I always thought past tense worked for most stories because if a story is being told orally it makes perfect sense for it to be in the past tense. You don’t tell your friends something that happened to you in the present tense, that would make you look insane.
I wonder if that tendency toward living in the present is not just the hallmark of our civilization. Storytelling is, in its essence, a way to connect to the past of your own people. That's why cavemen painted their legends on wall, why celts had priests bards traveling through their villages to sing their myths and why every fairy tale begin with 'Once upon a time'. In a culture that has spent the last century joyfully destroying its own traditions, values, familial and cultural structures, etc... what is there to connect to? What is there except pleasure seeking, consumption and an eternal present?
I just had a thought, and you can tell me if it’s a bad idea…but…What if one was to use present tense, just like the book you used as the example at the beginning of the article (and that I definitely didn’t just forget the name of), for the waking an initial experiences of a character who has lost their memory, but as the first few chapters progress, the story gradually transitions into past tense? The idea being to illustrate their mental state: at first lost, in the moment, trying to figure out what is the now; later, established and making memories again, old memories starting to crawl back to the surface, the repair of identity.
Or is that just kind of a cheesy way to do it that should be better done through more normal means and past tense?
No, no, I think that's an interesting idea! You'd have to experiment and see, but I think it would be a really compelling and subtle way to use the tense to reinforce the narrative on a subconscious level.
Hot take, I can’t stand first person presenr. I find it the mark of a juvenile, poor quality author who has a tenuous grasp of the English language and can only write self inserts.
Here’s where I’m coming from. Unlike many of you, I actually read a bunch of romantasy (and decided the genre is trash AFTER I threw 9/10 books across the room for a bad combination of ramming identity politics down my throat and being so poorly written that I’d really like to know what editors are getting paid to do). I’ve also read a lot of goodreads reviews of these books to idiot check myself and see why tf such low quality books are driving people wild.
Romantasy and its fans are the reason everything is present tense now. The typical romantasy heroine is a blatant author self insert, sometimes even having the same disability or mental health diagnoses as the author. Fourth Wing (which could’ve been very good if it RY omitted the smut and got a REAL EDITOR) the author has EDS, so does the protagonist. Phantasma (absolute trash whose author/editor failed basic anatomy to a point that makes RY misusing the word parapet look completely benign), the author has crippling OCD, so does the protagonist.
Edited to add this notable sidebar—people don’t know what words mean any more? The parapet debacle is old news but I recently finished Shield of Sparrows and neither the author nor the “editor” (dear god the sentence fragments) knows what a vambrace is called, so we have to hear about the MMC’s “leather forearm cuff” on every other page.
Book of Night/Thief of Night (this one is written more like older urban fantasy, no smut, and not in present tense, I don’t personally consider it romantasy but the publisher does) the protagonist’s physical description exactly matches the author photo, right down to the way her eye makeup is described. Author is significantly overweight, so is she. (Which is fine—I find it refreshing when a female protagonist isn’t conventionally attractive) but WHY does she need to look EXACTLY LIKE THE AUTHOR?
Book of Night is considered subpar in romantasy circles specifically because it comes closer to being a respectable fantasy novel (despite some pacing issues and the blatant author self insert) and A LOT of the negative reviews bitch that it’s written in past tense and doesn’t have smut. Romantasy readers by their own admission “can’t get into” books that are written in past tense, or worse (gasp) third person. Romantasy is riddled with identity politics to a point that you can’t find one single one where the side characters aren’t a f’ing pride parade of degeneracy and none of the characters are promiscuous. If identity politics was a genre it would be romantasy, mmkay. Romantasy readers refuse to read anything that’s not first person present so they can “identify” with the protagonist and pretend the content of the book (usually a BDSM fantasy with a domineering male who does not act like he respects women) ((PUKE)) is happening to them.
