Forum: Author Hangout

I raise the point, because I keep getting different responses by different editors. Some don't worry about it, some insist that I'm changing tense mid-sentence, and others advice I avoid any potential confusion. But, it's a battle I wage every time I get a new editor.

In short, do we assume readers are idiots who don't know how the English language works, or do we use the language as it was designed.

Frankly, I'm still not settled on the answer, and often deal with it on a case by case basis. (This is probably why many authors (like Switch) concentrate on present tense stories.

(This is probably why many authors (like Switch) concentrate on present tense stories.

Not me. I hate present tense stories.

Not me. I hate present tense stories.

I get the dislike of present tense stories, but I don't get why, particularly in the case of a story set in the future?

This is a stupid reason for a writer, but I've always preferred the 'fireside storyteller' model of telling stories, where an undisclosed person describes events which happened in the past (so they're over and done with). It's also known as "3rd person omniscient".

However, the current trend in the YA (Young-Adult) market is for younger writers to write 1st person, present tense stories. So, to a large degree, it's a generational divide. Younger writers write in present tense, older writers select past.

I'll let Switch relate the pros and cons of each, as he's had more of these discussions in his YA Forum.

Present tense stories read like a screen play or stage directions to me. It feels completely unnatural to me. It does not tell a story. The video or movie or play made from that script might tell a story, but not the script itself.

I'll be 46 on Monday, so I'm hardly a younger writer. :)

I get the dislike of present tense stories, but I don't get why, particularly in the case of a story set in the future?

Present tense stories sound awkward to me. Maybe it's because I grew up with the classics which were all past tense. Past tense also sounds natural to my ear because you're telling a story that happened (rather than is happening).

But I realize present tense is growing in popularity. I recently read "Killing Lincoln," which is non-fiction about the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Obviously it's a story that happened in the past. And it is written in present tense. I found it troubling to read.

I don't know about stories set in the future. Isn't "1984" written in past tense? At the time, it took place in the future.

Isn't "1984" written in past tense? At the time, it took place in the future.

That's because George Orwell knew we'd still be reading it in 2015, so he kindly wrote it in the past tense.

Thinking about it further, I would not use "they're" as a contraction for "they were." If you look "they're" up on Dictionary.com, it's a contraction for "they are." No mention about "they were."

Many people who dislike present tense stories do so because what they're used to are past tense stories and present tense ones don't feel right to them. Historically, prior to the 20th century writers used them both fairly regularly but most 20th century writers wrote only in the past tense, so that's what many people today are used to.

I think he confused you with me, mate.

In that example, I would not contract it.

Can't be regional because I use they're for both tense and I'm an Aussie while CW is half a world away.

I was educated in Sydney during the 1960s and my sister was a high school English teacher in NSW and Queensland and we both use they're and we're to mean both are and were because the usage is clear through the context. Mind you, while I was in the education system they didn't teach much on contractions at all and anything we handed in wasn't allowed to use them.

When I was in uni and tech college in ACT during the 90's the writing classes there taught contractions with the notation never to use them in technical documents or formal reports. They use the contractions for both present and past tense.

Well, "read" is worse than anything we're (we are) talking about here. It's ridiculous for that word to be both present and past tense.

Every time I read it I have to stop to determine the tense. It's absurd to use the same word for both tenses.

Grant,

In a way I've been a bit lucky with some past employments. About a decade ago I was working at a NSW uni and got to know a few of the professor well. I was speaking to one of the English profs one day and we got on to the topic of why so many stories were written in the past tense, and ended up with an hour lecture on what he believed to be the causes for that. Historically, prior to the 20th century, both past and present were well accepted. Anyway, one thing I did get out of the incident was that with the way the tense changes between dialogue and narrative when writing in the past tense you had to be a lot more specific in how you wrote, and that forced a more formal use of English on the writer which often made some parts seems stilted.

