The author expresses intense frustration with the pervasive use of present tense and future-focused foreshadowing, termed ”presens disease” and ”futurum curse,” in contemporary storytelling, particularly across media like television and radio. This stylistic choice, originating perhaps from a desire to create immediacy and grab the audience’s attention, has become an overused trope that undermines the narrative itself. The constant foreshadowing, often hyperbolic and dramatic, resembles a preemptive spoiler, robbing the story of its natural unfolding and suspense. The author likens this to a passenger demanding champagne before even fastening their seatbelt, highlighting the impatience and demand for instant gratification that fuels this trend.
The author notes the irony that while present tense is not inherently problematic – citing classic authors like Charles Dickens and Stefan Zweig who employed it effectively – its ubiquity today has become jarring. Even historical accounts, meant to recount past events, are now often presented in present tense, as if unfolding in real-time. This blurring of temporal lines, exemplified by the Historical Museum’s exhibits written in present tense, underscores the author’s point about the pervasiveness and, in their view, the inappropriateness of this stylistic choice. The past is being rewritten in the present, diminishing its historical context.
Furthermore, the ”futurum curse” adds another layer of annoyance. The incessant use of auxiliary verbs like ”will” and ”shall” to foreshadow dramatic events creates a sense of artificial tension and predictability. The constant anticipation of impending doom, instead of enhancing the narrative, becomes tiresome and predictable. The author argues that this overreliance on foreshadowing overwhelms the story itself, much like an elaborate scaffolding obscuring the building it surrounds. The narrative gets lost beneath the weight of its own self-proclaimed importance.
The author also draws a parallel between this popular trend and the often dry and over-explanatory style of academic writing. Academics, keen to demonstrate their control over the narrative, frequently signpost their arguments, outlining where they have been and where they are going. This constant referencing and foreshadowing, albeit in a different context, mirrors the anticipatory storytelling prevalent in popular culture. However, unlike academic writing, the popular narrative combines the present tense with dramatic, hyperbolic foreshadowing, creating a jarring and ultimately unsatisfying effect.
Intriguingly, the author admits to a degree of self-incrimination. Despite their frustration with these stylistic choices, they acknowledge their own susceptibility to falling into the same traps. This self-awareness adds a layer of complexity to the critique, suggesting a broader cultural phenomenon influencing writing styles across various platforms. The struggle to resist the allure of present tense and foreshadowing becomes a personal battle, reflecting the pervasive nature of these stylistic choices. The author’s concluding vow to resist these tendencies suggests an ongoing struggle.
Ultimately, this critique is a lament for the lost art of subtle storytelling. The author yearns for narratives that unfold naturally, allowing the reader or viewer to discover the story organically. The incessant foreshadowing and the imposition of present tense, in the author’s view, rob the narrative of its inherent suspense and power, leaving the audience feeling manipulated and overstimulated. The appeal for a return to a more measured and less intrusive narrative style underscores a desire for stories to breathe and unfold on their own terms, without the constant intrusion of anticipatory pronouncements. It is a plea to let the story tell itself, rather than constantly announcing its own arrival.
