Richard Turner
Basic
As a newcomer to Litopia I'm advised to join in discussions. I can't find any recent topics which I want to comment on, so I'm going to pitch in at the deep end with something I would very much like to get some reaction to: the use of the present tense in fiction. The so-called 'historic present' can be very irritating to some, and there are occasions when I dislike it - particularly in TV history documentaries where it is supposed to lend veracity to something which took place hundreds of years ago.
My current project was the result of a desperate search to find a way back into writing. I had done a co-publication on an over-ambitious project which, despite the importance of its theme - the future of our children - caused barely a ripple on the lake of public indifference. I'd begun a second book, but was so disillusioned with the whole process that any attempt to work on it made me horribly tense.
I eventually got past that by, as an exercise, writing about myself in the third person. I then realised that I could use this character, who by then was scarcely recognisable as me, as the main character in what I was determined would be a commercial thriller. As it developed I found I was using the present tense quite naturally. It seems to add a certain detachment to the narrative. I then consciously decided to use the present for the ongoing story - for things that were happening in the present - and the past for those which took place in the past. It sounds logical doesn't it, but the past is the norm, and aspiring authors are advised to avoid anything experimental.
Of the people who have read my sample chapters only one found this irritating, and I think most readers do not really notice the change of tense as long as it is consistent. Since starting this I've noticed several modern writers using it - Margaret Atwood for example in "The Heart Goes Last".
What do the members of Litopia think: an unnecessary irritation or a useful way of creating a sense of immediacy?
My current project was the result of a desperate search to find a way back into writing. I had done a co-publication on an over-ambitious project which, despite the importance of its theme - the future of our children - caused barely a ripple on the lake of public indifference. I'd begun a second book, but was so disillusioned with the whole process that any attempt to work on it made me horribly tense.
I eventually got past that by, as an exercise, writing about myself in the third person. I then realised that I could use this character, who by then was scarcely recognisable as me, as the main character in what I was determined would be a commercial thriller. As it developed I found I was using the present tense quite naturally. It seems to add a certain detachment to the narrative. I then consciously decided to use the present for the ongoing story - for things that were happening in the present - and the past for those which took place in the past. It sounds logical doesn't it, but the past is the norm, and aspiring authors are advised to avoid anything experimental.
Of the people who have read my sample chapters only one found this irritating, and I think most readers do not really notice the change of tense as long as it is consistent. Since starting this I've noticed several modern writers using it - Margaret Atwood for example in "The Heart Goes Last".
What do the members of Litopia think: an unnecessary irritation or a useful way of creating a sense of immediacy?
Inbox.
