Past tense. Mostly, though, it's not a recalling of something that happened years ago. But, rather, something that happened seconds ago. It feels more like present tense in that the POV character doesn't know how the scene will end.
I love reading in past tense. Find it hard (or multiple re-writes) to restrict myself to one tense while writing. That said, whatever I write is 90% present tense on the first draft unless I consciously decide otherwise.
I'm new here but thought I'd offer my thoughts. I agree with Lancie. For a long time the only way I wrote was past tense, but I picked up a collection of short stories by an Australian author Richard Lunn. He wrote predominantly in present tense, either first person or third but sometimes even in second person. I tried to do it and gradually got in the swing of things, and like the immediacy that present tense brings to the story. Now it feels a little foreign to write in the past tense.
From time immemorial, the history of story-telling is to recount events of the past. I would find it odd to sit round a fire and listen to an elder tell a tale in the present. Stories are about past events. Yes, the art continually evolves. But for me, at present, it's the past.
I started writing what I intend to finish as a novel two years ago, when I first started it was just a short story because I was bored, so the style wasn't very important and because I write to escape my world, I simply wrote what I felt. I've looked through my story many many times since I decided to turn it into a novel and I've developed it immensely. However I've been having difficulty with the tense of it. The general perspective is that it's from the POV of the protagonist, it starts off with a prologue, which is obviously him explaining what had happened prior to the beginning of the novel. The whole novel is a story being told by the protagonist. It is a story within a story, so obviously the prologue is actually in present time, along with the epilogue (which is/will be him ending the story he's telling as well as the resolution of the story), and the rest of the novel is in the past. So my confusion is this: I personally feel that if he's telling a story but the story is actually what the novel is based on, then that aspect of it should be in present tense. Does that mean that my prologue and epilogue should be in present tense as well? Or should the prologue be in past tense, because it is a prologue and that's what it is designed for? In the structure of a very generalised narrative my novel goes as follows: Introduction - Prologue and beginning chapters Complication - Most of the main chapters Resolution - Epilogue I think that the whole story, prologue and epilogue included, should be in present tense. What are your opinions on this? Also, in regards to the epilogue, in my very basic draft of the novel the end of the novel had a couple of chapters that were included in the main body but were part of the resolution as well as an epilogue explaining what happened after the inevitable happily ever after. I would much prefer to have the whole resolution in the epilogue for various reasons including the type of novel it is and the structure that I have used being an unusual and unique structure. Is there any way to make this happen? Is it acceptable to have an epilogue that is a few chapters long, and if so how do I structure this? Do I start an epilogue chapter sequence (Eg. 'Epilogue Chapter 1'), do I continue with the chapters from the main body but with the epilogue title also (Eg. 'Chapter 39 - Epilogue'), do I just have an incredibly long epilogue, or is there something else I could do?
This sounds like you're introducing a lot of structural complications - enough that I'm not sure I'd know what to suggest, because it sounds like you're just doing your own thing, in which case you kind of have to keep making your own decisions rather than looking for some sort of model. In general, though, I think you may be overthinking the verb tense issue, if I understand what you're saying. The relationship between verb tense and the timing of the actions being described is pretty tenuous, generally. I mean, within the story, once you've decided on a default tense you change tenses for different sections in order to show that the events happened at a different time. But while deciding on a default tense? I don't really understand what you mean by your MC telling a story that is based on a story and therefore you should use present tense...?
What's your goal? I ask because you said: . What's changed? Are you now writing with an expectation of publication? If so, traditional or self? Or do you simply mean that you now want to pay more attention to structural issues, with no concern for publication issues? Tell you a story. Many years ago, in the midst of many midlife changes (won't call it a crisis, because it was more like the resolution of a long term crisis), an old friend invited me to join a group of his musician friends in a band (I play drums). The stated purpose was to get together periodically and play, with a vague hope of perhaps playing out at some point in the future. I was ecstatic, and in each session I felt myself growing as a musician. We stopped the session over the summer (we were all "family men" and had obligations), but when I asked about getting the sessions started again in September, I was informed via e-mail that they had decided to move on with another drummer to a set of gigs. As a means of coping with it, I decided to write a novel about a group of middle aged musicians. The result was an ill-planned and somewhat meandering story, the writing of which got me past the episode, ego intact. It also yielded some very interesting and likable characters, but in utterly unpublishable form. I've since looked at that ms a few times, wondering how in God's name I might pull it into something respectable. And, with my most recent project finished and me querying it, I'm looking at it anew. I've just finished doing a timeline and outline on what I've got. It will take a lot to work it into shape, but I think it might be possible. The point is, what was acceptable as an exercise in coping with a severe personal disappointment is a far cry from what is acceptable for publication. So it's good to know what you're after.
