Just curious, but can someone explain what seems to me to be a trend toward present tense? Personally, I hate it. (First vs. third person is as nothing to me in comparison.) I have seen it most in LitRPG novels, so I've assumed it developed from table-top RPGs. But, maybe there's a lot more to it than that. Wouldn't be the first time a huge hole in my literary background left me floundering!
I've never read a LitRPG and not sure I know what it is, but I write a lot of present tense stories because they convey the immediacy of the action better than past tense does, and I read more present tense stories than past tense while growing up.
Actually, the use of present tense in stories is one of the oldest forms around. Today many people prefer past tense simply because that's what they got used to due to some of the bigger publishers during the 20th century insisting on past tense stories by their authors, and thus they became more common. However, if you take the time to think about it you'd realise that more stories are told in the present tense than in the past tense.
Films are all present tense, action and adventure stories are easier to relate to when they're in the present tense, and most oral stories are in the present tense.
Even when you have past tense in the narrative of a story you use present tense in the dialogue, otherwise the whole story becomes narrative.
However, like the case of first person or third person, it's a matter of personal preference. I know someone who complains about present tense stories all of the time, but every time they recount something that happened to them they give the whole story in the present tense, even if it happened to them many years ago. They have no trouble telling a story in present tense but hate reading one in present tense - go figure.
I've never read a LitRPG and not sure I know what it is
Fiction based on a table top pen/paper RPG where gaming elements show up in the story. A sub category of GameLit.
Films are all present tense
Not relevant. Lots of things work in film that don't work in books.
Films are visual, does that mean we should abandon regular books in favor of a comic book / graphic novel format?
Lots of things work in film that don't work in books.
and the reverse is true as well.
Films are visual, does that mean we should abandon regular books in favor of a comic book / graphic novel format?
They are still telling stories.
They are still telling stories.
True, but films are, and should be, telling a story if a completely different way from what a written book does.
How films are done has not the tinniest drop of relevance to how books should be written.
Like I said, lots of holes in my knowledge, so, could you give an example of how present tense is one of the oldest forms?
I also think I tell my personal stories in past tense. "When I was in college, I dated this one girl who...." Past tense. I'd never say, "I am in college. I date this girl who...." What am I missing here?
Like I said, lots of holes in my knowledge, so, could you give an example of how present tense is one of the oldest forms?
Sadly, old age and memory loss are catching up on me and I can't remember the list of great authors who wrote present tense stories in the past that I've listed in past discussion on this subject. In trying to find some of those references again I did find this article with some interesting quotes:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing_style
"Letter from Birmingham Jail" (1963) by Martin Luther King Jr.:
Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.
.................
Hamlet, Act II, Scene 2 (1599β1602) by William Shakespeare:
HAMLET. I will tell you why; so shall my anticipation prevent your discovery, and your secrecy to the king and queen moult no feather. I have of lateβbut wherefore I know notβlost all my mirth, forgone all custom of exercises; and indeed it goes so heavily with my disposition that this goodly frame, the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory; this most excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave o'erhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted with golden fire, why, it appears no other thing to me than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapors. What a piece of work is a man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how expressed and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? man delights not me; no, nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so
.......................
"These are the times that try men's souls." by Thomas Paine, changes the overall impact of the message.
Times like these try men's souls.
How trying it is to live in these times!
These are trying times for men's souls.
Soulwise, these are trying times
..........................
"Memories of Christmas" (1945) by Dylan Thomas:
One Christmas was so much like another, in those years, around the sea-town corner now, and out of all sound except the distant speaking of the voices I sometimes hear a moment before sleep, that I can never remember whether it snowed for six days and six nights when I was twelve or whether it snowed for twelve days and twelve nights when I was six; or whether the ice broke and the skating grocer vanished like a snowman through a white trap-door on that same Christmas Day that the mince-pies finished Uncle Arnold and we tobogganed down the seaward hill, all the afternoon, on the best tea-tray, and Mrs. Griffiths complained, and we threw a snowball at her niece, and my hands burned so, with the heat and the cold, when I held them in front of the fire, that I cried for twenty minutes and then had some jelly.
..................
That last one seems to be a mix of past and present tense.
edit to add: The KJV Bible I have is a mix of present and past tense as well. Considering none of it was originally written in English that's kind of understandable.
"Letter from Birmingham Jail" (1963) by Martin Luther King Jr.:
A Letter, not a book. It's not fiction, it's not even a true story.
Hamlet, Act II, Scene 2 (1599β1602) by William Shakespeare:
A play not a book. Closer in format to a movie than to a book.
"These are the times that try men's souls." by Thomas Paine, changes the overall impact of the message.
Part of a pamphlet series written as propaganda in support of the American Revolution. Inspiring writing, but not a story.
"Memories of Christmas" (1945) by Dylan Thomas:
One Christmas was so much like another, in those years, around the sea-town corner now, and out of all sound except the distant speaking of the voices I sometimes hear a moment before sleep, that I can never remember whether it snowed for six days and six nights when I was twelve or whether it snowed for twelve days and twelve nights when I was six; or whether the ice broke and the skating grocer vanished like a snowman through a white trap-door on that same Christmas Day that the mince-pies finished Uncle Arnold and we tobogganed down the seaward hill, all the afternoon, on the best tea-tray, and Mrs. Griffiths complained, and we threw a snowball at her niece, and my hands burned so, with the heat and the cold, when I held them in front of the fire, that I cried for twenty minutes and then had some jelly.
Looks to be mostly past tense to me.
A play not a book. Closer in format to a movie than to a book.
It's still telling a story, and in a written format. A movie is also the telling of a story which started out as the written word in a script. Letters are also the communication of information in writing, the same way as a story is communicating in writing.
