Grammar question

[Duil2]

Disagree. The narrative past isn't written from an infinite future; it is written in a defined present.

There’s no absolute rule here, and while many editors push for strict past-tense consistency, many writers break it on purpose. Sometimes you want to emphasize that something is still an ongoing truth, or to keep the reader right inside the character’s head.

"He knew water boils at 100 degrees" sounds right.
"He knew water boiled at 100 degrees" sounds off - like maybe the laws of physics changed?

Same thing in first person:
“What was I thinking?”

Some editors would freak out and tell you to italicize it or rewrite it so it doesn't break the fourth wall. But that's exactly how a real person thinks - a natural response when reliving the moment. So unless the narrator is some detached ghost writer, the editors can fuck off.

As a volunteer editor I'd advise tense consistency but if the author is making a choice deliberately for style or voice I'd respect that (and fuck off ). I'm running the risk of entering the space time continuum here and messing up our timeline but for me this is how I see things.
If the character is in the past, then their knowledge of a fact is in the past with them. The fact itself is therefore in the past with them but, if it is unchangeable, also exists in all timelines, and therefore doesn't need to be kept in the present, as I'm expecting my reader to know this is a fact, and therefore is still as valid today as it was when my character knew this fact.
What could change, to my mind, for the character is their knowledge of the fact, not the fact itself. If I was talking to them today rather than years ago, they may have forgotten the fact they knew years ago, but that does not make the fact invalid today.
Likewise putting the fact into the past with my character, when they knew said fact, also does not make the fact any less valid, because it spans the entire space time continuum, unlike knowledge.
If my character was from a time before this fact was known, which would still be a fact, just an unknown one, I might then put the fact into the present.
'Hank knew that they had just discovered that water boils at 100 degrees.'

 

[consistentlyrepudiated]

As a volunteer editor I'd advise tense consistency but if the author is making a choice deliberately for style or voice I'd respect that (and fuck off ). I'm running the risk of entering the space time continuum here and messing up our timeline but for me this is how I see things.
If the character is in the past, then their knowledge of a fact is in the past with them. The fact itself is therefore in the past with them but, if it is unchangeable, also exists in all timelines, and therefore doesn't need to be kept in the present, as I'm expecting my reader to know this is a fact, and therefore is still as valid today as it was when my character knew this fact.
What could change, to my mind, for the character is their knowledge of the fact, not the fact itself. If I was talking to them today rather than years ago, they may have forgotten the fact they knew years ago, but that does not make the fact invalid today.
Likewise putting the fact into the past with my character, when they knew said fact, also does not make the fact any less valid, because it spans the entire space time continuum, unlike knowledge.
If my character was from a time before this fact was known, which would still be a fact, just an unknown one, I might then put the fact into the present.
'Hank knew that they had just discovered that water boils at 100 degrees.'

It's like you all came off the same assembly line... I just hope you are more careful with line breaks in actual editing.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Disagree. The narrative past isn't written from an infinite future; it is written in a defined present.

There’s no absolute rule here, and while many editors push for strict past-tense consistency, many writers break it on purpose. Sometimes you want to emphasize that something is still an ongoing truth, or to keep the reader right inside the character’s head.

"He knew water boils at 100 degrees" sounds right.
"He knew water boiled at 100 degrees" sounds off - like maybe the laws of physics changed?

Same thing in first person:
“What was I thinking?”

Some editors would freak out and tell you to italicize it or rewrite it so it doesn't break the fourth wall. But that's exactly how a real person thinks - a natural response when reliving the moment. So unless the narrator is some detached ghost writer, the editors can fuck off.

I've pondered a bit more on the issue. I automatically thought that the O.P. wrote in close 3rd person POV, and in that sense, I maintain my previous position. You shouldn't write anything in present tense if you're following the story from the character's perspective. It's jarring and formally wrong.

But, if it's 3rd person omniscient... I think that present tense works. In such writing, the narrator is often a presence, and they exist in present tense, even if the story is being told in the past. It could work. But not from close 3rd person.

 

[consistentlyrepudiated]

My main takeaway from this thread: sometimes the writer has to put their foot down and push back on the editor to preserve the unique voice or mindset of their character or narrator. If your narrator is the type who doesn't bow to "universal conventions," let them be.

