I don't have a problem with first-person/present-tense narratives if they're done well. I've read excellent literary fiction that uses this style, and I understand why so many authors use it. First-person creates intimacy—allowing us to view the story through the protagonist's eyes. Present tense creates immediacy—which drops us right in the action as events unfold.
The intimacy and immediacy of first-person/present-tense mimic our internal monologues, making it easier to digest from both a reading and writing perspective. I've found that I'm more likely to finish a book I dislike if it's in first-person/present-tense. The writing style is accessible to the most uninterested readers, and it is part of why I was able to stay engaged in Divergent longer than Six of Crows. First-person/present-tense is also great for unreliable narrators and dynamic protagonists and gets eyes on pages even in the blandest of stories.
I don't pretend to have an unbiased view of this style. I never write in the present tense and find it hard to connect with supporting characters in first-person. If you know anything about me, you know that I'm a character reader. I love to look through the eyes of a well-defined character, but it is challenging to write distinct protagonists—especially if we're in the protagonist's head.
If we're in a protagonist's head, we have to view the story entirely through their thoughts and reactions. If the character doesn't have a distinct voice, the prose will feel bland, and the characters will feel flat. Some books are better suited to blander protagonists, but those books are often high-concept stories with well-established supporting characters and a narrative that doesn't filter through the protagonist. Stories in first-person and even third-person-limited can't escape the filter. If there's a bland protagonist and everything gets filtered through the bland protagonist, the whole story suffers.
Again, if done well, first-person/present-tense is outstanding—it's just really, really difficult. The author can't break character without breaking immersion, and therefore can't narrate outside what the character directly experiences. Immersion affects traditional ways writers introduce the setting and explain the plot. Long info-dumps and setting descriptions don't always work when filtered through first-person/present-tense. A character isn't likely to stop and describe various aspects of the setting and the plot. It's doable in past tense because it already lends itself to more reflection on the protagonist's part, but in the present tense, long pauses for description can break immersion.
This issue isn't restricted to present tense, but the immediacy of the style makes long descriptions stick out. When poorly done, it's almost like dialogue that carries unnatural exposition, like the sentence below:
"I just went to the store that burned down last year and got brownies, which we all know is your favorite food because your grandma baked them for you on the day she died."
The added exposition is jarring and unrealistic, and so are long info dumps in the present tense unless adjusted to fit the narrator. It seems common sense to adapt the portrayal of setting, characters, and plot to a first-person/present-tense narrative, but too often, authors drop the protagonist's voice when trying to flesh out their world. It's almost like writers try to reap the benefits of a third-person (a richer understanding of supporting characters and a big-picture view of the world) while writing in the first-person. Yet, the reasons why third-person works are not the reasons why first-person works, and there are inverse relationships between the two points of view.
If it were up to me, most high-concept writers (especially in science fiction and fantasy) would write in third person/past tense. Writers want to broaden the scope of what they describe and what other characters experience, but big-picture stories don't come naturally when filtered through a protagonist's eyes. High-concept, plot-heavy stories don't always focus enough on the protagonist, and reader-insert isn't engaging in first-person.
With third-person omniscient (and sometimes limited), a static protagonist can hide behind the supporting characters, and we still get a rich view of the world. With past tense, the narrative flows more naturally between lore and allows for more reflection and processing on the part of the characters. First-person/present-tense is a good option for authors who know what they're doing, but if there's even doubt, I suggest third-person/past-tense.
No matter how much easier it is to write and read, first-person stories have the entire story riding on the quality of the protagonist. If they aren't fleshed out, if they aren't well-defined, or if the prose isn't nuanced—then the story might as well be a YA dystopia.
コメント