However, one thing I have learned from the several times in the past decade that this subject has come up:
It matters not how many great authors of the past have written in present tense those who do not like it will never accept it as a valid writing style. The same is true for those who do not like first person point of view.
In both cases it's a matter of personal preference which has developed from past exposure to writing styles and if a person has not had exposure to a mix of styles before they become wedded to one style, they regard their preferred style as the only valid style.
No on is forcing anyone to read stories in styles they don't like, so when you come across a story or style you don't like simply go past it to another story and save yourself the trouble and angst.
It's still telling a story, and in a written format.
No. Yes the script is in a written format, but the playwright does not intend for the audience to consume it in that format. It's written as directions for the visual format of the stage.
No. Yes the script is in a written format, but the playwright does not intend for the audience to consume it in that format. It's written as directions for the visual format of the stage.
Yet it's in the written format that people decide if they want to present it. It's a form of story telling, which a novel is as well, which a fiction film is too. In each case the story starts in a written format.
Yet it's in the written format that people decide if they want to present it. It's a form of story telling, which a novel is as well, which a fiction film is too. In each case the story starts in a written format.
But unlike a novel, it's not intended to be presented to the audience in written form. It's a very different form of story telling from a novel.
A movie is not a play or a novel. It can, should and does have different rules for how it is written than a play or a novel.
A Play is not a movie or a novel. t can, should and does have different rules for how it is written than a Movie or a novel.
A novel is not a play or a movie. It can, should and does have different rules for how it is written than a play or a movie.
Look, I'm NOT arguing that novels have to be past tense. However, the argument you are making that movies are present tense, therefore novels should be present tense is pure bullshit.
But unlike a novel, it's not intended to be presented to the audience in written form.
I disagree as it's the written form that the initial audience see and decide to use it.
However, since you are nit picking to this level I am assuming that listing present tense poetry from the last few hundreds years is also a waste of time.
I am not making the argument that movies being in present tense is a reason for writing in present tense, I simply mention them to show you story tellers are using present tense in other formats and you aren't upset about present tense being used there. In the past I've read present tense stories from the 1700s and 1800s and prior that puts them well before movies.
I agree there are some rules being different between the different formats of presenting a story (oral, novel, play, movie, poetry) but the use of present or past tense is not a set attribute of any of the formats.
As I said earlier, which tense you like is a personal preference and everyone has a right to their own preference, but no right to say other people's preferences are wrong. In the past the past - present tense issue has raised it's head in these forums and a lot of people insist that the only 'correct' way to write a story is in the past tense, the same way some insist that third person is the only 'correct' way to write a story. Both are valid personal preferences.
If I could find the previous forum discussion we had on this issue I could point you at the list of a dozen great authors going back hundreds of years who have used present tense in the stories, and there a similar list of past famous poetry writers. many authors through history have used present tense and many have used past tense, and many have used both at different times with different works they've written. I just can't find that old list I dug up and posted some years back, and I'm too busy with other things to spend the time trying to recreate it. heck I just made a long post about an issue with calibre that's taken up most of my item for the last 2 days, with little time out to sleep. I've also got some 30 plus stories I want to finish. So while I can spare a few minutes to be on the forum when taking a break from other activities I don't have the time to do the real research I did last time this was a hot issue.
I simply mention them to show you story tellers are using present tense in other formats and you aren't upset about present tense being used there.
I'm not upset about present tense there because the format matters and present tense being acceptable in one format has nothing to do with whether or not it's acceptable in a different format.
In the past I've read present tense stories from the 1700s and 1800s and prior that puts them well before movies.
Then why is it so hard for you to name just one present tense novel that predates movies?
Then why is it so hard for you to name just one present tense novel that predates movies?
Because I've done it before and the research data is no longer readily available to me while I no longer have the time or interest to put into recreating all of that. I did a quick search of the forum, and it seems the list I provided before is on the previous version of the forum as I couldn't find it in this version.
I do remember providing an extensive list about 4 or 5 years ago, but I've been under a hell of a lot of pressure and stress since then and can't remember who was on that list, nor do i have the results of that research any more. I do remember looking at the works of Shakespear, Chaucer, Browning, Mark twain, and many others at that time and found some present tense works by them, but can't now say for sure which were and weren't.
Ernest, you must certainly be familiar with the musical tradition involving successful artist deciding to experiment with bizarre and (for their genre) possibly inappropriate styles of sound production (in some case music, others...not so much)?
It's liklier that those oddball examples you found in the past were literary examples of that.
Then, there's the Stephen King effect - a writer who isn't very skilled would rack up a bunch of rejections, eventually learn to write correctly, get published, and build a folowing...and then decide to publish those novels that had been badly written.
It's liklier that those oddball examples you found in the past were literary examples of that.
And much more likely they weren't.
As I've said a few times: It's all personal preference and each choice is just as valid as the other. Feel free to like and dislike whichever you want, but don't insist others follow your preferences because you dislike the other.
, but don't insist others follow your preferences because you dislike the other.
You are the one insisting we MUST accept present tense in novels because we accept present tense in movies.
I haven't expressed a view one way or the other on present tense in novels, just skepticism of your claim that it's not a recent phenomenon.
You are the one insisting we MUST accept present tense in novels because we accept present tense in movies.
Go back and read what i said. I never said you had to do anything, all I said was that present tense was used in both forms of story telling - which are known facts. At no point have I insisted on anything beyond present tense being a valid style choice.
Feel free to like and dislike whichever you want, but don't insist others follow your preferences because you dislike the other.