I prefer to use vernacular, and that's a lot looser than formal English because it's how we talk. And when talking we use they're for both are and were, well I do and so do everyone I've talked to. About the only time we don't contract while talking is to emphasis the uncontracted word or it doesn't have a contracted version.

Anyway, writing in the present tense means I rarely use the past tense, so it's not much of an issue for me.

Homonyms are always tricky, and they're difficult to spot. But in this case, I never realized that the British don't contract "they are". That would affect how a lot of people would read the story.

I write pretty much the same way I talk, and I say they're, ya'll, and many other Texas words. I have decided that grammar freaks have way to much time to waste trying to correct those who really don't care what they think.

KinkyWinks, that's why you need to be clear on your narrator. If you're writing about Southerners, then they should speak like Southerns. But unless your narrator is a Texan, and is identified as such, the narration should be in 'standard English' (whatever you consider that to be).

Many argue that the narration should never use contractions, but I find that a bit too formal for my tastes.

Grant: my initial question was whether I should treat readers like idiots (i.e. incapable to grasping context). It was overly strong. However, as I said, the context (mixing the tense of the contraction in each of the three sentences) was overly complex. I was clearly in the wrong, in this case, but didn't realize why it was especially confusing.

I'm also reconsidering my use of "they're" for "they were", at least in the narrative, since while it may be common usage, it's not proper English.

Many argue that the narration should never use contractions, but I find that a bit too formal for my tastes.

I followed that "rule" at one time. Then I read a Stephen King book and the narration was full of contractions. I read other current genre books and found the same. So now I use contractions in the narrative. Not always, though. Sometimes it sounds better without the contraction.

Understood, Kinky. I've long had a habit of ALL my characters talking like I do, and thus my children sound like their college professors. However, characters (including the narrator) each need their own voice, as it helps flesh out the characters. You may have trouble dropping your natural way of speaking, but you need to at least be aware of the issue.

However, characters (including the narrator) each need their own voice,

This is where I disagree -- about the narrator. I don't know if I'm right or wrong, but I have my opinion.

Yes, a first-person narrator has their own voice. Huck Finn. The boy in "Catcher in the Rye." One of the blurbs in the "Green Mile" is about the strong voice of the narrator. But the 1st-person narrator is a character in the story so it makes sense to give him his own voice, just like every other character in the story (I agree with that part of the statement).

That leaves us the omniscient narrator and the narrator in 3rd-limited.

In the article I linked to about head-hopping using "The Old Man and the Sea" as an example, the writer of the article said you need to establish the narrator right away. I don't know if he is talking about voice or simply to get into more than one character's head so you know there's an omniscient narrator. But I don't believe that kind of omniscient narrator has a voice, like a character in the story does. So I don't believe it should be written with a vernacular voice (Ernest, we'll have to disagree on this one as well). So it should be as close to formal writing as possible. Yes, contractions are acceptable and even preferred. And such things as fragmented sentences are acceptable for effect.

Now if the omniscient narrator is sort of a character in the story, like Death in "The Book Thief," then it should have a voice. But in that novel, it's a first-person omniscient narrator. I'm not sure if that ever applies to a 3rd-person omniscient narrator.

That leaves 3rd-limited. This is where I hear the most conflicting opinions. Some say the author should write each scene in the POV character's voice for that scene. I don't agree. I believe you want an invisible narrator, if you can call it a narrator. (You definitely don't want it to be the author's voice although each author has their own style.) When I say "invisible" I mean just like the camera is invisible when watching a movie. You see what the camera sees, but you don't want to know where the camera is or what model it is. And it doesn't change from scene to scene.

How the POV character acts will be reflected in how that scene is narrated, but to me that's not voice.

Yes, a first-person narrator has their own voice. Huck Finn. The boy in "Catcher in the Rye." One of the blurbs in the "Green Mile" is about the strong voice of the narrator. But the 1st-person narrator is a character in the story so it makes sense to give him his own voice, just like every other character in the story (I agree with that part of the statement).

That leaves us the omniscient narrator and the narrator in 3rd-limited.

