When it's wierd NOT to change verb tense. (A writing question. Seriously.)

[shereads]

This bugs me:

Current truths stated in the past tense.

Examples, loosely based on some recent reading:

"Jane was shocked to learn that Joe was a cancer survivor. Cancer was a terrible disease."

"The police would want the names of his enemies. Arson was sometimes motivated by revenge."

Is it grammatically correct to retain the past tense even when referring to a fact that was, is and will probably continue to be true? Is it mandatory?

In my view, the use of correct grammar is a service to the reader; a means of smoothing the way, rather like the use of certain colors and shapes on traffic signs. When correct grammar disrupts my reading, it's the enemy.

I find it much less jarring when writers change to the present tense when referring to things that are currently true:

"The police would want the names of his enemies. Arson is sometimes motivated by revenge."

Correctness-wise, grammar-wise and reading-wise, which one are right?

 

[BlackShanglan]

In the arson one, I'd stick with the past tense. The reason I would is that verb tense is not determined soley by when the action is occurring; it's also determined by the POV and contextual time frame of the action. If the entire story is in the past tense, then those sorts of verbs fall into the past tense as well. If, on the other hand, one is speaking or writing a story in the present tense, then the verb should be in the present tense.

Then, of course, there is literature, to which one always refers in the present tense. But that's because anything that is still in print is still happening.

It's interesting to me, actually, that you find maintaining the past tense jarring. I suspect that the convention of keeping it all in the past tense came about because someone found switching back and forth jarring, but I can see your point as well. Really, is there anything quite as silly as grammar?

Shanglan

 

[shereads]

In the arson one, I'd stick with the past tense. The reason I would is that verb tense is not determined soley by when the action is occurring; it's also determined by the POV and contextual time frame of the action. If the entire story is in the past tense, then those sorts of verbs fall into the past tense as well. If, on the other hand, one is speaking or writing a story in the present tense, then the verb should be in the present tense.

Then, of course, there is literature, to which one always refers in the present tense. But that's because anything that is still in print is still happening.

It's interesting to me, actually, that you find maintaining the past tense jarring. I suspect that the convention of keeping it all in the past tense came about because someone found switching back and forth jarring, but I can see your point as well. Really, is there anything quite as silly as grammar?

Shanglan

Thanks, Shanglan. Maybe I can better explain why it bugs me.

If you were telling someone about a friend whose house burned down last year, whether in conversation or a written account, you wouldn't relay the whole story in the past tense. You would not say or write:

"Flicka's stable burned down last year. The arson investigators thought Mister Ed might have done it. Arson was sometimes motivated by revenge, and as you know, Ed never got over their break-up."

Why should it be written that way in a work of fiction, when it's so awkward in a person-to-person account of the same event?

The same thing wouldn't bother me at all if I were reading historic fiction or science fiction. In those cases, the author is expected to describe the world from a perspective so removed from the reader's own, that I shouldn't take it for granted that arson is a familiar crime in the context of the time and place.

But when fiction is set in the present day, it seems more natural to read the story as you might hear it in person, in a letter, or in a news story. The journalist writing a news story, and the author of the fictitious arson story, both share a frame of reference with the reader: "Such-and-such happened. Here is a relevant fact that might help explain it."

When the author in my arson and cancer examples expresses currrent facts as things of the past, he steps outside our shared frame of reference. I find it no less jarring to read, "Cancer was a deadly disease" in a work of fiction set in my own time and culture, than if I were reading a true story in Newsweek about something that happened a month ago.

 

[TheEarl]

I'm with Shanglan. The past tense is definitely the right way to write it and I was all ready to scoff at your example of how you'd say it in the present tense. Then I actually tried saying it and discovered you were right. Present tense is right in the oral, but not in the written, how very odd.

That's definitely the right tense though.

The Earl

 

[shereads]

I'm with Shanglan. The past tense is definitely the right way to write it and I was all ready to scoff at your example of how you'd say it in the present tense. Then I actually tried saying it and discovered you were right. Present tense is right in the oral, but not in the written, how very odd.

That's definitely the right tense though.

The Earl

But what about in written news stories? How is writing about an arson investigation in a news magazine different from writing a fictitious account set in the present time and place?

News magazine: "The Earl was suspected of setting fire to Shanglan's feed bin. Arson is sometimes motivated by revenge."

Crime novel set in present day: "The Earl was suspected of setting fire to Shanglan's feed bin. Arson was sometimes motivated by revenge."

Why?

 

[zeb1094]

But what about in written news stories? How is writing about an arson investigation in a news magazine different from writing a fictitious account set in the present time and place?





