There are lots of people who don't like stories from the past retold in the present tense and they can be very vocal about this aversion, especially on Radio 4. But the present tense is the mode of drama, it is the mode of conversation, so why not too, the mode of story telling? Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion but as an historical novelist, I tend to seek the best possible way to recount a particular story depends on many factors, not least, and particularly with first person accounts, the fate of the narrating character. Often in historical fiction the reader is aware of the protagonist's outcome but even if the reader knows that, say, Anne Boleyn or Catherine Howard are going to end up on the block, the fact that the character does not have the benefit of hindsight creates an effect that is filled with dramatic irony and tension.
Hilary Mantel employs this to spectacular effect in Bring Up the Bodies, a novel that is tightly plotted, like a thriller, and written in a third person that is so close to protagonist Thomas Cromwell that it creates the illusion of the world seen through his eyes alone. We watch in horror as Cromwell unravels the Queen's world and even though we all know what will become of Anne Boleyn and the five men she is accused of adultery with, neither she nor they know and somehow we, as readers, are drawn into their world so completely we forget what we know about the outcome and are shocked when it comes.
Another example, though one much more straightforward and written in the first person, is from Philippa Gregory in The Boleyn Inheritance. The teenaged narrator Catherine Howard is about to be carted off to the Tower. She still believes she will be pardoned when her uncle Norfolk comes to tell her she is to die.
'You should acknowledge your sins, and ask forgiveness,' he says promptly.
I am so relieved I could almost weep. Of course I will be forgiven if I say I am sorry.
We are entirely drawn into this poor child's world watching her articulate the belief that a simple apology will suffice, when we know that nothing can save her. It is a powerful device. This moment simply wouldn't have the impact or poignance if written with hindsight. And indeed, how does one write a first person past tense account of someone who is about to die, and get away with it? But then again, anything is possible in fiction if you can make it work.
Other writers use the present historic to create layers of meaning in a text. Take Sarah Waters for example:
I do not know who cries it, she or I: I reel away unnerved. But in the second I have her skin between my fingers, my own flesh leaps in a kind of relief. I shake horribly for almost an hour. 'Oh, God!' I say, hiding my face. 'I'm afraid, for my own mind! Do you think me mad? Do you think me wicked, Sue?' 'Wicked?' she answers, wringing her hands. and I can see her thinking: A simple girl like you?
This quote from Fingersmith, illustrates the intensity and immediacy of the present. We inhabit the flesh of narrator Maud as it 'leaps' and 'shakes', and we are able to observe her watching Sue, who is not party to what the reader and narrator know. We are drawn right into the plot because we are on the inside of Maud's narration. Waters has used both present and past tenses to tell this story. Sue, the sly cockney girl relates her part in the past. This seems to be an inversion of our expectations; wouldn't a girl like Sue employ the more casual tense of the raconteur? But the past is the knowing tense, and Sue knows, or thinks she knows, exactly what is going on. Maud's narration is told in the moment, as if without hindsight. Again there is an oddness to it; Maud is a refined girl employed to read to her uncle and surely more suited to the formality of the tense of literature.
This quote from
Waters's subterfuge is clever here because, as it turns out, neither girl is what we first think and so the tense they narrate their stories in works as a key to our overall understanding. But the action is almost subliminal because, if the writing is good enough, the reader, lulled into the voice and world of the novel, loses awareness of the tricks perpetrated by the author.
So one afternoon – it must have been the middle of May 1914 – I was sitting in the cake shop with one of my occasional partners...We had long ago finished playing our usual three games, and were just idly talking about this or that... but the conversation was drowsy, and as slow as the smoke from a cigarette burning down. At this point the door suddenly opens, and a pretty girl in a fulll-skirted dress is swept in on a gust of fresh air...
Find out about Elizabeth Fremantle's novels Queen's Gambit, about Katherine Parr, and Sisters of Treason, about the younger sisters of Lady Jane Grey, on ElizabethFremantle.com
8 comments:
Excellent, well-argued post. You mention Stefan Zweig: in fact a German reader would be bemused, I suspect, by the British distrust of present tense narrative; it has been part of German writing for a long time and is, indeed, ubiquitous in Grimm's Fairy Tales. I am currently writing a novel in which I use the past tense throughout, but that is meant to be a discovered memoir.
There seems to be a lot of snobbery around the use of the present tense. I wrote my first historical novel in the present tense because I felt it fitted the story. I enjoy reading present tense just as much as past - it's far more important that a story is well written and well researched than that it's in a set tense.
I like your point about a present tense narration being suitable for a character who dies!
I think use of the present tense can bring a passage alive. It's part of creating a certain voice or tone for a book - like most things in writing how it works depends on the context and to rule out its use would be to tie one hand behind your back before you start.
Excellent piece - thank you. I think the present tense can be used to brilliant effect in historical novels. It does, however, irritate me a little when historians use it on TV and on the radio. I want facts from historians rather than to be told 'a story.'
With some books I find that I simply don't notice the tense unless I stop and think about it. Presumably this means the choice of tense is working - for this reader, at least. But I agree with Tanya about historians. I have recently been walking around a castle, reading quotes from a well-known historian, all relating to the lives of famous people in the past, and all in the present tense. It was so irritating, it was driving me round the bend!
I never notice the tense when I'm reading once I have got into a novel, but I do find it takes me a little longer to settle into a story when it's told first person present tense. This may be because there is a tendency for more literary fiction to be written with those parameters, so it takes more thinking about from the get to. Or it may be me reacting to what I am used to. Once into the novel I don't notice and indeed, if you asked me afterwards what tense it was in, I wouldn't always be able to tell you.
I can never remember the tense or the person the book was written in! All I notice is how good (or not) it is. But people do seem to get terrible bees in their bonnets about it.
Personally, I cannot understand this particular nicety. If a writer is "in the past" with the characters, the writing should be in the present tense unless something from the past is being recalled. (I have taught English composition and this is what I would do.) Otherwise I believe it does not make sense.
Post a Comment