posted
I have a question about the tense of a story. I have just begun reading a short story by Nancy Kress called "Evolution." It is found in The Year's Best SF, Vol. 1, edited by David G. Harwell. Nancy writes the story in present tense as opposed to past tense. Could anyone offer a possible reason as to why she would choose the present tense?
Stephen King has also noted that it's now in vogue for short stories to be written in the present tense. Does anyone know why this is so?
One last question. I suspect that the choice of tense has something to do with how the author wants the reader to react to the story (though, I'm not too sure about that). For those of you who have read stories written in the present tense, what do you think of it? Would you have preferred the past tense? Would the story have been better in the past tense?
Personally, I am enjoying Nancy's story very much; but, I wonder if that has to do with the tense or with her skills as a story teller.
[This message has been edited by Augustine (edited October 15, 2001).]
posted
If you think about the way we tell each other stories--say, the way you would describe a movie you've just seen to someone else who wants to know what happens in the movie--often you will hear the use of present tense:
He says "blah, blah, blah" so I say, "yadda, yadda, yadda" and then she comes up and starts talking, too, but we don't listen....
Most likely, the use of present tense by an author is an attempt to recreate this intimacy between friends.
The story telling convention is to use simple past tense with past perfect for the story's past (as in flash backs, for example). This is what readers are used to reading, and it works fine.
When an author uses present tense instead, the author runs the risk of distracting the reader (because present is different), but if the author can make the story feel closer to the reader, the risk is worth it.
There is also a chance that the reader will feel more a part of the story, more involved. Present tense is believed by some to provide what is called "immediacy."
As with anything that goes against the conventions (or what readers are used to), the author has to be very good--as Nancy Kress is--to get away with something the readers are not used to.
If the story is strong enough, it will work. If it isn't strong enough, it will distract the reader until the reader quits reading.
And it isn't just in short stories. I've read enough (and written enough) that it's very rare for me to find a book that I can't put down. Usually the best thing I can say about a book is that I'm anxious to get back to it.
A few years ago, however, I stayed up until about 3am reading because I couldn't find a "stopping place" where I could put the book down. This book was written in present tense, and that present tense may have contributed to the effect.
Title? BRIGHTNESS FALLS FROM THE SKY by James Tiptree. (At least, I think that's how the title is worded.)
I don't know if the book would have the same effect on another reader, but it did manage to sustain the present tense through a full-length novel.
[This message has been edited by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (edited October 15, 2001).]
posted
Kathleen-- as always-- did an exceptional job addressing your question.
My 2 cents worth as a reader, though, is that I hate present tense. Hate it, hate it, hate it. Granted, I've not read many of Nancy Kress' work-- and certainly not the one you reference-- but unless it is an author I absolutely love and would suffer through anything for, if I pick up a book written in present tense, I put it back on the shelf. (No flames please about pre-judging a book... It's just how I feel.)
Thank you so much for your response (and for the clarification about POV in another post).
quote: Most likely, the use of present tense by an author is an attempt to recreate this intimacy between friends.
That is so true! That's exactly what I feel when I'm reading Kress's story . . . a sense of friendship. But it seems that this would only work if the story is also told in first person, don't you think? (Nancy's story is also in first person.)
For example, Michael Moorcock employs the present tense in Chapter 1 of Elric of Melnibone. It was interesting to read, but also very distracting. I wouldn't have read the novel (and it’s a short one!) if it was written entirely in the present tense. I think that's because I didn't get a sense of intimacy from Moorcock, but, rather, a sense of artistic prowess. And the reason why I didn't get a sense of intimacy is because he wrote it in the third person, not in the first. Is that congruent with your own experience?
[This message has been edited by Augustine (edited October 15, 2001).]
posted
Hmmm... I always use the most orthodox technique I can, simply so that people are not distracted. I prefer a tightly limted 3rd past; occasionally, I use 1st past. I figure conventions are in place for a reason, and after all, the words are (hopefully!) transparent.
But that's just me.
[This message has been edited by chad_parish (edited October 16, 2001).]
posted
Augustine, if the author is trying to achieve a feeling of intimacy in the reader, then I would recommend first person for sure.
Intimacy isn't the only goal with present tense, however. Some authors argue that it gives "immediacy" which is similar to intimacy, but relates more to a feeling that the story is happening even more "now" than the conventional past tense stories give. I think they hope it gives a greater sense of urgency than past tense. (If it works, then it works. If not....)