Why?

I don't think a news magazine would write a story which contained those sentences together. As the The Earl was suspected, I think they would then tell you why he is no longer suspected before they said anything about arson being a revenge crime. I also think any good editor at a magazine would catch those sentences and make the writer of the article change it so it would make more sence to the reader.

I also would have a problem with keeping those to sentences together in a story I wrote as when I read it, it just wouldn't sound right to have that 'was' in there when I know that arson still is a crime of revenge. So I would have to rewrite both sentences so I explained the arson thing in the past tense as part of the sentence before it, which would make for a long sentence but at least the tense would be right!

 

[Alex De Kok]

I was having a quiet flick through the Hangout, hadn't bothered logging in, then read this thread. To a large extent I'm with Shereads on this, in that I find the past tense jars a little, even if it is 'correct'. But like TheEarl, I would use the present tense in a piece of dialogue. There is probably written chapter and verse on this in some dusty grammar tome, but I have the feeling that it is the continuing condition that sets the tense. That, without a shred of documentary evidence!

Could it possibly be that, sometimes, what looks right, is right?

Alex

 

[Boxlicker101]

Personally, although all my stories are in the past tense, a few sentences have to be in the present tense. "Susan was waiting for me and opened the door as soon as I rang the doorbell. She has long blonde hair and green eyes and she was wearing nothing but a big smile when she let me in." Susan is still part of my life and still has the same hair and eyes so I write it in the present tense. On the other hand: "Susan, my girl friend in high school was a real beauty. She had long blonde hair and green eyes." Since this Susan is no longer part of my life, is history, so to speak, I describe her in the past tense, although she might very well still have long blonde hair and her eyes would still be green.

Or: After making love, Susan and I went out to a neighborhood restaurant. The waitress was a beauty, with long blonde hair and green eyes, but she was totally inept at what she was trying to do. We didn't, mind though, because we felt so good after what we had just been doing." The waitress probably still has the same hair and eyes but she is strictly an incidental character, and will not be mentioned again. On the other hand: After making love, Susan and I went out to our favorite restaurant. As usual, Rhonda waited on us. She has long, black hair and smoldering dark eyes and I always feel like she is coming on to me. Susan has said the same thing except that she feels Rhonda is coming on to both of us. We have often discussed inviting her to join us in a threesome but neither of us knows quite how to make the proposal." Rhonda is an ongoing character in our lives and might well be included in a sequel so I am using the present tense.

 

[R. Richard]

[Quote:]
News magazine: "The Earl was suspected of setting fire to Shanglan's feed bin. Arson is sometimes motivated by revenge."[/quote]

I would read the second sentence above as a general statement.


[Quote:]
Crime novel set in present day: "The Earl was suspected of setting fire to Shanglan's feed bin. Arson was sometimes motivated by revenge."[/quote]

I would read the second sentence above as a statement that the Earl has a history of arson, sometimes for revenge.

JMHO.

 

[JamesSD]

Can I point out that "Cancer is/was a terrible disease" seems tremendously obvious? I guess there's an implied perspective of Jane there.

As for the second example, if it's me I just stick a comma in place of the period and as "as", so it reads ", as arson is often..."

Yeah I dislike the past tense thing.

 

[Subo97]

shereads is right. (I hate to say this since she chased my brother and I away form her house with a rubber snake). The correct verb tense has to be measured in each individual sentence. In choosing the past tense for a narrative, not evrything is stuck in the past. janes shock and Joe's surviving are in the past tense but cancer was, is and will continue to be a terrible disease. Perhaps a description of polio or the gout might call for past tense as they are mostly found in the past. Arson is in hte same situation, the descriptions of arson and cancer transcend the story. An adverb like always, or usually might have helped these authors be more clear:

Subo turned shereads over his knee and lifted her skirt to spank her. Panty hose are made in the Devil's workshop and are usually a pain in the ass.

 

[Liar]

Why?

Because it's fiction. It's a made-up story. It never actually happened.

And thus, the whole universe in which it happens is a parrallell, made-up one. Often strikingly similar to ours, but fictious none the less. If you are using present tense in those sentences, you are telling the reader "this is real and it happened". And that is pretty hard to chew on when trying to suspend one's disbelief.

Unless you actually have metatext in your narration and directly adress the reader. Then you can take up things that happens in the real world within the boundaries of that meta text. But then the actual story gets a little distanced from you as a reader. One who does that all the time is Terry Pratchett in his Discword series. In footnotes and sometimes in mid-narration, the "book" steps out of the story and becomes a fake fact text about this or that, before returning to the story again. But it's always done with extremely obvious devices. Footnotes, inline [ed. notes] or whole separate sections.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

This bugs me:

Me too.
Big time.

