What's wrong with the present tense?

[ZeroFlowne]

I like the present tense. I'm getting an impression that a lot of people don't like it, and I'm not sure why.

What do you think about the present tense? Why do you like or not like it?

Thanks

[RedScylla]

You'll find plenty of people whose passions run high on the topic of writing in the present tense. I'm not one of them. When done well, I like it for one main reason: The sense of immediacy it conveys.

Even when done well, I dislike it for two reasons:
The sense of immediacy can become exhausting.
Because of its focus on the present moment, it can't benefit from introspection. Characters and narrators alike cannot reflect upon or evaluate past actions.

[scarletpeaches]

...Characters and narrators alike cannot reflect upon or evaluate past actions.

Oh really? Then how do people in every day life, those who think in the present tense, manage to reflect on past actions? It's a matter of writing nothing more complicated than "As I walk along the street, I think about our previous conversation..."

Me, I don't have a problem with any tense as long as it's written well. The writing trumps everything for me. Tense, POV, subject matter - all irrelevant. As long as it's well-written.

[SPMiller]

A lot of folks have irrational prejudices against or misconceptions about writing in the present tense. For example:

Because of its focus on the present moment, it can't benefit from introspection. Characters and narrators alike cannot reflect upon or evaluate past actions.No, that's not remotely true. Present tense has drawbacks, but that's not one of them.

This same argument can be made for first person versus third person. Some people still have inexplicably negative reactions to fiction written in first, and they're often unable to articulate precisely what they don't like about it.

[scarletpeaches]

God, I hope not. After thirty-two years (of being alive, not of writing) I've finally started writing in first.

[SPMiller]

I often write first-present, so I face both sets of prejudices. It's a lot of fun, I assure you.

You're going to find that while some people feel present tense imbues a text with a sense of immediacy, you'll also find those who argue that it produces a distancing effect. How such diametrically opposed opinions could both be true is beyond me. It's one of those eye-of-the-beholder things.

[Toothpaste]

I read a book recently that went back and forth between second person present, first person present and first person past. It was brilliant.

Anything can be done so long as you do it well.

[scarletpeaches]

Oh, Kevin McKidd. Me likey.

[Toothpaste]

(thought you might :) )

[Phaeal]

I think the major prejudice against fiction in the present tense is that the public is used to fiction in the past tense. Especially commercial fiction. Literary fiction in the present tense is nothing new, and my sense is most lit readers don't even blink at it, may even expect it.

There could be a good reason for past tense as default: Most of us do tell our stories AFTER the fact, not while the stories are ongoing. Note, however, a tendency for personal narrative to slip into present tense in moments of narrator excitement: "Well, I went to Starbucks, and Joachim was there. So I go, oh my god, and he walks over, and Susan has to go and say, hey dimbulb, why'd you stand Allison up the other night?" A book written in first person, under the explicit or implied conceit that the narrator is narrating to a friend in informal circumstances, could easily work with present tense. Sophie Kinsella's hugely popular Shopaholic series is in present tense.

A certain narrative authority is gained by using the past tense. The narrator has already been through the events of the story and has presumably gained some perspective on them. Present tense may also be historical, but it gives the impression of immediacy, which may reduce the sense of authority for some readers.

Nonhistorical present tense in a story -- the story really is supposed to be happening to the narrator even as the story progresses -- could strike some readers as pleasingly intense. Others could reject the conceit (probably subconsciously) as illogical.

So I guess I see two basic types of present tense story:

1. Historical present - the story could be told in past tense as well; the events have happened prior to the narration.

2. "Real" present - the story is supposed to be happening in real time; the narrator is experiencing it as it occurs. This story should not include the same type of reflection that a past or historical present story could include -- the narrator's reactions should seem immediate, not mulled over. Some stories would not do well in "real" present tense.

The second type could violate, again, for SOME readers, their basic sense of what a story is -- something that is told to them after it happens, not something they really experience along with the narrator.

Write in the tense you prefer. Just realize that some markets, some editors, and some readers don't like present tense on a visceral level, which does indeed suggest that there's a deeper psychological antipathy than mere custom. I'm sure I haven't expressed well what I feel the antipathy is, but I do believe it's there.

[Jill]

I don't have a problem with any tense as long as it's written well. The writing trumps everything for me. Tense, POV, subject matter - all irrelevant. As long as it's well-written.

Exactly! I've read books that I've drooled over (the "wish I'd written it" type of book) in most tenses - some even with a mixture of tenses.

The same is true of books that I've groaned over.

The secret is almost always in the writing.