The point it, when it was used in the past it was more for shock value than as a commonly accepted alternative. The decline in publishing standards in recent decades led to it becoming far more common now than in the past. (Largely, I expect, caused by the major publishers offloading the requirement for editing, and editors losing power in the writer/editor relationship by virtue of becoming the employee of the writer rather than the representitive of the publisher.)
The point it, when it was used in the past it was more for shock value than as a commonly accepted alternative.
Provide the evidence that all previous use of present tense in stories was for shock value only. Since that's what you claim.
It matters not how many great authors of the past have written in present tense those who do not like it will never accept it as a valid writing style.
If there are so many, cite one. So far you are drawing a blank, you have named not one past author (great or otherwise) who wrote novels in the present tense.
So far you are drawing a blank, you have named not one past author (great or otherwise) who wrote novels in the present tense.
Joyce, probably. Note that he didn't really write for readers so much as for other writers.
This took me under a minute of googling:
https://lithub.com/in-defense-of-the-present-tense/
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/nov/21/rise-of-the-present-tense-in-fiction-hilary-mantel
Bleak House is mixed tense (much present, some past). Updike's Rabbit novels are present tense. Apparently present tense was growing in popularity by 2010 at least, with lots of prize-nominated works, and still gaining in 2015.
Quite a bit of notable YA is written in present tense; The Hunger Games, Divergent, etc. I quite enjoyed most of The Hunger Games, and what I didn't enjoy about Divergent has little to do with tense.
Terribly easy to find examples, which leaves 'great' (or even 'otherwise') in the eye of the beholder.
Thanks, GW. I'm following up on your references. I'd find it easier if the authors would be more careful in their assertions. For example, in the lithub article, the author writes:
This resembles the way victims of assault and trauma think of their memoriesβthey almost always tell the story of what happened to them in the present tense, because it is a place still vivid for them, in their minds.
That's the kind of assertion that needs a citation to research. It raises all kinds of questions, including whether it is true for those individuals (the majority*) who experience post-traumatic growth after severely adverse experiences. I went looking on Google Scholar. If, in fact, it is true that victims tend to use present tense in telling their stories, I would expect this to be reflected in research. Checking Google Scholar, I find nothing to suggest this. I also would expect such a tendency, if it existed, to be well known to prosecuting attorneys and those that work with victims in the judicial system. I have some experience in this area and have never heard such an assertion. I tend to think this is a false statement. It makes me wonder about the rest of the article.
Later, the author says,
Given the present tense is also common as the verb tense of the letter and the diary entry
Is present tense common in letters? In diaries. It happens: "Honey, I miss you terribly and wish you were here." But so does past, often in combination with present: "I searched all day for water sources. I fear I will die of thirst."
Interesting, intersting. Thanks for the references!
*
Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2009). Character strengths: Research and practice. Journal of college and character, 10(4).
Is present tense common in letters?
Letters are a figment of a forgotten era. However, when they existed, it's best to say they were mixed tense. Often, letters would relate things that had happened since the last letter (thus in past tense) however there would also be messages (like "the family all send their love"). Of course, love letters would often be almost stream of consciousness ("I can't wait until we're together again, and I can hold you..." etc) with a lot of present tense telling the reader exactly how the writer felt at the moment of writing. Which is the other major flaw of present tense in novels - how the hell did the narrator record the story as it happened when he's not shown to be constantly typing or speaking? I suppose the possibility of a broadcast commentator giving the play by play is possible with a third person present tense, but you almost need a team of narrators to make that work.
That's the kind of assertion that needs a citation to research. It raises all kinds of questions, including whether it is true for those individuals (the majority*) who experience post-traumatic growth after severely adverse experiences. I went looking on Google Scholar.
You won't find it in Google Scholar.
https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/treat/essentials/dsm5_ptsd.asp
Specification. In addition to meeting criteria for diagnosis, an individual experiences high levels of either of the following in reaction to trauma-related stimuli:
Depersonalization. Experience of being an outside observer of or detached from oneself (e.g., feeling as if "this is not happening to me" or one were in a dream).
Derealization. Experience of unreality, distance, or distortion (e.g., "things are not real").
Delayed Specification. Full diagnostic criteria are not met until at least six months after the trauma(s), although onset of symptoms may occur immediately
That comes from the VA which got it from DSM-5. Depersonalization and in particular, the derealization is where the stories of PTSD etc tends towards present tense in the telling. That can be further drilled down to PTSD sourced by direct witnessing an event. For that last part, it's happening in their minds while they are telling the story, therefore the present tense.
As for a "majority," I'd have to disagree with that. If you've ever sat through a group therapy session for A-PTSD and PTSD, it becomes very clear that there is no such animal as a general rule of thumb like that.
Interesting. I don't see the DSM criteria specifying present tense in the recounting of the event leading to post traumatic stress disorder. As I said, I'm not aware of crime or accident victims, or those diagnosed with life-threatening diseases, frequently using present-tense when recounting those experiences, and I would think that would be weird enough to get noticed, commented on, and reported.
As for responses to traumatic experiences, I agree that there are a variety of responses. Even the post-traumatic growth literature notes that symptoms of post-traumatic stress and growth can occur in close proximity, alternating, although the data does seem clear that the majority of individuals experiencing traumatic events end up stronger rather than broken. However, many of those individuals would not be seen in therapy sessions.
Present tense, past tense, all the above are mentioned in the diagnosis/treatment of PTSD in DSM and other sources.
As for not being aware of it, that does not mean it doesn't exist. You can count me as your first contact for that since you apparently don't have any.
although the data does seem clear that the majority of individuals experiencing traumatic events end up stronger rather than broken.
Define stronger? Define broken? What one person considers stronger, another might consider broken, while yet another would consider it mixed.
The psychologist I was seeing considers me mixed as does several others.
