What's wrong with the present tense?

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.

Redzilla said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

Redzilla said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

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.

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.

Oh, Kevin McKidd. Me likey.

(thought you might )

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.

scarletpeaches said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Lonely One said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

ZeroFlowne said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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

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

Toothpaste said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Redzilla said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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.