A technical question: switching from past to past perfect.

[tomlitilia]

I always write stories in past tense. It just sounds more realistic that way I suppose, like someone is retelling something that happened rather than something happening at this very minute.
I'm now “working” on a story where a character recalls a previous event. The natural thing is to switch to past perfect (e.g. she had been drinking heavily). After a few paragraphs I get a bit fed up with it though. There is just so many “had” you can squeeze into a sentence before it loses the flow. Do you think it's OK to seamlessly switch to past tense when describing the recalling event, or is the inconsistency confusing?
Consider e.g.
“They had been drinking more than a few glasses of champagne before heading to the photo studio, and had arrived a giggly bunch. The bride first refused to be photographed, but given how little persuasion it took, it was obviously just an act.”

 

[NOIRTRASH]

I always write stories in past tense. It just sounds more realistic that way I suppose, like someone is retelling something that happened rather than something happening at this very minute.
I'm now “working” on a story where a character recalls a previous event. The natural thing is to switch to past perfect (e.g. she had been drinking heavily). After a few paragraphs I get a bit fed up with it though. There is just so many “had” you can squeeze into a sentence before it loses the flow. Do you think it's OK to seamlessly switch to past tense when describing the recalling event, or is the inconsistency confusing?
Consider e.g.
“They had been drinking more than a few glasses of champagne before heading to the photo studio, and had arrived a giggly bunch. The bride first refused to be photographed, but given how little persuasion it took, it was obviously just an act.”

Its called THE HADS. Call it what it is: THEY DRANK MORE THAN A FEW GLASSES OF CHAMPAGNE...AND ARRIVED A GIGGLY BUNCH.

Use past perfect when comparing events that happened at different times if there's confusion about it. Your sentence contains BEFORE so the 1st had is unnecessary, and the second is redundant. THEY DRANK CHAMPAGNE BEFORE THEY WENT TO THE PHOTO STUDIO. Try THEY WERE DRUNK AND GIGGLY WHEN THEY ARRIVED AT THE PHOTO STUDIO.

 

[HandsInTheDark]

Consider e.g.
“They had been drinking more than a few glasses of champagne before heading to the photo studio, and had arrived a giggly bunch. The bride first refused to be photographed, but given how little persuasion it took, it was obviously just an act.”

They'd been drinking champagne - a lot of it, as I recall - and arrived giggling. The bride refused to be photographed, but it didn't take a lot of persuading to change her mind.

People simplify tenses when talking all the time, unless precision is really needed. Once you establish it's a recollection, the tenses can stay simple.

 

[sr71plt]

Simple past throughout probably would work--would need to see more of the text, though, to be sure about that.

 

[Gorza]

I use the perfective aspect all the time in writing; it's a bad habit (like using semicolons). The general effect of the perfective is distance events. A fiction writer wants to draw the reader into events, so the perfective can militate against this. Although using the perfect is the correct choice when some recounts events before the time frame of a story which is written in the past, it isn't good fiction writing. Like 1001 Nights, you want to draw the reader into the story within the story. Dropping perfectives wherever you can, helps make your writing fresher and more immediate.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

HAD is an auxillary verb. Auxillary verbs are shortcuts used in place of repetition. Lazy writers use them in place of good writing.

 

[Gorza]

HAD is an auxillary verb. Auxillary verbs are shortcuts used in place of repetition. Lazy writers use them in place of good writing.

Yes, 'have' is an auxiliary verb; no, its use cannot be described as 'in place of repetition'. To write English, one needs to know how to use auxiliary verbs. I have used three auxiliaries in this reply.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Yes, 'have' is an auxiliary verb; no, its use cannot be described as 'in place of repetition'. To write English, one needs to know how to use auxiliary verbs. I have used three auxiliaries in this reply.

Out on the edge are new learnings.

 

[NaokoSmith]

That reads fine to me. I get that you have moved to a previous time, and are in a flashback from the "They had been drinking more than a few glasses ...", then it flows well from there.

Is it worth you posting how you transition back into the current past moment? or do you feel that bit is OK.

 

[Handley_Page]

I always felt that the description of the English language is as complicated as the language itself.

I mean, come on, "Past Perfect"?
We didn't do that at my school . . . .

 

[NaokoSmith]

I always felt that the description of the English language is as complicated as the language itself.

I mean, come on, "Past Perfect"?
We didn't do that at my school . . . .

That's because you have always been 'perfect'

 

[MichaelinChina]

That's because you have always been 'perfect'

Trust Naoko to appear to have diverted from the topic.

 

[NaokoSmith]

Trust Naoko to appear to have diverted from the topic.

I endeavour to make my appearances diverting

 

[Handley_Page]

I endeavour to make my appearances diverting

They usually are, Dear.

 

[Hypoxia]

I have been long past perfect for years.

Or maybe I haven't attained perfection yet.

I've read that perfection is attainable only in death.

Thus to be past perfect is to be a ghost, or reincarnated.

Logical, yes?

 

[NaokoSmith]

I have been long past perfect for years.

Or maybe I haven't attained perfection yet.

I've read that perfection is attainable only in death.

Thus to be past perfect is to be a ghost, or reincarnated.

Logical, yes?

Perfectly logical, as ever, dear H.

 

[Hypoxia]

Perfectly logical, as ever, dear H.

The telling point of any logic is to check the conclusion against reality. But I'm in no rush here.