Lol. Fine, fair enough. Present tense - again, in terms of reading, I'm not drawn to anything in particular. If it works, I read it. As for writing - my collab was the first time I wrote in the present tense. I actually started writing it in the past. And then when we swapped chapters with my co-author, I found out she was writing in the present tense. I decided to give it a go. Found I liked it. Writing in the present tense also comes naturally to me. There have been many times if I'm kinda zoned out but still writing, I've accidentally slipped into the first person present before. When I was writing something just for fun - my little merman story that wasn't really meant to be published or even a novel, for that matter - I was just looking for something to write - the first thing that came out was first person present. Again, what I said about the immediacy of it still applies. It feels like I'm actually in the character's head. I have no particular fondness for any tense - frankly when I read, I don't even notice which tense I'm reading in. I don't find first person present to be vastly different from first person past - I'd say there's no real difference but I could be wrong.
I'm of course not going to tell you what serves your goals in your writing best, but I would argue that in general, third person doesn't necessarily serve action better and introspection less well. When I write first person, I'm less comfortable with introspection, because the narrator has to admit to her thoughts, and people have a lot of thoughts that they don't admit to. In third person, I can convey those thoughts, because they're there, even though a first-person narrator would deny them. And, oh. Oh. Hey. I suspect that's a big part of why I have a problem with first person, one that is intensified in first person present tense: I don't believe in a reliable first person narrator. I think that everyone lies to themselves, a thousand times a day. And even if they can plausibly see the truth later (past tense) the lies are strongest in the moment (present tense). So unless the story is very strongly about an unreliable narrator, to the extent that I'm pleased that the truth is unavailable to the reader, I don't like first person, because the truth is unavailable to the reader. Except, it's not really unavailable, because I can have the narrator tell the reader lies that the reader can see through, and come to the truth. And that (aha!) is why, for me, first person would be harder. I have to wrap the truth into at least one more layer, and that's a lot of extra work. Sometimes it's extra work that's well worth it, but sometimes it's a trapeze act that doesn't have any payoff. And that means that there are two ways that first person stories can fail me as a reader. A bad first person story can have a narrator that tells the truth to an extent that I can't believe, or it can be so shallow that the truth is never an issue. A good first person story can weave those translucent layers of truth and lies, but I believe that it's harder. The end product for a well-done first-person story may be better, but getting to an end product that is "good enough" is , IMO, much harder than for a third person story. And when I don't believe an ultra-honest narrator, it is, again, even harder to believe their honesty when it's expressed in the present tense moment. And the unnatural narrative flow (the "people don't usually talk like that" issue) adds more "disbelief weight". All that weight makes me fall through the story and I can't get absorbed in it, because I can't believe in it. I'm feeling rather "aha" now. Whether anyone else has these issues, I realize that this is a huge part of my issue with first person present.
An addendum: I'm finding this realization very useful because it makes me realize that most of my fiction is about lies. Not what's easily recognized as lies, as in, "No, I didn't take the money from the register", but self-deception and relationship lies, like, "I love you" or "Of course I don't regret having children," or "No, I'm not scared," or "I'm doing my best." I think that's why a POV and a tense that makes lies more difficult is more of an issue to to me than it might be to some other writers. But that's not the big realization of the day--the big realization is that so much of my writing is about lies. Hmmm.
@ChickenFreak - Now I'm seriously curious about your thoughts on my book, considering it's in first person present tense hahaha I don't think you're gonna like it then! Everything you said is true about the reliable or unreliable narrator - I've never tried to write an unreliable narrator, and I can only imagine how much skill that's gonna take. Have you read Nabokov's "That in Aleppo Once"? It's a letter written in first person with a mix of past and present tenses, as is the nature of letters. Here's the link: http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~mazalek/projects/aleppo/nabokov.html Seriously cool unreliable narrator there, I think But then in third person limited, aren't you still nonetheless limited to the idea that the character wouldn't admit certain truths to himself? I believe you that third person can be used just as well for introspection - I've done it in third before and people loved it. I guess with me, it's more of a nameless inclination, I'm not sure. I would still happily write in third person past right now, as happily as I would write first person present or past.