While in "The old man believed people were basically selfish" the past tense confines the belief to the narrative framework, in "The old man believed people are basically selfish" the present tense points a subtle finger at the reader.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

My main takeaway from this thread: sometimes the writer has to put their foot down and push back on the editor to preserve the unique voice or mindset of their character or narrator. If your narrator is the type who doesn't bow to "universal conventions," let them be.

While in "The old man believed people were basically selfish" the past tense confines the belief to the narrative framework, in "The old man believed people are basically selfish" the present tense points a subtle finger at the reader.

Sure, it can be a matter of artistic choice if it serves a particular purpose.

But you can't control the way it's gonna be interpreted. If your writing is powerful, it will be seen as an intentional and purposeful artistic choice. You will be called innovative and bold.

But if your writing is weak, it will be mocked as illiteracy .

 

[Voboy]

You're telling a story.

Tell it in whatever way it's clear, mellifluous, and entertaining.

 

[stickygirl]

You're telling a story.

Tell it in whatever way it's clear, mellifluous, and entertaining.

Just don't tell it to editors!

I'm getting a clearer sense of this despite the to-ing and fro-ing. A narrator's voice can use present tense to recount universally acknowledged facts - don't overdo it, especially when the overall writing is close third person. A carrot cake can have some sultana, but too many makes it a fruit cake.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

It's been done before.

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife."

That's all present, though, isn't it?

 

[stickygirl]

That's all present, though, isn't it?

I read up on this... the 'universally acknowledged' is past participle acting as an adjective modifying "truth"
'must be' is a modal verb
Oh fuck, I've got another migraine coming on

 

[Purechicanery]

That's all present, though, isn't it?

I suspect the point being made is that the rest of the novel is not. Although I haven't gone to the lengths of cracking open a copy to confirm.

 

[Duil2]

Just don't tell it to editors!

I'm getting a clearer sense of this despite the to-ing and fro-ing. A narrator's voice can use present tense to recount universally acknowledged facts - don't overdo it, especially when the overall writing is close third person. A carrot cake can have some sultana, but too many makes it a fruit cake.

But who doesn't sometimes love a bit of fruitcake?

 

[TheLobster]

That's all present, though, isn't it?

It is. I'm also not sure if I'd call the narrator of Pride and Prejudice close 3P limited, at least not in the modern sense of the term, which is what I believe we've been talking about so far.

 

[Voboy]

Just don't tell it to editors!

I'm getting a clearer sense of this despite the to-ing and fro-ing. A narrator's voice can use present tense to recount universally acknowledged facts - don't overdo it, especially when the overall writing is close third person. A carrot cake can have some sultana, but too many makes it a fruit cake.

I JUST read a passage out of a nonfiction book at the gym, and since I'm paying attention to it right now this jumped out at me (the book is Starkweather, by Harry MacLean, page 156):

"On the informal advice of two local attorneys recruited by her father, she refused to sign the Statement. The UPI carried the headline 'Fugate Girl Refuses to Sign Spree Accounts.' That is, Caril refused to affirm the crimes to which she had previously admitted."

At issue in that passage would be the word "is," which is obviously present tense in an otherwise past-tense historical account. If you read that now, and go with what tHe RuLeS oF GrAmMaR say, MacLean would have written "that was" in place of the bold clause.

Which would sound fucking idiotic. Lol.

 

[SimonDoom]

I agree with Lobster. I wouldn't go so far as to say the first example, with the present tense, is "incorrect," but I agree with Lobster that sticking with past tense is better.

Imagine for a moment that the story was set in Tolkien's Middle-earth, rather than the Scottish Highlands. Then it would be obvious that it should be past tense. The tense describing the weather would be consistent with the distinct time AND place of the story telling. Why not do this with a story in the Scottish Highlands, too? Nobody cares what its weather is like now. They care about what its weather is like in the context and setting of the story. Stick with that.

The example of Jane Austen was cited. It's a good illustration of the contrary principle, but to me it's the exception that proves the rule. The opening sentence sticks out as an intrusion by the author/narrator, and it gives way to the more limited perspective of Elizabeth Bennett that dominates the story. It works because it's apt and clever and captures the overall theme of the book in one sentence. A short phrase about the weather, as in the OP's example, doesn't justify such standing-out-like-a-sore-thumb treatment.

 

[stickygirl]

I JUST read a passage out of a nonfiction book at the gym, and since I'm paying attention to it right now this jumped out at me (the book is Starkweather, by Harry MacLean, page 156):

"On the informal advice of two local attorneys recruited by her father, she refused to sign the Statement. The UPI carried the headline 'Fugate Girl Refuses to Sign Spree Accounts.' That is, Caril refused to affirm the crimes to which she had previously admitted."