There is definitely a discussion to be had about the fact that romantasy is a genre written by and for hard left women that see themselves as strong independent bossbabes who don’t need no man… yet the idealized relationships in the books aren’t just traditional, they are an extreme caricature of traditional that would piss off the majority of small c conservatives. A weak and useless woman who can’t do a single thing right THINKS she’s strong and independent, but needs her man to control her because she can’t be trusted not to get herself killed through sheer stupidity, and his hyper controlling behavior and extreme jealousy are proof that he loves her. In other words I think these books are a backwards and upside down way of left wing women admitting that they hate contemporary feminism. But I digress.
Romantasy readers (loudly and proudly, on the internet, anyone can find this information on goodreads) can only engage with books that are written in first person present with a first draft-y “writing style” that reads like it was written by someone functionally illiterate and not edited at all. And they LOUDLY BITCH about books written any other way, so more authors are writing simplistic, juvenile trash in first person present because that’s what the “girlies” demand. Keep in mind these are the same people that only read dialogue and complain if they’re not spoon fed a detailed internal monologue that fully explains all the characters emotions and motivations. Brandon Sanderson actually started this over explaining garbage with Mistborn. (Get it from the library and read a couple chapters to see how horrifying the writing is).
So yeah. You can pin this one on “romantasy ruined literature” (or more rightfully, woke white women who apparently don’t know how to wank without making their toxic sexual fantasy my problem ruined literature).
Worth noting, Tana French writes in third person present. It’s a bit weird and takes a couple chapters to get used to, but I feel comfortable judging this as a literary choice.
My current fantasy serial is 1st person present. I chose it initially as an experiment, but now that I'm 11 chapters in, I think it sets the proper tone. The MC undergoes events and circumstances he's never experienced before, so he has no past experiences to rely upon - he responds with reflex and instinct. Toss in several mysteries, and a few curveballs, it's the proverbial "chased up a tree and dodging rocks" scenario. Though in the MC's case, it's being chased into a crypt and dodging ghouls.
I think the issue is less the increase in present tense but more so the increase in first person present tense. I've usually found first person present to read like a live sports play-by-play of the narrative combined with an unnatural sounding flow of consciousness. Present tense more broadly, however, can give a vividness born of its immediacy, which in many works I've found more successfully brings the past, contemplations, etc into focus than using the past tense would, such as in Flaubert's The Temptation of Saint Anthony for an example.
Using present tense does not increase vividness, certainly not as a rule. It can be vivid, but this same sense of immediacy and vividness is completely possible with past tense narratives. The immediacy of present tense is limited and space-less. I would argue that present tense does not allow for a contemplation of the past but superimposes the past onto the present, forcing it to take the same shape and meaning as the present, making it, in a sense, beholden and subservient to the present, rather than allowing the present to pause and consider the lessons of the past. The past, instead, is forced to serve the whims and interests of the present. As I have said, the use of present tense can be appropriate, but it is the exception, not the rule.
I think one of the grandest lies people fall for is to "live in the now". Actually life has to be informed by the past and designed for the future. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with a story being written in the present, but it must have a shadow, a sense of what came before, and it often helps to end on a haunting note, something that opens a door. There is a tendency now for a story to be bagged and sealed. Too often, it exists simply to validate the reader, to leave the reader unchanged, to leave the reader exactly as they were, in an eternal present tense.
Are perhaps the majority of these books' readers actually audiobook listeners? You talked about the disconnect from past and future, a narrative where only the immediate matters. Wouldn't it be inconsequential to miss a section of such a book?
Netflix creates shows knowing that a significant portion of their audience doesn't actually watch the show, but plays it in the background while they go about other business.
People do this with audiobooks as well. Though if one is truly trying to listen, we often have to rewind because we realize we've missed something during a lapse of attention.
Present tense storytelling as you've described would fit that background noise niche fairly well, making lapses inconsequential, and perhaps unnoticeable?
In that case, a listener would feel that a present tense story was the first time in a long while they were "engaged" throughout. The illusion only succeeding because they never noticed they missed something.