Switch, I was switching emphasis. By 'voice', I meant 'writing style' for the narrator. Even if the narrator IS NOT a specific character, the narration should have it's own literary voice (a consistent style of speaking), even if that merely means a slightly more formal speaking tone than the other accented characters. But it does not mean a distinct character personality.

I believe because they have more thread drift.

Ah, I mess the thread drift of old (on the old GG Forum)! 'D

the narration should have it's own literary voice (a consistent style of speaking),

I agree. But this is where I've heard other opinions (on wattpad) in 3rd-limited. They say the narration changes from scene to scene as the POV character changes. I believe the narrative should be consistent throughout the novel.

I believe the narrative should be consistent throughout the novel.

This we can agree on, I think. The only time I've changed the narrator's voice in a story is when I've written in 1st person and head hopped to do a chapter with another character, then the narrator was the other character. In 3rd person omni the narrator should sound and present the same all the way through.

The only time I've changed the narrator's voice in a story is when I've written in 1st person and head hopped to do a chapter with another character, then the narrator was the other character.

That's not head-hopping. That's perfectly acceptable since you switched at the appropriate place.

In 3rd person omni the narrator should sound and present the same all the way through.

The issued is not with omni, but with 3rd-limited.

But this is where I've heard other opinions (on wattpad) in 3rd-limited. They say the narration changes from scene to scene as the POV character changes. I believe the narrative should be consistent throughout the novel.

That's different. The narration should change as the story progresses, typically the narrator will use longer sentences when explaining details, but shorter ones when the action picks up, but the narrator should speak in the same manner (same accent--or lack of one--same formality, etc.)

I think you can do both, keep a particular speaking style for a 3rd omni narrator while still modifying his speech to fit the situation.

The only time I've changed the narrator's voice in a story is when I've written in 1st person and head hopped to do a chapter with another character, then the narrator was the other character.

Ernest, I think that's usually the assumption, but I was responding to a comment by an author who said they wrote everything in a Texas accent. I agree that it's difficult to write in a foreign (to you) manner, but that's why I said you've got to actively consider what voice you want for your narrator.

The issued is not with omni, but with 3rd-limited.

Switch, in that case, you can modify the narrator's voice, say as he slips into a catatonic state, his psychiatric medication wears off, or his hatred of the MC/bad guy gets to him. 'D

You've got that one wrong, CW. Here in Australia the smallest denomination coin is five cents ($0.05) the copper one and two cent coins were abolished many years ago, but things still get priced with odd values, and some (like fuel) in part cents. All that happens is when it's totaled up it gets rounded to the nearest five cent amount if being paid for in cash, while electronic payments are in the exact amount.

You know, I'm amazed that this simple query (and the one on expressing thoughts) have SO many more responses than the other forum threads.

I believe because they have more thread drift.

School and university assignments are Formal English and contractions aren't used in Formal English. However, in fiction Formal English can look unrealistic, stilted, and read bad, which is why a lot of authors use contractions in their fiction. Making the story read more like it's spoken leads to an easier flow of the words and story.

Over the years I've written thens of millions of words in formal reports, briefs, summaries, requests, and assignments without a single contraction because I'd not think of including one in a formal document like that; still don't. Conversely, I'd not think of writing a fiction story without contractions simply because it'll look stilted and stupid.

School and university assignments are Formal English and contractions aren't used in Formal English. However, in fiction Formal English can look unrealistic, stilted, and read bad, which is why a lot of authors use contractions in their fiction. Making the story read more like it's spoken leads to an easier flow of the words and story.

Use or non-use of contractions can be a stylistic element though. I've written a lot of Star Trek fanfiction and I always let Vulcans talk without using contractions at all, which emphasizes their emotional detachment.

One caveat to Ernest's point about contractions, they're more important in dialogue, and they're optional in the narrative. In dialogue, they help characters sound more authentic. Many of us also include them in the narrative, but there's not always a compelling reason to do so (other than making the entire book feel more 'comfortable').