Subject: Present tense is just as valid...
Author:
Posted on: 2014-07-09 16:51:00 UTC
... as past (and more so than future - though I'm sure that's been done. How about pluperfect? Conditional? If there were a hobbit, he might live in a hole in the ground...). And first person is just as valid as third. And omniscient and limited are just as valid as each other, too. All the combinations have their uses and applications, their difficulties and their specialities.
For instance, Agent Narto writes his mission reports in first person, past tense, limited (as does Agent Huinesoron); it's a narrative conceit, allowing these documents to be 'in-universe mission reports'. The limited viewpoint flows from that - hS doesn't know what his partner is thinking, and moreover, his own worldview colours his transcription of theirs.
Most of my writings tend towards third-person past omniscient, since I do a lot of histories, but I also enjoy third-past-limited like this. And my first NaNo - and my second - was, I think, in first-person-present. It's great for immanency - past tense first person pretty much rules out the possibility of the speaker dying, but the present - well, compare and contrast:
I knew it wasn't going to work, I just knew it. There was no chance. But on the other hand... what choice did I have? It was this or surrender. Do or die. All or nothing.
I took a deep breath.
I leapt.
~~~~
I know it's not going to work, I just know it. There's no chance at all. But on the other hand... what choice do I have? It's this, or surrender. Do, or die. All, or nothing.
I take a deep breath.
I leap--!
The former is 'I had to jump off a building, so I did'. The latter is 'oh gods above I have no choice but to jump off this building I'm gonna diiiiiie!'. For that sort of story, I prefer the present tense.
(Third-person present, I'm not so sure about... no, I think it can still work. It feels a bit like a film, though. 'The knight rides into the valley below the castle, all his senses on high alert. He knows there will be trouble - he just doesn't know where from'.)
Asking yourself 'is there some particular reason this is in past tense?' is actually really good practice. It's like asking 'is there some particular reason the ruler has to be male?' or 'is there some particular reason the elf prince has to marry the pretty girl?' (ans: no, he'd rather be hunting spiders). Ask that question about everything. Sometimes - often - the answer will be 'yes - he needs an illegitimate son child for the story to work' (that's the ruler, not the elf). But sometimes it will be no... and that's when you ask the other question, 'would it work better if I did it the other way?' I have one story I'm completely rewriting from past-third-limited to present(?)-first-limited, because it's far more interesting if we're inside the protagonist's head.
But that goes both ways, of course. If the story won't be significantly improved by switching from past to present - then don't switch it, that's ridiculous. Write what you're comfortable with; the more you can leave on autopilot, the more you can think about the parts that matter.
But, just like Tenth Walkers, don't claim a whole class of writing is bad. Frequently badly executed, maybe. Overused, probably. Very effective when done right? I guarantee it.
hS
(PS: 'But Mary-Sues--' No, they're not a class of writing, they're a badly-designed character. 'Tenth Walker' and 'Girl-falls-into-Middle-earth' are the classes, and they can be done well. 'Bad character done well' is an oxymoron. ~hS)