I'm reading a book at the moment written in first person present tense, and though this author's writing is better than many examples, I'm still finding myself picking up a lot of places where the first-present mode isn't done "properly". By which I mean, of course, "to my taste".
My main reason for this thread is to find out if many people share my view about the best way to do it, or whether (as is possible) I'm being unusually and hopelessly picky.
In third person, we're familiar with the difference between omniscient and close-third. In close third the text keeps to what the character knows and sees, their own style of language, etc. In a close-third POV a text wouldn't have a character in a heated battle reminisce at length about what he had for dinner the night before; it would break the illusion that was are in the character experience, which is the thing that creates immediacy. But in omni such a thing might work if done for a good reason, because the narrator is not the character.
In first person, everything is close to the character automatically, because character and narrator are the same. But you could say that first-past is something like omni in third, because it is a tale told at a distance (but in time rather than person), and first-present is, or ought to be, like close-third, but perhaps even tighter.
Present tense is held to be more immediate, and I think this is why it is often chosen, especially in YA. (It was almost never seen before The Hunger Games, and is now almost ubiquitous.) But for that to work, to my mind, it needs to reflect the real-time experience of the character. At its most stark, this means it should be as close as possible to a combination of unfiltered sensory experience, and direct thought.
So, "I stare at the view for five minutes" to me doesn't work. It suggests that the character's chief awareness is of themselves looking at the view. But in reality, their awareness should be of the view itself. The passage should be a description of the view, with the "I" suppressed.
Similarly, "I lie on the bed and think about what we did last night" suggests the character's main focus is of themselves thinking. The author would do better to just relate the thoughts. Incidentally, such periods of reflection are about the only times when flashbacks work in first-present. People don't in reality tend to think about past events in detail when they're engaged in something else that needs their attention.
I realise this is taking a pretty hard view of what first-present should be like. And it is really hard to write well. Some things that require almost no thought at all in past tense become almost impossible, especially "summary" passages. For example, I don't think you could use a linking method like, "Two hours later, we start off again", because the word "later" belongs to the time of stopping, and we are now in the moment of starting (if that makes sense). Even "After two hours, we start off again" suggests that the character, at the moment of starting, is focused on the length of time since stopping. Which they might be in certain circumstances, but probably not many.
Is this being really picky? Most critiquers don't hesitate to point out when a close-third text does something that feels too distanced for that mode. And yet I almost never see first-present done this rigorously, or at least not consistently throughout a text. A lot of it feels like past tense translated into present, in a way that someone might in real life when telling an anecdote after the event ("so I go up to him and give him his money, and he says ...").
So, to what extent is this "tight" version of first-present necessary, or desirable?
My main reason for this thread is to find out if many people share my view about the best way to do it, or whether (as is possible) I'm being unusually and hopelessly picky.
In third person, we're familiar with the difference between omniscient and close-third. In close third the text keeps to what the character knows and sees, their own style of language, etc. In a close-third POV a text wouldn't have a character in a heated battle reminisce at length about what he had for dinner the night before; it would break the illusion that was are in the character experience, which is the thing that creates immediacy. But in omni such a thing might work if done for a good reason, because the narrator is not the character.
In first person, everything is close to the character automatically, because character and narrator are the same. But you could say that first-past is something like omni in third, because it is a tale told at a distance (but in time rather than person), and first-present is, or ought to be, like close-third, but perhaps even tighter.
Present tense is held to be more immediate, and I think this is why it is often chosen, especially in YA. (It was almost never seen before The Hunger Games, and is now almost ubiquitous.) But for that to work, to my mind, it needs to reflect the real-time experience of the character. At its most stark, this means it should be as close as possible to a combination of unfiltered sensory experience, and direct thought.
So, "I stare at the view for five minutes" to me doesn't work. It suggests that the character's chief awareness is of themselves looking at the view. But in reality, their awareness should be of the view itself. The passage should be a description of the view, with the "I" suppressed.
Similarly, "I lie on the bed and think about what we did last night" suggests the character's main focus is of themselves thinking. The author would do better to just relate the thoughts. Incidentally, such periods of reflection are about the only times when flashbacks work in first-present. People don't in reality tend to think about past events in detail when they're engaged in something else that needs their attention.
I realise this is taking a pretty hard view of what first-present should be like. And it is really hard to write well. Some things that require almost no thought at all in past tense become almost impossible, especially "summary" passages. For example, I don't think you could use a linking method like, "Two hours later, we start off again", because the word "later" belongs to the time of stopping, and we are now in the moment of starting (if that makes sense). Even "After two hours, we start off again" suggests that the character, at the moment of starting, is focused on the length of time since stopping. Which they might be in certain circumstances, but probably not many.
Is this being really picky? Most critiquers don't hesitate to point out when a close-third text does something that feels too distanced for that mode. And yet I almost never see first-present done this rigorously, or at least not consistently throughout a text. A lot of it feels like past tense translated into present, in a way that someone might in real life when telling an anecdote after the event ("so I go up to him and give him his money, and he says ...").
So, to what extent is this "tight" version of first-present necessary, or desirable?