Not obvious at all. Everything can be past tense. If my dining companion comes back from the bathroom, I use past tense to tell him what the waiter said to me three minutes ago about the specials. I also use past tense to describe what happened at work earlier that day. And for the story about something that happened when I was three. And to talk about what Shakespeare might have been thinking when he wrote the dialogue for Hero in the dance in Much Ado. And getting back to my dining companion, if I reach across and steal food from his plate, he may say, "You stole my scallop!" while I'm still chewing on it. Past tense. You'd don't get one and only one "past tense" in a book.
My novel has exactly the same structure. Well, almost the same: Chapter 1: protagonist prepares to tell her story to another character as a way of talking herself through a big decision. Chapters 2-(n-1): that story. Chapter (n-1): the other character reacts to the story, and the protagonist makes her big decision. Chapter n: the protagonist lives with the consequences of her decision. Right now, I am writing chapters 1, (n-1), and n in present tense, and the rest in past tense. Mainly, it is because I want to write the present tense chapters in a moment-by-moment style and the past tense chapters in a more summarized "recap of what has happened the last few years" style. Also, because it is occasionally a powerful narrative technique for the narrator/protagonist to reflect, in present tense, on the story she is telling in the past tense. (e.g. "I was wrong -- I now realize that _____.") But honestly, I like present tense so much that I am not totally committed to writing the middle chapters in past tense. I might rewrite them someday. The decision is not fundamental to the story. And I do not agree that the bulk of the story should be in present tense just because it is "actually what the novel is based on". Unless your choice of tense is intended to make a point to the reader. There is nothing wrong with splitting an epilogue up into several chapters. You do not even need to label them as an "epilogue". Those chapters are just as much a part of the story as the chapters before them. I definitely recommend short chapters over long chapters. The structure of my novel is not set in stone yet, but I am considering dividing the novel into volumes and then chapters. Volumes would have titles like Les Misérables; chapters would not. Most volumes would be novella-length (each one focusing on the protagonist's relationship with a different character); chapters would would be 1k-2k words long. It would look like this: Volume 1: <Protagonist's name> Chapter 1 Volume 2: <Character A's name> Chapter 1 Chapter 2 ... Volume 3: <Character B's name> Chapter 1 Chapter 2 ... ... Volume (n-1): <Secondary character's name> Chapter 1 Volume n: <Name of the city where the story takes place> Chapter 1 Chapter 2 ... Now that I think about it, in my case, it might be better not to divide the last volume into chapters, since it is supposed to fast-forward seamlessly through the rest of the protagonist's life. Anyway, I hope that gives you some ideas.
It sounds like you're trying to do what Patrick Rothfuss does in The Kingkiller Chronicles. Maybe an even better example is Black Cross by Greg Iles. In The Kingkiller Chronicles, the story begins in the present. Then the main character begins telling his story, but the chapters chronicling his story are still in present tense. Instead of him telling the story, it's as if you are dragged into his past directly. Then, occasionally, there are chapters prefixed with, "Interlude," which means we're back to present time. In Black Cross there is a prologue of a character meeting another character. Then the rest of the book is sending you into the past, but still written in present tense. That is up until the epilogue, in which time you're pulled back to present time. I think this is more what you're going for, so I'd recommend it for you. It's a World War 2 novel, and I really enjoyed it.
I have been writing my current WIP for some time (about 35k words in or so), and I keep second guessing my decision to write in the past tense. It feels so removed at times, as if as a reader I am just watching from afar through a pair of binoculars. What do you feel about narrating in the past versus in the present? At first the past felt much more natural to me, now I look at my story and feel like the present tense builds better suspense, better release, and (as a result) better emotional connection than past tense ever could. Help a fellow writer through his rewrite crisis?
I like present, myself, but I hardly ever write in it because there are a significant number of readers who just don't seem to get into it. That probably depends on your genre, though - YA at least seems fine with present tense. To me, there IS more of a sense of immediacy with present tense, and maybe that's why it works with YA, because that category tends to have a really intimate, intense voice. In other categories of writing, you might run into reader-resistance.