Nice article. I also think writers often choose things like tense based on “what feels right”, although regularly I think this can also be good. I was reading George Saunders’ thoughts about this, and how he thinks this can be a fine way to way to write, as the author intuitively knows the right craft choices (without being able to intellectually explain it) as long as they always have the readers’ interest at heart and it’s not some self indulgent reason.
Writing a first present genre novel is a skill like any other writing skill that has to be developed. Pleasing those readers is another skill that takes time to learn. My first present tense was almost like past third, but now I write it much differently. My protagonist has access to the past and can go there in a blink while also processing the present and speculating on the future. They aren’t stuck in the present. Again, this is a specific writing style, a skill to be learned and I suspect it will go out of style like most literary trends. Modern readers like a lot of interiority. They don’t need the world described to them in intimate detail because we have the internet and phones. In modern fiction you are talking to readers who already know what stuff looks like and they don’t want a lot detail. That’s not a bad thing, per se. It’s a direct result of our online, plugged-in culture.
The narrowing of human consciousness to the present is at hand and already we cascade into a thoughtless existence of immediate gratification. Be frightened.
I think you might have it backwards. The problem with present tense isn't that it forgets the past, but that it remembers too much of the present.
The present tense doesn't have much of a problem slipping in the relevant backstory when necessary, presuming there's not some kind of intentional Mr. Blank gimmick going on. But describing the present moment means focusing on what's presently important to the characters, and that's usually not the point of the story being told.
Past tense gives you the opportunity to filter for what's relevant to the story, to just skip over the part where you got distracted while examining the door and cut to the important thing you discovered about the door. In present tense, you either end up wasting words describing unimportant details, or you portray an unrealistically focused character that only ever notices relevant things in a world that only proffers relevant things. Past tense carries an implication that filtering is occurring, and allows the reader to fill in a fully dimensional world and characters even if your narrative style has all the archetypical simplicity of a fairy tale.
Past tense gives us Chekov's gun, only mentioned because it's needed. Chekov's gun in the present tense is the only gun in the world--thank goodness it's nearby when it's needed!
I think this is true narratively speaking, yes. But the thing with stories (and all language) is that it is formed by and in turn forms the habits of the mind. If everything we read presents a situation in which only the facts of the immediate present are relevant (or accessible) then the past WILL be forgotten. It also suggests a pre-existing mental state in which the past is already forgotten or irrelevant.
The past should be forgotten if it isn't relevant. Forgetfulness is important both in good storytelling and good memory-making. Forgetfulness is an important habit of mind.
And it's forgetfulness that's lacking in the present tense. The problem with the present tense is that it's not forgetful enough.
In what sense? Oh, I am thinking loosely of examples of books or other fictions narrated in the present tense other than the books you mention. I haven't read them. War of the Worlds: many listeners of the broadcast were petrified by the present moment and thought they were living through a type of hell--or soon would. The thing with present tense is that the reader might have a past context to refer to or engage in predictions based on the present. Americans in 1938 were, by and large, isolationist regarding world affairs, but there had to be a sense that the imperial powers of Japan and Germany were on the move (present) and would be (based on their present actions).
With War of the Worlds, it’s generally accepted (and has been for a very long time) that a highly appropriate way to write news reportage is in the present tense. I think his use of that allowed the story to mimic the news, creating the electrifying effect he was going for. That said, reading a piece of news and then considering it based on the past or one’s own experiences is simply not the same effect as reading a fiction narrative that constantly remains fixed in a stream of present moments. We’ll always have present concerns, and those will always be all-consuming. But the specific way in which present tense is used in narratives today forces the mind to “forget” the past to some degree, or at least to accept that it’s irrelevant to the story being related.
I always thought past tense worked for most stories because if a story is being told orally it makes perfect sense for it to be in the past tense. You don’t tell your friends something that happened to you in the present tense, that would make you look insane.
