Present tense

I wouldn't recommend calling out specific books that you think does something terribly—especially since this question is very much about preference.

That being said, I think that the books that do first person present tense "exceptionally" are the books that are, in general, exceptional. Strong plot, themes, characterization, beautiful writing, etc. Which again, is also about preference.

Most present-tense narrative I've seen is also done in first-person POV, and I think one of the chief problems in handling that is the POV rather than the tense. It's easy to violate that POV in small ways that annoy readers. As with everything in writing, you need to pay attention and be careful with whatever combination of tense and POV you use.

caw

As someone who has sold more content in 1st person/present tense to 3rd/past (by a 2:1 margin) things that bother me about 1st/present are that folks tend to lean on "I do, I see, I feel..." It's easy to filter with 1st and that gets very quickly obvious and annoying.

I like it best when I can see a reason for it. First person present works great in fast-moving stories, especially when the character is facing a deadline or immediate danger (HUNGER GAMES comes to mind). Then it reads like a conscious choice on the author's part to help create a sense of immediacy or urgency. In other stories, first person present doesn't seem to enhance the read, and may detract from in if there are those little POV breaks blackbird mentions above. I find myself wondering in those cases if it was really the best choice, or if the author was imitating something they'd seen done successfully by others without fully comprehending the thought behind it.

Meeshka said:

I love reading books in first person present tense, so this is what I like to write in. I'm aware that a lot of people can't stand it though, which is cool because everyone has their own likes and dislikes. However, I do see some people saying that they hate it unless it's done well. Or that most of what they see is badly done so that's why they don't like it. I think because I read so much in this tense I might be immune to picking up when it's badly done.

If you're someone who hates it unless it's done well could you give me some examples of what you mean? What makes it badly done for you? If you could point me in the direction of books you think are great/terrible examples that would be great too. Thanks!

Click to expand...

Hi Meeshka. My guess is a lot of people have issue with first person present tense because they're not used to it yet, and things that are different tend to sound off to our ears. But it's becoming more and more popular, especially in YA, and I think after awhile it will sound better to more people. The more I read it, the more natural it sounds.

When I switched my WIP from third person (past tense) to first person, I didn't decide beforehand to do present tense, it just came naturally with first person for me.

CJ

I'm one of the first person present tense haters, and it's not something that's done "badly"--I simply feel bile rising up after the first couple of paragraphs. It's an emotional reaction. Like in music or TV there's stuff, which, subjectively:
a) is pretty good
b) is basically harmless
c) is a crime against humanity
All 1st person present, and most of YA and paranormal romance is to me a crime against humanity. But the world is not only full of people who have my tastes, it's also full of people who have different tastes, or at least like a good story so much they don't care what tense and what point of view it's done in and what niche it falls into.

You can't try to please everyone--just concentrate on doing what you do so well, that the demographic that likes this stuff become your readers.

Not a fan of present tense. To read it is to be constantly aware of it, or if I do manage to not notice it for awhile, that never lasts, and I am suddenly and randomly jolted out of the fictive dream.

That said, I have unbent (a little) in recent years and tried out a couple of present-tense YA series, both of which I think handle it fairly well. They must be, because I don't notice it or become annoyed by it nearly as often as I normally would. Those series are Kate Elliott's Court of Fives, and Sabaa Tahir's Ember in the Ashes. The latter in particular is fast-paced and suspenseful from beginning to end, which I think is necessary for successful use of present tense.

Even with those, there is the occasional moment when the device calls attention to itself. This is especially true when the narrative requires the character to refer to something in the past. In a past-tense novel, this would involve using the past perfect tense ("She had gone to store."). With present tense, the convention is to use the simple past for such moments ("She went to the store."). The problem with that, for me, is that it immediately puts me into what I consider to be the normal narrative tense for a novel (past tense), and it doesn't feel as if the character is actually referring to a past event, but to something that's happening right then. The result is that I'm temporarily thrown out of the story. My preference would be for writers to use the past perfect to refer to previous events whether or not the rest of the narrative is written in present or past tense. But that's probably not a prevalent opinion.

Mostly, I just wish the fad would pass.

I find present tense easy to write but exhausting/annoying to read for long stretches. Reading it feels like trying to balance on a pinpoint in an unanchored, ever changing "now." It's tricky to keep it engaging at novel length, and I have great admiration for authors who can manage it. I loved the way Nic Sheff did it in his memoir Tweak.

