Tense

I've done something similar, kaitie, so I think I see your dilemna. The example you've given, to a point, sounds fine. I think the trick is that if you are going to do it this way, you have to be consistent. The problem I had with the example is the last line - it just doesn't sound conversational enough for first person narrration. Perhaps something like :

'So he picks up this paperweight from the desk and starts tossing it up and down in one hand, just like it was a baseball.'

Something like that. Think conversational rather than tense. I think when trying to write like this is absolutely vital to read it aloud, listen to how it sounds. If a tense or a word sticks out, adjust and readjust till it sounds right. Just do a few pages, read them out loud and see what sticks out.

And best of luck with it. I love this sort of writing. If done well, it can stunning.

Ian

kaitie said:

Does that make sense? The logic in my mind is that he's describing a person who still exists. The same way we might in conversation say, "That movie is so good!" or "Jake loves table tennis." They are traits that continue to be true, essentially. In that same way saying, "Jake loved table tennis" to me sounds as though Jake is dead, or no longer loves tennis.

Click to expand...

This is perfectly acceptable. Pick up just about any series mystery and you'll see exactly the same technique: the gumshoe will turn up at the police station in the past tense to meet his pal Sergeant McClusky, but McClusky will get described in the present tense in exactly this way. It implies that McClusky is still alive and playing ping-pong at the time the narrator is telling the story, which is usually going to be at some point between the end of the current book and the beginning of the next one.

The one thing you may need to be careful of is what it does to suspense. If you say "McClusky is a tall savage Irishman with a mean top-spinning forehand", it'll be hard to make the reader worry about what might happen to him later in the book. So in a thriller, at least, you usually see this used with the recurring supporting players who are there to help the plot along.

While it makes sense in theory, it unnecessarily complicates matters and potentially irritates readers. We -- as readers, until we become writers -- don't notice consistency as we read (although we might think it flows nicely), but we do notice inconsistency between adjoining sentences.

Since it's not necessary to use different tenses, and there's no ADVANTAGE to doing it that way, as far as I've seen -- you give theory for why you want to do it, but not a reason why it reads better -- I'd recommend simply keeping it all in past tense. Makes it easier for you, easier for the reader.

Generally, my bottom is line is that I'll only do things that are unusual/different if there's an advantage to doing them, meaning an advantage TO THE READER, something that will improve the reader's experience over the experience the reader would have if the more standard technique were used.

JD

JanDarby said:

Since it's not necessary to use different tenses, and there's no ADVANTAGE to doing it that way, as far as I've seen -- you give theory for why you want to do it, but not a reason why it reads better -- I'd recommend simply keeping it all in past tense. Makes it easier for you, easier for the reader.

Click to expand...

I disagree. It has a specific effect: it marks out characters as being enduring parts of a persistent world and has a journalistic flavour. A certain type of recurring series character reads better for this sort of treatment. It's the way Thomas Harris introduces Hannibal Lecter in Red Dragon and in Silence of the Lambs, for instance - it tells us that Lecter is around right now, and isn't just a historical figure of the world the narrative inhabits. That's scarier, and it's what Harris is shooting for.

It's okay but I'd rather you keep everything in past tense unless there's a strong reason why you must switch to present. I know that Bob is still alive and he's still a big guy, but there's no reason to switch to present tense just to show us that Bob still IS. In the context of the story, you can keep everything in past tense and we all understand.

What you're doing is a little bit of a narrative intrusion: basically, you jump out of the story to describe Bob, then you jump back into the story. Anything that takes your readers out of the story should be kept to the minimum, IMHO.

maestrowork said:

What you're doing is a little bit of a narrative intrusion: basically, you jump out of the story to describe Bob, then you jump back into the story. Anything that takes your readers out of the story should be kept to the minimum, IMHO.

Click to expand...

I agree, and I personally don't find narrative intrusion enjoyable. Some folks would like it, of course. You can't please everybody.

I think you can still write in the narrator's entertaining voice but keep it past tense. It will still make sense to the reader. In the end, though, you've got to go with what makes you most comfortable.

To me, narrative/author intrusion only works if the narrator is highly entertaining, and we'd LOVE to hear what it has to say/muse about. It usually carries some kind of comical, sarcastic or sardonic tone -- that's when intrusion works best. In the above example, it doesn't sound like that one present-tense line warrants the intrusion (of course, it's also out of context). However, this may work better:


Bob walked into the office and took a seat across from me.

Now, Bob is a big guy, and I mean that literally. Stands six-ten and weighs over three hundred pounds; he can squish me with his pinkie and I'd be deader than a dead fly in the dead of winter in Siberia. That's how big he is. No kidding.

He picked up the paperweight from the desk and started tossing it in one hand like a baseball.

ahhhh maestro... you ARE the master....

I think either way works. Like Maestro said, if that "voice" is entertaining enough and it "intrudes" regularly throughout the work, you can get away with it. But keeping it all in past tense works, too, and that may be less complicated for you in the long run.

Years ago I read a novel that alternated between past and present tense in each chapter. Can't recall the title or author but it was about an innocent man on death row and the MC's efforts to prove his innocence and save him from being executed. It was a bit jarring at first, but the story was compelling enough that I adapted to it. It ended up being quite the page-turner.

