Struggles with keeping tense consistent

[XerXesXu]

Ability to handle tenses correctly is one of the hallmarks of an educated writer. The appalling lack of familiarity on the part of most writers here with the pluperfect tense is a particular annoyance and example of this lack of education. If one writes a narrative in the simple past and then tries to use it again when referring wthin that narrative sequence to a previous occurrence, one is straightforwardly wrong to the point of being misleading/misunderstood, at least to the extent of lacking clarity. One cannot say: 'He phoned at midday as he did (correct: had done) at eleven'.

It gives me no pleasure at all to say that our North American friends specifically are bad in this regard... the tense seems to be on the point of extinction on the other side of the Atlantic....

He phoned at midday as at eleven. He phoned at midday as he phoned at eleven. The key is 'at eleven'.

 

[ElectricBlue]

He phoned at midday as at eleven. He phoned at midday as he phoned at eleven. The key is 'at eleven'.

That's clunky, either way you read it. Would you actually say either of those variants? I'm with Magineer on the correct tense reading on this one.

 

[SimonDoom]

Ability to handle tenses correctly is one of the hallmarks of an educated writer. The appalling lack of familiarity on the part of most writers here with the pluperfect tense is a particular annoyance and example of this lack of education. If one writes a narrative in the simple past and then tries to use it again when referring wthin that narrative sequence to a previous occurrence, one is straightforwardly wrong to the point of being misleading/misunderstood, at least to the extent of lacking clarity. One cannot say: 'He phoned at midday as he did (correct: had done) at eleven'.

It gives me no pleasure at all to say that our North American friends specifically are bad in this regard... the tense seems to be on the point of extinction on the other side of the Atlantic....

The problem, though, is that extra word "had." It may in many instances be correct, but it's clunky.

I think KeithD wrote about this at some point: that editors encourage authors to find ways of avoiding past perfect and opt for simple past tense instead (I wouldn't know because I have no experience dealing with professional fiction editors). I try to do this. For instance, if I have an extended section of a story set in simple past tense where a character is recalling something from prior to that, I'm likely to set it off and tell THAT passage in simple past tense, simply because it sounds better. I think it can be done, and done effectively. It's annoying to read a long passage told in past perfect tense, even if it is grammatically correct.

 

[XerXesXu]

That's clunky, either way you read it. Would you actually say either of those variants? I'm with Magineer on the correct tense reading on this one.

Yes. Good English sounds very clipped to the foreign ear, but it's correct. You didn't link the tense shift you referred, any chance? Might be interesting and instructive to use examples.

 

[Winter_Fare]

He phoned at midday as he had at eleven?

 

[TheRedChamber]

He phoned at midday as he had at eleven?

He phoned again at midday just as he had done at eleven.

I have difficulty parsing the meaning of the other versions - maybe context would help.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Mmmm, and I imagine you don't put any stock into the endless conversations on these forums about how voting is affected by considerations apart from that on a regular basis. I imagine you think that LW one-bombing - and all kinds of similar one-bombing from various categories' communities - is all about the writing, not about the substance. I imagine you also don't care to do a review of just how weak the negative correlation is between vote scores and objectively-incorrect writing.

Voting doesn't mean anything, especially in LW. No one in LW is 1-bombing based on content, style or least of all grammar. It is purely rooted in juvenile aspects of morals and kink shaming, so we can dismiss that argument entirely with the wave of a hand.

Ability to handle tenses correctly is one of the hallmarks of an educated writer. The appalling lack of familiarity on the part of most writers here with the pluperfect tense is a particular annoyance and example of this lack of education. If one writes a narrative in the simple past and then tries to use it again when referring wthin that narrative sequence to a previous occurrence, one is straightforwardly wrong to the point of being misleading/misunderstood, at least to the extent of lacking clarity. One cannot say: 'He phoned at midday as he did (correct: had done) at eleven'.

It gives me no pleasure at all to say that our North American friends specifically are bad in this regard... the tense seems to be on the point of extinction on the other side of the Atlantic....