 

[shereads]

Personally, although all my stories are in the past tense, a few sentences have to be in the present tense. "Susan was waiting for me and opened the door as soon as I rang the doorbell. She has long blonde hair and green eyes and she was wearing nothing but a big smile when she let me in."

Good example, Box. If something is written in the past tense, a reader is invited to assume that it is no longer true. This way, you've made it clear that Susan is still alive, still blonde, and still has eyes, which are still green.

You had the option of describing her as she was the day you rang her doorbell, and letting your reader wonder if present-day Susan is still a babe with blonde hair, or has gone bald.

 

[shereads]

Because it's fiction. It's a made-up story. It never actually happened.

And thus, the whole universe in which it happens is a parrallell, made-up one. Often strikingly similar to ours, but fictious none the less. If you are using present tense in those sentences, you are telling the reader "this is real and it happened". And that is pretty hard to chew on when trying to suspend one's disbelief.

I disagree that there is a need for two treatments of past-or-present tense, one for fiction and one for journalism. Especially in crime fiction, some authors heighten the suspense by using a classic journalistic style, which makes the suspension of disbelief easier. If an author has the skill to blur the line between fact and fiction, why snap the reader back into reality?

Remember the moment in "Saving Private Ryan" when the group walked into a bombed-out village in France and you just knew that something awful was going to happen? We knew the characters by that time, and had stopped thinking of them as actors. I was on the edge of my seat, Kleenex clutched in my fist, waiting for the next gunshot or land mine or hand grenade. Then suddenly there was a cameo appearance by Ted Danson who had just recently ended a 12-year run in"Cheers."

Jesus, what a mood-breaker that was. Instead of casting an unknown to speak those few lines, Spielberg gave the walk-on role to a buddy who was as identifiable as Elmer Fudd, but less tragic. Some people chuckled. At least one man in the back of the theater stage-whispered, "Norm!" Talk about a buzz kill. Suddenly, the characters weren't soldiers anymore. They were Tom Hanks and some other actors, enjoying a visit to the set by their pal Ted Danson. It took a while to get back into the spirit of the film.

That's what I feel when an author sets himself apart from the reader with a line like, "Cancer was a terrible disease," or "Arson investigators knew that revenge was often a motive," or "Traffic was bad in cities like Manhattan." It only takes a sentence or a Ted Danson walk-on to shatter my suspension of disbelief.

When I'm reading a novel, I don't want the author to remind me that it's just a story. Unless I'm stoned - as I was when I read The Amityville Horror - I already know that.



Man. Those people were crazy not to move out as soon as their daughter started having conversations with Jody the demon pig. (Pigs were farm animals descended from the wild boar and used to make bacon.)

 

[Alex756]

It was a moment that shattered my suspension of disbelief, and it seemed clumsy. .

I had to chime in my agreement. I would go with a present tense sentence in each of your examples. Rules are basically never rules but guidelines. If you -know- why you are breaking them and it sounds right, go for it.

Here is a link

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_tensecA1.html

example D is basically exaxtly what you are having a problem with and the solution is what you felt was right, namely having those sentences be present tense

~Alex

 

[shereads]

shereads is right. (I hate to say this since she chased my brother and I away form her house with a rubber snake). The correct verb tense has to be measured in each individual sentence. In choosing the past tense for a narrative, not evrything is stuck in the past. janes shock and Joe's surviving are in the past tense but cancer was, is and will continue to be a terrible disease. Perhaps a description of polio or the gout might call for past tense as they are mostly found in the past. Arson is in hte same situation, the descriptions of arson and cancer transcend the story. An adverb like always, or usually might have helped these authors be more clear:

Subo turned shereads over his knee and lifted her skirt to spank her. Panty hose are made in the Devil's workshop and are usually a pain in the ass.

Shereads hadn't owned a pair of pantyhose in over three years. She wore stockings, thank you very much, as Subo would have known if he had really lifted her skirt.

 

[shereads]

I had to chime in my agreement.

I love it when that happens. Non-agreement can be terribly lonely.

I would go with a present tense sentence in each of your examples. Rules are basically never rules but guidelines. If you -know- why you are breaking them and it sounds right, go for it.

Here is a link

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_tensecA1.html

example D is basically exaxtly what you are having a problem with and the solution is what you felt was right, namely having those sentences be present tense

~Alex

 

[shereads]

Thanks Alex. While non-fiction, this is a better example than the ones I posted.

Controlling Shifts in Paragraphs

In this first paragraph, the two verbs in present tense--both appropriate for the situation--are indicated in bold.