[Juliette Wade]

The biggest issue to me is whether the placement of the narrator is entirely consistent. It's not necessarily just a present/past issue. For example, I have a character whose narrative comes from her diary - but each entry is written at a point in the story chronology, and in a location, so she can look back at everything that has happened to her up to that point using past tense, and comment on what's going on while she's writing, or her current attitudes, using present tense. But she doesn't know where the story is going after this, so she obviously can't reflect on later plot points.

Sometimes it can help to visualize your narrator as a person and pin down his/her location both physically and chronologically relative to the main story.

[The Lonely One]

Here's my thoughts (they're a bit angry, so, be aware):

Hating a story because of the tense is like hating a story because of the punctuation. It's stupid, irrelevant and has nothing to do with the plot, although I believe certain tenses avoid different kinds of plot holes regarding time, and help convey the reader's distance from the story.

But other than that, who cares? Are people really that fickle? If you just read a few pages you won't even notice the tense of words if the story's good.

A writer's business is in stories first and conventions second; the first will almost always trump the second barring blatantly incorrect and accidental grammar issues.

Further, it's bizarre to me that something like a different tense or POV could offend someone so deeply as to make them unable to give the story the chance it deserves.

Of course this is just my opinion, but to me tense shouldn't keep anyone from reading a story any more than a semicolon or period should.

Anyone can like any story for any reason they want; similarly they can hate it. However, I would bet a lot of money that there is a story out there somewhere that the most staunch present-tense hater would love if they read it.

[Captain Ian]

Try THE MAIN by Trevanian. Absolutely beautiful.
If you like the present tense, use it! By all means!
However, be wary that writing in the present tense as opposed to the past does not simply come down to changing your verbs. You need to use other, present-tense-specific techniques as well to make it great.

[FennelGiraffe]

Further, it's bizarre to me that something like a different tense or POV could offend someone so deeply as to make them unable to give the story the chance it deserves.

I don't find present tense offensive; I find it intrusive.

That's mostly because I've read much, much more past tense than present. Past tense reads invisibly (when I'm reading for pleasure).

Present, being less familiar, stands out. It catches my attention. It pulls me out of the story and makes me notice I'm reading.

I don't think either one is objectively better. But they do have different effects on readers due to the cumulative weight of past reading experience.

[RobJ]

I like the present tense. I'm getting an impression that a lot of people don't like it, and I'm not sure why.
There's nothing actually wrong with present tense. Some fine novels have been written using it. As you say, some people don't like it. Some people don't like second person point of view, or science fiction, or stories that open with dialogue, but you'll find successful examples of each.

I don't think there's any style that appeals to absolutely everyone, or any piece of writing that is universally enjoyed. That's fine. As long as there's an audience for what you're writing, you needn't worry.

Cheers,
Rob

[Dale Emery]

As far as I know I don't have anything against present tense per se. But I do get a little nervous when I see present tense. Most of the things I see in present tense are also somewhat quirky and experimental in ways that I end up not liking. In those stories I see too much writerliness that gets in the way of my enjoying the story. So over time I come to associate my feelings of disappointment and annoyance with present tense, but it's probably those other quirks and not present tense that I'm really reacting to.

Dale

[scarletpeaches]

Funny how all the people who object to present write their posts in that very tense.

[katiemac]

I read a book recently that went back and forth between second person present, first person present and first person past. It was brilliant.

Anything can be done so long as you do it well.

Toothpaste, could you share the title, if you remember it? Thanks!

[RedScylla]

Careless posting on my part. What I meant and failed to get across accurately, is that in present tense, characters cannot reflect upon the events of the story being told in the present tense. Because they're living it right then. Hope that makes more sense.

As I said, I've got nothing against present tense. It's as valid as any other for telling stories.


Because of its focus on the present moment, it can't benefit from introspection. Characters and narrators alike cannot reflect upon or evaluate past actions.

[scarletpeaches]

I confess I'm still scratching my head on that one as to why it would be a problem. One would simply write in the present tense then in a later chapter if you so wished, have the character reflect on previous events from earlier in the book.

[ZeroFlowne]

Actually, I think characters can examine situations in the present tense.

--
Charlotte walks toward me with a spring in her step. This can't be good.
---

Something like that.

[Linda Adams]

I think it's a hard tense to pull off well. When books really starting popping up in it, I tried out a few and immediately didn't like it. I thought it felt too artificial, too stilted, and even too distant.

Recently, I got an urban fantasy that was done in present tense (Jeanne Stein, for those interested). I put it down on the first page because it was in present tense, but picked it up again a few days later and was hooked. After my initial reaction to the tense, I didn't even notice it and just enjoyed the book.