Now, I'll say that I'm pretty brainy, and in my own writing I go through my sentence structure with a fine-toothed comb, but I'm no grammar snob. I suppose that you'd dismiss a terrific story teller like Bukowski outright simply because every other sentence of his is a fragment. That's your loss, but then again with a post so snooty as yours that suggests that your own home culture is superior to a foreign one, the elitist in you neither has any time for a voice of common folk. My advice to you would be to lighten up.

 

[000zing]

He phoned at midday as he had (phoned) at eleven?

Your version is correct but only because the past participle "phoned" is assumed after "had". You are using the pluperfect in its elided mode.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Off the top of my head, I can think of a couple of popular mainstream authors whose works are often written in the present tense, meaning the story is being told as it unfolds.

Most of the Jack Reacher novels by Lee Child are present tense. The same with a lot of David Baldacci's works. Present tense is common in action/adventure writing, maybe not so much in erotica.

I happen to have "The Mammoth Book of Erotica" handy, so I skimmed through the stories to check for a sample of tense choices in print erotica.

Out of 31 short stories/excerpts from different authors, 23 (i.e. about three quarters) are written consistently in past tense (or at least as far as I noticed on a quick skim through).

The other 8 all use present tense. Six use present throughout; Leonard Cohen's "Beautiful Losers" hops between past and present; Chris Mazza's "Between Signs" switches between past, present, and future, though maybe more future & present than past. One is told largely in present imperative, in the "I-you" style that's so disliked here.

If that's anything to go by, I'd say past is the default, but present is not an uncommon choice. Perhaps worth noting that 50 Shades is in present tense, though I'm not sure which side of the argument is helped by that observation...

 

[Winter_Fare]

Your version is correct but only because the past participle "phoned" is assumed after "had". You are using the pluperfect in its elided mode.

For flow. So it isn't clunky, but is still correct x

 

[Magineer]

Repeated or ongoing use of the present tense for narration is to be avoided, in my view.

There are good reasons why past tense has historically been the one of choice in story telling, not least because this then allows the present to be used (on an occasional basis) to give greater force or immediacy. In this guise it has often been called the 'vivid present': 'He came (simple past) in and poured (simple past) himself a drink. He took (simple past) a seat and mulled (simple past) over what had been said (pluperfect) earlier. Suddenly the phone rings (vivid present) and what does (vivid present) he do? He takes (vivid present) fright and leaves (vivid present)'.

It lends itself to this use as a kind of jerking shock tactic. It says to the reader: you are really there. Believe!

On the other hand, continuous use of the present smacks of something approaching desperation to convince on the part of the writer, as if there were some secret fear of being incompetent in putting things across adequately with the past... and, oh yes, it gets bloody boring...

 

[HectorBidon]

Here is a story that I think uses the present tense quite effectively: Close Encounters of the Fourth Kind by Cydia. In fact, I was a good way into it, caught up in the action, before I realized that it was written in the present tense. It's a first-person story, with a plucky, loquacious narrator, whose ongoing commentary is a rich montage of remembrances, aphorisms, and attitude, expressed, appropriately, using the full palette of grammatical tenses. But when the action comes, it is told in the present tense:

I look around cautiously. The manager has disappeared into the kitchen area as fast as his five stubby legs could carry him -- surprise, surprise. Other clients are equally slinking out the doors or otherwise vacating the site. Unfortunately, I don't think I really have that option now that I've caught the attention of everyone on this table.

A pretty full-bodied present tense, notice: not just a sing-song "I do this, then I do that"--- a present tense that employs not only the simple present ("I look"), but also the present perfect ("has disappeared") and the present progressive ("are slinking") to capture the temporal relationships of all the auxiliary actions that are swirling around the narratorial now.

So I'd offer this as an example of a story in which the use of the present tense is not cringe-worthy at all, but actually disappears into the compelling rush of the story, the way good writing is supposed to do.