The Iroquois Indians of the Northeast regularly burned land to increase open space for agriculture. In fact, the early settlers of Boston found so few trees that they had to row out to the islands in the harbor to obtain fuel. Just how far north this practice extended is uncertain, but the Saco River in southern Maine appears to have been the original northern boundary of the agricultural clearings. Then, pressured by European settlement, the Iroquois extended their systematic burning far northward, even into the Maritime Provinces of Canada.

 

[Alex756]

Thanks Alex. While non-fiction, this is a better example than the ones I posted.

I am the google queen, I can google anything

~Alex

 

[shereads]

I am the google queen, I can google anything

~Alex

Google me an example from fiction and I'll send you a copy of Subo's credit card and social security numbers. He accused me of wearing pantyhose with my special spanking skirt. It's payback time.

 

[BlackShanglan]

No, damnit. I am not going to plunge into those verb tenses. I am going to sit here and drink Guinness, and try to spell it correctly.

The horrifying thing about knowing all of those minute annoying little grammar rules is the temptation to explain them to people. At length.

'Nother Guinness.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I had to chime in my agreement. I would go with a present tense sentence in each of your examples. Rules are basically never rules but guidelines. If you -know- why you are breaking them and it sounds right, go for it.

Here is a link

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_tensecA1.html

example D is basically exaxtly what you are having a problem with and the solution is what you felt was right, namely having those sentences be present tense

~Alex

Example D is not actually an exerpt from a work of fiction. It is an exerpt from a student essay describing a work of fiction and could have been written in either the past tense or the present tense. Personally, I think the past tense would have worked better and it should have started: "The doctor needed to...and continued using all past tense verbs with two exceptions: "...doctor to do..." and ..."but it is clear...". The former is an infinitive and the latter is an opinion offered in the present tense as to the intent of the book.

Sher, Subo didn't accuse you of wearing panty hose. He described lifting your skirt and then offered his opinion as to the origin of panty hose. He did imply that you were wearing the garment, but he did not actually say it. I souldn't worry about it anyhow because he had a glaring error in his post. He used the subjective pronoun "I" as a direct object. I am assuming it is a pronoun and not a shortened form of a name, such as Ichabod.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Oh blast and damn it ...

All right. The difference between the cancer quote and the Iroquois quote is in the point of view of the person perceiving the action. The cancer person exists in the past, is discussed in the past, and therefore perceives things in the past tense. It's not really us who are performing the action of knowing that cancer is a terrible disease, it's the protagonist, in the past tense, performing that action of understanding. Thus, it's past tense - not because cancer is not still a terrible disease in the present tense, but because the whole set of actions occurs in the past tense in the story. One only shifts tense in a story when comparing two actions taking place in substantially different times frames. Because the act of cancer being a terrible disease is taking place at the same time as all of the other elements in the story and is - crucially - being perceived by us through the lens of the events of the story, which are taking place in the past, it's in past tense.

The reason your Iroquois quotation uses the present tense is because the action of perceiving the extent of the practice is not happening in the past, but in the present. The present-day author and his/her audience are the people performing that action, and they are in the present - unlike the earlier culture they are studying, which existed in the past. Therefore, actions that the author and his audience take are in the present tense, and the actions of the Iroquois are in the past tense.

Now. More Guinness.

Shanglan

 

[Liar]

Oh blast and damn it ...

All right. The difference between the cancer quote and the Iroquois quote is in the point of view of the person perceiving the action. The cancer person exists in the past, is discussed in the past, and therefore perceives things in the past tense. It's not really us who are performing the action of knowing that cancer is a terrible disease, it's the protagonist, in the past tense, performing that action of understanding. Thus, it's past tense - not because cancer is not still a terrible disease in the present tense, but because the whole set of actions occurs in the past tense in the story. One only shifts tense in a story when comparing two actions taking place in substantially different times frames. Because the act of cancer being a terrible disease is taking place at the same time as all of the other elements in the story and is - crucially - being perceived by us through the lens of the events of the story, which are taking place in the past, it's in past tense.

The reason your Iroquois quotation uses the present tense is because the action of perceiving the extent of the practice is not happening in the past, but in the present. The present-day author and his/her audience are the people performing that action, and they are in the present - unlike the earlier culture they are studying, which existed in the past. Therefore, actions that the author and his audience take are in the present tense, and the actions of the Iroquois are in the past tense.

Now. More Guinness.

Shanglan

I wuw ya, horsey. That's exactly what I (much more cryptically, clumsily and incoherently) was trying to say. You rock. I want a Guinness too.