So maybe it's like omniscient viewpoint--done badly, everyone notices; done well, and it's not as noticeable.

[RG570]

Once again I think this is a critique-group based idea that has no real basis in what people are actually reading and enjoying. I would even go as far as to say that it's not even that shocking or rare in mainstream fiction, and can't figure out why it has this "literary" label on it.

Whenever this issue comes up, I try to imagine Rabbit, Run if it were written in the past tense so as not to offend timid readers. It would have been forgettable.

[maestrowork]

It's a matter of taste. Some people don't like epic fantasies either; it doesn't mean you shouldn't write it.

Many successful novels were written in present tense.

#1 rule: If it works.

The problem is it's more difficult to do well; so if you don't have the chops, probably better stay with 3rd person/past tense.

And writers who write in 3rd/past can suck, too. It's not the tense that is the problem; it's the writer.

[Beach Bunny]

I haven't read very many stories that were written in the present tense. I have given this some thought since I became aware of this trend to write in present tense. (First let me say, I think writers should do what they want to do and what works for them.) Using the present tense for a story doesn't make sense to me. Especially, first person present tense. Because for it to be real, then the author is simultaneously writing down the story and running down the street or whatever it is the character is doing. How does that work? Then by the time that I am reading it, it isn't happening in the present it happened in the past. My brain just can't seem to make that suspension of disbelief in order to get into the story. :Shrug: But, that is me. It works for other people. Some people like it. Some people prefer it. Some don't.

[Aschenbach]

I have to confess I am a bit dubious about present tense.
I think that in technical terms it is very difficult to do well and kudos to anyone who pulls it off. I'm not criticising anyone who writes that way.

But I do tend to stumble with it. After trying to identify exactly why that is, I have come up with these reasons;
Sentences describing perception and action are often very short and punchy, and can have a numbingly repetitive grammatical structure. It feels like I am being constantly prodded.

And I have problems with the "I" in the present tense first person, e.g. "she drops the bowling ball on my foot and I cry out with pain, aaahhhhh!"
I'm thinking - i'm not bowling. My foot's OK. What are you going on about?

I'm not saying these are good reasons, they are just my own subjective responses. And as others have said, that is probably due in large part to the fact I write in 3rd person past and the majority of my reading has been written that way also.

[Shady Lane]

I adore present tense. It's the tense I write in best, and I also prefer reading it, though I rarely notice if a book is in past or present when I'm reading.

I'm writing my NaNo in 3rd present, and much enjoying it.

[ErylRavenwell]

My only gripe with writing in the present is that it involves the usage of too many tenses, even the past tense! It's nearly impossible for me to write in the present. I'm struggling with it right now. Writing in the present is a more erudite style of writing I reckon; something my mind is not wired or conditioned to do.

[tehuti88]

What do you think about the present tense? Why do you like or not like it?

I haven't read the other replies or any updates there may be, so...

Present tense is like most stylistic choices in fiction. I like prologues but I've found here that lots of people seem to hate them and won't even glance at them to see if they're well written or not! Ditto with italics; I see nothing wrong with it but some people won't even look at long stretches of text in italics. *shrug*

I don't like present tense myself. There's nothing WRONG with it, I just don't prefer it. I think of stories as things that have already happened. So of course, I prefer if it's written in past tense, like it's already happened. Present tense just seems jarring to me. I'm the same way with second person--I KNOW the writer doesn't mean I'm the one performing the actions, but that's what my brain thinks anyway--"Why is the writer telling me I'm doing all this? I'm here to read about OTHER people!"

That's just my opinion and preference. Same as there's nothing inherently wrong with cooked carrots, I just don't like eating them.

ETA: Not to mention the fact that many beginning writers really can't seem to stick in present tense for long without lapsing into past.

[maestrowork]

Because for it to be real, then the author is simultaneously writing down the story and running down the street or whatever it is the character is doing.

I think that's one major misconception. I mean, do you really think an omniscient narrator is God sitting there telling you a story? Or a 3rd limited narrator can really get inside someone's mind? Or a story told from the POV of a dog (Cujo)... that the dog actually can write?

These are literary devices to create a mood or narrative distance, etc. The idea of 1st/present is to create the extreme intimacy and urgency of the story. It's not to be taken literally that "the writer is writing down the story as it happens" and definitely not "the story is happening at the same time as I'm reading it."

But I suppose it's a perception that is difficult to change. Much like I couldn't get into epic fantasy because I don't believe dragons and elves and talking lions exist. The issue lies with the reader, not the writer. So it doesn't mean you shouldn't write it. There are enough readers out there who live epic fantasy or novels written in present tense.

