Tenses in third person limited

Hello,

I've been planning a story for some time, and currently the way I want to write it is in third person limited, present tense. However, I get worried about writing it this way because of the many, many negative opinions on books written in this way.

The reason I want to is because, in places, the POV characters are forced to forget things they knew earlier on in the story. Whenever I write in past tense, I don't like to include things that the characters have forgotten in case it comes off as slipping into omniscient. I've thought about writing it in first person, too, but I'd rather not because there are multiple POV characters and I don't like writing in multi first person POVs personally.

Anyway, main question. If I did write it in the past tense (third limited), and I had characters knowing things at the beginning that they didn't later on, would that be okay? Sorry if this is a stupid question, it just feels weird to me writing their forgotten memories in past tense, as, well, they don't remember them any more. (Like in American Gods, Shadow cannot remember what the "forgettable man" (sorry, hilariously enough I can't recall a name if there even was one) says when the story is in past tense. When the story is in present tense, others can remember what the forgettable man said for a limited time. This is what mainly made me want to write it in third present, but of course AG is not fully written that way.)

Also, do you dislike third present? Or are you neutral to it, depending on the story itself?

(Apologies for rambling question. )

BethS said:

What does writing in past or present tense have to do with what a character knows or doesn't know? I'm not seeing any connection there.

Click to expand...

I'll try to explain it better, sorry.

The things that characters forget *are* relevant, but are forcibly erased from their minds during the story. The story begins before said things are erased, and after they're erased the characters recall events from the story differently than to what they did before.

So, if it was in present, the characters would live through the things they forget later on normally. Then, the memory is wiped, and they don't recall things from earlier on. (I won't be doing masses of parts on what they remembered after the memories were taken, as I know that would be annoying. There's just going to be hints that they've changed from earlier on where relevant.)

If it was in past, I'd feel I'd have to write it as they would recall it (with memories altered.) I could do it with them gradually realizing that what they can recall are lies, but that would be made confusing (IMO) as one POV character would be moving through things completely differently to the other without explanation for some time. (For example, a secondary character is completely erased from one MC's memory, and he fills in the gaps where that character would have been with another. The other MC can clearly recall the forgotten character, and would go through the events knowing he was there in past tense.)

Blah blah, whoever said I over-explain is completely right as you may be able to tell (lol). Basically, I don't like writing what *actually* happened in third-limited past when a character can't recall it, as that slips into omniscient. In present, the events would be happening as they happen, so I can have a character go through the events that he later forgets/has altered.

I hope that made sense. :_:#

EDIT: Forgot to add, one character never actually remembers something pretty major. Someone tells him what happened and he believes them and he knows he had the memory wiped, but he can never accurately recall what happened. (So the figuring out in flashbacks wouldn't work perfectly.)

(And I've just realized it sounds like I could just use the other POV. Without boring you further with reasons, that also wouldn't work unfortunately.)

I feel odd writing things in past tense that they would not be able to recall at the end of the story. Is this stupid? ;_;#