The Sword and Laser discussion

In reading books about writing, I've come across, more than once, the advice that the default perspective should pretty much always be past tense, 3rd person, limited omniscient. And the only time that you should break out of this is if you have a good reason to tell your story in another way (for example, it's told in the format of a diary). This is because it's what the audience is used to, and therefore will create the best flow of your story for them.

So now whenever I read a story that doesn't fit these parameters, it seems I always have this thing floating around in the back of my head about whether or not the author is justified in not following "the rules." Really, it's the main reason why I thought The Hunger Games series were just atrocious.

Ultimately, I guess, I have a two fold question: First, did anybody else find Wendig's use of present tense disorienting, or is that just my own pet peeve? And as an aside, is this something that he normally does? (This is the first book of his that I've ever read.) And second, does anybody feel like there was a valid literary reason for using present tense? I'm currently only three quarters of the way through, so I open to the idea that there might be a reason that becomes more obvious to me in the ending. I'm also very open to the idea that I just didn't catch what the reason might be. I've really loved most of elements of this book, and Wendig strikes me as too good of an author to do something like this without a very good reason. What it is just seems to have escaped me.

I was fine with the tense... the choice makes the book more immediate, this is happening now. It is not an after the fact recounting, but an in the moment account.

It puts you in the action.

It didn’t bother me at all. Then again, no one ever taught me proper grammar..

I think he typically writes in present tense. He did for his Star Wars novels. However, not liking present tense is like not watching black and white movies. Everyone's free to make his/her own decision, but the preference can limit exposure to classics.

It bothers me as well Kurt.
I've read several books on writing too and they usually recommend that you use 3rd person, past tense. I think Iain is probably correct that it is used to impart a sense of immediacy and urgency but to me it is just jarring. I usually get used to it after a few chapters though.

Kurt wrote: "In reading books about writing, I've come across, more than once, the advice that the default perspective should pretty much always be past tense, 3rd person, limited omniscient. And the only time ..."

I would highly recommend tossing those books in the trash.

The only thing that matters in writing is that the reader understands what the author means. The "rules" of writing are useful insofar as they point to methods that make understanding easier, but any decent writer will realize they're only suggestions that can be disregarded if it doesn't harm clarity.

"Always default to third-person past" isn't that type of rule. It's just saying, "Do this because that's what everyone else does," which is a stupid reason for doing something in art. If you find it easier to write in first-person present, or second-person future, or first-person-plural conditional, and what you're writing makes sense, there's no reason not to.

So yesterday Jonathan Franzen put out a few 'rules' for writing and others - including Chuck - roasted him mostly because it's silly to have hard and fast rules for writing. (the best one is here - https://twitter.com/gaileyfrey/status...)

So if I read any advice that said "...the default perspective should pretty much always be past tense, 3rd person, limited omniscient." I'd laugh and discard such prescriptivist nonsense.

Mind you, it's fine for any one of us to not like the stylistic choices made by an author, but I'd urge people to not fall for the "this is the correct way to write and other ways are bad" nonsense like this.

This is my first Wendig book, too, and it took me a page or two to get into his style but after that I had no problem with it. I used to think I had a problem with 1st person present tense but then I realized I had a problem with 1st person present tense done badly. Some authors are really good at it.

As for Wendig's style, I dig it.

Rick wrote: "So yesterday Jonathan Franzen put out a few 'rules' for writing and others - including Chuck - roasted him mostly because it's silly to have hard and fast rules for writing."

Chuck's responses to Franzen's list were hilarious and spot on!

Franzen's list was first published in 2010 as part of a larger series of lists that included other authors:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/201...

It was recently re-published as part of a group of essays, and the publisher of the essays thought the list would be good publicity!

I'll admit to not caring much for the style, but I don't think it's distracting me too much from the book. I think if it was first person present tense I would be less forgiving. I can't help but picture the POV character doing everything while chattering into a recording device.

But I've found the more I read, the more forgiving I am of perspective and tense choices. I was really amazed I liked The Fifth Season as much as I did. Second person? Really? But I liked it, probably more despite POV and tense choices than because of them. I was unable to look past the first person present when I tried to read The Hunger Games and returned the book after a few pages. But I was also crabby and pregnant then.

This was the 4th of his audiobooks that I listened to. I noticed it with the 1st book. I didn't notice at all in Zer0es. I guess I'm used to it now.

Because it's not too common I noticed it at first. Eventually it just melted into the background.

However, may I suggest it's especially important in this book? Past tense implies that someone is telling you a story that already happened - meaning they're alive to tell you the story. But in a story where everyone might die...

