask the question: Why, in your opinion, is third person limited, past tense the default? And why is anything else an "unusual tense or person"?
i don't have a "default" tense or person. i ALWAYS predetermine what i'm going to use and for what reason. usually i choose past tense... ok, so far i have always used past tense for the majority of the story. HOWEVER, i will sometimes slip in a little bit of present tense... but my person varies. one of my novels i'm working on is going to be in third omni, with a first person shell (best way i can think of to explain it... i'd have to provide an example for it to make perfect sense i think) and a lacing of 3rd present and 1st present (which is the way that encyclopedic and journal entries are written). another of my novels i am working on is in third limited, tightly focused on a single main character. finally, i write many of my shorts in first person. why? because i find it easier to write character-driven shorts, and for these shorts to have only one, maybe two, main characters. first person is great for that situation.
my novel with the complex person set-up also has a reason. i have two connected stories occuring at two completely different times, but i'm telling them together. i have a single main character for the outer story, who is listening to a story-teller give the inner story, and i am putting journal and encyclopedic entries at the beginnings of chapters. story-tellers, as a common cliche, always talk in third omni past tense
my novel that is in third limited tightly focused on a single main character also has a reason. this is a story about the story-teller of the other novel. i need to have the reader know what's in this guys mind, but i also need them to be able to step back and take a look at the larger picture that this guy DOESN'T want them to know about... if i had chosen first person, he'd be the narrator, and it's hardly believable to have a story-teller tell his own story in first person, he'd tell it exactly the same way he'd tell any other story, and might even hide the fact it was him. not to mention that he'd tell you exactly what he wanted you to know and nothing else. if it were in 3rd omni, it'd be groundless, just floating there without having a reason. 3rd omni isn't a format to be taken lightly.
quote:
They are probably different than someone else's, but that's the beauty of opinion - you don't have to agree.
Of course I don't. But in case you couldn't tell, I started this topic for the express purpose of discussing (not necessarily agreeing on ) the pros and cons of this style of writing. As such, I wanted to challenge your points and I rather expected some of my points to be challenged as well. That's what makes for a lively learning experience all around!
And just for the record, when I first started writing I always used first person. It was natural since most of my stories sprang out of dreams (day or night) and I was always the star. In fact, many of my earlier stories have heroines that could have been me, right down to the place we lived, the bratty younger brother, two parents, etc.
I slowly and grudgingly switched to third after several years of writing because (don't laugh) I was getting too close to my characters. I wanted to put some distance between them and myself. At that time, I accidentally started using third person limited without even realizing that's what I was doing. I skipped omniscient entirely and have only ever written one story that way. (Last year...just to see if I could do it....I think I failed )
As for newbie writers and what they do....be careful who you're considering a newbie. Just because someone hasn't been published does not mean they're new. I'm 27 and have been writing (literally) for 16 years...and that means formally and seriously. I actually got started dreaming and doodling before that. You'd be amazed how many writers on this site picked up their pencil years ago rather than recently. Writing is hard. It takes years to get the craft right. The road to publication is long, hard, and paved with rejections.
I spent a year taking classes at a site called Writer's Village University. There I did meet an astounding number of people who were just starting to write for the first time. (They said so in their class intros...Hi I'm so and so and I've been writing for a few months now, ever since I retired...or something like that.) Among these people there was a higher-than-average proportion of first person and (smaller but there) present tense.
Really, not many people do use the style, but I knew some people liked it a lot, swear by it even, and I wanted that discussion.
That said, rickfisher and Dude are using very different definitions of "new writers". Dude is talking about "writers" who have never actually given any thought to composition, formal qualities, POV, tense...in other words, people that rickfisher wouldn't call writers anymore than he would call Homer Simpson a carpenter.
When rickfisher refers to "new writers", he means someone that has made a serious commitment to the craft but has not yet mastered certain skills that distinguish the motivated amateur or apprentice from the journeyman.
Part of that comes from being on the site longer. If you've been around here for a while you get out of the habit of calling certain people "writers" because they think that "writing" consists of coming up with cliche ideas written in bastardized and grammatically incoherent screenplay/omni ur-format, and then crying about how editors and critiquers that insist on having a mastery of the language are philistines bent on destroying anything imaginative and new.
My own baseline for being a writer is that a writer reads (rather than scans) and writes (rather than scrawls). I usually leave out the paranthetical bits, amongst writers the caveat is (usually) understood.