At issue in that passage would be the word "is," which is obviously present tense in an otherwise past-tense historical account. If you read that now, and go with what tHe RuLeS oF GrAmMaR say, MacLean would have written "that was" in place of the bold clause.

Which would sound fucking idiotic. Lol.

"That is" could be replaced by id est, particularly as this is a legal matter and lawyer types fucking love Latin as an excuse to make their fees higher. It is a phrase that clarifies the previous statement and falls outside the rules I'd say. Hoc erat could be used if you're seriously bothered, which I'm not. Carrot cake? There are some sultanas but you can pick them out and leave them for my neighbour's dog.

 

[TheLobster]

At issue in that passage would be the word "is," which is obviously present tense in an otherwise past-tense historical account. If you read that now, and go with what tHe RuLeS oF GrAmMaR say, MacLean would have written "that was" in place of the bold clause.

The clause is in present tense because it bridges the headline, also in present tense, and the narrative explanation of the headline which then follows.

Indeed, I don’t see this as any different to shifting the narrative time (further) into the past by using past perfect (“had done”) and then continuing this shifted narrative in simple past (“did”). I do it all the time and I hope others do as well, to avoid the awkward “had hads” that a continued past perfect narration would’ve been riddled with.

(And more importantly, to avoid the ire of @Britva415 ).

 

[consistentlyrepudiated]

Wait! If she still thinks it will rain, which is correct?

"My mom told me this morning she thought it would rain today."
or
"My mom told me this morning she thinks it will rain today."

 

[MajorRewrite]

'The Scottish highlands are known for sudden storms and blizzards, so Tom set out for the Canary Islands.'

 

[Duil2]

Wait! If she still thinks it will rain, which is correct?

"My mom told me this morning she thought it would rain today."
or
"My mom told me this morning she thinks it will rain today."

Both or either.
or
This morning my mom said, "I think it will rain today." - problem solved.

 

[Bryan_C]

That is, Caril refused to affirm the crimes to which she had previously admitted."

I think this isn't quite the same case though, because "that is" is widely used as a single lexical unit to mean "in other words," rather than a grammatical construction incorporating tense, and "that was" is not.

 

[stickygirl]

Both or either.
or
This morning my mom said, "I think it will rain today." - problem solved.

Meh... I think the first is correct. The second one almost demands punctuation as a quote: "My mom told me this morning: she thinks it will rain today."

 

[liliput1]

I would also use are vs were unless the Scottish Highlands are going to change

You've already said what I was going to say. They were known? Did global warming change that? God damn it, BP!!!

A reputation held and earned is a reputation that exists in the present tense.

 

[stickygirl]

I think this isn't quite the same case though, because "that is" is widely used as a single lexical unit to mean "in other words," rather than a grammatical construction incorporating tense, and "that was" is not.

I love your single lexical unit - can we snuggle up and make it a double lexical unit or a phrasal verb?

 

[anthrodisiac]

Dear God, this is still going on? Didn't we just take my great advice and say do whichever you think is best for the voice, because both are correct, the only difference would be type of narrative voice you're using, and call it a day?

Humans, man

 

[StillStunned]

magine for a moment that the story was set in Tolkien's Middle-earth, rather than the Scottish Highlands. Then it would be obvious that it should be past tense. The tense describing the weather would be consistent with the distinct time AND place of the story telling. Why not do this with a story in the Scottish Highlands, too? Nobody cares what its weather is like now. They care about what its weather is like in the context and setting of the story. Stick with that.

The example of Jane Austen was cited. It's a good illustration of the contrary principle, but to me it's the exception that proves the rule. The opening sentence sticks out as an intrusion by the author/narrator, and it gives way to the more limited perspective of Elizabeth Bennett that dominates the story. It works because it's apt and clever and captures the overall theme of the book in one sentence. A short phrase about the weather, as in the OP's example, doesn't justify such standing-out-like-a-sore-thumb treatment.

Doesn't Terry Pratchett use this very effectively? Often starting his Discworld books with a description of a region in the present tense, then fading into past tense as the narration begins.

In the OP's example, it would work better if it started with something like "North of the border stretch the Scottish Lowlands, which give way to the Highlands, renowned as much for their natural beauty as for the fickleness of their weather. Even knowing this, Tom set out..."