I am trying to remain in full steam ahead mode, but in dialogue heavy or otherwise microscopically focused situations, it seems so archaic. Maybe I should stop procrastinating and keep writing. XD
I prefer present tense because of its semantic simplicity. Language is a crude tool for expressing thoughts. I prefer the language not to get in its own way. Ideally, our brains would be trained on a more precise and flexible way to represent events in time. (Maybe some kind of visual timeline.) But instead, we just have a handful of tenses that are defined with respect to a frame of reference, and we have the general notion that a sequence of sentences in the same tense represents a sequence of actions that happen in the same order. Present tense is defined with respect to one frame of reference. Past tense is defined with respect to two frames. Past events happen in a frame of reference that precedes the present (or what I call "fundamental") frame of reference. This becomes clear when we compare analogous tenses: Perfect: "the thing has happened." Past perfect: "the thing had happened." Future: "the thing will happen." Future-of-the-past? (I do not know what this is called): "the thing would happen / was going to happen." Future perfect: "by then, the thing already will have happened." Future-perfect-of-the-past (???) "by then, the thing already would have had happened." (Not even sure if that is technically valid, but it is awkward as hell.) There are other examples. The point is that I like to minimize the steps taken from the fundamental frame of reference. Telling the whole story in the past tense adds an unnecessary step. You know, English enforces a very particular understanding of time. I know at least Chinese, and possibly other languages, does not require the tense of a verb to be specified. You can tell an entire story without specifying tense. You are not presenting it as "events that happened before I started speaking" or "events that are happening as I speak"; instead, you are simply describing a series of events. There is a difference between just describing an idea, and describing it and then making a statement about how it relates to reality. With this knowledge that tense is a peculiarity of language itself, it is hard to prefer one tense over another for any reason other than the simple convenience of writing in a given tense. In past or present, you are doing the same thing: describing an imaginary series of events without making any statement about the relationship between the act of narration and the events. Might as well take the path of least resistance.
Not to dis anyone writing in present tense, but it feels like a fad to me. On the other hand, you should look at the benefits and drawbacks of present tense. The Pros and Cons of Writing a Novel in Present Tense Thus the fadishness I feel. But you'll need to go to the link to read the pros and cons. I couldn't tease out the essence with an excerpted quote or two.
A fad ends, along with the perception that something is part of that fad. The nature of language does not end.
If a fad has lasted over thirty years, is it still a fad? None of the arguments in that article really made sense to me. It's easier to include superfluous details in present tense? Well, just... don't. I mean, you have to pay attention to what you're choosing to include in a story regardless of tense. One short story that's apparently deliberately intended to be a "slice of life" story written in present tense doesn't mean other authors can't write present tense well. And diminishing suspense? It's pretty rare for contemporary authors to use the sort of "little did I know..." construction the post mentions, and honestly, I don't find they build suspense anyway. I find they build distance.
I'm currently reading Kristin Hannah's The Nightingale, in which scenes in the narrator's present are written in present tense and the bulk of the story - recollections of the narrator - is written in past tense. It works quite well. Another writer who used present-in-present-tense/past-in-past-tense is Celeste Ng in Everything I Never Told You. In both works, the method has the advantage of allowing the writer to switch from narrative present to narrative past without specific chapter headings or other blatant signposts. The effect is instantaneous. In fact, had I read these two books before starting to write Rosa's Secret, I would have been tempted to use the method myself, although in the end I probably would have demurred - my narration is through the eyes of someone who was 13 at the time, but is reflecting back from adulthood. The narrator in Nightingale is an elderly woman and in Everything is not a character in the story. The first book I remember reading written entirely in present tense was Bill Bradley's Life On the Run, a first-person sports book written in 1974. Last summer, there was a review in the NY Times of Tom Rachman's new novel, The Rise and Fall of Great Powers that took Rachman to task for delaying unreasonably the revelation of details that the POV character knows all along but chooses not to reveal in order to pull the reader along. We all do this to a certain extent, but the reviewer felt that Rachman had abused the privilege and that the result felt very contrived. One way out of this dilemma is use of 1st person narration, the "unreliable narrator". I, myself, only like this option when the narrator has a reason to be unreliable, such as a traumatic event that (s)he tries to forget. But present tense narration offers another way around the problem. After all, we can't blame the narrator for withholding details that haven't yet occurred.
I think it certainly depends on the genre. If you are writing a sweeping historical drama or a High Fantasy novel, past-tense probably works well, especially when there's the issue of multiple viewpoints and lots of scene-setting to consider. With Young Adult books and the woefully popular 50 Shades of Grey, it's all about getting into the mind of the character. With present-tense, you get a better sense of immediacy with the narrator's thoughts. All in all I wouldn't say present-tense is any worse than past-tense or vice versa, but it certainly depends on the way your story is written. I feel alienated by FP present-tense as for me it tends to lack the depth of past-tense third person POV stories, but then again that's my personal opinion. Judge from what your story needs as to what POV works best.