I'm not a danger to others, but I could be considered a danger to myself. Normal (for the values of normal) people fear death. I do not. After being run down by an F100, robbed at gun/knife point, shot twice, burned, falling, stabbed a few times, car wrecks, and a few other choice experiences, life threatening events no longer affect me. Is that being strong or is that broken? I'm not alone in that either. There are many people out there like me. The largest population of which are some combat veterans, followed by some police/rescue personnel. The people like me who are neither combat vets nor police/rescue are out there in lesser numbers, but they do exist.
That's just the direct experience category refined to near death experiences. The direct category includes rape, abuse, severe accidents, and many other events.
Then we get to witnessed events. Watching your best friend get torched during a hot tap gone wrong, seeing someone beheaded by falling steel, watching a 7 year old girl shot in the head after being rifle butted to the ground, those any many other things.
The simple act of speaking about such things without emotion is itself a sign of PTSD. Does that qualify as strong, broken, or mixed?
That you can question it like that tells me you've no idea what you're talking about. That's not an attack, it's a simple truth. It's a good thing that you don't, be happy in your ignorance as the alternative truly sucks.
Thank you for your response. The DSM criteria would apply to those seeking treatment after a traumatic event. I think I understand the point better now. Much appreciated.
And, yes, I am aware of the construct of vicarious trauma.
As for what constitutes "stronger," that is ultimately an individual decision. But, as for the research into the construct of Post-Traumatic Growth:
There are different views about the dimensions of the positive changes resulting from the struggle with traumatic
events. Using Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI) data reported by participants (N =926) experiencing a
variety of traumatic events, five models of the underlying structure of the PTGI were tested via confirmatory factor
analyses to examine whether the PTGI comprises three domains (Changed Perception of Self, Changed Interpersonal
Relationships, and Changed Philosophy of Life), five factors (Relating to Others, New Possibilities, Personal Strength,
Spiritual Change, and Appreciation of Life), or a unitary dimension. Results indicated an oblique 5-factor model best
fit the data, thus revealing the PTGI was multidimensional. Present findings offer implications for understanding the
nature of posttraumatic growth.
Taku, K., Cann, A., Calhoun, L. G., & Tedeschi, R. G. (2008). The factor structure of the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory: A comparison of five models using confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Traumatic Stress: Official Publication of The International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, 21(2), 158-164.
Joyce, probably. Note that he didn't really write for readers so much as for other writers.
I looked up James Joyce on Project Gutenberg. They have five works by Joyce. A collection of short stories, two novels, a book of chamber music and a play.
Both novels are past tense.
I figured the stream of consciousness stuff he did probably ventured into present tense at times.
Still, of Stephen Hero, Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, Ulysses and Finnegans Wake, which where the two novels listed? (Yeah, he wasn't a proliffic novelist.)
I figured the stream of consciousness stuff he did probably ventured into present tense at times.
Yeah, and that would have what to do with valid/acceptable style for writing novels in his era?
Yeah, and that would have what to do with valid/acceptable style for writing novels in his era?
Absolutely nothing. His writing was at best pretentious and appealing only to other writers.
Ernest-
Plays tend to be in present tense because they are dialogue and action-driven. Like your observation about films, it is the same idea. Either way, these don't use exposition as a key element (if at all) in these formats.
Likewise, much non-fiction prose like the Paine and King examples are talking about on-going issues.
I find past tense works better for storytelling fiction, which is driven by a mix of exposition, action, and dialogue. It is hard (if not impossible) to deal with useful aspects of exposition like "backstory" when you write in present tense.
It is hard (if not impossible) to deal with useful aspects of exposition like "backstory" when you write in present tense.
Actually, I think that's an advantage to writing in present tense. Backstory (flashbacks) are written in simple past tense.
If the story is written in past tense, the flashbacks are written in past perfect tense which is harder.
Actually, I think that's an advantage to writing in present tense. Backstory (flashbacks) are written in simple past tense.
If you aren't writing in present tense, flashbacks aren't the only way to deal with backstory.
If the story is written in past tense, the flashbacks are written in past perfect tense which is harder.
No.
As the firefight slowed down and the enemy finally started trying to conserve ammo, my thoughts drifted back to the first time we'd fought the Juggalos.
Back then, they were still too stupid to live, and they proved it by running out of ammunition...
Or just drop start scenes with a timestamp. Everything is written in simple past tense.
first time we'd fought the Juggalos.
"we'd" = "we had" - past perfect tense.
That's what places the reader in the past.
Back then, they were still too stupid
You could continue in past perfect with:
"Back then, they had been too stupid"
but since you established the past with the previous sentence you don't have to.
and most oral stories are in the present tense.
As are jokes:
A priest, a rabbi, and a minister go into a barβ¦
Films are all present tense, action and adventure stories are easier to relate to when they're in the present tense, and most oral stories are in the present tense.
Ernest, you're full of shit.
Movies are not 'present tense'. They're presented as a recording of something that happened at some point (whether past, future, or present).
Action stories are HARDER to relate to in present tense, since it's like there's a play-by-play announcer broadcasting, totally unsettling. People use present tense when recounting events because they're shitty at grammar. And dialog IS A TRANSCRIPT OF WHAT PEOPLE SAID WHILE THINGS HAPPENED. It's why every line has the assumed '(s)he said' appended. "Said" not "says". The tense is from 'said' not from the dialog.
Wrong, the movie is presented as something that is happening as you watch it, so it's present tense.
Plays are presented in the same way.
People tend to use present tense in oral accounting as it's easier to do than to go through the process of reformulating it all into the more structured and formal way required of past tense accounting.
Wrong. Movies (and plays) are reenactments, hence past.