Because it's easy for me to write in character voice in present tense, I'm a heavy user for first draft/character interview stuff which I'll later revise to past tense. In this way, it helps me avoid POV violations simply because the character wouldn't be thinking/noticing/bringing up certain things. But that's down to my immersive writing methods so YMMV.

My WIP, an epistolary monomyth, occasionally makes use of present tense where it suits the piece of writing in question. So for example, my MC keeps a journal so I allow present tense where he's writing about what he's doing in the moment (I'm sweating my ass off in the back of this van on top of a pile of duffle bags) but not when he writes about things that have already happened (Last night's gig was a complete dog). I do this for ease of reading/not being annoying, realizing that in an epistolary piece a character may write however it suits them.

I absolutely love one excited character relaying a story to another character in present tense dialogue.

BethS said:

Mostly, I just wish the fad would pass.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it won't, at least not for a long, long time.

First person present tense is gaining popularity and I think that will continue because it fits with our culture - fast paced, with a sense of immediacy.

It's not surprising that it's especially popular in YA. Beyond the fast pace and immediacy that a lot of YA readers want, present tense better gives the impression that the YA narrator is still a kid as opposed to an adult talking about their teen years in the past.

Present tense also aids with suspense. Maybe it would even work better for a first person narrator to die in present tense than past, since it would make more sense to be narrating up to the point of death than narrating about the past and then dying.

I do see that we'd need to make sure we're not calling attention to the tense and not let readers be taken out of the story when mentioning things that already happened. Sometimes simply stating something was done "already" does the trick. FWIW, I've had a lot of feedback on my present tense WIP and no complaints so far about using present tense. I think a lot of readers are good with the use of present tense now, and it will keep moving that direction as people get used to it.

CJ

CJSimone said:

It's not surprising that it's especially popular in YA. Beyond the fast pace and immediacy that a lot of YA readers want, present tense better gives the impression that the YA narrator is still a kid as opposed to an adult talking about their teen years in the past.

Click to expand...

This is interesting. It makes sense. There are other ways to do that, though. Whenever I write in first-person I try to choose a definite point in time that the narrator is speaking from, and in my first-person YA I actually had the narrator use the word "yesterday" (or "last week" or something, I forget exactly) in the epilogue. Obviously you wouldn't get that particular hint till the end of the book, but I think the voice can also contribute, and general comments about, say, the character's friends in the present tense ("Ryan hates math," etc) give you the sense that it hasn't been that long.

I've always thought of first person present tense as the "movie/videogame" tense. Everything's supposed to be happening in real time and you are supposed to be seeing exactly what the character sees as they see it. I feel that that's why it's becoming more popular in the digital age. But to me it's unnatural in fiction writing, because fiction writing is a medium based on humans telling stories to each other.

I really value first person past tense as the storytelling voice: "Here is something that happened to me, listen and you'll hear." The worst part of present tense for me is picturing the character freaking narrating everything as she does it. So yes, I'm one of the haters, but I will read a really good one. I liked the Hunger Games. I think a strong story with strong characters is the crucial part to making me enjoy it. The idea of narrating your life as you go feels self-indulgent, and so a story that doesn't feel one bit self-indulgent--a story where you've killed your darlings, where you don't linger on loving descriptions of some cool thing the character is doing, where there is no hint of Mary Sue, where the protag has real and painful conflicts and flaws and the story keeps moving--that's the likeliest thing to win me over.

I also agree with blacbird about not doing "I did this, I did that" all the time.

Also:

CJSimone said:

Present tense also aids with suspense. Maybe it would even work better for a first person narrator to die in present tense than past, since it would make more sense to be narrating up to the point of death than narrating about the past and then dying.

Click to expand...

To me this is THE reason to ever use present tense.

SwallowFeather said:

There are other ways to do [immediacy], though. Whenever I write in first-person I try to choose a definite point in time that the narrator is speaking from, and in my first-person YA I actually had the narrator use the word "yesterday" (or "last week" or something, I forget exactly) in the epilogue. Obviously you wouldn't get that particular hint till the end of the book, but I think the voice can also contribute, and general comments about, say, the character's friends in the present tense ("Ryan hates math," etc) give you the sense that it hasn't been that long.

Click to expand...

