Using 'now' in past-tense narrative

[MelissaBaby]

Except it doesn't really, and certainly not in any way that couldn't be conveyed using past tense. For example:

Joe sat up and looked out the window. Evening had fallen, and the city was dark until they rolled into the brightly lit station.


Well, first, it can be distracting to readers. How distracting depends on how important and/or detailed the timeline is, but disrupting a reader's immersion in the story is detrimental.

Second, in my opinion, the sentence flows better without it. I don't know the proper term to explain it, but it's kind of like it causes a stutter-step there that doesn't happen without it.

I appreciate your advice, but I don’t agree with any of it.

 

[Trionyx]

“Joe sat up and looked out the window. It was evening now, and the city was dark until they rolled into the brightly lit station.”

Alternatively, one could write:

“…out the window. It was evening, and the city…”

Or

“…out the window. It was evening then, and the city…”

Or

“…out the window. By then it was evening, and the city…”

In each of these examples the issue is resolved without the use of ‘now.’

A similar issue is seen with the words ‘today’ or ‘tomorrow.’ If a story is in the past tense and chronicles past events, it can be jarring to some, including me, to see them used as below.

“They rode the horses into town. Today was a day of reckoning.” I would suggest “… into town. It was a day of reckoning.”

“They rode the horses into town. Tomorrow would be a better day.” I would suggest “…into town. The next day would be a better day.”

Now, having given these examples, I know fully well that many writers disagree with me and that is what makes writing so fun. We all do it differently.

 

[MelissaBaby]

“Joe sat up and looked out the window. It was evening now, and the city was dark until they rolled into the brightly lit station.”

Alternatively, one could write:

“…out the window. It was evening, and the city…”

Or

“…out the window. It was evening then, and the city…”

Or

“…out the window. By then it was evening, and the city…”

In each of these examples the issue is resolved without the use of ‘now.’

A similar issue is seen with the words ‘today’ or ‘tomorrow.’ If a story is in the past tense and chronicles past events, it can be jarring to some, including me, to see them used as below.

“They rode the horses into town. Today was a day of reckoning.” I would suggest “… into town. It was a day of reckoning.”

“They rode the horses into town. Tomorrow would be a better day.” I would suggest “…into town. The next day would be a better day.”

Now, having given these examples, I know fully well that many writers disagree with me and that is what makes writing so fun. We all do it differently.

I’ll return to what I said in my earlier comment. In my opinion, when the narrative describes things from the point of view of the character, “now” is NOW, and there is no issue with writing it that way.

I respect that some readers might find it distracting, although I don’t get that at all myself. It seems to me that if that takes your reader out of the story, you’ve got a bigger problem than that one word.

 

[Britva415]

the city was dark until they rolled into the brightly lit station

"...which must have been at sunrise, as the city was no longer dark"

 

[Cacatua_Galerita]

Merriam-Webster supports it: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/now

View attachment 2582651
And Cambridge: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/now
View attachment 2582652

Does the suitability of “now” depend on which past tense you are writing?

Past continuous (aka past progressive) tense allows the narrator to describe past events as they unfold. E.g. Eric was waiting at the intersection as the lights turned green. Now he could proceed.

Past continuous is more applicable to describing action sequences or complex, time-dependent progression of occurrences.

People who always write in past simple or past perfect tense may develop the notion that “now” is unsuitable for past tense narration.

 

[StillStunned]

I find my biggest bug-a-boo during edit is the little words that we use so often. I look at them and think, are they in fact adding meaning? Or are they there because I've not got rid of them yet?

Meaning isn't the only reason to include words. Rhythm and reader engagement are just as important.

Looking at @MelissaBaby's example above, and the various alternatives posted just to avoid using "now": just because a sentence can be rephrased doesn't mean that it has to. The original is perfectly clear, and it has a pleasant rhythm to it that keeps the reader's eye moving forward. The alternatives are just exercises in avoiding a specific word, but they lose some of the original's elegance.

(I spend far too much of my time dealing with clients complaining, "But this word means...!" I'm the professional, you're paying me to know these things, so how about you trust me to know more than you?)

 

[ElectricBlue]

Meaning isn't the only reason to include words. Rhythm and reader engagement are just as important.

True. But that doesn't mean I can't pull myself up on my own bad habits, which is all I'm talking about here.

 

[Jackie.Hikaru]

Since I had just referenced the Chicago manual in another thread, I thought I'd find something there on this topic, and was surprised to find nothing at all. Because I'm a professional procrastinator, I dug some more and found this gem:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221016414_Meaning_of_'Now'_and_Other_Temporal_Location_Adverbs

The first footnote in that paper is interesting:
Lee ([4]) showed that of the 100 randomly selected narrative discourses from the British
National Corpus that contained now, 63 had the past tense.

*edit to add that I love these discussion topics, and this is a good question. I'm now realizing that I use 'now' a shit ton, and I write exclusively in the past tense.

 

[TheExperimentalist]

Meaning isn't the only reason to include words. Rhythm and reader engagement are just as important.

Looking at @MelissaBaby's example above, and the various alternatives posted just to avoid using "now": just because a sentence can be rephrased doesn't mean that it has to. The original is perfectly clear, and it has a pleasant rhythm to it that keeps the reader's eye moving forward. The alternatives are just exercises in avoiding a specific word, but they lose some of the original's elegance.

(I spend far too much of my time dealing with clients complaining, "But this word means...!" I'm the professional, you're paying me to know these things, so how about you trust me to know more than you?)

True. But that doesn't mean I can't pull myself up on my own bad habits, which is all I'm talking about here.