And it's possible to get the grammar correct without being overly structured and formal - someone can recount events in past tense but with a colloquial voice.
Wrong, the movie is presented as something that is happening as you watch it, so it's present tense.
Plays are presented in the same way.
And of minimal to no relevance to how books ought to be written.
I wrote one story that I never finished in present tense. It was one of my many experiments, and ultimately I was not happy with it so never finished it.
If it's a story for adults with a recognisable timeline (ie some events happen before others), then logically most, if not all, of the story must have happened in the POV character's past and the past tense is more natural. I think it's telling that even authors who write 'in the present tense' (eg Patricia Cornwell) can't help but slip up from time to time and use past-tense sentences in their stories. Even their proofreaders miss them.
It's claimed that present tense is better for young children because it's more engaging. Infants treat a story more as a drama that they imagine themselves part of.
AJ
Just curious, but can someone explain what seems to me to be a trend toward present tense? Personally, I hate it.
Just to be clear, do you hate all forms of present tense, or one specific form?
We are Past Tents, we live in Bungalows now.
You may live in a bungalow, but I did it right and live in a house. :)
Bungalow
"Bungalow
By JAMES CHEN
Reviewed By ERIKA RASURE
Updated Nov 27, 2020
What Is a Bungalow?
A bungalow is a one-story house, cottage, or cabin. Bungalows are generally small in terms of square footage, but it is not uncommon to see very large bungalows. Bungalows were originally designed to provide affordable, modern housing for the working class.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
A bungalow is a style of house or cottage that is typically either a single story or has a second, half, or partial story, that is built into a sloped roof.
Bungalows are typically small in terms of size and square footage and often are distinguished by the presence of dormer windows and verandas.
Bungalows are cost-efficient, easy to maintain, and due to increased square footage versus multi-story homes, relatively easy to modify.
On the downside, Bungalows have smaller and fewer rooms than multi-story houses, and are more vulnerable to break-ins, due to how low they sit on the ground.
Understanding Bungalows
Bungalows are most often one-story houses, although they often also include an additional half story, usually with a sloped roof. There are various types of bungalows, including raised bungalows that have basements partially above ground to let in additional sunlight. There are also some bungalows that branch away from the original definition by adding additional levels such as lofts and half levels. Common features of the bungalow include a dormer window and a veranda.
Bungalow Characteristics
Bungalows are small and easy to maintain and are therefore great homes for the elderly or people with disabilities. They are also cost-efficient; heating and cooling costs tend to be lower, and the property value tends to remain relatively high. Because bungalows occupy more square footage than multi-story homes, they tend to allow more space for modifications and additions. They also afford more privacy than most traditional homes, as they're low to the ground and the windows can easily be blocked by trees, shrubs, and fences.
On the other hand, bungalows tend to occupy a larger area of land than their multi-story counterparts; since they don't extend upwards, they take up more square footage on the first floor. This means that the initial costs are higher since they cost more per square foot, and they also require more material for roofing.
Bungalows also tend to have smaller and fewer rooms extending off a larger living room, as opposed to large bedrooms or an open floor plan. Also, because they're low to the ground, they're more susceptible to break-ins; therefore, it's a good idea to invest in a home security system if you purchase a bungalow.
Currently-popular Bungalow styles include California, Chicago, and the chalet.
History of Bungalows
Bungalows were first built in the South Asian region of Bengal. Bungalows, which derive their name from Hindi, were first identified as such by British sailors of the East India Company in the late 17th century. As time progressed, a bungalow came to refer to a large dwelling, often representing high social status in both Britain and America.1ο»Ώ
The term bungalow as we now know it β a small dwelling, typically one story β developed in the 20th century, although its definition varies in different areas of the world. For example, in India today, the term generally refers to any single-family dwelling, regardless of how many stories it has.
In Canada and the United Kingdom, a bungalow almost exclusively refers to one-story units. Australia tends toward the California bungalow, a type of bungalow that was popular in the United States from about 1910 to 1940 and expanded abroad as Hollywood became popular and increased the desirability of American-made products.
The California bungalow is one to one-and-a-half stories and features a large porch, sloping roof, and Spanish-inspired details. Other types of now-popular bungalow styles include the Chicago bungalow, which has Chicago roots circa the 1920s and is typically made of brick, and the chalet bungalow, which deviates from the one-story norm by having a second-story loft."
I'm not ashamed to admit I make snap judgements.
If a story begins:
You are [random verb] ...
(No, I'm not. I'm leaving. I already played Colossal Cave back in '72, and was bored then.)
I am [random verb] ...
(Lacking any knowledge of your background, your current situation in life is unlikely to interest me. I'll probably read a paragraph or two, just to see if you get over yourself, then move on.)
I was ...
(That's better. You are setting up a situation, and I will likely read on to see how you get out of it.)
As usual, YMMV
(No, I'm not. I'm leaving. I already played Colossal Cave back in '72, and was bored then.)
Wow, years before it was even written. Impressive.
Of course, it is still referenced even in more modern games. I was pleasantly surprised when I was playing Fallout 76 last year, and saw at the exit for one of the caves they had placed a series of blocks spelling out PLUGH.
I even posted a screenshot of that in several Facebook groups, and turns out a lot of people had seen it, but thought it was gibberish or had no idea what it meant.
Wow, years before it was even written. Impressive.
"Colossal Cave Adventure
Video game
4.3/5 Β· Google Play
Colossal Cave Adventure is a text adventure game, developed between 1975 and 1977 by Will Crowther for the PDP-10 mainframe. The game was expanded upon in 1977 with help from Don Woods, and other programmers created variations on the game and ports to other systems in the following years. Wikipedia
Initial release date: 1976
Designer: William Crowther
Series: Zork
Platforms: Android, Microsoft Windows, Apple II, Commodore 64, MORE
Developers: William Crowther, Don Woods
Publishers: Xbox Game Studios, The Game Company, Duckworth Home Computing, EC Software Consulting, Inc."
