First-person past tense vs first-person present tense

[Legendary Sidekick]

When I gave Panda feedback about Falling, I just noted that if the dream perspectives are in present tense, that should be consistent (some of the dreams were in present tense, some of them were in past tense). As I've said, I don't have any problem with it in that specific case. I just wanted to say that, like her other beta-reader, I find present tense more difficult to read.

The action was also in present. Past was her having the character look back, reflecting on past dreams. Dreams that took place after the reflection were in present.

To be consistent(ly in present tense), she could have had the story take the reader through the dreams chronologically. I didn't suggest that, since the reflective nature of the character seemed to have a purpose, and I only recommend a change when I can see how that change would improve the story.

 

[Nimue]

Well, I'm also kind of not sure about having dreams taking place in the present be in present tense, while action taking place in the present is in past tense. I think it is all understandable, but might benefit from clearer delineation, like using italics. But, uh, I already told her that, and at two hours to the deadline, I think all we can say is best of luck!

 

[Penpilot]

Personally, when I read present tense I usually need a bit of time to adjust to it, but once I do, I don't even notice it any more. Yes, there are people who find present tense off-putting, and some who can't even read it for what ever reason. But I think there are probably more who don't notice or don't care.

Before I started studying writing, I read books that I didn't even realize were present tense. And when I mentioned these books to a friend who is a avid reader and who absolutely devours books, he didn't realize that some of those books were in present tense either.

The Hunger Games series is written in first person present, and it did OK for itself.

Also this is just one reader. Before you start worry too much about it, get some more feed back from people who have read your work. If only one person points out a problem out of many who have read your work, then it may not be a problem at all. And even if it is, if you like writing in present tense, the only way to get better is to practice.

Present tense can and does work.

I used to write in present tense but decided to switch to past because I felt it let me mentally get into my character's skins more. But I found that the experience of writing in present tense helped me with my sentence flow and with my active voice.

 

[Steerpike]

This was Panda's question:

I'm aware of Panda's question. If you go back and look at my initial post, where I mention House of Leaves, it seems to me pretty clear that I was making a statement about writing generally by that point, and the overall state of literature, in addition to talking about Panda's work in a general sense - in terms of his/her vision for the work. That's no longer a narrow, limited response to Panda's initial question but an extension of that question to a broader discussion of literature and how new writers are treated. It was to that comment that you made your reply lamenting the fact that people cite successful authors.

No one is discouraging honest critique or criticism. However, if as a general principle your argument is that new writers should be encouraged to be safe and conform to whatever the expectations of a majority may be, I disagree. I also disagree that successful authors who have forged their own path shouldn't be held up as an example - whether they're first time authors, established writers, or writers of classics.

If I've misread what you're saying and those aren't the positions you take, then I apologize. If it was a misreading, please clarify what you meant so I understand the point you're making.

 

[Nimue]

I don't believe that new writers should mindlessly conform. I think that writers, no matter how new, can do whatever the heck they want--but it's probably a good idea for them to be aware of possible difficulties and risks while they're doing this. As I said before, it's just that things like present-tense narration should be used thoughtfully and for a reason, not just because they sound cool.

Maybe this is only my perspective, but if I'm worried about doing something risky in my writing, hearing something like "Tolkien did it!" not as an example of how to do it well but as a justification for why it's fine for me to do it--I would not find that helpful, because the fact that it's been done well doesn't mean it's automatically a good idea for me to do it.

If I've been an asshole trying to say this, or for saying this in the first place, I can honestly thank you for letting me know. Writing for me is a self-critical process, but turning this type of criticism towards people who aren't asking for it is the surest kind of assholery. One that I'm prone to, and I should really not reply to these kinds of threads because of that. I need that reminder sometimes.

 

[Steerpike]

If I've been an asshole trying to say this, or for saying this in the first place, I can honestly thank you for letting me know. Writing for me is a self-critical process, but turning this type of criticism towards people who aren't asking for it is the surest kind of assholery. One that I'm prone to, and I should really not reply to these kinds of threads because of that. I need that reminder sometimes.

Not at all. You have a strong opinion on the topic, and a well-thought out rationale to back it up. Nothing wrong with that.

My general approach to any question a new writer asks that starts "can I do x" is YES. But the follow up question always has to be "did you do X effectively?" You can do anything you want, but you have to make it work, and sometimes as a new writer you're going to need other to tell you whether you made it work when you tried it.

I usually mention examples of things being done when it seems like people are saying "no, you can't do that." And, additionally, I mention them when I think they're examples of how another author actually did it well, because that can be helpful. But I do think it serves both purposes: 1) an empirical demonstration that yes you can do that, because someone has; and 2) an example of how to do it well.

But it still falls back, ultimately, to whether the new author has done it well in her given instance. If I don't think she has, I don't try to talk them into doing something else, but instead try to help them figure out why they didn't pull it off.

My perspective may be different than most, because I as a reader I really don't care about things like tense and POV. First person, second, third, past tense or present...if it is done well I'll read it and I can't really say that I have a preference. Except, of course, that I prefer works that do whatever they're doing well over those that don't.

 

[TheHeroOfCanton]

I'm with Steerpike, you can typically get away with breaking any norm, as long as you realize why and how you're doing it.

 

[ksvilloso]

Nothing new to add to this thread, but this is one of those things that used to bother me in theory only. When I actually got the opportunity to sit down with a good book, I didn't even notice it was written in present tense.

I think it all has to do with the writer's skill--writing in first-person, present tense brings you a lot closer than writing in first-person, past tense, and thoughts have a greater potential of really jumping out at you. So there is a sense of urgency that, if handled right, could make for an absolutely riveting experience. I can also see how it can be an absolutely terrible idea if, say, the writer has a very descriptive versus introspective prose.

 

[Nimue]

Oh my god, I'm a ****ing idiot. Panda's short story was written almost entirely in present tense, and the fact that I didn't really notice that after reading it three times makes me think that I have less difficulty with present tense than I think I do. I will maintain that it can be jarring, and the shift between tenses did confuse me, but maybe this is one of those things that I only cared about when I was a crotchety teenager. I wouldn't even read books in first person for a while there.

*goes to hide under a rock*

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I like present tense for short stories. It can carry a sense of urgency and intimacy which enhances shorter pieces. For novels, I don't think I'd like it as much, but I'm not certain. I've never read a novel in 1st/Present.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

Oh my god, I'm a ****ing idiot. Panda's short story was written almost entirely in present tense, and the fact that I didn't really notice that after reading it three times makes me think that I have less difficulty with present tense than I think I do. I will maintain that it can be jarring, and the shift between tenses did confuse me, but maybe this is one of those things that I only cared about when I was a crotchety teenager. I wouldn't even read books in first person for a while there.

*goes to hide under a rock*

Heh… I gave up trying to convince you of that. I figured you'd eventually notice.

But anyway, that you didn't notice the tense may demonstrate that she was doing present tense right. If you are jarred by present tense, it could be that the narrative is being treated like past tense but with present tense verbs. There's more to present vs. past than the form of the verb. There's a certain approach to the story you take in present tense, often pacing the story to "match" the visuals, and you keep everything chronological for the most part. That can be done in past tense as well, but in past tense you can also jump in and out of the timeline without "cheating."

The "sense of urgency" TAS mentioned may have to do with this: in first-person past, the storyteller is telling you somewhat that happened. S/he survived it. In first-person present, the POV character can die without the writer "cheating."