[echnos]

My partner writes fan fic. We had this discussion the other day--he and most of his friends who write fanfic tend to write in present tense. I've grudgingly come to like it when it is done well. I find it hard to write myself--too many years of writing it 'the old fashioned way.'

In our discussion we wondered if, due to the high number of fanfic writers out there, and given the seeming preference for present (and yes I know that is generalizing) if that has anything to do with the increase in present-tense-acceptance.

I have no idea, but I know that is what brought me to like it, as he likes reading fanfic to me while I drive (and novels too).

I like it all--first, third, present, past, second POV too when done well (Red Leaves by Thomas H. Cook used second brilliantly side by side with first--but in past tense).

Done well--that's all I want, though I do admit my affection for present tense is a very new one. It is here to stay, I think, and I've no doubt the future will bring many brilliant books written in present. Can't wait!

[RobJ]

In our discussion we wondered if, due to the high number of fanfic writers out there, and given the seeming preference for present (and yes I know that is generalizing) if that has anything to do with the increase in present-tense-acceptance.
Has there been an increase in present tense acceptance?

Cheers,
Rob

[maestrowork]

Has there been an increase in present tense acceptance?

Cheers,
Rob

Judging from some of the bestsellers written in present tense, I'd say yes, especially compared to the "good old days" when most fiction were written in past tense.

Especially in genres such as urban fantasy, YA, etc.... present tense is even the norm.

[Captain Ian]

By the way, I remember reading a novel which had the main narrative in the past tense, and the flashbacks were done in the present tense.

[maestrowork]

By the way, I remember reading a novel which had the main narrative in the past tense, and the flashbacks were done in the present tense.

Five People You Meet In Heaven.

[scarletpeaches]

I refuse to tackle that book until I've stocked up on insulin.

[RobJ]

Judging from some of the bestsellers written in present tense, I'd say yes,
Is there any empirical evidence? Not that it really matters, I'm just curious.

Cheers,
Rob

[Captain Ian]

Five People You Meet In Heaven.

That's not the one I tried to remember, but thanks for bringing it up :D

[AndrewHallOnline]

What's wrong with the present tense? Many readers don't like it. You seem concerned about whether or not your fellow AUTHORS like it. Who cares? They aren't writing your book, and you need more readers to make your book a success than you can find on a writing forum.
What is wrong with the present tense is that many readers don't like it. If you aren't concerned about a lot of readers saying, "Eh, don't think I'll read that", then keep at it in the present tense. Of course there are exceptions - people can point out a book here and there written in present tense that was popular, but that does not change the fact that most successful / great / respected books are not written in present tense.
Last but not least, what's all this talk about "prejudice"? I think that's a foolish way to look at the matter, and muddies the issue. If people find a particular writing style annoying, it isn't a prejudice (suggesting that their opinion is untrue and unfair). It's a reaction to the book. It's a feeling, an opinion. It has nothing to do with prejudice. Claiming that anyone who doesn't like your writing style is prejudiced against it is a crutch.

[Deb Kinnard]

This is all good information as far as readers go. What interests me most is publishers' reactions. They claim story trumps all, and to one extent or another that's true. But unless it says in your target pub's guidelines "no present tense", you may run up against some editor's prejudices anyway. There are a lot of unwritten guidelines the web sites never discuss. Then you've told the story of your heart and you get a form rejection. And you may never know why.

That said, I've read some excellent fic in present. I believe the first I ever ran into was Judy Blume, when I was younger and able to run long distances.

[ejket]

What is wrong with the present tense is that many readers don't like it. If you aren't concerned about a lot of readers saying, "Eh, don't think I'll read that", then keep at it in the present tense. Of course there are exceptions - people can point out a book here and there written in present tense that was popular, but that does not change the fact that most successful / great / respected books are not written in present tense.
Last but not least, what's all this talk about "prejudice"? I think that's a foolish way to look at the matter, and muddies the issue. If people find a particular writing style annoying, it isn't a prejudice (suggesting that their opinion is untrue and unfair). It's a reaction to the book. It's a feeling, an opinion. It has nothing to do with prejudice. Claiming that anyone who doesn't like your writing style is prejudiced against it is a crutch.
I'm one of those people who, all things being equal, would reach for a different book if the one in my hands was written in present. I frankly don't get the point of it, and I find it awkward, annoying, and in many cases gimmicky. I also don't like big books written in first person---smaller ones I can tolerate if they're well done, but I don't think it sustains well over a long haul; it's like I don't mind cramming into an elevator, but not for the whole day. These aren't prejudices, these are my tastes.

