There's nothing wrong with first person present tense, unless you're using only because you think that by itself it's going to add a sense of urgency to your work. The POV isn't any more gimmicky than any other POV.
My concern about MRUs is that they seem really simplistic... I mean, as I understand the structure, the dialogue scenes you don't like would qualify as MRUs, as long as the conversation makes sense, with the speakers building on each other's words? Really, it feels like just about anything that makes sense would fit the MRU structure. But my concern is that sometimes writing shouldn't make sense, not right away. Is it possible that MRUs fit plot-based writing, not character-based? Like, one of the examples Swain gives in his book involves a man coming home from work and finding a letter saying his wife has left him (motivation) and having a tantrum (reaction). But a more complex, nuanced piece of writing might involve a man coming home from work, finding the letter, making himself a healthy dinner, then going to bed and sleeping soundly. Then the next day he gets fired, so he packs up his stuff, goes home, and makes dinner again. Then later on his dog barks, so he takes the dog for a walk, and while he's out for the walk he sits down and starts crying. Pretty easy to understand all that as a delayed response to the previous hardships, but as I understand Swain, it wouldn't fit the MRU structure.
It's gimmicky if you're using it as a cheap way to add urgency to your work. I think that much we agree on? (Yes, I've seen FPPT be used effectively). I mention that and the dialogue thing because I think a lot of writers here are attracted to the idea of making their text sound urgent. I'd rather see them use MRUs (intelligently) than just pick a specific tense or give me a screenplay.
Yep. One article online discusses the MRU as follows: "The foundation of this technique is simple – every action, word, or thought that you write for a point-of-view character should be motivated, that is, the reader has a good idea why the character did something, said something, or thought something. " That works, I guess, if you want straightforward, simplistic A-->B-->C stories, but not everyone write that way and thank god they don't. Some of my favorite books, you don't figure out why a character did something until later in the book, and even then it isn't spoon-fed to you. You have to actually think about it and then lightbulb goes off and you say "Oh, so THAT'S why..."
I think that could still be MRU. The MRU (as far as I understand it) works on an extremely local level. For example. The man finds the letter (M) and he just stares at it (R). Then his stomach growls (M) so then he makes dinner (R). He's left the letter on the table next to his meal so he sees it again (M) so he eats four plates (R). He starts to feel the food (M) so he becomes drowsy and goes to bed (R). Should I keep going or am I demonstrating this effectively?
They're not incompatible of course. But FPPT achieves a pseudo sense of urgency by nature of the tense. MRU is a fundamental approach toward achieving actual tension because it forces the writer to provide the reader with continual action. Let me say right off the bat, even Swain I think promoted using MRU reasonably and not religiously.
Like I told Bayview, I look at MRUs as providing the reader with constant texture with which to navigate the story. The story can be complex as you want it to be. The MRUs just help the reader travel whatever route it is that you want them to.
No, I think those parts are totally MRUs. But I don't know that I'd want to mention the "stomach growls" part - maybe he just makes the dinner because it's dinner time. Or the "feels the food" to trigger him to go to bed, rather than going to bed because he doesn't know what else to do. It feels like trying to conform to the MRU structure is introducing extra elements that distract from the actual point of the story, which is that he's acting like an emotionless automaton because he's in shock over the loss of his wife. And then, as I understand the MRU structure, they're supposed to happen... well, yeah, like bricks in a wall. So when we get the BIG reaction of him sitting down and crying (or beating the dog to death or setting his house on fire or whatever) the true motivation for that reaction happened many bricks earlier, which I don't think fits the MRU structure? ETA: Like, I think of MRUs as: 1, so A 2, so B 3, so C etc. where the numbers are motivations and the letters are reactions And a more complicated (not MRU-compliant) structure might be: 1 2 3 4, plus 1, 2, and 3, so A or even no 4, just 1 2 3 combination of all, so A
But if its true what this author said, that the foundation of the MRU technique is that the reader always understands exactly why a character does, says, or thinks something, then I think you cut out a lot of literature that isn't so overt about such things, or leaves room for interpretation.
You as the writer have the creative privilege to pick and choose what you show your MC responding to. I might be pissed my wife left me a note telling me she's out of my life for good, but my initial reaction is to make myself dinner, because I'm hungry, or because my watch says it's dinner time. You choose what MRUs you want to show. That doesn't preclude more complex things. Obviously one mark of great writing is to show the reader additional things without ever explicitly spelling them out. I don't think that's incompatible with MRUs. To answer one of Bayview's comments, how character driven an MRU story can be comes down to the complexity of your character and your ability as a writer to portray that character, not the MRU format.
