How annoying is first-person present tense?

[samhasstories]

I didn't say identifying second person (or not) was easy.

But it is easy. It's really simple - second person narration addresses a "you" perspective character.

You can play all sorts of tricks that muddy the waters. You can have a narrator (in third or second person) that becomes a first-person character, and thus have a point of view shift. In those case multiple voices/points of view are employed. But those sections that address "you" - like the one quoted before - are written in second person.

These sorts of descriptors are meant to simplify things, create a shorthand for referring to different tools and approaches. Narrowing their definition to adhere to one specific style just kinda makes them useless.

 

[StillStunned]

I agree in the passage it delves too much into the third person woman's perspective to be clearly second person, but I think one can read it as the second person main character speculating about what the third person character is thinking.

I actually wrote it as the "you" character chickening out and looking for an excuse. But yes, even in 2P you need to speculate about what's going on with other people. The difference with 1P (at least the way I write it, KeithD probably disagrees) is that it's so immediate, the reader is presented with the "you" character's thoughts directly without passing through a separate narrator (the "I" character of 1P).

But hey, look at all of us! We're having a debate that's been going on for pages about 2P POV, without anyone announcing that they hate it. We're discussing merits and techniques. I mean, I think we can all agree that it's nobody's favourite style, but even so. I think we should all be very proud of ourselves for showing such maturity and interest in the craft. (And no, I'm not being sarcastic for once.)

 

[KeithD]

But it is easy. It's really simple - second person narration addresses a "you" perspective character.

You can play all sorts of tricks that muddy the waters. You can have a narrator (in third or second person) that becomes a first-person character, and thus have a point of view shift. In those case multiple voices/points of view are employed. But those sections that address "you" - like the one quoted before - are written in second person.

These sorts of descriptors are meant to simplify things, create a shorthand for referring to different tools and approaches. Narrowing their definition to adhere to one specific style just kinda makes them useless.

Luckily, I don't need to convince anyone of what is second person and what isn't. I've just learned it and will call it when I see it.

 

[SimonDoom]

You have friends who actually care about you and speak the language of the inner self. You have avoided them of late. Your soul is as disheveled as your apartment, and until you can clean it up a little you don't want to invite anyone inside.
Jay McInerney, Bright Lights, Big City

The book is entirely 2nd person

This is the only novel I've ever read that is entirely in second person.

I always thought it came across as a bit of a gimmick by a young, smart writer who wanted to be the "it" writer of the moment. It's splashy and different, but does it make it a better story? I'm not so sure.

 

[lavendersilk]

Luckily, you don't need to convince anyone of what is second person and what isn't. You've just learnt it and will call it when you see it.

Luckily, I don't need to convince anyone of what is second person and what isn't. I've just learned it and will call it when I see it.

I will see myself out...

 

[samhasstories]

This is the only novel I've ever read that is entirely in second person.

I always thought it came across as a bit of a gimmick by a young, smart writer who wanted to be the "it" writer of the moment. It's splashy and different, but does it make it a better story? I'm not so sure.

That's often how I feel about second person, though I've not read that one.

I mentioned "If on a Winter's Night a Traveler" earlier, which also has second person sections (though maybe they don't count). That one didn't occur to me in previous second person discussions. That's kind of an experimental novel anyway (postmodern, I guess the lit majors would call it), but I think it works. It's one of my favorites.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

This is the only novel I've ever read that is entirely in second person.

I always thought it came across as a bit of a gimmick by a young, smart writer who wanted to be the "it" writer of the moment. It's splashy and different, but does it make it a better story? I'm not so sure.

Can't disagree with that. What does it allow you to do that 1st person doesn't? Where as 2nd person feels more akward to most English speakers.

 

[nice90sguy]

I mix tenses and perspectives in most of my stories. It happens naturally. If it confuses or annoys some readers, too bad for them. Preserving tense and perspective shouldn't be adhered to slavishly, but of course, it will be irritating if the story jumps around too much. You only have to compare a new movie, with its shaky camera movements and rapid cuts, to an older one, with more sedate and unobtrusive direction, to see that styles can vary.

 

[Rollinbones]

Personally, I abhor 2nd perspective. Noone tells me what i feel or do except my mum and she's dead. I'm constantly criticized for tense shifts but if those who whinge look deeper, i shift into present tense during conversation and past during narration out of some kind of personal habit. Most critisism i earn comes from readers attention spans conflicting with my self indulgent story telling. "Get to the bit i want to read!"

 

[MillieDynamite]

Dialog tense is dependant on what is being discussed. What someone is doing, what someone did, or what someone will do demands their own tense perspective.

Personally, I abhor 2nd perspective. Noone tells me what i feel or do except my mum and she's dead. I'm constantly criticized for tense shifts but if those who whinge look deeper, i shift into present tense during conversation and past during narration out of some kind of personal habit. Most critisism i earn comes from readers attention spans conflicting with my self indulgent story telling. "Get to the bit i want to read!"