Colossal Cave Adventure is a text adventure game, developed between 1975 and 1977 by Will Crowther for the PDP-10 mainframe. The game was expanded upon in 1977 with help from Don Woods, and other programmers created variations on the game and ports to other systems in the following years. Wikipedia
Initial release date: 1976
I first played it in 1977 on an IBM mainframe where my mom worked. And when she brought home the portable dumb terminal I would play from home when she was not working. I used to have tons of printouts from those games, and even sat down with them to create a map I used on later playthroughs.
I haven't read most of the posts because there's no right or wrong answer so the arguing will have no end. Personally, I dislike present tense but that doesn't make it wrong. I just don't like to read it. It seems contrived and takes away from the story because I see the writing when it should be invisible.
But the current trend, especially with young people, is present tense. I don't know if it's because of "Hunger Games," but it's there. Even the non-fiction book "Killing Lincoln," which obviously took place in the past (assassination of President Lincoln), was written in present tense.
John Updike wrote "Rabbit, Run" in present tense. From what I know, he did it because he wanted a movie made of it and present tense is like a screenplay.
The bottom line is, it's a valid tense for novels and it seems to be the trend. Will the trend continue? Who knows.
The bottom line is, it's a valid tense for novels and it seems to be the trend. Will the trend continue? Who knows.
Going back to the OP, the question at hand isn't whether or not it's valid.
The question is when did the trend towards present tense novels start and why?
I really think the timing matches up to when publishing companies stopped employing editors directly and let writers pick their own editors, and then writers who didn't know any better started insisting that those editors they hired not fix the tense. Basically, it's a last couple decades issue.
Before then, present tense was a way of signalling the work was meant to be experimental or 'literary' rather than mass market.
The question is when did the trend towards present tense novels start and why?
I found an article where the earliest present tense story found was Dickens' "The Bleak House" and even that had some past tense in it. So that was 1852. Why Dickens wrote it in present tense, who knows.
The article's author said before that there was present tense in a novel, but it was the author talking to the reader. So he said "The Bleak House" was the first which was published in 1852 and wasn't 100% present tense.
I already mentioned John Updike's "Rabbit, Run" written in present tense. Some say it's the first present tense novel, but it's not. It was published in 1960. "Updike said he used it intentionally because it was the perfect fit for his jumpy, unstable protagonist." But I also read he wrote it that way to pave the way to make it into a movie.
As I said, "Rabbit, Run" is said to be the first, but James Joyce's "Ulysses" was written in present tense and published 1918. The article didn't give a reason other than Joyce was known for experimenting.
"All Quiet on the Western Front" was present tense and published in 1929. Why was it written in present tense? "To give the heightened visualization of the horrors of war."
So present tense novels are relatively new, the first being only a hundred years ago.
But why the current trend? Some say it's the Hollywood influence. Screenplays are in present tense so people learned to write in present tense. I think it was the success of "Hunger Games." I remember the discussions on wattpad with teenagers. For them there was no other proper tense.
As I said, "Rabbit, Run" is said to be the first, but James Joyce's "Ulysses" was written in present tense and published 1918. The article didn't give a reason other than Joyce was known for experimenting.
I looked up James Joyce's "Ulysses" on Project Gutenberg.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4300/4300-h/4300-h.htm
Stately, plump Buck Mulligan came from the stairhead, bearing a bowl of lather on which a mirror and a razor lay crossed. A yellow dressinggown, ungirdled, was sustained gently behind him on the mild morning air. He held the bowl aloft and intoned:
βIntroibo ad altare Dei.
Halted, he peered down the dark winding stairs and called out coarsely:
βCome up, Kinch! Come up, you fearful jesuit!
Solemnly he came forward and mounted the round gunrest. He faced about and blessed gravely thrice the tower, the surrounding land and the awaking mountains. Then, catching sight of Stephen Dedalus, he bent towards him and made rapid crosses in the air, gurgling in his throat and shaking his head. Stephen Dedalus, displeased and sleepy, leaned his arms on the top of the staircase and looked coldly at the shaking gurgling face that blessed him, equine in its length, and at the light untonsured hair, grained and hued like pale oak.
Buck Mulligan peeped an instant under the mirror and then covered the bowl smartly.
βBack to barracks! he said sternly.
He added in a preacher's tone:
There is a little bit of present tense mixed in, but that looks to be mostly past tense to me.
There is a little bit of present tense mixed in, but that looks to be mostly past tense to me.
It does to me too. Never read it.
I checked "All Quiet on the Western Front." Is starts off in present tense, but then it looks to be past tense.
Then I checked "Rabbit, Run." It seems to be present tense so maybe it is the first present tense story. And it's 1960 so it's rather recent.
There is a little bit of present tense mixed in, but that looks to be mostly past tense to me.
I just asked my wife. Her first masters is in English Literature and Creative Writing.
She said "Ulysses" is present tense. That he's talking in a stream of consciousness jumping all over the place, from his childhood to now.
I don't get it. I read the first few paragraphs and it's not present tense. Not to my understanding.
Technically, Joyce tried a lot of fucked up shit in Ulysses. IIRC, each chapter was different stylistically. Not everything was stream of consciousness. However, stream of consciousness is almost always written as present tense, except when the writer forgets.
But the current trend, especially with young people, is present tense. I don't know if it's because of "Hunger Games,"
I suspect it's because young people neither know nor give a shit about proper grammar, so don't notice incorrect tenses when they encounter them. English may in fact evolve into a pidgin form where verbs don't take multiple forms, if the trend continues.
