Written by Geoffrey Maloney | 05 June 2005

In doing some market research recently, I was surprised to find that some editors stipulate they do not want short stories written in present tense. I recalled I had also been told that present tense had been discussed at a Clarion South workshop and there seemed to be a strong view that stories should always be in the past tense. Then too, there was that rejection I'd received for one of my stories that stated bluntly: 'You do yourself no favours by writing in present tense.' Why is it so, this prejudice against present tense? I wondered, and undertook some further research.

Online writers' discussion groups, by and large, support the view that present tense is to be avoided, although the reasons for this are rarely discussed in any detail. The most common views expressed are very subjective: 'I don't like it'; 'It doesn't work for me'; 'nearly all stories are written in past tense, aren't they?' Well, yes, a great many are, but why? Is there something technically flawed about present tense, that doesn't lend itself to good fiction writing?

I only found one view (although it was expressed a number of times) that seemed to address a technical flaw with the use of present tense: 

Where does it come from, this new love of the present tense? I can make only guesses. Hip-hop, rap, stand-up comics, voice-overs for film documentaries... A step into the dramatic (or false) present is nearly always a mistake; it tends to break our belief in the reality that the writer is trying to describe. (Ian Jacks, editor of Granta, in The Guardian, March 2004)

For me this view came probably best be paraphrased as: present tense doesn't provide enough leverage for the suspension of disbelief when compared with past tense. This is because, apparently, it gives the reader the impression that the words are being written at the same time as they are being read. Clearly this is impossible, because the reader knows that the book was written some time in the past. It's a similar sin perhaps to the first person narrator who dies at the end of the book – how did the book get written then?  (Well, you see, there are these people called writers and the fictional characters in books, even the first person ones, they don't actually write their own books. I know it sounds weird, but it's the honest truth.)  

My next step was to consult some readily available experts – a couple of books pulled from my bookshelves and some online 'How to' writing sites. Interestingly, none of the 'experts' held any inherent prejudice against present tense. The famous Strunk and White, for example, cites some non-fictional cases where present tense should always be used, particularly in summarising works of fiction and drama. For example, if I wished to tell you about how one of my stories starts, I should write:

Kit Marlowe arrives on the planet Didi on a special diplomatic mission. As he descends in the orbital elevator, he dreams about his ex-lover Tyce Barnard-Simpson.

'How to write' sites on the internet support this approach for non-fiction writing on the basis that the contents of a book are considered to be happening in a universal present time, irrespective of the time period they are actually set in or how long ago they were written. It was stressed, however, that this applied to talking about the contents of fictional works. If the subject matter is history then past tense should always be used as history by definition occurred in the past.

Strange then, I thought, that many still believe the actual content of a fiction book shouldn't be written in present tense when a summary of that book should be.

Now, admittedly, Strunk and White makes no mention of tense and fiction writing, but the 'How to write' sites which discuss fiction (in general, not just genre fiction) and tense do not have any hard and fast rules or any inherent prejudice against present tense stories. It was noted by some that such stories could be more difficult to write and could be less sophisticated than stories that use the past tense. Ian Jacks also addressed this point in The Guardian (March 2004):

The past tense is simply the more truthful tense, and in this way it conveys a precision and conviction that the present tense lacks.

The sophistication/conviction element comes about because past tense implies that the central character/narrator has had time to reflect on his or her actions/behaviour/life etc and is able to discuss this with the fullness of mature hindsight during the course of the novel or short story. On the other hand, present tense is supported strongly by some because it can create a sense of immediacy and make the reader feel much closer to the action, or more engaged with the author's voice.

Here's an example that briefly illustrates the difference in these two

perspectives:

Life was difficult back then. I rose at four in the morning and milked the cows, then trudged six miles to school through the snow.

Which implies that life is less difficult now and milking cows and walking to school through the snow is long since past. However, if we reframe it in present tense:

Life's difficult. I rise at four in the morning, milk the cows, then trudge six miles to school through the snow.

It suggests there isn't much hope in this young person's life, but we can go on the journey with her/him as he/she lives it.

I'll let you decide which of these you like, but I don't think that one is inherently better than the other. They are simply doing different things: one is more reflective, the other more immediate. One implies that the early problems are resolved, the other suggests that a solution is yet to be found. Certainly past tense allows for more reflection, but this is a stylistic choice rather than a technical flaw as such.

So, it seemed – matters of acquired taste aside – there was only one technical criticism which could explain why present tense was reviled by some: the fact that the book was obviously written in the past and, therefore, the writer is foolishly trying convince you that the story is being written while you read it. But, if this technical flaw argument explains the prejudice against present tense, then it seems people happily apply a different set of standards to written fiction than they do to other media. After all, we look to movies to suspend our disbelief as well, and all movies by their very nature use present tense. You are actually shown the events as they unfold and it is difficult to imagine how a movie could be presented in past tense. (Flashbacks to an extent attempt to ape past tense, but the action is always seen as if it is happening in real time). But do we leap from our seats in the cinema crying, 'Impossible! I know this isn't happening now. I know these scenes were shot six months ago! Who does the director think he's fooling?' Even more outrageous in this regard are historical movies. Do we wave our fists in the air and cry, 'But this happened a hundred years ago. Why are they pretending it's happening now? Ridiculous!' Not to mention what a rational reaction to futuristic science fiction movies (or books) should be, but I'll get to that a little later.