It's not an issue of tense. It's an issue of writing ability. Past tense novels have enthralled readers for centuries. 1st person present is so popular today because the immediacy of the tense can, at first, make eating a bowl of cereal seem important. " I take out a bowl from the cabinet and reach for the cornflakes." We the reader can't help but anticipate that something important is going to happen very very soon. This is a gimmick. Not real writing. I've put down past tense novels, shaking, so caught up was I in the plight of the protagonist. I'm not saying present tense is always bad or is never used well, but I'm willing to bet those few who have written good present tense novels also had the ability to write good past tense novels. In short, for most aspiring writers, present tense is a handicap, and it will make you feel good while writing it, but not much else.
I think I tend to do third person in past more and first in present. BUT I do believe that future tense is probably the best to use.
If you are talking about the current fad of writing in present tense, I don't think it's been a fad for 30 years. Someone may have done it 30 years ago, but that wasn't the beginning of the fad.
It's interesting that you see past tense as distant. I feel disconnected from present tense...or maybe I mean that present tense feels disconnected. Narrative in present tense makes me feel as if the character isn't thoughtful, isn't connected with memory and experience. I feel as if I'm floating with a narrator that isn't really paying much attention, as if I have an unreliable guide. And that makes no sense, just as past tense feeling distant really makes no sense. Either can be used for whatever effect you want. But I hate present tense with a fiery passion. I cannot read a book in present tense; I've tried. There's a book that I otherwise like quite a bit somewher around the house, dog-eared around chapter three, because I Just Can't Get Any Further. And I'm sure that some people, especially current YA readers, hate past tense just as much. So you may want to make a largely pragmatic choice based on what's used most commonly in your genre. For YA, you may need to use present tense. For a book where a large percentage of your readers will be over thirty, you may need to use past tense. I, too, am of the opinion that present tense is in fashion right now and will likely go out of fashion in a few years. I don't have evidence for my opinion, it's purely anecdotal, based on the fact that in a heavily reading childhood and young adulthood and not-so-young adulthood, I very seldom encountered a novel in present tense. I became aware of present-tense novels as a common thing perhaps ten years ago. These look equally simple to me. "the thing would happen." Equally simple. "by then, the thing would have already happened." Equally simple.
@ChickenFreak You can point out that select past tense constructions in English just happen to use as many words as the equivalent present tense constructions, but that does not refute my main point that defaulting to the past tense frame of reference adds a layer of information to every verb, which removes the very meaning from that information and thus defeats the purpose of expressing it. (Unless you are specifically saying the narrated event precedes the act of narration.) "I drink water because I am thirsty because I was running." = "I drink water because I am thirsty because I am running before now." "I drank water because I was thirsty because I had been running." = "I drink water before now because I am thirsty before now because I am running before the point before now."
But that assumes that "now" is the easiest frame of reference to understand. I don't know if that's a valid assumption. It's certainly not the easiest frame of reference for me to understand when reading a novel, but that is of course because I have read hundreds and hundreds of past-tense novels. So for me, reading a novel in the present tense requires a constant, sentence by sentence, low level translation of frame of reference. Having the action comfortably plodding along in the past is more comfortable, for me, than having it constantly dancing on the border between past and future. But even without that, why would we assume that the present is easiest to understand when narrating a sequence of events? In casual speech, which you'd think would involve the easiest and most intuitive use of language, most people that I know narrate events in the past tense: "Sorry I'm late. I accidentally parked in front of a hydrant and got a ticket." "We had chicken and cucumbers for lunch yesterday." "This afternoon I went to the library and then I had a look at the new music store." They don't usually say: "Sorry I'm late. I'm accidentally parking in front of a hydrant, and I get a ticket." "Yesterday, we're having chicken and cucumbers for lunch." "So, this afternoon I'm at the library and then I'm looking at the new music store." Now, sometimes a person will narrate events in the present tense: "So, I'm at the bar. And this girl walks up to me and she says, 'Have you seen a Siamese kitten?' And I say, no, maybe they cooked him for the lunch special. And she starts to cry, and then the bartender says I've had too much and cuts me off, and then there's so many people glaring at me that I leave. And then..." But I still think that narrating events in the past tense is more natural. I don't understand your examples. You seem to be demonstrating that the past tense is confusing, by inserting present tense into it, thus undermining your own point.