 

[Britva415]

Have you never told someone about an experience in the present tense? "So I get to work today, and I head for the coffee machine like I always do. Some git's hogging the machine because he's trying to get his frappuccino just right. I tell him to try Starbucks next time, and he looks at me like I'm a maggot. Turns out he's my new boss."

That's not writing, though, that's conversation.

You could write a story in the frame of a transcript of a person delivering a non-literary monologue using this bastardized tense construction like people do when they talk, but as a written story, that frame would ideally be justified as part of the story, making "not the entire story" be delivered in this way, or at least revealing the meta-frame even if it's not bookending the transcript content.

You could also argue that that's not really a present tense telling at all, no matter what the bastardized verb forms are. I mean, I could. I mean, I am.

 

[StillStunned]

That's not writing, though, that's conversation.

You could write a story in the frame of a transcript of a person delivering a non-literary monologue using this bastardized tense construction like people do when they talk, but as a written story, that frame would ideally be justified as part of the story, making "not the entire story" be delivered in this way, or at least revealing the meta-frame even if it's not bookending the transcript content.

You could also argue that that's not really a present tense telling at all, no matter what the bastardized verb forms are. I mean, I could. I mean, I am.

Respectfully, that's bollocks.

You seem to be arguing that "it's in the past, therefore the verb should be in the past tense." If so, I disagree. There's a difference between substance, or meaning, and form. You choose a particular form to give your substance the greatest impact.

Past use of the present tense is commonplace, and perfectly acceptable, in English. The example I gave isn't conversation, because there's no back and forth. It's narration, plain and simple. The grammatical structure used is the present tense.

There are no bastardised tenses or verb forms. It's just plain old present tense, used to describe something in the past. Like I said, past use of the present is commonplace in English.

Is it better than using the past tense? That depends on the story, on what you're trying to achieve. It's the same as choosing between first and third person POV, or even second. Each has its merits and drawbacks. As a writer you decide what effect you want to create and how.

 

[Britva415]

Respectfully, that's bollocks.

Which part? The part about how if a story is told as if narrated verbally by someone who's relating something which happened in the past, but using present-tense verbs to verbalize the telling, then that's not a present-tense story?

You seem to be arguing that "it's in the past, therefore the verb should be in the past tense." If so, I disagree.

Well, we're on the same page because that wasn't what I was arguing. I was conceding that people do verbally use present tense verb forms to tell about stuff that already happened and is over. I wasn't even arguing that "they shouldn't do that." All I was saying what that that doesn't make it a present-tense story.

Well, I guess I was saying a hair more than that, because I also said some stuff about the difference between the way people talk and the technical aspects of writing about a person talking that way.

The example I gave isn't conversation, because there's no back and forth. It's narration

OK, you got me, it's narration, not conversation. My point was less about what to call it and more about that it's an example of verbal language, not written, literarily or otherwise.

There are no bastardised tenses or verb forms.

I guess this is vacuously true? It doesn't mean you can't bastardize them by using them in a bastardized way. We all understand the difference between telling of past facts using past verb forms in the telling, versus telling of past facts using present verb forms in the telling. We do. Me and you and the rest.

You can argue against whether calling that "bastardized" is valid or not, but all that does is dodge my point, which is that just because someone verbalizes in this way, it doesn't make the facts they're telling of present facts, and it doesn't make a story told this way - whether verbally or written - a present tense story.

And it doesn't address at all the matter of taste you were challenging.

Is it better than using the past tense? That depends on the story, on what you're trying to achieve. It's the same as choosing between first and third person POV, or even second. Each has its merits and drawbacks. As a writer you decide what effect you want to create and how.

I don't disagree. Please don't ignore though that the matter of taste is valid, and someone calling a written second-person-present story an abomination (which is what you were reacting to) doesn't need to be pushed back on with an example of a verbal first-person-present storytelling. In addition to the fact that the example doesn't match the situation they objected to, which is what I was trying to point out, they weren't attacking you and you don't have anything to defend.

Hey, I'm on your side - you were that person who managed to write a 2P pov story I personally didn't object to as a matter of taste. Well done.

As far as present tense being counterintuitive, I completely get where Dybbuk was coming from and I completely agree that there are stories here told in present tense which are counterintuitive. The ones I'm talking about are not examples like yours, they aren't purporting to be someone verbally relating with present-tense verb forms some shit that went down already and is over (present lexical tense, past semantical tense). They really are doing what Dybbuk referred to: Trying to tell a story in an "as it's happening" kind of way, and the reason it's counterintuitive is because they aren't doing a good job of it.

I feel like you and I probably can agree that there could be a way to successfully do that and have it make sense within the frame of the story, and so it's not automatically "just wrong" to even try to do it. It's just that succeeding at it isn't what we see very often when people do try it around here. If someone does, my hat's off to'em.

 

[SimonDoom]

 

[holliday1960]

At the end of the day, it isn't about how you write or even what you write... the importance is in the fact that you do write.