The consistency of the tenses in the story flows naturally from the plucky, insistent voice of the narrator. She's got a story to tell, and, by damn, she's telling it. That's not to say that it didn't take a lot of hard work and talent on the part of the author to create and sustain that voice.

 

[SimonDoom]

I don't think it matters that much as long as you are consistent. If you do it right, then most of your readers will be OK with it.

The main problem with present tense is that authors don't do it right. They start in present tense but then they forget and lapse into past tense because that's what they are most familiar with, since the vast majority of stories are told in past tense. As long as you are disciplined and careful, either one can work just fine. If you are undisciplined and careless, it doesn't matter which tense you choose; it won't work.

 

[XerXesXu]

There are good reasons why past tense has historically been the one of choice in story telling, not least because this then allows the present to be used (on an occasional basis) to give greater force or immediacy. In this guise it has often been called the 'vivid present': 'He came (simple past) in and poured (simple past) himself a drink. He took (simple past) a seat and mulled (simple past) over what had been said (pluperfect) earlier. Suddenly the phone rings (vivid present) and what does (vivid present) he do? He takes (vivid present) fright and leaves (vivid present)'.

I'm pleased to know it has a name. My familiarity with the 'vivid present' comes from listening to engaging raconteurs tell their stories.

 

[000zing]

Repeated or ongoing use of the present tense for narration is to be avoided, in my view.

There are good reasons why past tense has historically been the one of choice in story telling, not least because this then allows the present to be used (on an occasional basis) to give greater force or immediacy. In this guise it has often been called the 'vivid present': 'He came (simple past) in and poured (simple past) himself a drink. He took (simple past) a seat and mulled (simple past) over what had been said (pluperfect) earlier. Suddenly the phone rings (vivid present) and what does (vivid present) he do? He takes (vivid present) fright and leaves (vivid present)'.

It lends itself to this use as a kind of jerking shock tactic. It says to the reader: you are really there. Believe!

On the other hand, continuous use of the present smacks of something approaching desperation to convince on the part of the writer, as if there were some secret fear of being incompetent in putting things across adequately with the past... and, oh yes, it gets bloody boring...

I'll second that "boring" bit. Also smart-alecky and gimmicky, not a little.

 

[AlexBailey]

My tip is to stick with past tense, if this is an issue. Most stories are written in past tense. This is a very common problem because authors get it into their heads that for some reason they should write in present tense, but past tense is far more common and more natural so they revert to past tense without thinking. You eliminate the problem if you just always write in past tense. That's what I do. I have never written a story in present tense. I see no reason to do so. I don't agree at all that present tense does a better job pulling readers into the story. The proof against that position is that the vast, vast majority of stories and novels are in past tense and they do just fine.

If you want to write in present tense, then go ahead, but proof your story very carefully. I'll just say, for myself -- I hate careless tense-shifting. It takes me right out of the story. It is, to me, one of the top-5 errors of shoddy writing, and it's an extremely common problem at Literotica.

I’m not intending to being critical here, but while you say that past tense is “more natural,” your entire post here is in present tense.

 

[AlexBailey]

One advantage to writing in present tense is that it’s easier differentiate when you are writing recollections or about a character’s past by shifting to past tense.

Some popular present tense novels:


One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest
To Kill a Mockingbird
Catcher in the Rye
The Hunger Games

 

[TheRedChamber]

I’m not intending to being critical here, but while you say that past tense is “more natural,” your entire post here is in present tense.

Come on, you know the difference between a narration (where choice to tense is flexible) and a description of things are they currently are (where tense is not at all flexible).

 

[SimonDoom]

One advantage to writing in present tense is that it’s easier differentiate when you are writing recollections or about a character’s past by shifting to past tense.

Some popular present tense novels:

Catcher in the Rye
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest
To Kill a Mockingbird
The Hunger Games

Catcher in the Rye and To Kill A Mockingbird are told primarily in the past tense, not the present tense. In both novels, the present tense is used to demonstrate that the bulk of the story is being told at a time that is more recent and apart from when the main events of the story happen. But it's mostly past tense. In TKAM it makes sense because the story narrates the experiences of a young girl, but in language that only an adult would be able to narrate.