When I read about writing, I've mostly seen "immediacy" used to mean psychological immediacy. Psychological immediacy is a unique advantage of well-written present tense, particularly first-person present tense, because humans react differently to the phrasings "I did," "I am," and "I will." Past tenses and future tenses maintain distance between readers and events. Present tense closes that distance. Anchoring a narrative to points in time ("yesterday," "an hour ago") adds specificity and perhaps recency, closing other sorts of distances between readers and events, but I'd distinguish them from immediacy. Each move accomplishes something different.

CJSimone said:

Present tense also aids with suspense. Maybe it would even work better for a first person narrator to die in present tense than past, since it would make more sense to be narrating up to the point of death than narrating about the past and then dying.

Click to expand...

Sometimes present tense heightens suspense, but writing suspense in first-person present tense seems like trying to write with one hand tied behind your back: doable, but difficult. Multiple POVs in present tense pose a different, extra challenge: the more POV switches, the more chances for narrative seams to show.

Suspense occurs when readers anticipate unpleasant outcomes, so the more vividly you can describe those outcomes--and persuade readers they might really happen--the more suspense. Thus thrillers often use multiple POVs, following antagonists as well as protagonists. We want to know what the bad guys are up to! When readers only get real-time narration from protagonists, they can't know when killers are lurking around the corner, about to attack. Readers aren't as easily brought to the edges of their seats. In past tense, on the other hand, protagonists can use phrases like "Little did I know..." to build suspense.

Anna Iguana said:

Suspense occurs when readers anticipate unpleasant outcomes, so the more vividly you can describe those outcomes--and persuade readers they might really happen--the more suspense. Thus thrillers often use multiple POVs, following antagonists as well as protagonists. We want to know what the bad guys are up to! When readers only get real-time narration from protagonists, they can't know when killers are lurking around the corner, about to attack. Readers aren't as easily brought to the edges of their seats. In past tense, on the other hand, protagonists can use phrases like "Little did I know..." to build suspense.

Click to expand...

Some of the best suspense-inducing novels I've ever read work precisely because the reader DOES NOT know what the antagonist is up to, and neither does the protagonist. Sometimes not even knowing who or what the antagonist is. What both are given is the unerring sense that something evil is likely, and the protagonist is acting according to that sense alone. In stories of that sort, describing what lurks behind the door serves not to heighten the suspense, but to weaken it. And a sharply focused single POV works very well toward this end.

H.P. Lovecraft knew this principle as well as anyone and that alone, despite his often atrocious prose style, makes his stories compelling even today. Another good example would be the work of W.H. Hodgson.

caw

Anna Iguana said:

When I read about writing, I've mostly seen "immediacy" used to mean psychological immediacy. Psychological immediacy is a unique advantage of well-written present tense, particularly first-person present tense, because humans react differently to the phrasings "I did," "I am," and "I will." Past tenses and future tenses maintain distance between readers and events. Present tense closes that distance. Anchoring a narrative to points in time ("yesterday," "an hour ago") adds specificity and perhaps recency, closing other sorts of distances between readers and events, but I'd distinguish them from immediacy. Each move accomplishes something different.

Click to expand...

I more meant CJSimone's point about the narrator being a teen, not an adult reflecting later, sorry to not specify.

On the topic you're on, though: you're right about people reacting differently to the phrasings you gave, but stepping back and looking at it for a moment, how is a person supposed to react to: “I jump,” “I gasp,” “I stab”? These are not phrases people actually say. (Unless they're describing, say, their stabbing technique: “I stab upward between the ribs if I can, it goes in better.”)

I'll give you this: there is one time people do use these phrases. Sometimes when you're telling a story in real life and you get to a really fast-moving climactic part, you break into present tense, but briefly: “And that's when I realized he had a knife. I couldn't believe it. So I just grab for his wrist with both hands like this and try to knee him in the groin and I miss but he drops the knife anyway, so I snatch it up and throw it in the river. And that was about it, really. He just turned and ran.” On an odd note, we were taught about this in grammar class in French school, that this was a circumstance that made a tense change acceptable in narration.

So, that's probably what this technique is trying to imitate. For me it doesn't hold up for novel-length. Unless, like I said, the story's just that good.

For me there is an immediacy in the relationship between a good first-person narrator and the reader. She is telling you the story, she makes little asides to you as she goes, draws you into her confidence, makes confessions. It's about voice. The past tense allows you to imagine that she is there in the room with you, telling you these things herself. That's what I really like. I'm not saying everyone has to like it, but I guess I'm arguing against defining past tense as somehow distant per se.