Beth (aka Annelise Ryan)

In my opinion, because the main character is narrating, you can do what you like with the tenses to a point. I mean, it's the way people talk, not meant to be rigidly perfect.

For instance, I might say, "I had been down at the shops, and there was this guy I knew. He is the sort of guy who wouldn't think twice about hitting on your sister, but you just know he wouldn't get anywhere with her."

The first sentence indicates the past, whereas as soon as I've set the scene, I return to present tense which is how I normally talk about people/things (and I'd say most people normally talk that way...) and there's a wouldn't right at the end which would be indicating the future, because again, that just seems the right way to say it. The tenses fall prey to human dialogue, IMHO.

I wouldn't worry about changing the tenses, so long as the narrating character seems real to you, ie. like he's really *presently* talking to someone, whichever tenses may fall.

Oh, and I'm all for the humour. Even boring people crack jokes from time to time.

kaitie,

There isn't necessarily a problem with what you're thinking of doing. Putting narrative asides in present tense can make them stick out in an unpleasant way, but it might be what you need to do to establish the narrator you want. Think about who your narrator is, where he/she is, and what he/she is doing. I have a narrator who writes in her journal, and she can write in either present or past tense, depending on whether she's reporting events that occurred before the journal writing took place, or recording her thoughts and feelings as she writes them (as well as events that occur as she writes). I got dinged for inconsistent tense by my critiquers - I did! but I decided the problem wasn't that I was using tense inconsistently. It was that I hadn't done a sufficiently good job establishing the location of my narrator. So instead of giving her a single line of her current thought and then letting her start reporting past events, I gave her the start of a scene where she was recording current thoughts and events, and once she'd been established there as a present tense sort of person, I allowed her to start talking about the things that had happened earlier that morning. All of a sudden things got a lot clearer.

I've seen two types of present tense narration mentioned above, which should be kept distinct. One is the kind where the narrator is recording a present opinion about someone: "He's a big guy." The other is what they sometimes call historic, or storytelling present tense: "Okay, so he comes in the door, right? And he's holding this baseball bat..." These two are very very different. The first one suggests that the narrator is co-present with "him" at the time when the narration is taking place. The second one doesn't suggest that "he" is necessarily alive, but has more to do with attitude. It suggests that the narrator is throwing him/herself into the scene being narrated and wants it to come across viscerally or actively to the listener (or reader). So the first suggests a relationship between the narrator and "him," while the second suggests a relationship between the narrator and the reader/listener. I've never used storytelling present in a written work, and I can't recall it being used except in dialogue. But then again, there are a lot of stories out there and I know I haven't read them all
I hope that brings a little alternate perspective on the question.

I'm put off by narrative intrusion. It smacks as amateurish, like an informal blogger who constantly addresses "you guys" [the readers]. It's often a thinly-veiled author insert, which also grates me. It's like the author thought his/her side comment was more important than maintaining reader immersion. ("Let me pull you out of this engrossing story for a moment to tell you what I, the author, thought would be a funny observation at this point.")

In this recent AW thread, people said that The Hobbit suffered for its moments talking directly to the audience. If Tolkien can't get away with it, it seems an ill-advised device for an unpublished author.

When people say, "narrative/author intrusion only works if the narrator is highly entertaining," it's more or less saying, "The masters can pull it off" or "This will work if you're in the top 5 percentile for humor writers" and I don't think any unpublished writer (myself included) should ever assume these highly exclusive qualifiers apply to them.

Serve the readers. They're the ones who put down the hard cash for your book. I think it would serve your readers to keep it in past tense, however delightful and author-serving it may seem to dodge occasionally to present tense.

This affects the tone of a story A LOT. If you're going for very conversational tone without much mystery or uncertainty regarding the story's outcome, I guess it could work. What you tell the reader when you describe a character's look and mannerisms in the present tense, is that this person lives to the end of the story and doesn't change. What is the point if I, as a reader, know these things already? Why am I going on this journey with you?

Having a MC who narrates your story blurs the line of distinction between authorial intrusion and character voice, and that can be a good thing. I think writers can get away with a lot more "intrusion" when they are writing in first person because the very I-ness of the prose makes it read more like character voice than authorial intrusion. The example in this thread doesn't read like authorial intrusion to me since the MC and the narrator are one and the same. The switch to present tense (assuming it's written that way) is merely the color the MC uses while painting the scene.

The choice of tense, or a temporary change in tense, doesn't define whether a phrase is intrusion as opposed to character voice. Readers are best served by compelling, intriguing, full dimensional characters, so use whatever tense and writing style you need to to make your characters leap off the page.

Beth (aka Annelise Ryan)

It really depends on the voice of the piece that you're writing whether this is, as someone upthread said, "epic fail" or if it would flow and work smoothly. What you describe is the tone of a storyteller, someone sitting across the table from you telling a story, and sometimes they step outside the story for a moment to give you more information.

I've read plenty of books that do this with ease and it enhances the reading experience. I've also read plenty of manuscripts where it just tosses you right out of the story.