posted
Why of why do people write stories in first person present tense? Seriously. I have noticed that there are some authors who just write that way, all of the stories, all of the time. For those of you who do, I would like to know why. I will hold back commentary until I see some discussion because I don't want to influence the answers. I really really want to know why.
Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003
|
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....
posted
That was an interesting simul-post. I just wanted to add, my mention of "immediacy" was not in response to your post Rahl, just in general.
Posts: 230 | Registered: Feb 2005
|
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.
posted
I think that present tense is best used in dialogue for someone who would actually speak that way: "So I meet this guy and he tells me that he's the king of England. Who does he think he's kidding?" etc.
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).]
posted
I've written one story this way. I wasn't trying to show off or anything. It just seemed natural. It seemed to be the best short story I've ever written....
Posts: 1275 | Registered: Mar 2004
|
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.
posted
You still have to answer the question of why the narrator would have been doing a running commentary that was consciously structured as a story. A series of present tense entries shouldn't have any sense of audience or of the overall plot. In other words, it shouldn't be a story.
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.
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.
But that signal is due to tradition, rather than anything inherent in present tense. If the audience is used to present tense for serious fiction, then the use of present tense in telling a joke does not mean what you think it means.
Posts: 1517 | Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted
I've written two short stories in first person present tense in my Creative Writing class. It's very hard to write a good story like this, but it gives a certain randomness to it. One was basically the reader hearing the person's thoughts, and the other was the narrator basically meaning to tell a story. I did the later, because there was times that he would basically talk to the reader, and in some cases threaten them. :P
Posts: 39 | Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted
I can't agree that it's tradition. Or rather, that is a factor, but past tense is really better. The reason is that our consciousness is not really in "the present." Every event in your life has already happened. By the time you notice it, it's over. Not only that, but it has happened at a particular time in relation to all the other events of your life. Past has room for all those relations. Present is just the moment.
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.
posted
If you want to be really crazy about time stuff, we don't ever really experience the "present". There's a small lag between the time we perceive something and the time when it reaches our brain due to finite nerve conduction. Because of this, it seems that we ONLY experience the past.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted
I don't understand why any writer would want to limit their writing options. It makes no sense to write only 3rd person or only 1st person or only past tense, etc. It's like a major league pitcher only knowing one pitch. Fast ball ... smack, fast ball ... smack, fast ball ... smack, . . . game over. That being said, I like first person, present tense because it is limiting for the writer. It forces you to think more about what you are writing.
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.
posted
I'll agree with Eric that there is nothing inherent in present tense that makes it impossible for humans to take a story told entirely in present tense seriously. But I'll agree with rickfisher and Jeraliey that there is something inherent in humans that makes it impossible for us to take a story told in present tense at face value.
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.
posted
I've critiqued Present Tense stories. I noted it in the margins to mention it later, but after a while I didn't even notice...
Posts: 1275 | Registered: Mar 2004
|
posted
Most of my arguments against extensively using first person present tense have already been covered here so I feel no need to harp. Dude said a few things I wanted to address, though.
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?
posted
Christine, What is that old adage: "write what you know." I think that third person past tense is the easiest to write and requires less "thinking" to get right, because it is so prevalent in modern writing. When I first began writing, before I knew what third person was, I always wrote that way because that's what I read (You learn to write by reading, correct?) I think many writers today are biased toward this mode for this reason. You asked why people like to write in first person present tense and I told you my reasons. They are probably different than someone else's, but that's the beauty of opinion - you don't have to agree. I find that for a single narrator/protagonist it works well (that's why I naturally start writing that way for a story of this nature without counsciously choosing). I would bet your first choice is normally 3rd person past tense. Although it is harder to do right than 3rd person past tense, for me, because I tend to revert to past tense in the middle of the story or sentence. It usually takes more thought and revisions to find all these regressions or stop them as you go. No matter your preference, really the only requirement is that you write an engaging story. Posts: 266 | Registered: Mar 2004
|
posted
I suspect the most common motive is a misdirected attempt to engender a sense of 'being there'. Unfortunately it just makes me feel like the writer is inept.
