Literary present tense?

They serve different purposes. They mean different things. Did your teacher tell you to do it, or say you might like to try it to see if it strengthens a (specific) piece?

Personal choice. I've never found any difference when either are used correctly. People say present tense is more sudden, or past is better for bringing up backstory. And I call BS. They both can do anything well if the writer tries.
Your teacher might be telling you to change it, because they want you to play with it, just to know how to use it. Maybe you might like it better.

Personally, I hate present tense unless its done extremely well. I hate, hate, hate it. It's a gimmick that writers are throwing up now and it can drown good things. There's redundancies throughout.
And mixing it with 1st person is the automatic trigger for me to chuck the book at the wall.

But that's me.

EDT: For advertisements, there's strong rules for everything. Like a sypnosis or blurb is typically written in present tense. For fiction (the actual writing), your choice.

Yes, but I'm asking more whether your teacher told you to do it, or suggested it might be something to look at.

I'd be cautious of teacher who told me the tense I had to write in, if I was say, older than six-and-a-half. But a suggestion to look at another tense - I could see that as just helpful advice.

One is not better than another. They achieve different things. Myself, I love what you call literary present. But that's me.

I'm sure that helped

What's best for this particular story? That's the only important question.

Give it a try. I hate present tense, but many love reading it and writing it.

Knigel,

It sounds to me like your teacher was offering suggestions as to what you might want to try, not telling you to write a certain way.

What do you think is best for your story?

WillSauger said:

It's a gimmick that writers are throwing up now and it can drown good things. There's redundancies throughout.

Click to expand...

Can you be more specific? There's no reason present tense would have any more redundancies than past tense. I'm not sure what "drown out good things" means either.

Present tense has been extremely common in literary fiction for several decades now. If you're writing in that genre, present tense is pretty standard.

If you're writing in other genres, not so much. They're stylistically more conservative, perhaps. Some readers still consider present tense fiction a gimmick or attention-seeking party trick because they are not used to seeing it.

Neither present nor past tense is ever mandatory, or forbidden. You have to make the decision for each story based on its particular needs (which can include, but shouldn't be limited to, your own level of artistic & technical comfort, and the response of readers).

Present tense seemed jarring to me when I first encountered it a couple of years back. The books I read growing up were not written that way, and most of the books I read now (adult SF and fantasy) still aren't. I don't, as a rule, read literary fiction (though to be honest, I'm not sure exactly what literary fiction is), but I've recently encountered it with some contemporaneity fiction, and some YA science fiction and fantasy.

But I can see the advantage for some styles of YA fiction to be told in first person present. If you want to have a sense that the story is happening now and the character's "older and wiser" self isn't relating past events as a sort of reflection on the follies or virtues of his or her youth, then first person present makes a great deal of sense. With first present, the narrator can't "step outside of the story" and tell the reader what was really going on in hindsight, for instance. He or she can't reflect on how foolish or clever he or she was. And you aren't sure as a reader that the narrator will be all right in the end.

With first person past tense, there are certain issues. You know the character survived until the end of the story (since he's telling it to you now--though I've seen authors sneak epilogues in where the protagonist dies. A dirty trick, I think). You know the issue resolved itself in a way that allows said character to be reflecting on events and telling the story now. There is the possibility that the narrator's cherry picking what he or she chooses to tell the reader in order to present things in a certain light (whether intentionally or not--how many of us can really describe the events of even a few months ago with unbiased accuracy)? This can be a powerful tool (unreliable narrator), but it also can distance the reader from the first person past narrator.

Now a deep third person past tense accomplishes something similar to first person present, and of course, it's also possible to write first person past without all the reflection and pontificating. But there is a feel to first person present that's different, and it works for some stories and some readers.

I'm no expert on this approach to storytelling, but although it may seem strange to those of us who came of age reading Judy Blume and other popular kid's stories of the 70's and 80's (mostly told in first person past and in a way that avoided many of the pitfalls of this tense and pov), I think there are some reasons why it's become popular in the past decade.

But to get back to the OP's question, I suspect the teacher was suggesting an approach that he or she felt might be interesting for the stories/pieces you had at the time. I don't think he or she would mean that everything you (let alone anyone else) ever writes should be in present tense.

What does your professor want?

Present tense.

When does your professor want it?

NOW!

***

I've heard it argued that present tense can make a story feel more immediate to the reader. Shrug. Personally, I've never understood that argument.

But this does seem like a great conversation to have with your professor. "So, uhm, *why* do you want me to write this in present tense?"

Roxxsmom said:

With first present, the narrator can't "step outside of the story" and tell the reader what was really going on in hindsight, for instance.

Click to expand...

No, but in first-person past, there's no rule they have to do that, either.

Part of what bothers me about first-person present tense, other than the fact that it's distracting and annoying to read, is that it sounds like the character is relating the story real-time, presumably to themselves...which nobody sane would be doing. It comes across as silly, self-conscious, and completely unnatural. IMO.

Knigel said:

A fiction teacher went through my work and told me to change everything to literary present tense e.g., "Bark!" I say, he runs, she jumps, and so on.

Click to expand...

What is a 'literary' present tense?

If I write in the present tense merely as a stunt, pr to show everyone what a clever writer I am, and forget to tell a story, I'm not a very good storyteller. I may know a million literary tricks, but I wouldn't be surprised if no one read my stuff.

BethS said:

Part of what bothers me about first-person present tense, other than the fact that it's distracting and annoying to read, is that it sounds like the character is relating the story real-time, presumably to themselves...which nobody sane would be doing. It comes across as silly, self-conscious, and completely unnatural. IMO.

Click to expand...

When I read first person past tense, I can't help but think how unlikely and unrealistic it often seems for a character to be relating his or her past experiences in such detail.

Unless it's set up very explicitly, the "character relating the story" conceit breaks down for me in past tense, too.

BethS said:

Part of what bothers me about first-person present tense, other than the fact that it's distracting and annoying to read, is that it sounds like the character is relating the story real-time, presumably to themselves...which nobody sane would be doing. It comes across as silly, self-conscious, and completely unnatural. IMO.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. First present could just as easily be interior monologue as it is "relating the story" to anyone.

Present tense isn't anything new, though it wasn't widespread in literary fiction until the 1960s. But there are examples of it going back to the nineteenth century at least - about half of Dickens's Bleak House is in third present (omni), and the other half is first past narrated by Esther Summerson.

dangerousbill said:

What is a 'literary' present tense!

Click to expand...

It refers to the fact that you're not are truly referring to "past" or "present" events, but events in a fictional narrative. It's usually invoked when writing about fiction rather than writing fiction.

For example, if I'm writing an essay about The Great Gatsby, literary present is me writing "on page 84, Gatsby tells Daisy..." instead of "Gatsy told Daisy..."

I think the only reason I would even notice present tense, is if the sentences themselves were simply constructed so that it feels like a robot is relating the story to real time. Such as: I walk to the store. I open the door. I see a boy.

When the same thing could be said in: I walk to the story, open the door, and then I see a boy.

JustSarah said:

When the same thing could be said in: I walk to the story, open the door, and then I see a boy.

Click to expand...

Actually, that's dramatically different than walking to the store, opening the door, and seeing a boy. And much more interesting and surreal, too...

Figures I would make a grammar error when I mention not liking present tense.XD

And its not like its a total story killer, when writing script for games it should be in present tense.