That being said, you can't please everyone, so by all means please yourself and write how you like.

[kuwisdelu]

I'm a proud present-tense writer. I've been known to mix it up with first person, too. I write both past and present tense--haven't tried future yet. I've written first, second (yes), and third person. Singular--haven't tried plural, yet. I just use whatever I feel is most appropriate for the story at hand.

I frankly don't get the point of it, and I find it awkward, annoying, and in many cases gimmicky. I also don't like big books written in first person---smaller ones I can tolerate if they're well done, but I don't think it sustains well over a long haul; it's like I don't mind cramming into an elevator, but not for the whole day. These aren't prejudices, these are my tastes.

Must there be a "point"? It is only a different way of doing things. Is there a "point" to writing something in past tense? I have a feeling, if books were traditionally written in present tense, you would feel the same way about past tense.

I'm not saying you're wrong--like you said it's just personal taste. Just an observation.

[ejket]

Must there be a "point"? It is only a different way of doing things. Is there a "point" to writing something in past tense?
I meant that I couldn't understand why anyone would choose present tense; I can't see where it would be worth the trouble. Any sense of immediacy you get from it fades pretty quickly, and it just seems odd and mannered to me.

Past tense is arguably more natural for storytelling; logically when we tell a story we are relating what has happened. I'd need a reason to depart from that.

I have a feeling, if books were traditionally written in present tense, you would feel the same way about past tense.Maybe, but I don't think it's quite that arbitrary. I'd definitely be more accustomed to reading present tense if that were the case.

I'm not saying you're wrong--like you said it's just personal taste.It's true---we're all different in one way or another :)

[AndrewHallOnline]

Must there be a "point"? It is only a different way of doing things. Is there a "point" to writing something in past tense? I have a feeling, if books were traditionally written in present tense, you would feel the same way about past tense.

But book are traditionally written in the past tense. More than two thousand years of stories being written, and they are usually written in the past tense. So, the argument 'if books were traditionally written in the present tense' doesn't get you anywhere.
People don't like present tense because books are usually written that way...books are usually written that way because people like it. IMHO.

[Dawnstorm]

Okay, one for the past-tense defenders on account of "it happened":

Third person limited hides the narrator behind the character. The character's point of view takes precedence over the narrator's. This includes time-reference. Sentences such as

He already bought one lottery ticket today. Still, he wanted to buy another one. Now.

are quite common.

Why do so many "limited" narrators use past tense, when they use words such as "today" or "now", uncertainty about what will happen, etc. for the story? Why do they try to create the illusion of "now" with these words, but not with their tense choice?

I'm not dissing the tense choice. I'm just arguing, that, technically the "past tense" is one of the remaining clues that there is a narrator. And I'm asking why the narrator (who clearly wishes to hide behind the experiencing character) doesn't get rid of this trace, too, and just write in present (which would certainly be more consistent with words such as "today" or "now").

Tense choice is a lot more complicated than "it happened" and "it happens", though this is certainly a major consideration.

[gypsyscarlett]

I don't hate present tense. I simply don't like it. I have read novels in that tense, and will read more. But I will read it despite the fact it is in present. The story has to be so engaging that I am able to overlook the tense.

I simply prefer past tense.

Present tense tires me. And rather than giving me a sense of immediacy and closeness, for some weird reason, it has the opposite affect.

To the OP: don't sweat it. As you can see, everyone has different tastes. You can't please everyone. Write the way that is best and natural for you.

[eyeblink]

What's wrong with the present tense? Many readers don't like it. You seem concerned about whether or not your fellow AUTHORS like it. Who cares? They aren't writing your book, and you need more readers to make your book a success than you can find on a writing forum.
What is wrong with the present tense is that many readers don't like it. If you aren't concerned about a lot of readers saying, "Eh, don't think I'll read that", then keep at it in the present tense. Of course there are exceptions - people can point out a book here and there written in present tense that was popular, but that does not change the fact that most successful / great / respected books are not written in present tense.
Last but not least, what's all this talk about "prejudice"? I think that's a foolish way to look at the matter, and muddies the issue. If people find a particular writing style annoying, it isn't a prejudice (suggesting that their opinion is untrue and unfair). It's a reaction to the book. It's a feeling, an opinion. It has nothing to do with prejudice. Claiming that anyone who doesn't like your writing style is prejudiced against it is a crutch.

No, it's a prejudice if you put the book down unread because of the tense. If you start to read the book and then don't like it (for any reason) it's an opinion.

I've heard of people putting down books because they have a lot of dialogue. That doesn't make dialogue wrong.