And, given my own definition, you can see why I don't put "new" writers in a special group separate from other writers.
That settled (to my satisfaction), I think that this entire thread serves no real purpose. If I critique a story, and tell the author that I think it should be in a different tense and person, I will state the reasons that I feel apply to that particular story and writer. If I know ahead of time that the story is in first person present tense, and that the writer is intent on keeping it that way, then I will decline to critique it, because I know that I will have enourmous difficulty looking past the glaring flaw of the 1ppt in order to see either the merits or other flaws of the story. But I'm not planning to bar anyone from ever getting a critique from me simply because they argue in favor of a literary conceit that I find annoying and stupid.
That's just me. There are editors (usually of "literary" journals that pay in "academic prestige") who will eagerly accept 1ppt writing. But an editor that is not eager to publish something written in that style will usually simply reject it unless you are a "Big Name" of some kind. And that's because most readers ( by which I mean people that read) will not willingly read it. But some will read nothing else. I personally think they do so out of a deep and fundamental ignorance of the English language and particularly its literature, but that's my own opinion, one that they do not admit to sharing.
quote:
First of all, I so agree that we should not limit ourselves.
Well, I think within any given story we should pick one and limit ourselves to it in that story.
I uses first person past tense in my novel so because it was autobiographical fiction. Is that sufficient excuse? Or are you baggin' more on the present tense than the first person?
P.S. I can't believe I'm justifying myself to someone who used two rhetorical quesions and an exclamation point in one thread title. :P
[This message has been edited by franc li (edited April 09, 2005).]
quote:
story-tellers, as a common cliche, always talk in third omni past tense
quote:
3rd omni isn't a format to be taken lightly.
i just realized what a total ass i must have sounded like when i said these two statements in the same post... they appear to be the splutterings of a terrible hypocrit, don't they?
i was trying to say that because of the common cliche that storytellers use 3rd omni, it reinforces my narrator's voice to go ahead and subscribe to that philosophy, and 3rd omni is interesting to write in, and since it works for the story, i'm using it.
however, 3rd omni should NOT be used in a story that has absolutely no use for it, either cliched or not. and, when you do use third omni, you need to be very careful with it and make sure to not do anything that will feel like cheating. cheating is EXTREMELY easy to wind up doing in 3rd omni if you aren't careful.
EDIT: this thread seems to have turned more into a discussion about all the various tenses and persons, hasn't it?
personally, as for first present. i say don't do it. not in a story anyways. journal entries can get away with it though...
[This message has been edited by dpatridge (edited April 09, 2005).]
Survivor, from what I can tell, you equate first person present tense with literary writing and that turns you off. I can see that, I prefer commercial fiction to literary fiction(although I will read both - good literary fiction being harder to find) -- most of the time literary fiction is written for the express purpose of showing off how many words you know and how flowery you can make your prose. Still, that dislike or bias doesn't seem to be a good reason to write it off as bad.
I feel a writer should look to any source for inspiration or to learn new techniques. Anything that makes your own writing stronger. I know I've learned quite a bit from lurking around this site for the last couple of years and hope to continue to do so as I become more involved. (It seemed the safest thing to do -- there are some creepy looking things hovering in the shadows around this place.)
For my part, I have never spent a whole lot of time thinking about what tense to write in, or what voice is being used. I have tried to write in first person a couple of times, but as previously stated, that tense really restricted my ability to feed the reader additional information. While I liked the immediacy of first person, I traditionally opted for third person because it was more convenient for providing backstory.
I have read a zillion books over the years, and only a few select ones really stand out in my mind. One book I read years ago was a featured story in Reader's Digest Condensed Books called "I Start Counting". It was a nice little murder-mystery and it was written in first person. It was well done, and there was nothing that felt forced or uncomfortable about that POV. It was a great writing style to regulate the pace with which the clues were revealed to the main character.
Thinking about that story makes me feel like it would be an excellent challenge to write a story from first person, if only as an exercise. I think it would take some specific skills to successfully carry it off.
quote:
Why, in your opinion, is third person limited, past tense the default? And why is anything else an "unusual tense or person"?
As for it being the "default": well, that wasn't my word, but I'll accept it. I'll grant that I have a bias toward 3PL past, though I didn't say or suggest that it was the only, or always the best, way to go. In fact, I gave examples of when not to use it. But since it IS the most common, it gets in the way of the readers the least, and therefore probably should be used UNLESS you have a reason to use something else. That makes it the default. However, there are numerous reasons to use first person rather than third person. There are maybe three or four reasons for using present tense rather than past tense. The requirements of most stories (by which I simply mean the majority, not "almost all") don't satisfy those reasons, but when they do, by all means use the appropriate tense and person.