I wonder if that tendency toward living in the present is not just the hallmark of our civilization. Storytelling is, in its essence, a way to connect to the past of your own people. That's why cavemen painted their legends on wall, why celts had priests bards traveling through their villages to sing their myths and why every fairy tale begin with 'Once upon a time'. In a culture that has spent the last century joyfully destroying its own traditions, values, familial and cultural structures, etc... what is there to connect to? What is there except pleasure seeking, consumption and an eternal present?
I just had a thought, and you can tell me if it’s a bad idea…but…What if one was to use present tense, just like the book you used as the example at the beginning of the article (and that I definitely didn’t just forget the name of), for the waking an initial experiences of a character who has lost their memory, but as the first few chapters progress, the story gradually transitions into past tense? The idea being to illustrate their mental state: at first lost, in the moment, trying to figure out what is the now; later, established and making memories again, old memories starting to crawl back to the surface, the repair of identity.
Or is that just kind of a cheesy way to do it that should be better done through more normal means and past tense?
No, no, I think that's an interesting idea! You'd have to experiment and see, but I think it would be a really compelling and subtle way to use the tense to reinforce the narrative on a subconscious level.
TLD(but I did)R: Present tense is hard, you aren't good enough to do it and is an indicator of cultural decline.
She's right you know.
Yes. And I'm here to learn. No way could I write a decent specimen of the present tense narrative.
Therefore, I'm an artifact of cultural decline.
Hot take, I can’t stand first person presenr. I find it the mark of a juvenile, poor quality author who has a tenuous grasp of the English language and can only write self inserts.
Here’s where I’m coming from. Unlike many of you, I actually read a bunch of romantasy (and decided the genre is trash AFTER I threw 9/10 books across the room for a bad combination of ramming identity politics down my throat and being so poorly written that I’d really like to know what editors are getting paid to do). I’ve also read a lot of goodreads reviews of these books to idiot check myself and see why tf such low quality books are driving people wild.
Romantasy and its fans are the reason everything is present tense now. The typical romantasy heroine is a blatant author self insert, sometimes even having the same disability or mental health diagnoses as the author. Fourth Wing (which could’ve been very good if it RY omitted the smut and got a REAL EDITOR) the author has EDS, so does the protagonist. Phantasma (absolute trash whose author/editor failed basic anatomy to a point that makes RY misusing the word parapet look completely benign), the author has crippling OCD, so does the protagonist.
Edited to add this notable sidebar—people don’t know what words mean any more? The parapet debacle is old news but I recently finished Shield of Sparrows and neither the author nor the “editor” (dear god the sentence fragments) knows what a vambrace is called, so we have to hear about the MMC’s “leather forearm cuff” on every other page.
Book of Night/Thief of Night (this one is written more like older urban fantasy, no smut, and not in present tense, I don’t personally consider it romantasy but the publisher does) the protagonist’s physical description exactly matches the author photo, right down to the way her eye makeup is described. Author is significantly overweight, so is she. (Which is fine—I find it refreshing when a female protagonist isn’t conventionally attractive) but WHY does she need to look EXACTLY LIKE THE AUTHOR?
Book of Night is considered subpar in romantasy circles specifically because it comes closer to being a respectable fantasy novel (despite some pacing issues and the blatant author self insert) and A LOT of the negative reviews bitch that it’s written in past tense and doesn’t have smut. Romantasy readers by their own admission “can’t get into” books that are written in past tense, or worse (gasp) third person. Romantasy is riddled with identity politics to a point that you can’t find one single one where the side characters aren’t a f’ing pride parade of degeneracy and none of the characters are promiscuous. If identity politics was a genre it would be romantasy, mmkay. Romantasy readers refuse to read anything that’s not first person present so they can “identify” with the protagonist and pretend the content of the book (usually a BDSM fantasy with a domineering male who does not act like he respects women) ((PUKE)) is happening to them.
There is definitely a discussion to be had about the fact that romantasy is a genre written by and for hard left women that see themselves as strong independent bossbabes who don’t need no man… yet the idealized relationships in the books aren’t just traditional, they are an extreme caricature of traditional that would piss off the majority of small c conservatives. A weak and useless woman who can’t do a single thing right THINKS she’s strong and independent, but needs her man to control her because she can’t be trusted not to get herself killed through sheer stupidity, and his hyper controlling behavior and extreme jealousy are proof that he loves her. In other words I think these books are a backwards and upside down way of left wing women admitting that they hate contemporary feminism. But I digress.
