When we say 'We write in such-and-such tense' it doesn't mean that every single sentence of our entire narrative needs to be in one tense only. That would be impossible considering English grammar. It's about the 'dominant' tense, the one describing actions as they occur in the storyline. Various tenses in complex sentences will still have to arrange themselves relative to one another, flashbacks will always be in the past, fears and contemplations might as well bear future tense. And that's without even considering dialogue. It's about the overriding flavour, and in fiction, the awkward narrative tenses are future and awkward POV is second person, because they truly do interfere with our inherent storytelling techniques, so they are better suited to non-fiction.
I believe Sherlock Holmes is written in first person present tense. That's the most famous example I could come up with. It's certainly not done very often, but it has been done successfully. It's just a matter of expanding your horizons a bit.
Is this just a subset of the stories? I glanced at a preview of one story on Amazon, and it was in first person past.
I'm starting to realize that tenses and POV are to us (writers) what brands are to people who care about brands when talking about cellphone/computers/etc. The conversations sound so similar. Camps form, arguments are raised, derision is thrown. Self-satisfying smugness is had by all, displayed in different ways. I use what I use and I read what I read. If that makes me sheeple, then ba-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a!
It might be. It's been a long time since I've read Sherlock Holmes, but I do remember there being several examples of stories written in first person present.
What I have seen time and time again in the workshop is first person present peices hitting nearly all of those pitfalls listed in that article. Look, I wrote a short story once in 1st present that I sort of like, and I've seen first person present stories that are very good, but I would say probability wise, a 1st person present tense story is less likely to be good. Just because a rock star wears leather pants doesn't mean everyone else should be doing it. Usually when I criticize something it's because I've been on the other side and changed my mind. Sometimes when I'm tired or feeling rusty and I just feel like typing some shit into the processor, I type it in first present , and it's always terrible when I read it later, but as I write it, it feels easier, like I'm in the moment and it's really important . That is NOT a good reason to write in what I consider to be an unconventional and dangerous tense . If you write in this tense, there should be a strong reason and it should show in your work. If you find yourself guilty of excessive "I"s, pointless descriptions, or monotony, I would suggest reconsidering your tense. 1st person present is seductive (to the writer) and to most of the supporters here, I know deep down you know it to. Be careful that you are not being seduced and are using it intelligently.
Someone writing in third person could use certain pronouns excessively as well, so it's not a tense problem.
As in all things, I think I must be "gay" to this seduction. 1st person holds no thrall over me, but I think, most probably, because what I enjoy reading is rarely every written in 1st person. There are exceptions, of course, but by and large I am uninterested in older "literary" works where 1st person is profuse or in newer YA works where it has come into vogue again. So... *shrug*
Maybe, maybe not. The two tenses require different ways of thinking. Both can use excessive pronouns, but its possible that one of them makes it more tempting.
No need to go "first of all" on me - this is a discussion. Your example with Sybil would easily fall into the pitfall of using the name "Sybil" far too often - or I could accuse you of using "she" if you wanna replace it that way. What I'm trying to say is: this thing with "writing in first person means you have to struggle with not using 'I' too often" is rubbish - it's not based on anything. The excessive use of pronouns will be a problem in any POV you choose, in whichever tense you choose to write it in. The only difference is: when it's third person past, people are generally more practiced with writing in it because it's the norm to write in, and it's the one people tend to read the most of so they know how it should look. The mix of tenses would be there even in first person past, as per your example. The mix of tenses would be also present in first person present. I'm not seeing your point, sorry. But Jazzabel made a good point above me - it's about the dominant tense you write in. It doesn't mean tenses don't mix. If the piece is in simple past, it doesn't mean there's no past progressive or past perfect, and such. And so it is with a piece in present tense - it doesn't mean there's no use of simple past or simple future etc. And if your example was meant to show how pronouns can be excessively used, like I said, that goes for any POV and any tense you might choose to write in. And no one who's actually good at writing in first person would've written the Sybil passage the way you did - the way you did it is suitable for third person. It is not suitable for first person - it's not in a first person voice. It's not a simple case of replacing every "Sybil" or "She" with "I".