No, when it comes to electronic media, it seems our disbelief remains suspended, which reinforced my view that the so-called technical flaw of present tense wasn't an entirely valid argument. Particularly as written fiction is increasingly influenced by movies and television series, with the amount of dialogue in stories increasing relative to the amount of narration and the presence of the writer receding further and further into the background (to the extent that any authorial comment is considered to jangle the delicate nerves of the reader). In doing this research, I even came across some writers' guidelines at an obscure online speculative magazine that stipulated the percentage of dialogue versus narration that needed to be included on each page. Really?

But watching a movie is not the same as reading a book. A movie gives you all the images ready-made. With a book, you need to convert the words to images. But one of the things about reading is the point of universal time that was mentioned earlier. That is, when I open a book and commence reading it, I want to believe that what I am reading is happening as I read it – not something that happened in the past. In doing this, as a reader, I must, in my mind, through some process, be converting what is written as having happened in the past to something that I experience as happening in the present. So why wouldn't present tense work better to assist this mental process and more easily suspend our disbelief than past tense? 

My own opinion is that blind adherence to past tense is a bit of a relic, a leftover from when stories where presented in a more historical way and there was considerably more omniscient reflection on past events, with the writer exploring great family sagas, for example, and explaining how the main character came to be in the present circumstances they are today.  Past tense no doubt suits this type of writing perfectly. Perhaps this set a pattern for how stories must be written in many people's minds. 

Now one interesting thing that stands out in the research I did is that the prejudice against present tense seems to be most prevalent in the world of speculative fiction. In the world of so-called literary fiction the choice between present tense and past tense is seen as a choice between immediacy and reflection, but among many in speculative fiction it is seen as a choice between wrong and right. I don't know why this is, I don't have enough understanding of the education or general reading experience of readers, writers and editors who think present tense is just not the way to write. I think it's a little odd in a genre that prides itself on being open to new ideas. And it's particularly odd if it's based on the suspension of disbelief argument, because readers in the genre are already brilliant at suspending their disbelief. Let's look at the example of futuristic science fiction. Nothing in such stories could have possibly happened yet. You can't even begin to pretend that they happened in the past when it's clearly the intention of the whole story that this is the writer's fictional vision of something that might happen in the future. So, as soon as we start reading a futuristic science fiction story written in past tense, our suspension of disbelief should collapse right there:  'Hang on a minute, the events in this story haven't happened yet and this writer's writing in past tense as if they already have. How dumb is that?'   

Yes, strictly speaking, the only valid tense for futuristic science fiction is future tense: 

On a sunny January morning on the planet Bertha, Jerry Jacobs will wake up wishing that he hadn't drunk so much the night before. In bed next to him, he will find a creature of decidedly reptilian persuasion. Oh, my god, one of the aliens, he will think, before climbing out of bed and stumbling to the shower; how much did I drink last night? 

Anyone game to try it? It will be very difficult to do for a whole story. Verbs in the future tense are very repetitive and very limiting. They have no unique forms as past and present tense verbs do, and always need to be accompanied by 'will' or in some cases 'shall'. I think shows just how difficult it is for people to 'reflect' on the future and all those events that haven't happened yet – we don't even have the language to do it in an adequate way. Which brings me to a conclusion of sorts about present tense. The only half-way decent argument against why it shouldn't be used in some cases I believe is the 'reflective' one.

It's exceedingly difficult to present an understanding of what the future might be like. And it's much easier to understand things with the benefit of hindsight, rather than when they are actually happening all around you. So past tense, even when the story is set in the future, may assist in creating the illusion that the writer has the same breadth of understanding and knowledge as if the story had happened in the past. But still, there are a great number of tales to be told were the action is immediate and the understanding obvious. Many speculative fiction stories work in this way. Little or no reflection is required. In such cases, I think present tense is not only justified, but it adds an excitement and dynamic you just can't achieve with past tense.  

Further Reading:

The Elements of Style, Strunk jr, William and White, E B (Macmillan, 1979)

http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/WritingGuide/14prtens.htm A good article on the use of different tenses in non-fiction.

http://www.steampunk.com/sfch/writing/ckilian/ This site provides some detailed tips on novel writing and briefly discusses genre readers and editors distaste for present tense (about half-way down the page).

http://teenwriting.about.com/od/grammar/ This one is a good example of an informative writing site that provides some detailed advice on the difference between tenses, and when one may be more useful than another.