As for "new writers": wow, I really didn't mean to set anything off there. I was responding to Dude's statement: "When I first began writing, . . . " and merely sought to suggest that his experience didn't match my own perceptions of a larger group.
I stand by my main points: 1) present tense does NOT add immediacy, but rather a distancing, dreamlike effect--which can be useful, if that's what you're striving for; 2) first person has some advantages over 3PL, and some disadvantages (advantages: some writers can only make a first person narrator come to life, it can strengthen immediacy if reminders are not continually thrown in that this was written later [or it can create a deliberate distancing by such reminders--but some readers never forget it even without the reminders], it allows for a unique voice, it allows for an unreliable narrator; disadvantages: it limits you to a single POV, it comes off as rather flat if there is NOT a unique voice, the reader knows that the character has to live to tell the tale, you can never trust the narrator, if conversations are reported verbatim it may seem artificial or unbelievable).
Generally, it's easier to write a first person story than a first person novel because of the inability to change POV. This isn't a killer, by any means; it is quite possible to write an entire novel from a single POV. In fact, the entire Harry Potter series (aside from Book 1 chapter 1) is from Harry's POV, though it isn't written in first person. (Imagine if it were: it couldn't simply be translated from "he" to "I" without making Harry sound terribly egotistical.) Also generally, the shorter the piece the easier it is to get away with present tense, because the dreamy nature and/or the subconscious translation into past tense which most readers wind up doing most of the time is less wearing for a short read. I do think that, if you're trying to write in present tense and you keep slipping into past, necessitating a search to make it all consistent, you should ask yourself "Why?" If even the author is translating it this way, it serves no purpose. If it's there for a reason, then changing it to past will give the story a different feel. The author shouldn't, in that case, be making that mistake.
[This message has been edited by rickfisher (edited April 10, 2005).]
I think that the discussion mainly centers on the conceit of using first person present tense for direct narrative. Certainly that is what I had understood to be the main thrust of the conversation.
It sounds complicated, but it worked pretty good.
quote:
i don't have a "default" tense or person. i ALWAYS predetermine what i'm going to use and for what reason.
I have read a few stories where first/present made the most sense. I recently read a story written in 2nd/future, which actually worked and was the logical choice for the story. In each case, though, I am certain the author thought about what tense to use and why.
[This message has been edited by Christine (edited May 25, 2005).]
[This message has been edited by aeckles (edited May 25, 2005).]
That Christine felt it necessary to give a "newbie" instruction on how to use this forum. Perhaps you should write up the rules and post them. Jeez, is it so hard NOT to respond to something?
That aeckles allowed himself (or herself) to feel offended by Christine's post. If you don't have thick enough skin not to be offended by a post on an on-line forum (and it's not offensive, just terse), how on earth do you plan to survive the hoard of rejection letters a-waiting you?
And I don't have the faintest clue as to why I should care, but damn it, I hate this kind of crap.
Isn't this the 18-and-older forum?
PS -- I'm NOT going to delete this post. I read what was originally said, and I stand by what I say now.
[This message has been edited by Jerome (edited May 25, 2005).]
[This message has been edited by Christine (edited May 25, 2005).]
[This message has been edited by aeckles (edited May 25, 2005).]
quote:
i don't have a "default" tense or person. i ALWAYS predetermine what i'm going to use and for what reason.
I have a default: third person, past tense. I will use it unless I decide I have a good reason not to. (And, despite the horror it causes to Christine, I've used first person, present tense.) I don't need to come up with a good reason to use my default, all I need is the lack of a good reason to use something else.
http://www.hatrack.com/writers/writers/index.shtml
http://www.hatrack.com/writers/writers/how-to-join.shtml
with
http://www.hatrack.com/writers/writers/how-groups-work.shtml
giving information on how to do an online critique group.
I don't know if people even read these pages.
Any guidelines posted here in the actual forum will disappear into the ether if the topic isn't kept current by additional posts.
Perhaps what I should do is start some kind of "Rules" topic (since the FAQ area doesn't seem to be getting much use) and take from the discussion of what the rules might be to come up with better introductory web pages to replace the ones linked to above.