A first person voice is not the same as a third person voice - it's really not a case of just replacing every pronoun with "I". It's only more tempting to use pronouns excessively if you're simply not very good at writing in that POV, or perhaps not good at writing at all and thus don't know how to vary sentences. Write how you speak, is what I say - how often do you use "I" when you're speaking? Nobody tells a story like this: I went to the shop and then I bought a muffin. I ate it and I thought it was delicious. I walked down the street and then I got hit by a bus. Rather, you tell it like this: I went to the shop and bought a muffin. It was delicious - haven't had such a great muffin in a good long while. Walking down the street, I decided to admire the scenery and soak up the sun. That's when it happened. I was just putting one foot in front of the other like usual and then BAM. Lights out. Or third person: He went to the shop and bought a muffin. He hadn't had a muffin in such a long time; he could barely remember what it tasted like. As he neared the muffin stand, his mouth began to water. Blueberry, or double choocolate? Choices, choices. He grabbed the biggest-looking muffin there - chocolate it was - and skipped down the aisle with it. His teeth sank into it almost before he even left the shop. Chocolate exploded across his tongue in myriads of bittersweet tones. Moaning, he swallowed and licked his lips, never even opening his eyes as he walked. He'd better eat slow, savour it, because he hadn't had something this good since he put sugar out of his diet for Lent. The sun beat down his back as he strolled; he stepped off the curb. He never saw the bus coming. I'm not seeing this supposed problem and funny suspicion people have with first person. All it shows me is perhaps those people don't actually know how to write in first person - or perhaps just naturally don't find it as intuitive. Either is possible. People should just write in whichever POV aids them the most, whichever they're comfortable in, whichever's good for their story. And as my examples show above, you include different things when it's a different POV, that's all. Not saying any of it is particularly good - I banged them both out in under 5min - but you get the gist. It's not about the pronouns! Every device will have its own pitfalls. I'm not getting what's all this suspicion around first person. Don't write in it then if you don't like it, or aren't good at it.
That's the whole point of this thread! It's a hard tense that many people seem drawn to, but that doesn't mean they're writing it well. By the way, this is about first person present.
Wow, some strong words there. It seems you are basing your opinion solely on reading some very badly written amateur pieces, and who can blame you for your conclusion? Some stuff out there is so badly written, it's unbearable. And that goes for any tense. Perhaps first person present is a bit more difficult than the third person past, but it all comes down to good vs bad writing. In reality, a writer who can write well in third person past, will easily be able to write well in first person present. So I think it's hardly helpful or fair to label a simple advanced technique 'dangerous and unconventional'. It plays into fear of failure and stagnation and frankly, good examples aren't very hard to find. Here's an example of what I consider good first person present prose, it's the main plot of 'Kafka on the Shore'. The subplot of the same book is written in third person limited, past tense, and each POV suits the particular plotline perfectly.
Sure, but it seems many people on the thread are simply like, "Oh first person - never mind the tense - it's FIRST PERSON! I'm gonna end up using 'I' over and over again!" There're many reasons why first person, never mind the tenses, might be difficult for some. I understand. What pisses me off is the misconception - if it's difficult, it's NOT because of the bloody pronoun. And fact that that seems to be most people's concern who don't want to write in it tells me they know nothing about the POV. That's what annoys me. I don't mind an educated opinion about the difficulty and/or pitfalls of first person, perhaps what it cannot achieve versus third person, but by God can we drop the idea that it's all in the pronoun!? I wrote my entire collab in first person present and I've already had beta readers - while they're still reading and not finished the book yet, they're all loving the book so far. No one's complained. So I rest assured I probably do it fine myself. Here you go - First person present tense, something from my collab: (and it's description, in first person - it's magic!) That’s when she bursts through the door, a shimmering, flowing bolt of honeyed silk and ruffled strawberry-blonde hair, slender feet kicking out from the hem of her dress. Or here, something else from my collab: She's going to marry Cipher. I stare after her as she and Icarus both walk out of the lab. Doors swing shut. Cipher, the man who once asked her to enter a cage, now wants to lock the door. But she doesn't love him. She can't marry him. He can't make her. He can't- I slide to the floor, exhaustion getting the better of me. Married. Serycia married to that animal. Closing my eyes, I drop my head against the wall. When I open them again, Harl's staring at me. So there - description, internal thoughts, a tiny bit of narration of actions, all in first person present. Notice I used "I" perhaps 3 times. In the descriptive passage, there's no "I" present at all.
