Opinions on past-perfect?

[Britva415]

A lot of stories I read provide background in past-perfect statements. I get that it's a very handy shortcut to show context.

But it also strikes me as kind of a substitute for storytelling or for "action" statements.

Most of the time these statements could simply be made in simple-past tense. Here's a quickly-made-up example of the same very-short story told with past-perfect vs. simple past:

Dick wanted this girl.

He had been "available" since his divorce. It had been a hell of an ordeal and he was now ready to go sow some new oats.

They banged! The end.

versus

Dick got divorced. It was a hell of an ordeal.

There was this girl. He was ready to sow some new oats, so, he wanted her.

They banged! The end.

Sure, in this contrived example, it was necessary to change the order a little, but I don't think that that's the main way in which the second version is different from the first.

I suppose that, personally speaking, my main objection to too much past-perfect is repetition. "Had had had had had had had." Following that is that it's less immediate, it strikes me almost like the effect of unnecessary passive-voice.

Thoughts?

 

[yowser]

Naturally this will depend on the story's structure, but a usable dodge (still needs to be done carefully) is if the tale demands lengthy sections in past-perfect, do the first few paragraphs by the book, then smoothly slip into regular past, which I agree is easier on the eyes and brain.

You'll need to transition thoughtfully out of it, but if done well, reading won't be compromised (and all but us pedantic-author types will neither notice nor care.)

 

[alohadave]

I don't like the simple past in your example. There is no sense that there is any time difference between them.

You are already telling the story in the past tense, so having a way to indicate that something is further in the past from a character or story perspective is a useful tool.

I suppose that, personally speaking, my main objection to too much past-perfect is repetition. "Had had had had had had had." Following that is that it's less immediate, it strikes me almost like the effect of unnecessary passive-voice.

So limit how much you use it.

 

[12oclocktales]

Both are wanting. Better, perhaps:

The divorce had been a hell of an ordeal for Dick. It was time to move on, to sow some wild oats.
And this was the girl he wanted now.
They banged. The end.

A lot more could be added to this skeletal framework, but this is the gist, I think, of what you were getting at.

I'm working on a story now where using the pluperfect in one section can't be helped, as it describes something that happened before the specific action occurring at that time in the story. It looks and reads a bit strange (lots of 'hads' as you say), and easy to mess up. Editing will need a fine-tooth comb.

 

[Britva415]

if the tale demands lengthy sections in past-perfect, do the first few paragraphs by the book

Does any story actually demand it?

Couldn't they be done in simple past instead, lampshaded off as, say, a flashback or something if necessary?

 

[AlinaX]

Flashbacks are a lazy device.

 

[Britva415]

So limit how much you use it.

I do try. But I read, too.

where using the pluperfect in one section can't be helped, as it describes something that happened before the specific action occurring at that time in the story

Are you talking about one something which happened before, or a whole set of somethings which could be a narration of its own instead of a perfect-aspect fact-dump for the later thing?

I'm not saying that's what you're writing. Just, that this is how some of these things strike me.

A single sentence of past-perfect doesn't come off the way a fat section of it does - especially, say, the beginning of a story from Line 1.

It's weird to get six paragraphs in before there's any real narration or action.

 

[12oclocktales]

I do try. But I read, too.


Are you talking about one something which happened before, or a whole set of somethings which could be a narration of its own instead of a perfect-aspect fact-dump for the later thing?

I'm not saying that's what you're writing. Just, that this is how some of these things strike me.

A single sentence of past-perfect doesn't come off the way a fat section of it does - especially, say, the beginning of a story from Line 1.

It's weird to get six paragraphs in before there's any real narration or action.

In my story someone was walking in a mall when she saw something that triggered a memory of something that occurred years before. She relates the memory in detail, “My lover had asked me to meet him at 10 p.m. We had decided to go to the new club . . .” etc., all pluperfect form. It has to be this way or else it sounds like it’s just happening.

 

[Britva415]

Flashbacks are a lazy device.

It was just an idea off the top of my head.

What's a good way to do this?

 

[Cagivagurl]

Personally, and remember. I'm no expert.
I think that recollections, flashbacks are a great way to release details and spread them throughout the story.
It is better than huge info dumps left by narration.
I love the good writers who use it as a wonderful way to surreptitiously release the story, give background, fill in details.
The story should emerge slowly.
Uncovered like an unfolding tablecloth.

Cagivagurl

 

[Bramblethorn]

A lot of stories I read provide background in past-perfect statements. I get that it's a very handy shortcut to show context.

But it also strikes me as kind of a substitute for storytelling or for "action" statements.

Most of the time these statements could simply be made in simple-past tense. Here's a quickly-made-up example of the same very-short story told with past-perfect vs. simple past:

Let's pretend I'm reading your two example stories off the New Stories list.

My reactions, first version:

Dick wanted this girl.

Cool. I want to read about two people having fun fucking, that sounds like fun...

He had been "available" since his divorce. It had been a hell of an ordeal and he was now ready to go sow some new oats.

Glad life is picking up for Dick. Hope he gets laid!

They banged! The end.

Yay! I got to read a sexy story about people fucking, just like the intro promised me. Five stars!

Second version:

Dick got divorced. It was a hell of an ordeal.

Divorce? Bummer. I want to read something feel-good about people fucking and having fun, this sounds depressing. DNF.