The book by Tiptree that I mentioned is in third person, I think. (I have to find it to make sure I have the title right and check on the point of view.)
Chad, conventions are conventions because they are what people are used to. Some writers argue that the job of an artist is to educate the audience into being able to appreciate the unconventional. Those artists often have a hard time finding their audience, however.
Anyway, if something unconventional works well enough to become popular, it can actually become the new convention. That happens more often than we might think, I'd guess, but we usually don't notice it unless someone points it out to us.
posted
I personally like to stick to the orthodox way of writing, with one notable exception. In my current project, the main character has a dream. Dreams are very important in this universe, and in order to set it apart from the rest of the story, I wrote the dream sequence in the present tense. I also found, as Kathleen as already said, that it gave the dream a sort of immediacy, which seemed right for a dream, since they are very immediate to us (i.e. we can't have a second-hand experience of a dream, because it's happening to us directly). My two pennies worth (being British). JK
Posts: 503 | Registered: Sep 2000
|
I wouldn't say there is an "orthodox" way of writing. Like all art forms, writing has evolved over the years. For example, the novel didn't come about until the 17th century (I think), and since then, it has gone through a number of changes. I think there is a contemporary style (e.g., the use of past tense) that the majority of readers are used to.
I do like your technique of writing a dream sequence in the present tense. Have you read Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury? In his dream sequence, he uses no captial letters or punuaction to give the effect of a stream of consciousness. It's very effective (though very difficult to read!).
[This message has been edited by Augustine (edited October 16, 2001).]
posted
Since you're talking about dreams... I sometimes use the 1st person pov, when discribing a dream (but the novel is in the 3rd person).
About "orthodox way of writing": What's that?! I don't know anything about it! All great old authors would seem "anorthodox" today, for one reason or another, if they were not supposed to be "classics".
posted
I tried to write a present tense dream one time; I found it irritating to both read and write, so I deleted it and re-wrote it as past.
I deleted and re-wrote, rather than simply retrofitting in the new tense, for fear of accidently leaving a few verbs in the wrong tense.
---
"Orthodox" way of writing?
Allow me to list a few writers' names, who mostly use first or third past tense: Tom Clancy Michael Crithon Robert Heinlein Larry Niven JRR Tolkien . . .
If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me.
(Not that I want to stop you from writing how you feel you should.)
posted
Your list excluded Stephen King who just co-authored a bestseller which was in the present plural tense, Black House. He also writes in the present third tense.
I am pretty sure Stephen King sold better than Clancy and Crichton.
posted
By orthodox, I meant the past tense, third person. These types of shorts/novels outnumber the first person's, as well as the present tenses. Therefore they are an orthodox. Possibly *grin* I haven't read it, Augustine, but it sounds intriguing (SP?). I may just search it out in my library. Though it isn't quite relevant, I will share one thing that has always struck me about Michael Crichton's writing: he always calls his characters by their last names. This strikes me as a little odd, since there's less familiarity with the characters. Makes it seem as if he writes the story just for the plot and not the characters. Anyway, not relevant, will stop now. JK
Posts: 503 | Registered: Sep 2000
|
quote: Makes it seem as if he writes the story just for the plot and not the characters.
That's just his style. I never noticed that particular thing; what I have noticed about Crichton is that I love his books.
He tends to emphasize plot more than character, yes; but his plots are SO DAMN GOOD, and so fast-paced, so what? Who needs chaaracters when you have dinasours trying to eat you?
I prefer a well-plotted, fast-paced story any day. I've always felt a Crichton book feels like it took five minutes to read.
posted
Oh I like Crichton, it's just that I like to have my characters on at least an even par with the plot. But Crichton is a good writer, and I like a lot of his stuff. JK
Posts: 503 | Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted
About first person being more intimate: I'm not sure I agree with that, altogether. In first person, you're getting someone's words about themselves, and by writing it in first person you're emphasizing that it's something being told.
By contrast, with third person you can go right to the brain. You're still telling the story, of course, but you're not emphasizing the fact, and you're not limited by the character's voice, or by what the character would choose to say.
So, I'd suggest that the third person has the ability to be even more intimate than the first, the different being sitting inside someone's head instead of across the table from her or him.
That said, of course very intimate stories seem to come in both first and third person flavors.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
All great old authors would seem "anorthodox" today, for one reason or another, if they were not supposed to be "classics".