I'm drawn to present tense - not always first person though. I thought it worked for Not Pink ( though I did have a few people saying they'd prefer it in 1st person past - I'm not entirely sure if that was preference or what. ) I just didn't think a robot would think it terms of having done something, everything would be immediate. I did read an awesome short story in second person present - can't think of the name though. I haven't actually run across this tense much. I never thought of the con of diminishing suspense. I suppose it depends on the way it's handled. I always loved how Hitchcock described suspense - First person would definitely limit your scope. In first person present the ' I' doesn't know that the perhaps a killer is heading to his house just as he's getting ready to leave ( but then neither does the reader. ) Something that would normally draw out the suspense that - hey-, they may or may not miss each other. But I think it's all about what you want for the story and the angle you want to take. Plus, I think some people use it without realizing it's not a good match for certain stories and thereby reinforce the reputation that it's a lousy combo of tense & pov when really it's just a lousy combo for that story.
If you want to judge writers and books based on prejudices, that's your choice. An "unconventional and dangerous" tense? Dangerous? What's with the scare-mongering? Just because you may not be able to write well in it does not mean people shouldn't try, or that they will not do a good job of it. What makes it "dangerous"? You're screaming fear of failure here - and a choice based on fear is never a good one for yourself, your prospects, your writing, or your story. And never mind my lousy examples of my own work - here, ending to the Hunger Games - first person present: On the night I feel that thing again, the hunger that overtook me on the beach, I know this would have happened anyway. That what I need to survive is not Gale‘s fire, kindled with rage and hatred. I have plenty of fire myself. What I need is the dandelion in the spring. The bright yellow that means rebirth instead of destruction. The promise that life can go on, no matter how bad our losses. That it can be good again. And only Peeta can give me that. Maybe if you find yourself guilty of monotony, pointless descriptions, and excessive use of pronouns, what you should rather do is go improve your writing skills, cus that's just BAD WRITING. It's got nothing to do with which POV you're using. Rather than avoiding a device thinking it's gonna be magic and now your writing will be on par. No, it won't. If you're making those mistakes in first person, you're probably doing them in third too, it's just less obvious. Go improve your writing to the point where you can master anything - and you ain't gonna master it if you go about avoiding it thinking that's why your writing is bad. A device is a tool like any other - the outcome of the product rests not in the tool but in its appropriateness for the job and, more importantly, in the wielder's own skill. (Note: I'm not saying your writing isn't on par - that's a general you) Anyway, this ridiculous prejudice is getting on my nerves - and it probably shows too. I'm leaving this thread before I spit fire at someone and land myself with a warning. Ciao.
It's not just the pronouns. The paragraph I emboldened has, to me at least, a linear, somewhat monotonous feel that I find to be common in 1st person present. It's hard to pinpoint exactly what it is, maybe it's less monotony and more a feeling of claustrophobia. I just took a look at Not Pink again, which confirms that this is not necessarily the case for all 1st person present works. The paragraphs in that work have wonderful flow and variety and do not feel claustrophobic. I just think it's harder with 1st person present, based on what most of us amateurs have shown with it.
What you bolded in my paragraph - he's repeating himself because he's terrified. I did consider cutting the repetition a little actually. Again, this is not because it's first person present - the device I may have misused is NOT the choice of POV. The device is that of appropriate repetition. You're criticising a different thing here.