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).]
posted
Dude--your point about 3rd past being the "easiest" because it's the most commonly read, and therefore comes most naturally, is interesting, but doubtful. The most common thing among new writers seems to be first person, with a high proportion of present tense.
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.
posted
I think that whether or not a particular tense and person is the "naive" form that most new writers choose to use has very little to do with anything.
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).]
posted
I have written a couple stories in first person present, but they have been short and lighthearted. I would certainly not choose to use that tense for most stories, for longer stories, or for darker stories.
Posts: 818 | Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted
I don't put new writers in a separate group either. I think you are a writer once you are bitten by the writing bug. I can't describe it any clearer, but as Survivor pointed out, it's usually pretty clear which people are writers and which are just playing around. Rickfisher started the "new writer" comparison, I just answered his post. No, I was not referencing this site when I spoke of new writers, I really have no idea how long anyone here has been writing, and it doesn't really matter. We're here to learn from each other.
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.)
posted
I have to laugh at this entire discussion simply because it makes me think of all the worst parts of English class... having to learn the proper 'labels' for various systems of writing were not my favorite part of the class.
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.
posted
I don't know if I really have much to add here, but I always like to answer questions directed specifically at me. (Sorry it took so long, Dude--I never got online yesterday.)
quote:Why, in your opinion, is third person limited, past tense the default? And why is anything else an "unusual tense or person"?
I'll answer the second question first: Since 3PL past is the most common, other things are less common, therefore less usual. "Unusual" may, perhaps, carry implications of "really rare," and I didn't mean it that way. I simply meant "not the usual."
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).]
posted
I've written one story completely in first person present tense. As the story is about a man being stuck in a perptual semi-frozen reality, being stuck in this endless repeat of actions without hope of deliverance, it seemed like the only way to write it. Writing it in the past tense would imply that he'd somehow escaped his predicament or somehow found a way to see that day as different from the ones that came after. Whatever my personal case may be, I have no problems with present tense. It will either work or it won't, just like any other technique or grammatical gimmickery.
Posts: 27 | Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted
I've done first person to a) experiment with the unreliable narrator, b) have a story structured as journal entries. I've never done present tense. FWIW.
Posts: 2830 | Registered: Dec 2004
|
posted
Ever since reading this thread I have encountered handfulls of genre short stories in first person, present. This leads me to believe that either a) something really freaky is happening, or b) they were more common than I realized, but I never paid any attention to it before (i.e. it didn't distract me like it does some of you).
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Apr 2002
|
posted
The tense is very common for stories written as a series of letters or journal entries, because that is one of the appropriate uses of the form. It is true that all of the action in such stories is in past tense, but the story as a whole is in present tense.
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.
posted
The first story I sold was written in first/past, except for one paragraph at the very start and the very last page which were in first/present. The first paragraph echoed the premise for the last page, which was basically a flash piece in itself. All of the past tense part (about 4500 words) was used as a flashback to establish the background for the present tense last page.
posted
My thoughts about first person present tense are this (and correct me if anyone thinks differently). In most cases, I think that this POV allows the writer to SHOW the reader much more, and at a faster rate than in other ways. Also, I don't think you're necessarily telling the story as it happens. Present tense is how a lot of people I know actually TALK. It's breaking the rules of much of what we've been taught about writing, but isn't it time to break some rules? Posts: 4 | Registered: May 2005
|
posted
aeckles, welcome to the boards...may I suggest reading the posts in this topic? I believe all possible resopnses to your statement have already been made. Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003
|
quote:i don't have a "default" tense or person. i ALWAYS predetermine what i'm going to use and for what reason.
I think this is the most important thing that's been said.
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.
posted
Christine, you may suggest it, but I have already read every post in the topic. The question posed was Why do people write in this tense and I offered my opinion. I was unaware that every post was scrutinized to such a degree that a comment can't be made. I'll remember this if I ever choose to post again. Posts: 4 | Registered: May 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).]
posted
Actually I was never offended at all nor did I say that I was. So rejection slips aren't really a concern for me, but thank you for your pep talk. All I did was a simple search for present tense narrative and came across this board, read the postings, and thought I'd respond. I didn't meant to cause such a response.
[This message has been edited by aeckles (edited May 25, 2005).]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