I agree that the prevalence of first-person present in YA is because it's a technique for making the voice and perception of the protagonist feel "in the moment" instead of reflective. It's a legitimate technique, though it's also easy to mess up. As others have pointed out, for whatever reason, writers seem more likely to fall into compulsive filtering when writing in first-person, present narratives. I'm not sure why, but compulsive filtering is annoying to me in any tense or viewpoint.

However, I disagree that first-person, present tense is the only way of getting that sense of immediacy or character voice at the time of the story. It's very possible to use reference points like "yesterday" and so on to help create a past-tense narrative that feels like it's unfolding now, and to imbue a past-tense, first person, or even third person, narrative with a teen's (or any other character's) pov.

There are reasons for choosing a given narrative, and some may simply be aesthetic, or a reflection of what an author is most comfortable using. And readers' preferences may be based on their own experience too. I know it can be very hard to argue in writers' forums about things like narrative depth and viewpoint as well as tense. Particular stylistic choices are often assumed to be synonymous with proper writing (I still remember arguments with people who insist you can't use contractions in narrative).

Some readers (and writers and editors) don't like certain approaches, and there's a tendency to pathologize (this is a strong word, but it may apply when someone insists something is bad or incorrect writing instead of simply ceding that something represents a legitimate technique they don't care for) what one doesn't like.

For some reason, these discussions always link the tense with the point of view. Present tense can be in any person. I've actually had something like this conversation:

"I usually don't care for present tense."

"But some of the great books are first-person!"

I'm fine with present-tense when it makes sense based on the theme or context. Like, if the story is more of a vignette than a narrative (I've done that myself). Or if the story deals with the passage of time in such a way that present tense "feels right".

Aggy B said:

As someone who has sold more content in 1st person/present tense to 3rd/past (by a 2:1 margin) things that bother me about 1st/present are that folks tend to lean on "I do, I see, I feel..." It's easy to filter with 1st and that gets very quickly obvious and annoying.

Click to expand...

You've put your finger on something that bugs me. Yes, that can become tiresome. The present-tense first person narratives I've liked have tended to not be quite so relentlessly introspective.

Meeshka said:

However, I do see some people saying that they hate it unless it's done well.

Click to expand...

That's me. Same with just about everything in life, except a good ribeye. That's medium rare.

The major turnoff I get with present tense is when writers subtly go outside that tense. Way too many seem to step in to past tense, or worse, stay in present tense when describing past events. Less common but joltingly annoying is when a writer tells me what's about to happen in present tense. I doubt the character is clairvoyant enough to know what a total stranger has behind their back. Unless it's a time warp story or involves ESP.

By far the worst thing that annoys me about present tense is the author writing in present tense when there is no way for the character to write or tell the story to anyone. As in:

"I'm locked in this coffin, lined with satin from the feel, completely naked and..."

Unless it's fantasy and they're somehow telepathically communicating to their iPad, they can't physically be writing or telling this. And you can't use present tense to talk about the past when you finally do get something to write with or a person to tell the story to.

Jeff

I agree and not sure why "I only like it if it's done well" only applies to present tense! I would say that about many things (ballet, opera, a back deck, nature trails, historical lectures, books about Montana...) We all have our preferences, but I don t get not liking a book because of the tense. If it's a well-written book, has a compelling plot, deftly drawn characters and so on, it's a well written book. Just a matter of preference. There are great books written in present tense (just finished one) and terrible books written in present tense. I'm guessing the filtering and long introspective paragraphs are more related to first person POV rather than tense

Carl Hiaasen, Scott Turow, Doug Kennedy, JF Freedman all write in present tense (not all first person) and are tremendous writers (a matter of taste, I guess) I just finished, for the zillionth time, The Disappearance, by JF Freedman. Third person, present (blend of simply, progressive and present perfect) His best seller Against the Wind was also present tense, blend of first and third POVs

I think people should write what they're comfortable writing!

bombergirl69 said:

I agree and not sure why "I only like it if it's done well" only applies to present tense!

Click to expand...

It doesn't.

caw

Totally prefer present tense Though, i admit, i'm not a fan of first person!

Anna Iguana said:

Past tenses and future tenses maintain distance between readers and events.

Click to expand...

OK, I'm going to challenge a few things here, just so you're warned.

I can only speak from my own experience, but I can't say I've ever felt distanced by an author's use of past tense. (I've never read a book written in future tense.)