Yep, we were talking about the linguistic tics that specifically DON'T enhance the flow and rhythm. I personally still end up leaving them as-is sometimes, but AFTER consciously considering whether or not I should.

EDIT: I'll just pre-emptively throw in a "Mazel Tov"

I'm still so confused by this. I know what the phrase means but, why? For what?

 

[SimonDoom]

I think we are well into the "picking at the scab" portion of the thread.

Melissa, you've been here a while. As you well know, we tend not to stop until the patient has bled out.

 

[MelissaBaby]

Melissa, you've been here a while. As you well know, we tend not to stop until the patient has bled out.

Actually, I retract that comment. The discussion has taken an upward turn since I made it.

 

[cw5523729]

Melissa, you've been here a while. As you well know, we tend not to stop until the patient has bled out.

Well, if you don't have any leeches available, how else are you going to get rid of all that pesky blood?

 

[SexyInMy60s]

I have degrees in English and journalism and I was a professional magazine editor for decades and the answer is to stop overthinking it.

 

[SimonDoom]

Does the suitability of “now” depend on which past tense you are writing?

Past continuous (aka past progressive) tense allows the narrator to describe past events as they unfold. E.g. Eric was waiting at the intersection as the lights turned green. Now he could proceed.

Past continuous is more applicable to describing action sequences or complex, time-dependent progression of occurrences.

People who always write in past simple or past perfect tense may develop the notion that “now” is unsuitable for past tense narration.

I think it could potentially make a difference, but it's not a decisive factor in all cases. When I looked up usage in stories of authors I know, I noticed there was plenty of use of "now" in past continuous sentences, which suggests it's particularly helpful there, but I also found it in past simple sentences, and I thought it made sense there too.

 

[Husky_Embrace]

While I am quite grateful to the volunteer editor I work with for having been so supportive along my journey, he and I do still have a bit of an ongoing friendly debate. Namely: Is the word 'now' acceptable to use in narratives presented in past tense?

For example, in a sentence such as:

or:


He contends that it means 'the present moment', which a past-tense narrative certainly is not.

I argue that it has two meanings, the first being 'the present moment', and the second, 'a circumstance different from a prior one'.

Now, I have a friend who has suggested that all writers have a series of literary 'tics', as it were, subconscious patterns they end up overusing, and that 'now' might be one of mine. (I also just realized how this paragraph started, so I think my friend may be right.) Anyway, my friend thinks it might benefit me to treat 'now' as, at the very least, an indication that a sentence could use some closer attention.

The fact remains, though, that I don't see anything inherently wrong with using the 'circumstance' definition, even in past tense, and there are just some sentences where trying to avoid using it entirely leads to some (in my opinion) very awkward presentation. My editor insists on reminding me on every story I send him anyway.

So... who's right?

I think you can use now in the past tense.

That being said, my language is constantly evolving now that I've joined lit. Right now I'm of the opinion that simpler word constructions are better, situation dependent.

Does the now add anything to your sentences? Without knowing the context, I would say it doesn't. You can write them without "now."

Though her makeup had previously been immaculate, there was now a streak of mascara below her eye, and her lipstick was smudged.

Her makeup had previously been immaculate. The face in the mirror had a streak of mascara below her eye, and her lipstick was smudged.

Because we know it was previously something, anything you write has the connotation of "now."

I did need to restructure. Depending on the situation, your version is better or mine.

The dot in my version is for if you want to give the contradiction more importance. We literally stop with a dot. Then the contradiction happens. However, often enough we want people to glide through lesser important things in the story. Chunking them together can do a lot for reader comprehension. With the comma the immaculate state becomes less important, while the current state is the important tidbit we gather.

So ask yourself, is the immaculate makeup something that is hugely important to the story? Or does it matter more what it is now.

The second one is different:

Now that the issue had been resolved, they were able to proceed with the business at hand.

The issue had been resolved. They were able to proceed with the business at hand.

The issue had been resolved, and they were able to proceed with the business at hand.

Here's a few other options. Now is not relevant to them, as anything that isn't looking back or forwards in time is now. Otherwise we'll be stuck with writing now everywhere.

"Now he looked up, seeing the giant pink elephant."
"He looked up, sering the giant big elephant."

"Now he walked to the giant pink elephant. Now he straddled his back, ready to ride him."
"He walked to the giant pink elephant. Straddling his back he was ready to ride him."

 

[StillStunned]

"Now..."

 

[AG31]

now(nou)adv.1. At the present time: goods now on sale; the now aging dictator.2. At once; immediately: Stop now.3. In the immediate past; very recently: left the room just now.4. At this point in the series of events; then: The ship was now listing to port.5. At times; sometimes: now hot, now cold.6. Nowadays.7. In these circumstances; as things are: Now we won't be able to stay.8.a. Used to introduce a command, reproof, or request: Now pay attention.b. Used to indicate a change of subject or to preface a remark: Now, let's get down to work.

Don't confuse us with facts. The thread will dry up!

 

[MillieDynamite]

I'll say this, about that, stop it NOW! On the other hand, it's a bit strange to see 'now' in the past, 'then,' makes more sense. Whatever you do, limit the usage of either now or then.

Don't confuse us with facts. The thread will dry up!

 

[TheLobster]

Whatever you do, limit the usage of either now or then.

In other words, you can use now and then but only every now and then.

 

[MillieDynamite]

In order to avoid further repetition, I'll just say, "Yes."

In other words, you can use now and then but only every now and then.

 

[MillieDynamite]

And that brings us to the word just, just don't use it often, if ever. Just is one of those words I just use to fucking often.