English may in fact evolve into a pidgin form where verbs don't take multiple forms, if the trend continues.
Short of the death of multiple social media platforms, I don't see how it couldn't continue.
There are multiple SOL stories in which the author includes 'LOL' in a line of dialogue :-(
AJ
There are multiple SOL stories in which the author includes 'LOL' in a line of dialogue
I've heard young people say 'LOL' in conversation. So those stories may not be doing anything wrong, other than possibly normalizing such behavior.
There are multiple SOL stories in which the author includes 'LOL' in a line of dialogue :-(
Whilst I can understand more experienced (old) readers dislike of 'LOL' etc, it is really no different to any previous era in which acronyms were used in dialogue. After all, dialogue is supposed to be authentic to the speaker.
But what does it mean? Should the reader imagine the speaker laughing out loud at that point? And what about ROFLMAO? How do you even pronounce that?
It may work for others but I prefer to KISS.
AJ
it is really no different to any previous era in which acronyms were used in dialogue.
People would regularly use acronyms in conversation. How many times in your life have you spoken the words 'international business machines' compared to the number of times you've said 'IBM'? I think the disturbing idea to decrepit relics like AJ is that there'd be people who would actually say 'LOL' - which by now I suspect most who've spent much time around the under-25 crowd would have heard on multiple occasions.
My kids, and many of their friends, use LOL, OMG, and other textspeak verbally. If you're writing dialogue for 2020s-era teenagers, that's how many of them speak.
OMG
That's an initialism for an exclamation - you can make a case for that in dialogue. But LOL is a initialism for an action - that strikes me as subtly different.
AJ
That's an initialism for an exclamation - you can make a case for that in dialogue. But LOL is a initialism for an action - that strikes me as subtly different.
SOS
SWALK
POSH
PTO
etc
PTO
Well, 'power take-off' takes too long when you need to tell someone to keep their hands away from the PTO shaft.
SOS
SWALK
POSH
PTO
Good point. How about not just an action but a sound-creating action?
But how would SWALK occur in a conversation, except in a sort of abstracted sense?
"So I wrote a Valentine's message to Jimmy in the card, put it in the envelope and SWALKED it."
AJ
But how would SWALK occur in a conversation, except in a sort of abstracted sense?
It just did.
:)
That's an initialism for an exclamation - you can make a case for that in dialogue. But LOL is a initialism for an action - that strikes me as subtly different.
LOL I think, in texts or in dialog (actual spoken or written) should be viewed as an expression. Literally, it's "Laughing Out Loud" an action, but it could(should) be viewed as idiomatically equivalent to saying "that made me laugh".
idiomatically equivalent to saying "that made me laugh"
Could you see yourself using it in a line of dialogue in a story?
"I tied Roger's shoelaces together and videoed his faceplant LOL."
AJ
Could you see yourself using it in a line of dialogue in a story?
"I tied Roger's shoelaces together and videoed his faceplant LOL."
In the right context, yes.
Could you see yourself using it in a line of dialogue in a story?
"I tied Roger's shoelaces together and videoed his faceplant LOL."
I have heard it used exactly that way out loud by teens. Generally by girls, FWIW.
How many times in your life have you spoken the words 'international business machines' compared to the number of times you've said 'IBM'?
Us decrepit relics are probably the only ones who even know IBM is an acronym.
IBM
With a space between the I and the BM it indicates the speaker has or had a bowel movement. If he Republicans, he decided to Go P.
Us decrepit relics
What do you mean 'us'? I self-identify as a fossil, not a relic, now get off my lawn.
Short of the death of multiple social media platforms
I don't have any problem with that idea.
In a feature probably aimed at XX women, my paper today has a former editor's pick of this year's best bonkbusters. Six titles are listed - four use past tense, the other two use present. As to POV, even the short sample from each suggests the authors didn't have a firm grasp of the topic.
AJ
With the thread starting to drift a bit, I thought we could now discuss the differences between the use of canvass tents and nylon tents and animal hide tents.
Nylon tents are well and good, but they usually are not as rugged as the other two options.
All have good and bad points. One could compile a list of protents and contents.
Did camping prior to their invention really occur, or was it just pretents?
Caution. Discussions could become intents.
With the thread starting to drift a bit, I thought we could now discuss the differences between the use of canvass tents and nylon tents and animal hide tents.
"Since the days Homo erectus, every kid throughout history has heard their parents squabbling over which tent pole goes where and would that gall-darned wind just stop blowing for one miserable minute so they could get the thing up.
A tent β first and foremost β provides the basic survival need of shelter. History's first tent dwellers likely would have ditched their lean-to for an energy efficient stone cottage with a jetted bathtub and 500 channels on cable. Today's tent dwellers (at least in North America) are typically looking to swap those modern trappings for an experience more evocative of a simpler time.
Of course, it's easy to romanticize the notion of "simpler time." The first evidence of tent construction can be carbon dated to around 40,000 B.C. While structurally rudimentary, the protective elements of the tents were made from Mammoth hides. Not so simple when your after-school chore consists of slaying, cleaning and sewing the hide of an 8-ton, 13-foot tall elephant.
Over the course of a few millennia, our ancestors realized the mammoth-motel lacked in some practical applications, like portability for their increasingly nomadic lifestyle. You just can't hold a good Homo sapiens down. Enter the yurt and the teepee (depending on your continent).
The hallmark of both the yurt and the teepee is ease of mobility. Folks from around 450 B.C. could follow the beast-du-jour migration or the seasonal flow of water. Essentially, early yurts and teepees served as the first iterations of the modern cab-over camper.