I'm thinking I should have been a little more explanatory in my original post. None of these books on advice about writing that I was referring to were saying that there is one correct way that a story needs to be told. You can write whatever, and however you want to. You can write in your own secret unicorn language if you want to. But if your goal is to write a story that people can understand and become engaged in, then we are talking about a beast of a different color. There are tried and true means that that is best accomplished. That isn't to say that you can't break out of these guidelines (and perhaps I should have called them that instead of rules), but you are probably going to do it at some cost. For example, a first person POV means that you loose a dynamic in following around the minds of other characters. That makes it harder (not impossible) to create as dynamic, engaging of a story. In addition to that, the simple truth of the matter is that there is a certain percentage of the audience that isn't going to like the fact that you are tinkering with how POV, or grammar, or what have you, is normally done. Therefore, because of the risk of alienating those readers, if you're going to step out of that box, you should probably have a real justification for it beyond you're just being kitchy. If however, you have a justification for going outside of the norm, and you pull it off in the right way, you have the potential of making an even more powerful story.

My take is that Wendig is a very accomplished writer, even having written a handful of books on writing. Therefore it seems like it would be odd to me for him to make a stylistic choice like present tense without a reason behind it. I was mostly curious as to what that reason might be.

In the end, I should probably just have googled it from the start, because once I did I found this: http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2015/...

I think Eric's comment is right. It's probably more justified in this story in particular to heighten the uncertainty of the ending. It makes sense if you think that humanity might end at the end of it all. I'm finding that the present tense works a little better for me in the last quarter of the book. And while I'm still not a complete fan of it, I at least feel like I can appreciate where he's coming from now, and consequently would be open to reading more of his books in the future.

Kurt wrote: "But if your goal is to write a story that people can understand and become engaged in, then we are talking about a beast of a different color. There are tried and true means that that is best accomplished. That isn't to say that you can't break out of these guidelines (and perhaps I should have called them that instead of rules), but you are probably going to do it at some cost. For example, a first person POV means that you loose a dynamic in following around the minds of other characters."

There's a tradeoff no matter what mode you use. In first-person, the POV character's voice is present in every word of narration; in third it's filtered through a disembodied narrator who chooses when to tap into the character's head. Present tense has an immediacy that's missing in past, but past allows for retrospection that's impossible in present. Each mode has pluses and minuses, and there's no reason to privilege third-person past as the default.

I almost always write in first-person because I prefer subjectivity, and no matter how tight a third-person narration is, it can never match first for that. If one perspective isn't enough to convey the scope of the story, well, nothing says you can only have one first-person narrator.

In addition to that, the simple truth of the matter is that there is a certain percentage of the audience that isn't going to like the fact that you are tinkering with how POV, or grammar, or what have you, is normally done.

Tastes change. Once upon a time, third-person omniscient was the default, with the narration skipping from POV to POV within a single paragraph. Nowadays that kind of head-hopping is rare; for the last few decades, readers have preferred tight-third, where the narrator follows one perspective for an entire scene.

But that's not how YA novels are written. If you pick one up, the odds are it's going to be first-person present. That's what The Hunger Games was written in, and that's what many subsequent authors have gone with. People who grew up with the Hunger Games are in their late twenties now, and they're going to make up a larger part of the reading public with every year that goes by. And to them first-person present is perfectly normal.

If you continue to peg your writing style to what was common in the 1990s because some book said that's what's standard, you're going to look old-fashioned to younger readers.

Sean wrote: "Kurt wrote: " People who grew up with the Hunger Games are in their late twenties now, and they're going to make up a larger part of the reading public with every year that goes by. And to them first-person present is perfectly normal...."

I remember picking up my first 1st Person Present Tense book from the library. I tried reading it and my brain basically crashed. 1st Person Present Tense was weird back then – probably because all the authors had been told no one would understand it. It was what Professor Seldon would call a self-fulfilling prophecy. Everyone wrote 3rd Person because it was normal, therefore it was normal. In the many moons since then 1st Person Present hasn’t exactly taken over, but it’s become more normal, the result being that after reading a few lines of Zeroes I remember raising an eyebrow over the narrative choice...then I promptly forgot all about it until seeing this thread. I think the Mockingjay-Generation will be totally OK with this book, unlike some older Slans ;-)

Hmmmm. I'm kind of curious now about this idea of generation and style. I really didn't care much for Wendig's writing style, overall. But on some level I can appreciate where he's coming from. But after doing some poking around on the internet, I've found that some people absolutely hate it--with a passion. Are all of these people, like me middle-aged, or older? Are style acceptance and generation that closely linked together, even within just a couple decades?

The use of second person and present tense certainly aren't anything new in story telling. But it used to be that your publisher, your audience, or your creative writing teacher would never let it fly unless you had a very good reason for it. But now I find find myself wondering if it's the ideas and styles of my generation that are creating this notion that everything needs a justification to be a certain way. Maybe literature, in a way, is entering a new era of experimentation, maybe not unlike the modern art movement of the 1860's? Would Zer0es have even found a publisher in the 80's? I have so many questions now.

Kurt wrote: "Hmmmm. I'm kind of curious now about this idea of generation and style. I really didn't care much for Wendig's writing style, overall. But on some level I can appreciate where he's coming from. But..."