I think that in third person it's possible to more gracefully dance between the third person POV character's literal conscious thoughts, and the less conscious. As a weak example, imagine that the protagonist is consciously telling himself that Cousin Susie is such a know-it-all, but is also experiencing an intrusive memory of an interaction with Cousin Susie that might tell the reader something quite different. The first person narrator wouldn't present that memory. And third person limited feels more like a spectrum to me--I feel more free to carefully insert facts that the POV character has in their body of knowledge, but might not be thinking about in that instant. That requires a slightly more distant POV, but it still doesn't feel like I'm punching through a barrier, the way I would if I forced a first person narrator to present a fact that they don't wanna produce. It's a weak example, but all I can come up with in the moment. Someone who loves first person can probably argue that the same effect can be produced in that POV, but for me, first person feels much less flexible. Hmmm. I tend to write a lot of un-reviewable slush. I'm going to see if any of the stuff that was polished enough to go on my blog fits the description with any clarity.
For me, a narrator who misinterprets facts and events, sometimes unconsciously, sometimes closer to deliberately, and presents their misinterpretation to the reader. Like, "Last time I visited Jane, she snubbed me," when what really happened was that Jane didn't completely ignore all of her other guests and focus entirely on the narrator. I think that it most conventionally applies to someone whose perception and interpretation is severely compromised, rather than the fuzzier milder version that I'm using, and reflecting in that example.
Based on that definition, I would argue that all narrators are unreliable. For me, an unreliable narrator is someone who deliberately misleads the reader. Anything other than that is a reliable narrator.
Interesting - I would say that the narrator would present the memory, but perhaps he would skew it, or if misrepresenting the memory couldn't be done, then he would talk back at himself to justify his emotions. This may have something to do with the way I am as a person. I don't do the whole hide my feelings and thoughts thing. For a writer, which means I ought to possess exception control over my choice of words, I'm actually pretty blunt and often careless when I speak in person. If I wanted to think badly of someone and a memory intrudes to contradict me, I would not dismiss it. Although whether I present it depends - for example if someone was trying to convince me that Mary is a good person, even as I'm complaining about her, and then a memory intrudes that supports the case that she's a good person, I would present the memory, in this case. But for example, if someone else was complaining about Mary, and I don't like Mary myself either. And as the person is complaining, the same memory intrudes on me that supports that Mary is a good person - on this occasion, I probably won't present it. However, for me, writing a story, even in the first person - I do not really see it as my characters telling someone else a story. I simply see it as "I'm writing a story". So I present all the thoughts as they would occur to myself in my head - like how I'd talk to myself. Therefore if there's a memory that occurs, no matter whether it's contradictory, I would present it. You're looking inside the character's head. It's not that the character is admitting anything to you. The character would not need to admit to the memory - if the memory occurs in his head, then the reader will see it too. Whether the character admits to the memory is irrelevant.
I don't habitually pick any tense or POV, beyond the usual defaults of either first person past or third person past. However, there occasionally comes a story or a subplot where first person present feels natural. This time, my character has a lot of soul searching to do. Also she has amnesia - she's been robbed of her past so to speak - so it seems apt to get her to tell her story in first person present tense. I would like to share an example, but I don't normally post wips on line. In any case it's working really well, no uncomfortable limitations, really lovely style to work with, imo. And I don't think self-deluding character is less easily conveyed through first person POV, in fact I think it's a gold mine exploiting character's self-delusions and denial through first person unreliable narrator, so that it's increasingly obvious to the reader, teasing them, making them into a detective who's trying to psychoanalyse the character.
Yeah you did. Actually I think you pointe out one of the reasons I don't often like present tense. It simplifies sentence structure variety, as you so aptly demonstrated. Maybe you think that's a good thing but I prefer variety.