 

[AlexBailey]

Come on, you know the difference between a narration (where choice to tense is flexible) and a description of things are they currently are (where tense is not at all flexible).

I’m just referring to what is a “more natural” writing style.

 

[SimonDoom]

I’m not intending to being critical here, but while you say that past tense is “more natural,” your entire post here is in present tense.

Chat room posts are something totally different from fiction. There would be no way for me to communicate with you in a chat via past tense. It would sound absurd. Stories are something totally different.

 

[AlexBailey]

Catcher in the Rye and To Kill A Mockingbird are told primarily in the past tense, not the present tense. In both novels, the present tense is used to demonstrate that the bulk of the story is being told at a time that is more recent and apart from when the main events of the story happen. But it's mostly past tense. In TKAM it makes sense because the story narrates the experiences of a young girl, but in language that only an adult would be able to narrate.

Yeah, sorry. I was conflating present tense and first person when I added that.

 

[Winter_Fare]

Repeated or ongoing use of the present tense for narration is to be avoided, in my view.



There are good reasons why past tense has historically been the one of choice in story telling, not least because this then allows the present to be used (on an occasional basis) to give greater force or immediacy. In this guise it has often been called the 'vivid present': 'He came (simple past) in and poured (simple past) himself a drink. He took (simple past) a seat and mulled (simple past) over what had been said (pluperfect) earlier. Suddenly the phone rings (vivid present) and what does (vivid present) he do? He takes (vivid present) fright and leaves (vivid present)'.



It lends itself to this use as a kind of jerking shock tactic. It says to the reader: you are really there. Believe!



On the other hand, continuous use of the present smacks of something approaching desperation to convince on the part of the writer, as if there were some secret fear of being incompetent in putting things across adequately with the past... and, oh yes, it gets bloody boring...

Interesting.

I can work with either, and I enjoy both. I don't see how the tense alone can make a story boring. In my experience pacing is harder to maintain in present tense, that is to say it is more prone to slowing too much, getting caught up in insignificant details, but that is more to do with skill than tense.

I have shifted tense deliberately mid narrative to draw a line between the life the MC was living, and the death they were about to experience, but I agonised over it for a while as I didn't want it to feel like an accident or mistake and throw the reader off.

I find the example you used where tense shifts mid paragraph utterly off-putting. It feels wrong

 

[Voboy]

I find the example you used where tense shifts mid paragraph utterly off-putting. It feels wrong

Agree 100%.

I'd click out of that story immediately. I might even downvote it, though I'm not usually That Guy. But generally... yeah. I think mid-paragraph tense shifts, especially extreme ones from past to present, are linguistic malpractice.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Agree 100%.

I'd click out of that story immediately. I might even downvote it, though I'm not usually That Guy. But generally... yeah. I think mid-paragraph tense shifts, especially extreme ones from past to present, are linguistic malpractice.

Yes, I think a mid paragraph shift is a mistake, to be avoided.

Further up, XerXesXu asked which of my stories was the one Simon spotted, where I inadvertently shifted to present tense in the sex scenes then lapsed back to past tense to progress the story. It wasn't a deliberate thing; indeed, I didn't even know I had done it until I saw his comment.

It does illustrate, though, the observation often made that present tense has more immediacy and intimacy than past tense, when describing passion, and is therefore "better". I don't agree with that assertion, by the way - either tense can portray deep intimacy just as effectively as the other.

It certainly flowed naturally in and out of the moment as I wrote it - I'm very much a stream of consciousness writer, and my finished product is usually very raw, as I don't edit much.

It's this one - I'd never edit it though, because in this context (first person erotica) I think it actually works. It's my second most commented on story, and other than Simon's comment, nobody comments on grammar - and in fairness to Simon, it was only a secondary observation.

https://literotica.com/s/rope-and-veil