I think it can work well when written in first person as it can help to make the story seem more personal to the character. For it to work effectively though, I think it depends on the attitude of the character telling the story. You need to think about whether the narrator is the kind of person who would tell the story in the past or present tense. If the character is enthusiastic about telling the story, they may well tell it in the present tense (think of a historical documentary where a historian talks about the Romans. Often, because they are enthusiastic about their research, they will talk about it in the present tense). I am writing a novel at the moment that is written in the present tense and I believe it is working rather well (but I have to say that ).
I don't think it is horrible to read at all. I think popsicledeath has it right throughout this thread. The objections to present tense, or the thing that make the writing bad, or choppy, or what have you, are independent of the tense. If they are in your writing, they'll be there in both past and present tense.
No, it doesn't imply that. A reminiscent style does. Sorry, but most of what you're saying is the sort of thing I already addressed. Past tense doesn't mean the action literally already took place unless it's nonfiction. I know some people think that, usually writers who're thinking too much about pov and lending weight and theory where it's not needed. But just thinking something is true and hearing a lot of people repeat something (again, mostly just writers over-thinking things) doesn't make it true. What makes a story reminiscent isn't the tense, but the character knowledge. Generally, if the character has knowledge of the future, then it's reminiscent. I say generally because omniscient narration is slightly more complex, depending on the knowledge of the external, non-character narrator. Why it's important to understand is a lot of novice writers think that just because they're writing in past tense, it's reminiscent, already happened, and they can break pov to add in random information the character wouldn't know of the future, or pop in with a random voice of a narrator in a story that is intended to not be omniscient.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. The very definition of past tense is a verb tense that expresses actions or states in the past. The use of it DOES imply that the action, et cetera, took place in the past. The past can be in the future, present, or the past, depending on your story, but past tense shows the story taking place before the narration of it (ie: the action literally already took place).
I'll have to agree to disagree with you as well. I do not think that is implied by using past tense. Tense in terms of the overall way in which the story is presented is to me simply a tool that does not imply any temporal relationship between the story and the reader. You can certainly write it so that it does, but it doesn't necessarily do so.
I always write in the present tense and I also prefer novels written in this tense. I find it easier to become involved with the story if it feels like something that is on-going rather than something already past.
I'm not talking about a temporal relationship between the story and the reader, but a temporal relationship between the story and the narrator. If I said, "I walked down the left side of the road," you would assume that I have already done that. Even if the "I" is a fictional narrator set 5 million years in the future. He already completed the action of walking down the road by the time you read it, which is his "now." That's also why past tense is so greatly accepted because present tense implies that it is happening "now" (the narrator's now), which makes it awkward in a sense for the narrator to do the action and tell the story at the same time.
Hmmm. It just doesn't have that effect on me. I'm holding a book that has been published and distributed. I guess that destroys the illusion that it is happening "now" in any sense external to the book itself. And as for the internal sense of time, I find I am just as easily brought into the immediacy of a story whether it is past or present tense if it is done well.
Indeed, we'll have to agree to disagree. There's a huge, monumental difference between literal past-tense as related to real time, and the narrative tense that falls outside our literal, real-world timeline. Language is often not comprised of purely denotative, literal meanings. Imagine how often you've heard someone tell a story of something that literally happened yesterday, but their narrative tense is present: So there I am, running from the unicorn, trying to eat all the corn nuts before I get caught. You wouldn't stop the person who is literally standing in the current time-line, and ask if, because they're using present tense, they aren't currently, in that moment, experiencing that action. Why? Because we passively learn that literal tense and narrative tense are very different things. Jokes, for instance, are often told in a present tense, but we don't wonder if a rabbi and monkey are literally, this very moment, walking into a bar. We understand the tense is just a narrative design, not literal. It, ironically, is only when writers start studying a bit and start trying to figure out the mysteries of narrative craft that we forget all the passive aspects of the language we took for granted for years. It's hard to learn those things, so writers often fill in the blanks with theories and absolutes that don't really always do a good job of explaining the things we already know and understand, but don't realize. But, shrug, it's all subjective I'm sure.
But, you also have to remember, the bulk of contemporary fiction seeks to kill the presence of an external narrator. Usually, these days, the character is the narrator. And even in a story where a narrator exists, is the reader to assume that narrator has some specified place and time, whether in the story or in our own world? I say no. First off, because it's weird and takes me out of a story to have to consider such things. Secondly, it's irrelevant. The important things to pay attention to isn't the tense, but the narrative design of the tense. Is the story being presented as if events are unfolding for the first time, meaning the character and/or narrator has no knowledge of the future. Or is the story being told in a reminiscent style, where the character and/or narrator is able to comment on the entire spectrum of the story, since the story is being 'told' from a point in the future, after the events have already taken place in regard to the story's timeline. That's why, though at times awkward, you can have past tense stories that aren't reminiscent, and present tense stories that are. Because tense has very little literal implication in a story, because rigid definitions of tense aren't what matter, but instead the narrative tense, which is just a style (some people prefer past, some present). The driving force is how that narration is designed, action happening as if for the first time, reminiscent, or a combination. And no, sorry, but the unconventional thinking is to interpret present tense story as literally happening right now in regard to our own space and time. That's some kind of weird real-life meta-fiction stuff, lol.
I completely agree (and you beat me to the example of the joke, although I certainly was not going to say "a rabbi and a mokey" ). It is not about the narrator doing what they are describing at that very moment, but the way they tell the story. It has happened in the past, in relation to the narrative, but the character tells the story as if it is happening now. I'm pretty sure writing is not an exact science, and if every author stuck to a firm set of rules, there would be no variety within literature.
Not sure what the consensus is but I'm assuming past tense is preferred - I certainly like it more. There's something confronting about present tense that makes me feel uncomfortable. That's just a personal choice but I'm sure some writers do it brilliantly.