Present tense is not new. Four years before I was born, John Updike used it (in third person) for his novel Rabbit, Run. He was conscious he was doing something a little unusual at the time, but he certainly wasn't the first to do it. That was a successful novel - it was filmed and Updike wrote three sequels to it, all in third present. In an interview I read, Updike said he saw the novel in his head as a series of film scenes, and of course film scripts are written in the present tense.

If you want a non-recent bestseller written in the present tense, try Ordinary People by Judith Guest (third person again).

However, there are earlier examples than Updike. There's Joyce Cary's novel Mister Johnson from 1939. Before then, there were Damon Runyon's short stories. Charles Dicken's didn't use present tense for a whole novel, but about half of Bleak House is third present with an omniscient narrator. The other half is first past, narrated by Esther Summerson.

[ejket]

No, it's a prejudice if you put the book down unread because of the tense. If you start to read the book and then don't like it (for any reason) it's an opinion.
That's like saying that I can't have an opinion about disliking Linguini with Red Clam Sauce unless I keep ordering it. (As it happens, I love that dish; it's just an example.)

Please don't denigrate the opinions of others by calling them prejudices. If something makes my lip curl, I don't pursue it, nor am I required to give anything a chance when past experience leads me to avoid it. It would take the unreserved recommendation of someone I trust to make me commit to the effort of overriding my hard-won instincts. The trick of all fine things in life is, after all, to select.

If you like things I don't prefer, that's fine with me...

[scarletpeaches]

Prejudice is when you pre-judge something based on one characteristic.

"I would put a book down if I saw it was written in present tense." not prejudicial? Hmm. How about judging a book on storyline, use of language, plot development, all of the above combined? Not just "This book features one thing I have decided to dislike, therefore I won't bother giving it a chance?"

An opinion comes from knowing something and then making up your mind, not pre-judging it at all.

[seun]

By the way, I remember reading a novel which had the main narrative in the past tense, and the flashbacks were done in the present tense.


The Great Gig In The Sky by...

Me. :D

[scarletpeaches]

I'd buy that for a dollar!

(Actually no I wouldn't. I'm just gonna shoplift it from Waterstone's).

[Nakhlasmoke]

I find it weird that people say first tense is gimmicky. And tbh, I don't think it's a reader-thing at all, but a writer reaction. Millions of little newbie writers being bludgeoned into believing that present (and worse still - first person present) is a sign of an amateur writer and therefore Thou Shalt Not Use It On Pain Of Mockery.

The (non-writing) readers I know read a book because they enjoy it, and tend not to wangst about POV the way we do.

Present is a stylistic choice as much as omniscient or third past or first second - and in some cases it's chosen simply because the writer's 'voice' is more natural in it.

No need to get hung up on it.

[gypsyscarlett]

[quote=Nakhlasmoke;2939942]I find it weird that people say first tense is gimmicky. And tbh, I don't think it's a reader-thing at all, but a writer reaction. Millions of little newbie writers being bludgeoned into believing that present (and worse still - first person present) is a sign of an amateur writer and therefore Thou Shalt Not Use It On Pain Of Mockery.

Hmm? I don't think in any way that present tense is a sign of an amateur writer. Perhaps I missed something, but I don't recall anyone suggesting that at all.

Some of us (including myself) have simply said we prefer stories in past tense. Some people may prefer present. Others may not care either way. Everyone (readers and writers alike) have their own tastes. I don't see the big deal.

[Nakhlasmoke]

I have heard it said here and on other boards. This is a thread that crops up with depressing regularity.

And wasn't I saying it's not a big deal? Write a book the way that works for you as a writer and for the story, and screw the rest.

*sigh*

[gypsyscarlett]

I have heard it said here and on other boards. This is a thread that crops up with depressing regularity.

And wasn't I saying it's not a big deal? Write a book the way that works for you as a writer and for the story, and screw the rest.



And on that we totally agree.

[Scribhneoir]

"I would put a book down if I saw it was written in present tense." not prejudicial? Hmm. How about judging a book on storyline, use of language, plot development, all of the above combined? Not just "This book features one thing I have decided to dislike, therefore I won't bother giving it a chance?"

Call it prejudicial if you like. I hate books written in present tense. I'm also "prejudiced" against SF/Fantasy. Don't like it, don't read it. So what? It doesn't stop others from reading or writing it and deriving great pleasure from doing so.

I feel no obligation to give a book a chance when I know from experience that the tense it's written in will hinder my enjoyment. Why should I spend my precious reading time fighting off the annoyance I feel reading present tense when I can simply choose something else?