I'm 60. What I'm not, is calcified, set in my ways and resistant to change. Some people get that way but I think that's mostly mindset and not just age.

I' a little tired of people saying 'Oh, it's in this voice/perspective, I don't like that, the book sucks' as that seems to me antithetical to a broad-minded approach to the arts and in fact seems downright provincial. That doesn't mean one has to like a book with that style but it does mean that a reader should meet the book on its terms and assume the author is using the style to accomplish something. Does it do that? It might... and you might still not like it but it feels to me that you should object on grounds that aren't merely stylistic but that spring from not feeling the author succeeded in what they were trying to do or they did, but you found it unsatisfying.

Let me put it this way. Would it be reasonable for people to reject a painter because they used acrylics vs oils and we all know that the old masters used oils, which are the only proper choice? Doesn't that sound silly? So why isn't it just as silly to reject out of hand a stylistic choice from an author?

Chuck Wendig's use of present tense in his Star Wars Aftermath novels made me feel as if I was in a fight and not winning.

I noticed it in Zer0es but it didn't feel quite so aggressive and it didn't stop me enjoying the story overall..

I'm not convinced that using the present tense is really a positive thing though.

There are some who think, including me, that if you notice the writing in a book then that author has done a poor job because it takes you out of the story. That's why I dislike things like present tense or second person; I find it jarring.
To me it's like a movie where instead of saying "Oh look, that man is flying!" you say "Oh look, that CGI man appears to be flying."

I enjoyed the use of the present tense. It was a smart creative choice to create immediacy in the writing and it complimented the thriller aspects nicely. You're supposed to be on the edge of your seat while all this action swirls around you. The usage of the present tense amplified that.

Phil wrote: "There are some who think, including me, that if you notice the writing in a book then that author has done a poor job because it takes you out of the story. That's why I dislike things like present..."

I actually tend to agree with that argument but I think it can also be used to dismiss everything that one isn't utterly familiar with, so it's not an argument that closes off objections....

And my objections are a few. First, it matters if the effect is jarring but you settle into it because it works for the story or if the writing continually takes you out of the story. Second, readers shouldn't expect to be passive sponges, rewarding only the simplest writing with which they are comfortable. Third, style is a valid way to set tone as much as any other tool in the writing arsenal. Fourth, no style is perfect for all readers. Fifth and last, if a reader comes to their books looking out for style and are highly sensitive to it, that's on that reader. It's like a moviegoer who sits down in the theater determined to find continuity errors. They might be really bothered that the glass was in the left hand of Character X in the beginning of the scene and in their right hand at the end while the rest of us don't notice because we're watching the action. It's a valid criticism but it's also partly the reader's choice to approach works in that manner.

Dara's right, I think, in her comment that the tense is used to heighten the thriller aspect. It's not the only way to write a thriller of course but it's one tool and to open a book, say "oh, present tense, that sucks, I hate present tense, the book can't be good" seems narrow to me.

Rick wrote: "It's like a moviegoer who sits down in the theater determined to find continuity errors. They might be really bothered that the glass was in the left hand of Character X in the beginning of the scene and in their right hand at the end while the rest of us don't notice because we're watching the action. It's a valid criticism but it's also partly the reader's choice to approach works in that manner."

Exactly!

One of my favourite books is True History of the Kelly Gang which is written in vernacular with no commas at all! The conceit is that it was written by the 19th century bush ranger Ned Kelly (and if you don't know who that is you are not Australian).

Because of this it is one of the best books I have ever read (won just about every literary prize going too). Unusual writing choices enhance a book. Rules are there to be broken (preferably by those who understand the rules).

Now I just feel slightly embarrassed that I didn't even notice the tense thing at any point during the book. It obviously didn't trouble me!

Whereas I certainly sat up and paid attention when one of my current reads jumped from first person to third person perspective between the first and second chapters ...

Same for me, Colin. I usually am bothered by present tense, at least until I settle in, but in this case I didn't realize it was written in present tense until I read this thread!

Man, Colin, I didn't even notice when a book I was reading switched from 1st person to SECOND person till I was halfway through that second-person section.

I will say that some authors do well enough with present tense that I don't always notice--and sometimes I'm just more primed to notice it. I never noticed the first two City books by Bennett (Stairs & Blades) were in present tense until I started reading Miracles and I finally noticed it was in present.

Most "thriller" type novels often (but not always) use present, so I come to expect it.

I’ve read a lot of YA books, where present tense is pretty much the default, and it doesn’t bother me at all. I think it gives the narrative more immediacy, which works well for a thriller.

I've heard plenty of people who say they just don't jive with present tense. I am not one of those people, it really doesn't bother me, past or present is fine either way.

I am a little over halfway through the book and there are, however, a couple of other things about Wendig's style I don't love. But overall I'm enjoying it.