Why does it need to be "if you can't see" rather than "if you don't agree"? Why does one opinion have to be "right"? Why is it not possible that people have different, valid, tastes in fiction? As I see it, people aren't arguing with you because you prefer present tense in short fiction. They're arguing with you because you seem to be presenting that opinion as The Truth.
No, it means if you can't see it, then it isn't something that can be argued. Some things can't be debated or argued, that's what that means.
The example you gave doesn't say anything about present tense over past tense. It mentions that some things can be written in present tense, which no one is arguing. And then I went to the article and the writer seems to give an experience that favors past tense over present tense. Not sure what you're trying to prove with that article. You haven't supported your argument at all. You supported the opposite, though.
No, I quoted that to show Dicken's used it in half of one of his books...and of course I am going to copy the link I got it from, because it would be wrong not to. He said he 'preferred it' as you said. Now go back and read the first link.
I read the first link. I admit it was in favor of present tense but only in flash fiction. I think the writer said up to 750 words. Anything longer, though, and the article says past tense is preferable: present would wear the reader out. How did you guess the OP was writing flash fiction when you told him to avoid using past tense as much as possible? In fact, he still hasn't said what he's writing, length or genre. Either you're psychic or you're backtracking to cover your argument with clarifications. You told the OP to avoid using past tense because it's weaker--citing only one article that says present tense is favorable for stories up to 750 words and not knowing what length his story is--and then went and qualified your argument only after people said "huh" and only in your third post. You just shot out a blanket statement as Mega Truth and expected everyone else to agree. It doesn't matter that every single other poster here thinks otherwise. By your logic, I could tell him past tense is better in old west stories and go dig up one article. He hasn't said he's writing an old west story, but I'll assume and make that blanket statement just like you assumed the length of his story was under 750 words. I must have missed the part that says Dickens or the article writer preferred present tense. Maybe you could quote that, because I read the article and I don't see that anywhere. It just says he used present tense, not preferred it. Nobody's saying present tense is bad. We're just saying it's no better than past. In fact, the articles you've cited are in favor of using past tense, and only one says use present only under a strict word count. Past is not weak, and to tell the OP that it is--especially in the context of this thread--is misleading.
No I already explained lonnnngggg ago in this thread I thought is said Fiction stories. That's what happens when you get older, are highly medicated, and read numerous threads. Sometimes they intertwine together. I already quoted the Dicken's book in post #50.
Even so, fiction stories =/= flash fiction. About 99% of fiction stories are way more than 750 words. And, yeah, you quoted an article talking about the book, not the book itself. And it said present tense is perfectly OK, not better.
Really? Reaallllly? Realllllllllllllllllllllllly? You are going to go there with the "yeah, you quoted an article talking about the book, not the book itself?" Anal much? No, the article clearly says exactly the same thing I said, that in short stories like those mentioned, present tense has a much faster pace that helps get the reader involved and hooked quickly. I got Dean Koontz on speed dial, let me have him jump online and give you his professional opinion. Will that help?
Yeah, I'm going there cuz your statements aren't too exact. I didn't disagree that the article says in flash fiction (not short stories; there's a difference), present tense has a faster pace. Did the OP say he was writing flash fiction when you gave him your unqualified advice? Sure. get Dean Koontz in on this. AFAIK, he's more qualified to talk about this than either of us.
Just to clarify, Dean Koontz is not the Keeper of the Laws of Fiction Writing. Nobody is. I think a lot of the talk about how cool and dynamic present tense is is simply that it hasn't been used much until recently, so it's new. Readers aren't used to it, so it gives them a rush. Once there's enough present tense stuff out there, the novelty will wear off and people will evaluate it as it should be evaluated: just another tense, nothing more nor less than past tense. To say a tense is "weak" when over 90% of all fiction is written in it, is itself weak. Almost desperate. To say that past tense should be avoided "as much as possible" is simply an opinion - an erroneous one, from my point of view.
lmao I wasn't going to comment on this because the conversation got so off-topic, I didn't want to contribute. But this response is forcing my hand. Name dropping a celebrated writer doesn't make your opinion more valid than someone else's. Nor does it make you more educated than someone else. It simply means you feel threatened and think that knowing someone famous makes you someone. It doesn't.
I hate when people make a statement and then crawfish on it when people call them out. Personally, I think it's cool you have Dean Koontz' phone number on speed dial. I don't know anybody famous and would feel better about myself if I did.
Hmm I've known a few famous people, but I did have a girlfriend that cheated on me when her and a friend had a threesome with comedian Tommy Davidson. He was on the television show "In Living Color" and a few movies.
Wait, you think I'm only saying I was kidding now because someone said something? Sorry bro I don't need to lie to kick it, as the homies would say.
No, it wasn't. You wouldn't have name-dropped without a motive. The smilie was to emphasize that you think you are superior to the rest of us. You say it's a joke now because you've been called out.
Riiiiiiiight. So you don't think if I was going to name drop like that I wouldn't have done it a LONG time ago in like my second post if I was serious? If you think the means I'm saying I'm better than the rest of the people on here, than you don't know your smilies!
none of this makes any sense any more...agree to disagree? or at very least please get fed up and do something more interesting.
Okay, if it makes things easier, from now on when I decide to write something with sarcasm, I'll put a tag on it that I'm being sarcastic like this (sarcasm). I'm only compromising because I care what Lea`Brooks thinks about me. (sarcasm)
haha to be fair, i did actually think you were being sarcastic when i first saw the smiley face on the original post. Anywho, more important things need discussing, the imminent invasion of the potato people, or writing maybe.
Maybe the imminent writing of the potato people? Have they learned to write yet? Because, boy, the stories they could tell ... ...mostly about carrots and onions, those savage vegetables!
Some things to keep in mind. Be you telling the story in present, past, or future tense, for the protagonist it's always his/her present. Tense in storytelling is strictly a convention and the writer's choice. When giving the protagonist's thoughts and dialog use the actual words the protagonist thinks/hears/speaks. When the narrator is talking about the situation you wouldn't normally use "now" if the story is in past tense. But that's in general. You might post an example, though, to make what you mean more clear.
I've struggled with this. I try to avoid it as much as possible, but since what I'm currently writing is in the 1st POV, it doesn't feel completely "wrong". It still seems weird to me, but sometimes it's just unavoidable. That said, there are different kinds of past tense narratives. I forget the technical term, but one of the more popular tenses is the "active past", where the action didn't necessarily happen any more than three seconds ago. If that's the case, using "now" is nothing bad, because you're simply bringing the reader into the "now" rather than "three seconds ago" past. (I'm sorry if I'm rambling, the coffee hasn't kicked in yet.) Bad example, really, but even though the entire text is past tense, this sentence briefly dives deeper into the past, to a memory, and then brings you back to the "active past".