An opinion comes from knowing something and then making up your mind, not pre-judging it at all.

So you think no one can ever have an opinion based on experience? Do you often choose to read books you know you won't enjoy for whatever reason -- genre, POV, subject matter? Why shouldn't tense be a legitimate filter?

I've never yet read a present tense novel that I enjoyed. I've struggled through a couple, but mostly I give up around the third chapter. It's just too irritating. So, knowing I'll dislike it, I then make up my mind to place it back on the shelf.

[scarletpeaches]

...So you think no one can ever have an opinion based on experience?

Huh? Don't have a Scooby where you got that from...

...Do you often choose to read books you know you won't enjoy for whatever reason -- genre, POV, subject matter?

As I lean towards choosing books to read rather than rejecting ones I won't, that's not a question I can answer. In thirty-two years, have I ever rejected a book purely because of its tense, POV, subject matter? No. Never.

I've put plenty of books aside though, but only after trying them out. When I have put a book aside it's never been because of tense or POV.

[ErylRavenwell]

I find it weird that people say first tense is gimmicky. And tbh, I don't think it's a reader-thing at all, but a writer reaction. Millions of little newbie writers being bludgeoned into believing that present (and worse still - first person present) is a sign of an amateur writer and therefore Thou Shalt Not Use It On Pain Of Mockery.

The (non-writing) readers I know read a book because they enjoy it, and tend not to wangst about POV the way we do.

Present is a stylistic choice as much as omniscient or third past or first second - and in some cases it's chosen simply because the writer's 'voice' is more natural in it.

No need to get hung up on it.

More natural? You mean writing in the present? To me the present is analogical to some discordant heavy metal music. Most people hate it (heavy metal), yet, still, we know heavy metal bands fill a musical niche. But can it appeal one day to a broader audience? Hell, no.

[scarletpeaches]

...can it appeal one day to a broader audience? Hell, no.

Whether applied to music or writing, I'd be very interested to see how you would back that up, beyond possessing clairvoyant abilities?

[ErylRavenwell]

Whether applied to music or writing, I'd be very interested to see how you would back that up, beyond possessing clairvoyant abilities?

A gut sense or maybe the New York Times Best Seller List. I really don't have the foggiest how many books in the actual list are written in the past, but I'm willing to bet an eye the vast majority are written in the past. Place your bet, my dear; nothing less than an eye would do. They are blue, aren't they? :D

[JJ Cooper]

Eighteen months ago (before I started writing) point of view meant someone giving their opinion on a story and tense meant how you felt at any given time when reading ie 'I really felt the tension at the end of chapter 5'.

Point - as a reader I didn't give a shit about POV or tense. If it was an enjoyable read than all is good. I didn't even realise my favourite author had changed from first person to third person POV throughout a series.

As a writer, I prefer to read stories in the tense, POV and genre that I write - third limited, past tense thrillers. This means that if I pick up a thriller written in present tense I will not buy it. Personal preference. Doesn't mean I won't in the future. But, at the moment I am honing my skills as a writer and I have made the choice to read those particular books.

If readers dismiss a story because of POV or tense before they buy or borrow that is their choice. It's not stupid or foolish - just a choice they have made. Like where you buy coffee or clothes or cars.

IMO nobody here has the right to judge others (by posting here) on what they opt to read or the reasons for their choices. If we were just readers instead of writers the subject would probably never have been raised.

JJ

[Nakhlasmoke]

More natural? You mean writing in the present? To me the present is analogical to some discordant heavy metal music. Most people hate it (heavy metal), yet, still, we know heavy metal bands fill a musical niche. But can it appeal one day to a broader audience? Hell, no.


i give up. It's this kind of statement that makes me realise that there is no point in even trying to show people that present is a perfectly viable stylistic choice.

Read whatever you like.

[ErylRavenwell]

i give up. It's this kind of statement that makes me realise that there is no point in even trying to show people that present is a perfectly viable stylistic choice.

Read whatever you like.

Relax, we all love to hate something. Bigotry is on the carte du jour. It'd be hypocritical if I suddenly start promoting a style that is anathema to me.

[Nakhlasmoke]

Relax, we all love to hate something...

Speak for yourself.

I love books, and I love reading, and I'll read a book in any tense or POV if it draws me in.

Like I say though, I'm not telling you what to read or write, just pointing out that present is a choice dependent on the story and the writer's natural voice. And yes, some writers (our very own Shady Lane is a fine example) are happiest when working in present.

This doesn't mean that you have to stop writing in past tense, just that there's no need to bash and belittle the writing of those who don't.