Romantasy readers (loudly and proudly, on the internet, anyone can find this information on goodreads) can only engage with books that are written in first person present with a first draft-y “writing style” that reads like it was written by someone functionally illiterate and not edited at all. And they LOUDLY BITCH about books written any other way, so more authors are writing simplistic, juvenile trash in first person present because that’s what the “girlies” demand. Keep in mind these are the same people that only read dialogue and complain if they’re not spoon fed a detailed internal monologue that fully explains all the characters emotions and motivations. Brandon Sanderson actually started this over explaining garbage with Mistborn. (Get it from the library and read a couple chapters to see how horrifying the writing is).
So yeah. You can pin this one on “romantasy ruined literature” (or more rightfully, woke white women who apparently don’t know how to wank without making their toxic sexual fantasy my problem ruined literature).
Worth noting, Tana French writes in third person present. It’s a bit weird and takes a couple chapters to get used to, but I feel comfortable judging this as a literary choice.
My current fantasy serial is 1st person present. I chose it initially as an experiment, but now that I'm 11 chapters in, I think it sets the proper tone. The MC undergoes events and circumstances he's never experienced before, so he has no past experiences to rely upon - he responds with reflex and instinct. Toss in several mysteries, and a few curveballs, it's the proverbial "chased up a tree and dodging rocks" scenario. Though in the MC's case, it's being chased into a crypt and dodging ghouls.
I think the issue is less the increase in present tense but more so the increase in first person present tense. I've usually found first person present to read like a live sports play-by-play of the narrative combined with an unnatural sounding flow of consciousness. Present tense more broadly, however, can give a vividness born of its immediacy, which in many works I've found more successfully brings the past, contemplations, etc into focus than using the past tense would, such as in Flaubert's The Temptation of Saint Anthony for an example.
Using present tense does not increase vividness, certainly not as a rule. It can be vivid, but this same sense of immediacy and vividness is completely possible with past tense narratives. The immediacy of present tense is limited and space-less. I would argue that present tense does not allow for a contemplation of the past but superimposes the past onto the present, forcing it to take the same shape and meaning as the present, making it, in a sense, beholden and subservient to the present, rather than allowing the present to pause and consider the lessons of the past. The past, instead, is forced to serve the whims and interests of the present. As I have said, the use of present tense can be appropriate, but it is the exception, not the rule.
My friend says he's going to write a novel consisting of tweets. He's going to call it "Kilroy is Here." No joke!
That sounds like an insane but interesting project!
I think one of the grandest lies people fall for is to "live in the now". Actually life has to be informed by the past and designed for the future. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with a story being written in the present, but it must have a shadow, a sense of what came before, and it often helps to end on a haunting note, something that opens a door. There is a tendency now for a story to be bagged and sealed. Too often, it exists simply to validate the reader, to leave the reader unchanged, to leave the reader exactly as they were, in an eternal present tense.
Are perhaps the majority of these books' readers actually audiobook listeners? You talked about the disconnect from past and future, a narrative where only the immediate matters. Wouldn't it be inconsequential to miss a section of such a book?
Netflix creates shows knowing that a significant portion of their audience doesn't actually watch the show, but plays it in the background while they go about other business.
People do this with audiobooks as well. Though if one is truly trying to listen, we often have to rewind because we realize we've missed something during a lapse of attention.
Present tense storytelling as you've described would fit that background noise niche fairly well, making lapses inconsequential, and perhaps unnoticeable?
In that case, a listener would feel that a present tense story was the first time in a long while they were "engaged" throughout. The illusion only succeeding because they never noticed they missed something.
All speculation, of course.