Yes, present simplifies syntax. No, it does not reduce variety. In fact, it makes it easier to express variety. The present paragraph and the past paragraph I wrote say exactly the same thing. Semantically, only their frames of reference are different. One is past indicative; the other is present indicative. Syntactically, the present paragraph has slightly more variety than the past paragraph. Proof: there is slightly more variety in this list: I act. I acted. I should have acted. If I had acted, then I would be acting. Will I act? If I act, then I will act. I have acted. than in this list: I acted. I had acted. I should have had acted. If I would have had acted, then I would have been acting. Would I act? If I would act, then I would act. Not only is there more variety in the first list, but the second list contains ugly syntactic contortions. I am not even sure if they are grammatically valid, but I did what I had to in order to translate present into past without losing meaning. When you must either contort your words or sacrifice meaning in order to translate from one mode of expression (e.g. present) to another (e.g. past), that is pretty damning evidence that the translation is not worth it.
I like it for horror or a part that has action or suspense, because it is more direct and doesn't betray that the story is narrated, so it the reader won't feel that "Okay, he has survived, since he is telling me this".
There are some genres where first present is so common it's almost jarring to read something that ISN'T in that form. (YA and NA, I'm looking at you!). I think it IS used often, as @jannert noted, when people are telling stories in casual speech. "So I tell her there's no way I'm doing that, and she says I am, and all of a sudden we're in this big brawl, right there in The Gap! I mean, I know what I want to wear, right? And I tell her that, and she's all, "You're spending my money so you're buying what I say!" and I flip out and start crying. It was a total mess." (That was fun! Now I want to write more spoiled-daughter-crabby-mom-at-The-Gap... maybe a dragon comes and eats them!) Anyway, I think there's a time and a place for all tenses and all POVs. Bright Lights Big City certainly sold me on second person present tense...
It's funny that chickenfreak suggests 1st person present as unnatural, as I think it is the most natural thing in the world. I would argue that 3rd person is artificial, in my opinion anyway. I think the whole ketchup argument is daft too. My internal dialogue is 'I need ketchup' not 'I got ketchup'. For me, first person is very believable and I am absorbed into the narrators mindset. It gives the writer an opportunity to challenge the way a reader views something. It gives insight. One side of the story. Which leaves everything open to questions. I write in first person with an unreliable narrator and it is a joy.
My dumbass brain tends to struggle with first person present whenever I start reading the book, but after a while, I get used to it. It's not my favorite, 'cause I do have a favorite and it's 3rd person limited, but @T.Trian and I have written one manuscript entirely in 1st person present, and while it was shit, mostly for other reasons I suppose, it was a fun experiment. Not my thing, though. Ok, I don't always get used to it. I have to say, I think would've gotten further with e.g. Hunger Games if it hadn't been first person present, so it can affect the reading experience for sure. I think I was somewhat startled by the immediacy of it, then it got claustrophobic, I felt limited into listening to her prattle, like I had to listen to Bella (Twilight was in 1st person past, I think) except not nearly as bad but still. On the other hand, I got through the first Sandman Slim novel ok. I guess I like being inside assholes' heads even though there were so many other things wrong with the story. I'm always surprised when beginners choose first person or first person present 'cause I find them more difficult to control than 3rd, but there's no reason not to use it if one feels comfortable with it. Just like with anything, learn to master it, read about the conventions, pitfalls, and recommendations so you know better what you're working with, just like with anything and especially if you struggle with it, and write, write, write. For some stories, FPP can even work better than TPL, for example.
Look, it works if you're commentating on what is going on, not recalling a story after it happened. Commentators at a football game rarely talk in past tense, except for the replays.
So can I mix first person with third person, such as, "I shuffled outside to get the morning paper in the heavy sheets of rain that were pelting the ground in merciless blows," and then the next sentence is, "When Raul starts to return to the comfort and safety of his house, a flash of lightning hits a tree only a few feet from his head?" I'm pretty sure I'm going against the rules of writing here, but I just wanted to ask anyway....
Second person would be "you". Is Raul the narrator for the first person section? If so, then, no, you shouldn't really switch POV like that. Pick either: My name is Raul. I love to walk in the rain because I love the way it smells (first person); Your name is Raul. You love to walk in the rain because you love the way it smells (second person); or His name is Raul. He loves to walk in the rain because he loves the way it smells (third person).
While this is a simple example that serves its purpose to illustrate the grammatical differences, I would like to use it to illustrate something that only makes sense in first person (and it makes more sense present than past): "Walking in the rain is one of life's pleasures. The smell of rain on grass and concrete is soothing."