I see it all the time in people's first person present works, so I'm not surprised I saw it in yours. This has nothing to do with my own writing, and everything to do with what I see in the workshop. Anyway, I'm sorry you're getting offended, so please don't feel inclined to respond.
Instead of getting defensive, can people start explaining to me why they are drawn to the 1st person present? What is it that made them decide to use it? Selbbin, for example, has explained why he uses it and it makes sense. I'm curious as to why others use it, that's all.
It would be the same in the 'usual' third person limited, past tense. Most often these days, we are only privy to what the POV characters knows at the moment story unfolds. All their knowledge, present past and future, is there, but the writer is the one who selects what to tell the reader. Unless we are talking about genuine present tense stream of consciousness POV, which I think we aren't. In the case of the killer, you'd need either an omniscient narrator or another POV character (the killer himself or someone else) who has in their head the knowledge of what the killer is doing at the same time, if you want the audience to know. Or the POV character is recounting past events in the story itself. Really, as long as the POV is limited to one head only, I think you can communicate exactly the same information to the reader.
It comes more naturally to me - character thoughts are more immediate. There's an intimacy I don't get from third person. I read and write plenty of third person too - to be honest I actually don't mind which tense or POV a book is written in. But somehow, books that I come away feeling thrilled by have all been first person, I think. I love to read and I love to write introspection - the character's internal world and turmoil interests me the most. It seems I also write introspection the best, judging from comments I've had from various people who've read my work, all excellent writers themselves. First person lets me do that like third person can't. I've done introspection and narration in third person - it takes on a slightly slow, almost passive tone. It still reads well. But when I do it in first person, it shines. On the flip side, from writing my collab and therefore getting to compare my own writing with another excellent writer's a lot, I write action pretty badly. They read fine - I've not had complaints - but they're nowhere near as good as my co-author's. Maybe it's due to my inclination to be more abstract, less precise, more emotional rather than action, I'm not sure. My co-author also writes excellent introspection, but it takes her a few goes, whereas for me it's usually my first draft that comes out spot-on. My action scenes however are riddled with my co-author's notes and edits because I'm simply not as good at that. So I think these inclinations - and therefore to some extent also what you might be better at writing - affect why you're drawn to certain POVs. I love the honesty of first person. And actually, believe it or not, writing in first person actually curbs my excessive descriptions. I'm forced to tone it down to the very essentials - and that works in my favour. I love poetic language and sometimes I can be accused of overdoing it with the metaphors - writing in first person forces me to keep it natural, keep it simple, and when I use poetic language, it's striking. It's striking because through the first person, I'm only allowed so much and it polishes it, shaves off all the rest of the poetry and I'm left with only two or three phrases that really, really shine because they have to exactly sum up my character's immediate emotion - because I'm not allowed anymore. You may say I had some monotony in my writing - sure, I can accept that. But I gave 3 different first person examples and you had no criticism for the others. So, I know I'm not perfect, so it's okay - I'll do some work on that particular bit you bolded, not a problem. (in fact, all the better! My writing will improve!) But in general, really, writing in first person is fine. Tell me there's no monotony in third person POV writing. When it happens in third person, no one says, "Ah see, it's because it's written in the third person. I see it all the time in works written in this POV." So why do we say this when it's first? Anyway, I'm not "drawn" to first person per se - despite my fierce defense of first person, I don't actually care much as long as the book is written well. I just don't like people dismissing it because they don't understand it. I say - give it a go, what harm can it do? If you're not familiar with the device yet, well, don't embark on a novel using the tool - try it in some flash fiction or short stories first. But avoiding a device because you don't know how to use it is like trying to cut a steak with a dinner knife because you're afraid to use the steak knife, because you don't know it. Use it if it's appropriate, don't use it if it's not appropriate. That's all there is to it. It's a tool - it doesn't bite.
I'm being sincere when I say I'm starting to find it priceless that you keep missing the second p in 1pp (first person PRESENT). My question isn't about first person. That is an established narrative and my favorite books are actually in first person past. I'm curious why people pick present tense over past. Does that make sense?