All of my published literary work has been first person present tense. I might not be using it the way some of you view as acceptable. I don't really care if it's a gimmick. The thing is that I managed to write a good story and sell it and it's happened more than once. I wanted urgency. I wanted the reader to feel like they were write there. I wanted the story to feel quick and the writing clear. My submissions were still up against hundreds of other submissions. And I don't think it was gimmick alone (or at all) that got me published. But so what if it was all gimmick? It just means I'm very good at this gimmick. Sure, everyone has the option of writing first person present tense. If people are going to avoid things like this out of fear that it is some sort of gimmick, that's fine for them. But I don't really see how a POV and a tense is really a gimmick. And, honestly, I could care less if people want to call it a gimmick. I did it and it worked. I had to look up this MRU thing. I was thinking, hey, maybe this will help me with my novel. But I don't really see how this method is going to make anyone a better writer or even write a better story. That's just not how I approach writing or think when I'm writing. Again, I will say that I really don't see how this method could possibly make anyone a better writer. I only looked into it a little. I had hoped to learn something or pick up some tips. Not the case with me. I guess I'll just stick with the gimmicks that do work for me.
But in this scenario, there is no clear motivation for making the dinner--and that lack of motivation is by the writer's plan. It appears that the MRU structure would essentially forbid unexplained actions.
OK, I think MRUs in practice are sometimes concealed. You don't have to explicitly spell out why he eats. The reader is often smart enough to infer things. The point is, you can dig out an M or even an R from the text if you wanted to, even if you as a reader can never be 100% that's the correct M or R. If the reader can do that, you're following MRUs. What's probably more arguably incompatible with the MRU structure? Long background, hardcore "telling", anything that reads like exposition. Look, I LOVE exposition, but I think if you want to write a tight modern day novel, it's important to be smart about that sort of thing, and I do think a lot of times expositions winds up boring the reader. I definitely agree an MRU structure doesn't allow for a lot of exposition.
But what if the author truly doesn't want the reader to know the motivation until after the action? That wouldn't be the least bit rare, and MRU seems to demand that motivation come first. Is MRU totally fine with the motivation coming later, perhaps a hundred pages later?
I suppose MRU theory posits that the majority of motivations (big or small) should be able to picked up by the reader on the spot. Does that mean ALL the motivations? I hope not. But I sort of agree if I'm reading pages and pages of a character doing things and I have absolutely no idea why for any of them, I'm probably going to feel like I'm reading about a robot.
According to Swain (top of page 55 in my version of the book): Its secret lies in the order in which you present your material... a strictly chronological order, so that one item follows another precisely as they occur in point of time. Never is any doubt left as to which element comes first, or which is cause and which effect. Swain in general, to me, seems to be someone who's found one method of writing and tried to expand it into something universal. (Honestly, that's how I feel about most how-to books). I'm glad it worked for him, but, honestly, I'm not sure how well it did. He's known for his how-to-write-fiction book, not for any of his fiction books themselves...
Conversely, I feel like I'm reading about a robot (or reading something written by a robot) if everything is presented to me in Swain's overly simplistic way. On page 59, he writes, "Think of each stimulus your focal character receives as a demand for immediate action." I mean... obviously we'll have to sort out the stimuli we actually report on in order to have a coherent narrative, but even if we only record the relevant stimuli, having the reaction occur immediately seems... well, again, simplistic.
But a robot is input->action, input-> action, input-> action. So MRUs sound more like a robot to me. Having some unexplained things feels to me more like life. Nobody's talking about carefully hiding every cause and effect.
I like first person present tense. I like third person present tense. I like second person. Whatever. So long as an author uses a POV effectively, I don't have a problem with any choice an author makes along those lines.
Go to the intro where he writes "There isn't any formula or secret." It's really important to understand that Swain himself acknowledges MRUs a framework and a tool, NOT a bible. Should I take back my initial usage of the word formula? Now that we've all gotten to talking about "MRUs," sure, I take it back.
I think he may have just created this method to sell books to aspiring writers. Of course, he has to say that it isn't a formula or secret because he knows the majority of people who buy his book and try this method are going to fail when it come to writing and publishing. I googled it with hopes that it would be somewhat useful, but it doesn't even seem like could writing advice let alone an inside tip.
A robot is programmed to respond to a limited number of inputs. One thing that makes a story organic is seeing the protagonist respond to a multitude of stimuli that comprise the protagonist's world. Now how subtle, concrete, metaphorical, weird, creative, whatever, you want to make that world, is up to you, the author.