Nice article. I also think writers often choose things like tense based on “what feels right”, although regularly I think this can also be good. I was reading George Saunders’ thoughts about this, and how he thinks this can be a fine way to way to write, as the author intuitively knows the right craft choices (without being able to intellectually explain it) as long as they always have the readers’ interest at heart and it’s not some self indulgent reason.
Writing a first present genre novel is a skill like any other writing skill that has to be developed. Pleasing those readers is another skill that takes time to learn. My first present tense was almost like past third, but now I write it much differently. My protagonist has access to the past and can go there in a blink while also processing the present and speculating on the future. They aren’t stuck in the present. Again, this is a specific writing style, a skill to be learned and I suspect it will go out of style like most literary trends. Modern readers like a lot of interiority. They don’t need the world described to them in intimate detail because we have the internet and phones. In modern fiction you are talking to readers who already know what stuff looks like and they don’t want a lot detail. That’s not a bad thing, per se. It’s a direct result of our online, plugged-in culture.
The narrowing of human consciousness to the present is at hand and already we cascade into a thoughtless existence of immediate gratification. Be frightened.
I think you might have it backwards. The problem with present tense isn't that it forgets the past, but that it remembers too much of the present.
The present tense doesn't have much of a problem slipping in the relevant backstory when necessary, presuming there's not some kind of intentional Mr. Blank gimmick going on. But describing the present moment means focusing on what's presently important to the characters, and that's usually not the point of the story being told.
Past tense gives you the opportunity to filter for what's relevant to the story, to just skip over the part where you got distracted while examining the door and cut to the important thing you discovered about the door. In present tense, you either end up wasting words describing unimportant details, or you portray an unrealistically focused character that only ever notices relevant things in a world that only proffers relevant things. Past tense carries an implication that filtering is occurring, and allows the reader to fill in a fully dimensional world and characters even if your narrative style has all the archetypical simplicity of a fairy tale.
Past tense gives us Chekov's gun, only mentioned because it's needed. Chekov's gun in the present tense is the only gun in the world--thank goodness it's nearby when it's needed!
I think this is true narratively speaking, yes. But the thing with stories (and all language) is that it is formed by and in turn forms the habits of the mind. If everything we read presents a situation in which only the facts of the immediate present are relevant (or accessible) then the past WILL be forgotten. It also suggests a pre-existing mental state in which the past is already forgotten or irrelevant.
The past should be forgotten if it isn't relevant. Forgetfulness is important both in good storytelling and good memory-making. Forgetfulness is an important habit of mind.
And it's forgetfulness that's lacking in the present tense. The problem with the present tense is that it's not forgetful enough.
This narrative goal is akin to giving a perceptive reader a sense of what is left unstated, the interstitial stuff. I'm not sure
One assumes the boundary of the discussion is present tense narrative and what a writer determines is relevant when crafting it.
In what sense? Oh, I am thinking loosely of examples of books or other fictions narrated in the present tense other than the books you mention. I haven't read them. War of the Worlds: many listeners of the broadcast were petrified by the present moment and thought they were living through a type of hell--or soon would. The thing with present tense is that the reader might have a past context to refer to or engage in predictions based on the present. Americans in 1938 were, by and large, isolationist regarding world affairs, but there had to be a sense that the imperial powers of Japan and Germany were on the move (present) and would be (based on their present actions).
With War of the Worlds, it’s generally accepted (and has been for a very long time) that a highly appropriate way to write news reportage is in the present tense. I think his use of that allowed the story to mimic the news, creating the electrifying effect he was going for. That said, reading a piece of news and then considering it based on the past or one’s own experiences is simply not the same effect as reading a fiction narrative that constantly remains fixed in a stream of present moments. We’ll always have present concerns, and those will always be all-consuming. But the specific way in which present tense is used in narratives today forces the mind to “forget” the past to some degree, or at least to accept that it’s irrelevant to the story being related.
Yes. Perhaps I am thinking more about the cultural moment in this less than apt comparison and not so much inept use of the present.
IOW Welles' timing was impeccable.