[scarletpeaches]

A gut sense or maybe the New York Times Best Seller List. I really don't have the foggiest how many books in the actual list are written in the past, but I'm willing to bet an eye the vast majority are written in the past. Place your bet, my dear; nothing less than an eye would do. They are blue, aren't they? :D

No. Different colours.

What? You always knew I was a freak.:D

[dpaterso]

Meh, all we can offer each other here are personal opinions. No need to fence over what's right and wrong. Heck, even the thread's title suggests present tense is wrong, but as always it depends on the execution and the story. I personally feel it suits historical horror better, but's that's just my 2 Euros. Maybe I just haven't read enough books.

-Derek

[JJ Cooper]

Meh, all we can offer each other here are personal opinions. No need to fence over what's right and wrong. Heck, even the thread's title suggests present tense is wrong, but as always it depends on the execution and the story. I personally feel it suits historical horror better, but's that's just my 2 Euros. Maybe I just haven't read enough books.

-Derek

Just reading between the lines, mate.

JJ

[Phaeal]

Five People You Meet In Heaven.

Re: main narrative in past, flashbacks in present. I've seen this many times, and I've always used this technique myself. I also like present tense for sequences that are out of synch with reality, like visions or other paranormal modes of perception.

[The Lonely One]

Many posts in this thread represent the aspects I really detest of the writing industry; nonsensical focus on things like tense and genre.

Genre is the one word I think should be destroyed and burned by our friend Guy Montag until it's a crispy black bit of nothing. It's a useless word and we would all get along better without it.

And back to tense; time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. Doug Adams said that, RIP.

It's just ultra ridiculous to me. I don't give two flying fricks about the New York Times hoitey toitey "what's in" best-seller list. If I wanted to be pretentious I would try to do something I could make money at. The NYT's sign-off isn't worth my worries, quite honestly. If present-tense never makes it in, if the world hates it because they're stuck on conventions (I have never for the life of me been able to figure out why tense choice is a convention), then they don't have to read it when I write it. And they can not read it on that basis. That doesn't mean there isn't a story behind the writing, and that the grammar isn't correct, and that the scenes aren't written colorfully, that if a tree falls in the forest etc. etc.

Well sir, I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. --Peter Griffin

[ErylRavenwell]

Speak for yourself.

I love books, and I love reading, and I'll read a book in any tense or POV if it draws me in.

Like I say though, I'm not telling you what to read or write, just pointing out that present is a choice dependent on the story and the writer's natural voice. And yes, some writers (our very own Shady Lane is a fine example) are happiest when working in present.

This doesn't mean that you have to stop writing in past tense, just that there's no need to bash and belittle the writing of those who don't.

Okay. Remember, we are talking about tenses here, not a family member. I also reserve the right to be wrong, and said this style of writing has a niche and is more erudite. Let's not argue about whether I should or should not buy a book in the present. The argument should be about the merits and flaws of this style of writing.

What are the merits?

[Nakhlasmoke]

Okay. Remember, we are talking about tenses here, not a family member



What?

I think you are missing the point of what I was saying.

[ErylRavenwell]

What?

I think you are missing the point of what I was saying.


If I did, I apologize. You sounded a little bit vexed. :Hug2:

[maestrowork]

More natural? You mean writing in the present? To me the present is analogical to some discordant heavy metal music. Most people hate it (heavy metal), yet, still, we know heavy metal bands fill a musical niche. But can it appeal one day to a broader audience? Hell, no.

Turning a personal preference into a universal fact is a bit far-reaching. The fact is, many best-sellers are INDEED written in present tense, and many are mainstream. They're not just a niche. Just because more books are written in past tense doesn't mean present tense doesn't or can't get a broad audience. Of course, it can -- as some bestsellers have proved time and again.

[maestrowork]

Relax, we all love to hate something. Bigotry is on the carte du jour. It'd be hypocritical if I suddenly start promoting a style that is anathema to me.

Bolding mine.

So speak for yourself. Don't proceed to speak for all the readers out there. Yes, you hate present tense. Then don't read it. Plenty of people out there read present tense.

Me included.

What are the merits?


I/We have discussed the pros and cons and merits, etc. (many times, actually). Open your mind instead of holding on to the fact that there's something wrong with present tense.

To answer the OP: there's nothing wrong with present tense, just as there is nothing wrong with omniscient or adverbs or multiple POVs or "telling." If you do it well, and it fits the story, it's a very good way of telling a story. If not, anything could be a dread -- yeah, even the trusted 3rd/past narrative.

[dpaterso]

So to recap: there's nothing wrong with present tense. Which answers OP's original question.

-Derek