Yurt and teepee designs were sound enough to stand the test of time with minimal adaptation. To this day, Homo sapiens 'Rocky Mountain hippie-ius' still yearn for yurt living and backcountry yurt holidays.
As societies moved from nomadic to agrarian, complicated feats of portable architecture replaced simplistic engineering. With the species settling down, a tent came to symbolize a particular breed of wildness β whether as recreational pastime or enforced living.
Child labor could no longer be counted upon for preparing hides for the shelter, and the Industrial Revolution made heavy canvas and waxed fabrics easy to find. Tents were heavy, difficult to erect and inevitably stinky. Wall tents, still the preference of the military and many outfitters, loosely followed the form of the yurt and maximized indoor space. On the flip side, camping enthusiasts and outdoorspeople favored smaller versions of tent living. They sought structures falling somewhere between a teepee and a lean-to. These were still heavy and stinky, but less difficult to erect and better suited for turn of the 20th Century "light and fast" bragging rights.
Tent technology stayed fairly static until the fabric and materials revolution of the 1970's. Nylon, which was invented by the DuPont Company in 1935, began its longtime reign as the go-to tent material. And the same tortured minds that brought us polyester leisure suits can be credited with a gigantic leap in making recreational tents lightweight and more weather resistant. Aluminum tent poles lightened the load even further.
Today, if you can dream of a perfect tent, there's a good chance it already exists. Lightweight, portable and extremely weather resistant, we should all take a moment to thank our ancestors for the millennia of R&D to arrive at 2013's tent technology.
The only concern is for today's children. With tents so easy to erect, what will the youth of today do without the inevitable family fight the first time the tent is pitched in the backyard or the backcountry? We can only hope they'll build new memories for a new generation.
*Nylon and polyester are truly wonder materials for your outdoor shelter needs. The main drawback is that these synthetic materials breakdown under UV light. Treat with Nikwax Tent and Gear SolarProof to guard against UV deterioration and to maintain water-repellency over the life of your tent."
*Nylon and polyester are truly wonder materials for your outdoor shelter needs. The main drawback is that these synthetic materials breakdown under UV light.
IIRC, polyester resists breakdown under UV light far longer than polyamid (there are slight differences between PA6.6 aka Nylon, PA6 aka Perlon and PA11 aka Rilsan).
Canvas made from plant fibres (hemp, linen, cotton or ramie) isn't any better concerning UV stability and has another major drawback: it rots if stored wet and it takes far longer to dry.
HM.
(I forgot the exact numbers, it's more than 50 years since I got my engineer degree in textile chemistry.)
I thought we could now discuss the differences between the use of canvass tents and nylon tents and animal hide tents.
My only experience with a tent was in the army. What I remember about it was that if you touched it from the inside (it was raining), the water came through.
My only experience with a tent was in the army. What I remember about it was that if you touched it from the inside (it was raining), the water came through.
So the army didn't know or care. It's easy to avoid this effect: put a second, slightly larger tent over the tent, so the distance between the two tents is about 3" to 4". Only if you carelessly press the inside up to contact the outer canvas, water will come through. I know because as a child I was careless.
HM.
put a second, slightly larger tent over the tent
These were Army one-man pup tents for the field.
Cotton bedsheet + excited post-pubescent XY male = tent.
Well, this is a sex story site ;-)
AJ
It"d take a miracle...
Perhaps. Last time he swallowed the 'blue' pill too slowly... And got a stiff neck.
:)
That's (Smarties) what my father always called M&M's. Never figured out why until my first UK visit.
That's (Smarties) what my father always called M&M's. Never figured out why until my first UK visit.
This is what Americans know as Smarties ( https://www.smarties.com/ ) which is nothing like an M&M.
This is what Americans know as Smarties ( https://www.smarties.com/ ) which is nothing like an M&M.
You should have looked at joyR's link. The original Smarties are nothing like the US version. The UK version goes back to 1882, at which time it was called chocolate beans. In 1937 they were renamed Smarties.
Forrest Mars Sr witnessed soldiers eating British Smarties during the Spanish civil war. At the time, they were favored due to the hard candy shells not allowing the chocolate to melt out in warm environments. Which btw was the not so subtle inspiration for the slogan "melts in your mouth not your hands."
Bottom line is, the idea was ripped off from the British.
As for your linked version:
https://www.smarties.com/our-story/
The founder of that company emigrated from the UK in 1949. He then founded that company and ripped off the name smarties which he undoubtedly got from his country of origin.
The founder of that company emigrated from the UK in 1949. He then founded that company and ripped off the name smarties which he undoubtedly got from his country of origin.
And oddly, he only bothered to trademark the name in the US. The prototype M&Ms are sold under their original name in Canada.
I didn't see this mentioned (apologize if it was) but you could make a pretty good argument that doing a fight scene in the present tense lends a breathless air to the action
When I was doing my tense/mood series, I omitted the simple present and the simple past from the exercise because they were too prevalent.
I call it the 'false present' because everybody understands that you're not saying that it is actually going on when you tell it. It is quite common in the stories people actually tell:
"There I am, walking along, minding my own business, when this joker comes up to me and says, . . ."
Drama -- including film drama -- doesn't count, because we are talking out the tense in which the story is told, and not the dialogue. In drama, the story is told, not shown.
It is quite common in the stories people actually tell:
"There I am, walking along, minding my own business, when this joker comes up to me and says, . . ."
I don't tell stories that way.
No one in my family tells stories that way.
I have never met anyone who tells personal stories that way.
"There I am, walking along, minding my own business, when this joker comes up to me and says, . . ."
"The Knight is dark and I'm full of oxycodone"
