As a continuation of Rosy's thread about CW 'rules' and gender, I've been pondering this whole issue of CW 'rules'. I've noticed, for instance, how the subject of present-tense novels seems to engender a lot of irritation and in some cases, anger. Why should this be? Writing in the present tense is simply a choice that a writer makes, just as they might decide to write in first person rather than third. Why does one 'rule' stir up emotion and another doesn't? And are these in fact rules, or fashions in technique? Just been reading an interview with Margaret Drabble, who inserted several passages of 'intrusive' authorial comment in her novel 'The Realms of Gold' - how would that be interpreted today? She said (to paraphrase) that the presence of the writer is a given, because without it the novel wouldn't exist, so it's pretence to deliberately exclude the authorial voice. Any thoughts?
I can see the sense that certain methods of writing are unfashionable and might not do one any favours with agents. I'm just interested as to why they often seem to stir up strong emotions?
Susiex

I wouldn't say present tense is a 'rule' of any sort, but purely a reading preference. Personally I dislike it - it's a bit like a left handed person being forced to write with their right hand, occassionally it works, but the majority of the time it just feels un-natural. I guess it's because 99% of my reading matter has been in the past tense.

As for authorial voice, it's like the actor talking to camera: it takes you out of the film and onto the screen; reminds you, you're reading a book, which can be annoying if you're currently immersed in, eg, 17th Century Paris. However, it can be done well, if done often enough so it doesn't sneak up on a reader and shout "Oi!" in your ear.


- NaomiM

it's a bit like a left handed person being forced to write with their right hand,

Do you mean that it sounds 'unnatural', Naomi? Or forced? And is it, then, simply a matter of habit, as you say? The really strange thing is, the present-tense is what life happens in, so why should it feel unnatural to read in it? It's also the way we encounter television and film. Do you think, if you spent a lot of time reading present-tense narrative, that it might come to be comfortable to you?
I find it strange, because when I read present-tense novels, I find I very quickly settle into them and don't even notice the tense they're written in - of course, as long as they're written well.
As to the intrusive authorial bit, do you think we 'resent' the intrusion because we want to escape into the world the author's creating, to be a part of it, and we don't want to be reminded that we are, in fact, in fiction (sorry, no pun originally intended!)
Susiex

'Sounds un-natural or forced'.
I don't know, it just feels wrong; out of kilter; like a second language, that one knows well but is not one's mother tongue - after a while you get used to it, it becomes less intrusive, but it does spoil the story that I'm trying to concentrate on. It it's done in a cinematic/filmic way then, yes, I hardly notice it. But when it is simply a replacement for past tense, then I find it intrusive.

Terry Pratchett 'speaks to camera' - for example in some of his analogies when he mentions UK TV programmes or people or things, which couldn't possibly exist on the Disc world - but it's not at all intrusive. I suppose it depends on whether it comes across as the author showing off, or not.


<Added>

I find present tense works very well for 'Teen-speak' in YA novels.

I find present tense works very well for 'Teen-speak' in YA novels.

Which is interesting: I wonder what this will mean for the writing 'fashion' of the future? Because yes, teens do tend to speak in that very immediate, present way - so maybe the next generation of novelists will grow up to write present-tense novels. I'd be so interested to see if, in say twenty years time, the majority of novels are still in past tense.
Susiex

I think i said this before but The Needle in the Blood has a really masterful command of present tense and yet not in that modern filmic punch punch punch way. I would be curious to know if anyone else who has read it found the present problematic in it because it took me a while to notice. In fact I got immersed in the world of the book straight away.

Oh, bugger, I've just ordered that from Snowbooks. I'll let you know how I get on, Snowy.

Rose Tremain's Music & Silence (I think) was another one I was all fired up to read until I opened it and found it was in the present tense.


- NaomiM

Snowy, I've read Needle in the Blood and found it exactly as you said - so beautifully done that the tense wasn't intrusive. I'm looking forward to reading Sarah Bower's second one - not sure if it's out yet - I wonder whether that will be fully in the present tense too.