Sometimes present tense heightens suspense, but writing suspense in first-person present tense seems like trying to write with one hand tied behind your back

Click to expand...

I don't follow that. Especially given the definition you provide here:

Suspense occurs when readers anticipate unpleasant outcomes, so the more vividly you can describe those outcomes--and persuade readers they might really happen--the more suspense.

Click to expand...

Absolutely true. But, IMO, that has nothing to do with with the tense a story is written in. I am currently reading a novel written in multi-POV present tense, and let me tell you, there's plenty of suspense. The stakes are sky-high, and unpleasant outcomes are both vivdly described and believable. A writer can do this using any tense.

Thus thrillers often use multiple POVs, following antagonists as well as protagonists. We want to know what the bad guys are up to!

Click to expand...

In creating supense, it's not necessary to know what the bad guys are up. That's only one method. There are many others.

When readers only get real-time narration from protagonists, they can't know when killers are lurking around the corner, about to attack.

Click to expand...

Which actually increases suspense, in my experience. I'd just as soon not be told that the killers are hiding around the corner. It's enough to know that they might be.

In past tense, on the other hand, protagonists can use phrases like "Little did I know..." to build suspense.

Click to expand...

I have rarely, if ever, encountered that in a modern novel. And for me, that would actually reduce suspense, and it certainly would play havoc with immediacy.

I was in a bookstore tonight and saw Mr. Mercedes, by Stephen King, which I've not read (I go on and off King). I was pondering, and tried the first couple pages and ... didn't like it. Flipped around a bit and was kind of viscerally (not the most accurate word but the closest I can get to the 'ugh' sensation) put off, couldn't concentrate on what I was reading, it was odd. There's definitely some King I'm not a fan of, but I've not had trouble reading him?

Then I realized the thing was in present tense (3rd). I was totally baffled. I went to find other King novels because I could not believe they were in present and everything I pulled off the shelf was in past. I don't know if I missed some switch, or if he just decided that called for that but it was unreadable to me.

I don't, in general, like present, but have mostly encountered it in YA and some stuff wasn't so bad, like Hunger Games (the latter two were bad but not because of the tense, heh), but this was just so offputting. I left the store all 'bleh.' In short, I do not like present tense, no, I don't, heh. Also, the hell, Stephen King?

Funny you mention Mr. Mercedes, Cornflake. I am not a huge SK fan (except Bag of Bones!!!) but my best friend is, and she didn't like MM (and couldn't say exactly why. Maybe that was it!)

I still think there are a bazillion ways to write poorly! And many ways to write really well. People here said the best way to improve as a writer is to read and that's (IMO) totally true. So many ways to do things! (ie, I agree with Beth that there are many ways to create suspense--have read plenty of books with terrific suspense written in the past tense) And good writers can create lots of "immediacy" in past tense! Good writing is good writing. And yes, "I am inside a coffin/on the back of camel/hurtling along the highway..." would get my attention!

Still think it's preference. I like first person, plenty of people don't. Shitty books written in first and fantastic books written in first. Some writers can pull stuff off and others can't. Against the Wind, mentioned above, is in present tense, first person for part of the book, blended with past tense, third person for others. In the wrong hands, that' doesn't flow well, but Freeman does an outstanding job.

And of course, when done well! I would have said I don't really enjoy books about corporate tax law but then I read Burden of Proof... I'm not much for dark, gloomy books about Norway/Sweden, but then I read Snowman (Jo Nesbo)... I can't help thinking all the rules apply--write as well as you can, get plenty of people to read and give feedback, fix what you can and write some more.

Read Up the Down Staircase - story unfolds through notes, letters, memos and so on. It is not a 3rd/past tense novel...just really, really well done!

Lots of good points in the thread all around, and I think there are advantages to both past and present (like there are with both first and third person). I pointed out what I think are some potential advantages of present tense, but I don't mean to imply it's more advantageous than past tense (only meant to show that present tense can also be a good thing). I'm not personally put off by any tense or person and enjoy good books regardless. I enjoy not only past and present, as well as first and third, but also multiple and single POV. I also like a variety of styles from very modern to classic and from lean to even a bit flowery. I enjoy changing things up, appreciate the differences and really just want a good story told in a compelling way.

I get that some readers will have very particular tastes in tense, person and/or style. But since it's impossible to write for all tastes and preferences, I'd say whatever seems to work for our particular story (going off both our own sense and feedback from others) and also what's known to generally work for a particular audience is probably best.

CJ