GIVE ME THE REAL TALK.

[Omni]

So realtalk, guys. Lately my posts switched from third to first person and past to present tense. The latter switch I've always wanted to make but as I feel it lends itself to a sense of action and immediacy better. I ultimately want to write my book that way. As for first person I figure I put the characters' thoughts in so much, this way it was less awkward and jarring to crowbar their thoughts into third person or having to switch to italics if I wanted to actually use their 'voice'. It was more fun with Enel because I was able to play with the idea of having an extremely unreliable narrator. IE:

"I sniff the cheese they’d offered up before pushing it away. I look at Ganondorf to see if he’s, at least, equally disgusted by the alien’s staggeringly poor judgement. He’s practically wringing his hands and I know he wants to apologise but there’s no way he’s going to lose face in front of the other two."

As for Samus she's more flat and factual so it's less fun in that sense but I'm intending to stick to it with her as well.

My question is, what do you think of these new posts so far? Do you prefer the old style or like the new?

[Gildarts]

An eye for an eye?

[Thaal Sinestro]

I think that they're good, and that you can more easily insert tone and character into the story. You do miss out on things though, but that's just the nature of first person. I think when it'll get really interesting is when you start exploring and exploiting the limitations of the first person narrative, because using that limitation in interesting ways is what will make your choice of perspective worth it

[Jim Raynor]

The latter switch I've always wanted to make but as I feel it lends itself to a sense of action and immediacy better.

I feel like this is a common conception, but I don't buy it. Whether you're saying "I" or "Samus," or "punch" or "punched" shouldn't affect how immersive your writing is. It comes down to how you write. If you say "I feel the cold breeze caress the nape of my neck, and my skin prickles" there's barely a difference between "Samus felt the cold breeze caress the nape of her neck, and her skin prickled" because ultimately you're describing something that the reader can relate to, whether it's happening to a first person or not. It doesn't have to actually happen to the reader, they just have to be able to insert themselves into that character.

Not to mention that the reader doesn't suddenly imagine a set of actions happening faster or more intensely because it's happening "now." I've read both and I imagine both the same way. I just don't get where this idea comes from.

I certainly don't think your first person use has made your writing worse, but I also don't believe that it's made it better. It's simply a tone change.

[The Dreamer]

The main difference for me is that I prefer Thrid as I can add more detail about more than what just the character might see or feel and reduce redundancy, as in using 'I felt this' a lot.

[Omni]

The latter switch I've always wanted to make but as I feel it lends itself to a sense of action and immediacy better.

I feel like this is a common conception, but I don't buy it. Whether you're saying "I" or "Samus," or "punch" or "punched" shouldn't affect how immersive your writing is. It comes down to how you write. If you say "I feel the cold breeze caress the nape of my neck, and my skin prickles" there's barely a difference between "Samus felt the cold breeze caress the nape of her neck, and her skin prickled" because ultimately you're describing something that the reader can relate to, whether it's happening to a first person or not. It doesn't have to actually happen to the reader, they just have to be able to insert themselves into that character.

Not to mention that the reader doesn't suddenly imagine a set of actions happening faster or more intensely because it's happening "now." I've read both and I imagine both the same way. I just don't get where this idea comes from.

I certainly don't think your first person use has made your writing worse, but I also don't believe that it's made it better. It's simply a tone change.

In which case, why do we default to past?

It makes some things easier to say, but I dunno. I feel like I need to explore this further.

[Jim Raynor]

I don't know why that's the default. That's something to research. But as I said, it's pretty much the same thing. Nothing wrong with running with it though, if you feel like it's helping.

[The Dreamer]

Probs someting do to with the way we verbally tell storys.

[Magus]

It's different. I agree with you on the inner monologue; if you're going to use it a lot it's not suitable to write in 3rd person - I find it quite jarring. I'd say 1st person better lends itself to a sarcastic/witty narrator along the lines of Harry Dresden in the Dresden Files, but I think 3rd can be written from the character's perspective as well (I try to do that - you're just a touch more limited in this way than you would be in 1st person).

I don't think either is better or worse. They are different. Tools in a toolkit, that's all. I think you're better at writing 3rd but you have a lot more experience with it. Keep experimenting, I'd say; you'll find your answer in regards to which you should use on your own.

[Belle]

I use present-tense or past-tense in chatroom RPs, but just past-tense in play-by-post RPs. The former has a delay in responses measured in minutes or even seconds, and doesn't really seem like actually 'writing' to me, so perhaps that's why I think present-tense is preferable there. There's an immediacy of tone which is borne out by the speed of the back and forth.

Present tense in PBP, though, I think would be... weird. I don't think I've ever seen it done except by newbies/people speedposting and trying to treat a forum like a chat room.

[Omni]

To me it seems weird only because there is an accepted 'norm'. It was even against the rules on Chubbs. My question: other than the aforementioned reasons, why?

[Belle]

There's no reason why not except that past-tense is by far the most standard writing tense in history. People can use other tenses, and if it suits them and they put out better work, then fine, whatever.

As to WHY past-tense is the standard, I couldn't tell you; I'm not a study of literary history.

e: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://avajae.blogspot.com/2012/01/why-use-past-tense.html">http://avajae.blogspot.com/2012/01/why- ... tense.html</a><!-- m --> google-fu. Makes sense to me, at least.

Related: speaking as a reader, it's frustrating to have constant tense switches going from post to post.

[Omni]

I guess it was a rhetorical question 'cause your post implied that present-tense felt weird unless it was chat-RPing.

[Proto Man]

I think the perspective should depend on the character and what type of experience you want the reader to have. Some characters are going to be better narrators than others. Personally, I'll always prefer to use a third-person limited perspective. I don't need to feel trapped in my point-of-view character but I can still have a little bit of the fallibility that comes with first-person.

I don't know why, but I don't enjoy present tense.

But to address your actual question, Greg, I like Enel. First-person will always be most fun with a protagonist/narrator who you can't trust. I wouldn't say that the change has degraded the quality of writing with Samus (although I find myself dwelling more on the writing style than the story itself), but I don't think it's done anything positive, either.

[Deadpool]

The issue with present tense is that you can't tell a story in present tense.

I've never heard anyone tell a story in any tense other than past tense.

[The Grey Man]

Not to be a contrarian to Deadpool here, but when I'm telling a story with my mouth as opposed to my keyboard, I typically use first person present tense. It's a lot more "casual" feeling, I guess. I dunno. My meatworld friends seem to enjoy it anyway. YMMV.