Interesting about present tense working well in YA - is this a new trend? I remember being incredibly surprised in my teens to find a book written that way - I think it was a Judy Blume - and I found it annoying and stupid at the time! I don't mind present tense these days - like anything, it's how it's done that is important.

I think the problem with present tense is that most writers (and by that I don't mean most published writers necessarily, but most writers including beginning writers) can't or don't use it well. It's one of those things in writing that is especially noticeable and grating when done badly, for some reason, whereas some things you can get away with more easily.

So because of this, people (editors and creative writing teachers etc) advise people to stay away from it.

Which is how most of the CW 'rules' come about, IMO.

Yes, I'd agree with Jess - it's one of those things that looks easy and is actually hard to do well.

I've only just started dipping into Julian Barnes's Arthur & George but I notice that though it's basically past tense he slips into present tense for individual sentences and paragraphs, usually of people's thought, I think, though I haven't yet worked out why he does it. Not a writer whose technical control is likely to be slipping, so I'm very intrigued...

Emma

<Added>

And I agree with Jess that many of the CW rules come about from teachers trying to stop baby writers from trying things which they're unlikely to pull off.

the present-tense is what life happens in

he slips into present tense for individual sentences and paragraphs, usually of people's thought

Pulling together quotes from Susie and Emma, I think this is probably why it works in some instances, it plunges the reader into the action, but it has to feel natural, and which is probably why it works when used for teen-speak (like being out with a bunch of mates for a night on the tiles). Rather than using it just as a replacement of the past tense with the present tense, since if you are subsequently telling someone about your night out on the tiles, it's going to be narrated in the past tense.
As a writer you have to decide whether you are out with a bunch of mates/readers (present tense), or whether you are telling your mum/reader, what you were up to the previous night (past tense).


- NaomiM

<Added>

I can't see present tense ever overtaking past tense, as people are used to hearing stories second hand/past tense.

Read Needle Noams - i don't think any of what you said there applies to it. But I agree that what you just said is maybe the norm. I think it needn't be any of those things though. it may be that people are less used to reading and therefore writing it, of course.

'Girl Meets Boy' (Ali Smith) is present tense, and utterly brilliant. I think of present tense as quite trendy - though I often find it harder to get into, myself, as a reader. I agree there are fashions in these things, but I'm not sure the 'CW rules' say we have to do past or present, do they? Except that maybe past tense is meant to be 'safer' - especially for mainstream commercial - whereas present is more accepted for literary - or teen/YA, as Naomi says.

Whereas (as you say, Susie) intrusive authorial comments are completely old-fashioned and 'out', and are certainly 'against the rules' in some CW books I've read. But I don't care, 'cos I love 'em, and I don't intend to stop using 'em. (In moderation - usually as links or to create distance for a moment...).

Rosy

Perhaps the publishing industry is deeply conventional at heart - a huge generalisation of course, but I get the sense that it may be. I suppose because commercialism is at the heart of it, and they are, understandably, not eager to take risks.
Susiex

I'm not usually all that keen on present tense unless it's done really well. It usually goes with first person narration, which I find can sometimes become rather tedious. As a result, I think first person present can work very well in a short story but be difficult to sustain for a novel. And I do think it's currently a bit of a fashion: I suspect quite a few 'L Plate' writers think using first person present makes their writing more 'literary'. Also, writing in first person can feel easier because it feels like writing a journal or autobiography, but that doesn't make it easier on the reader.

On the other hand, I love a bit of authorial intrusion, providing it's apt and insightful and not like being hit over the head with the author's research notes or personal philosophy on life. When I'm reading a novel I'm always fully conscious of the fact I'm reading a novel so I don't mind at all if the author pops their head in to say hello every now and again. But it's like everything else to do with writing: done well it's fantastic, done badly it's awful.

The trouble with all these 'guidelines' (which is all they ever are) is they are designed to make someone's writing conform to someone else's preferences. Whether you should listen to them or not very much depends on who the someone else is and whether their advice could be relevant to you. Simply accepting them without question is not a good way to react to them, IMO.