There was this girl. He was ready to sow some new oats, so, he wanted her.

They banged! The end.

I would've enjoyed these parts, but I never got to them because the opening put me off.

Second version, take 2:

Dick got divorced. It was a hell of an ordeal.

Divorce? An ordeal? Hell yeah! I'm in the mood to read some BTB about a good dude who gets screwed over by his wife but then turns the tables on her!

There was this girl. He was ready to sow some new oats, so, he wanted her.

They banged! The end.

Wait... where did my BTB go? How can Dick be a real man if he hasn't bothered to get revenge on the wife who betrayed him? One star, cuck!!!

The sequence in which you tell the story shapes how readers will react to it. In particular, your opening is an advertisement for the rest of the story. If telling the whole thing in chronological order means it takes your readers twenty minutes to figure out what kind of story they're reading, a lot of them won't last that long.

I do agree that it's usually better to avoid long blocks of past perfect. Those should probably either be broken up into smaller pieces and drip-fed, or marked off with a scene transition to indicate flashback and then told in simple past. But you can lose a lot by constraining yourself to chronological order.

Citizen Kane. Titanic. The Usual Suspects. Memento. Forrest Gump. All non-chronological storytelling, and for various reasons probably the right choice for each of them.

 

[onehitwanda]

I find past pluperfect tense to be a massive turn-on.

 

[AlinaX]

It was just an idea off the top of my head.

What's a good way to do this?

I dislike explicit flashbacks, but the past perfect tense does allow you to weave the past into the story in a natural way. You are right that too much 'had' quickly drags the story down, so you have to use it lightly. Whenever I find myself using 'had' a lot, I stop writing and think of a different way to write the section.

One of the reasons I often write in first person present is that it allows me to use the simple past to weave in memories, and hugely cuts down on the need for anything to be in the past tense. One recent exception to this is The Ring of Perliss where I switch to present tense for dreams and visions but the main story uses the past tense.

My Anahita story has the narrative in the first person past and in Ch. 02 especially, weaves in incidents from before.

 

[KeithD]

Simple past is better.

 

[Britva415]

I find past pluperfect tense to be a massive turn-on.

I hope I’m taking this in the way it was intended when I

 

[AlinaX]

In British English we also have the golden past tense where the narrative is highly selective and any questionable ethics are glossed over.

 

[SimonDoom]

Nobody wants to read a long passage or rememberance in past perfect tense, e.g.:

He had loved her for as long as he could remember. She had had long, golden hair, and he had watched it glow in the sun. They had kissed once, until her family had moved to Bakersfield.

Too many "had"s. In an example like this, find a way to transition to the older time and use simple past tense if you can.

But there's nothing wrong with past perfect tense in short doses where appropriate. In your example, the way you've rewritten the short passage makes it sound as though each sentence marks a progression in time, when that's not the intention as shown by the first example. Your passage is an example where past perfect would enhance clarity.

Don't be afraid to use it where it's appropriate, but find a way to use simple past tense for longer passages. That's my operating principle on this question.

 

[Britva415]

I dislike explicit flashbacks, but the past perfect tense does allow you to weave the past into the story in a natural way. You are right that too much 'had' quickly drags the story down, so you have to use it lightly. Whenever I find myself using 'had' a lot, I stop writing and think of a different way to write the section.

One of the reasons I often write in first person present is that it allows me to use the simple past to weave in memories, and hugely cuts down on the need for anything to be in the past tense. One recent exception to this is The Ring of Perliss where I switch to present tense for dreams and visions but the main story uses the past tense.

My Anahita story has the narrative in the first person past and in Ch. 02 especially, weaves in incidents from before.

I read it and found it inoffensive Well done, because your pluperfect usage wasn’t repetitive and the “weaving” was unobtrusive.

 

[yowser]

I find past pluperfect tense to be a massive turn-on.

For me it's the evidential tense.

 

[onehitwanda]

For me it's the evidential tense.

citation needed.

 

[StillStunned]

Simple past is better.

Well, it's simpler at least.

 

[StillStunned]

More serious answer: I believe the recommended way of using the pluperfect is to limit its use to the first and final sentences of the section.

=
He remembered when they met. It had been a Tuesday. He was on his way to work when she caught his eye. Her hair was red, and her skirt hugged her arse like a second skin.

He ran after her and caught up. She was pleased when he complimented her buttocks, and obligingly lifted her skirt to give him a better look. That had been the beginning of the sappiest romance of his life.
=

 

[MrPixel]

...moved to Bakersfield.

There's your real problem. Ever been in Bakersfield?

I'm reflexively given to past-perfect sometimes, and then Sister Ignatius comes along with that damn ruler of hers and swats my knuckles until I backspace most of the "hads" out. I agree, it gets clunky when overused; I generally catch them on the first edit read.

 

[SimonDoom]

There's your real problem. Ever been in Bakersfield?

Oh yes.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

More serious answer: I believe the recommended way of using the pluperfect is to limit its use to the first and final sentences of the section.

=
He remembered when they met. It had been a Tuesday. He was on his way to work when she caught his eye. Her hair was red, and her skirt hugged her arse like a second skin.

He ran after her and caught up. She was pleased when he complimented her buttocks, and obligingly lifted her skirt to give him a better look. That had been the beginning of the sappiest romance of his life.
=

This is my understanding as well.
Once you've established the events are taking place in the past you don't need to belabor the point.