Using Past Perfect Tense

[Philip Overby]

As I'm editing my novel, I'm noticing lots of instances of me using past perfect tense. For example:

"Bob had never seen an ice troll before."

If I'm writing in 3rd person, past tense, would sentences like the one above be acceptable? I'm just noticing a ton of these in my first draft and was just wondering if this seems acceptable.

I'm also noticing tons of "He was" "They were" etc. that I need to eliminate, but that's a different story.

So, overall, is using sentences like below fine?

"Bob had never seen an ice troll before."

"Bob had only used his sword once."

Or should it look like this?

"Bob never saw an ice troll before."

"Bob only used his sword once."

Something I want to verify so I can clean up all these "had" moments if needed.

Thanks!

 

[Ireth]

I don't see anything wrong with using past perfect on occasion. Your story is told in the past tense, but we as readers are experiencing it more in the present, and sometimes a writer needs to go further back in the past. Your second example, "Bob [had] only used his sword once", is a good one. Bob has only used his sword once before, in the past; he is not using it just once in the present. So "had" works here. The line about the ice troll, in my opinion, works better with "had" as well.

 

[Ophiucha]

I'd personally keep those particular examples in the past perfect, out of context. But there's definitely a limit on how many times it can occur before I start to notice it and it starts to seem weird. Like, I've seen authors tell little stories in the past perfect, e.g. "Bob had never seen an ice troll before. He had been in the ice caves more times than he could count, and he'd even used his sword once. Only once, he had to fight his way out when a polar bear cornered him near the underground lake." That sort of thing is jarring and kind of hard to parse, at least for me. But it's a fine tense, and a few instances of it don't bother me. Sometimes it makes less sense to change it. "Bob never saw an ice troll before" sounds unnatural to me, as a native English speaker, since most people would say 'Bob had never' in that instance.

But there are instances, instances that are probably highly subjective and should be looked at case-by-case, where it seems okay. I'm kind of flip-flopping on the 'Bob only used his sword once' example. The past perfect version would be my choice, but if you were looking to cut down on instances of it, that might be one where I could see it working in-context.

 

[advait98]

Well, in the examples above, it would be grammatically and logically correct to use 'had'.

'Bob only used his sword once' gives the sense that he had just used his sword (a sense of immediacy), while 'Bob had only used his sword' gets what you're aiming for. In his entire life, Bob had only used his sword once.

It's best not to get too carried away with this stuff. If you take away 'had' at an integral place, the whole sentence might become lopsided, and its meaning screwed.

As a reader, I don't mind reading these bits of 'had' in the writing. Rather, I think it adds to the writing a bit, but that's me.

In my opinion, keep a fair eye on your use of 'had'. If you can replace it with something more elegant, do. But don't think to remove them altogether.
Keep your 'had' and use it without fear, in my opinion, but within reason.

 

[JSDR]

It's a given that a character may experience many "firsts" and therefore it's handy to reach for the "She'd never butchered a unicorn before" construction.

It is acceptable a few times. Just a few, because it highlights the "First time" feeling of the scene and may downplay, to the detriment of theme/character development/ story flow/ etc.

For a short (5k or less words) I'd pick no more than 2 "They'd never witnessed a dragon crucifixion before" moments.
For a 100k book, no more than 5 "He'd never used the 'turn my enemy inside-out' spell before" mentions unless you're trying for a pattern.

I would search for other ways of describing the "first time ever!" moment, maybe by focusing more on other aspects of the scene rather than the "First time-ness" of it:
*She was not unwilling to do it; she hesitated because she didn't know if her knife would even damage unicorn flesh and it was the best knife she had, her A-knife, her little shiny buddy.

*They gathered for the unprecedented spectacle, buying his whole stock of fire-proof raincoats and umbrellas so they could edge as close as they dared to the beast.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

"Bob never saw an ice troll before."

"Bob only used his sword once."

This is a bit of a different direction off your inquiry but....

Although sentences like these are fine sometimes, because they can add an effect and certain level of understanding, they are a form of telling. In the examples above, I can't help but think there are a number of ways to show instead.

For example, in this sentence:

"Bob only used his sword once."

How would a first time swordsman act? What would they notice?
The too-heavy weight of the weapon? The fright of seeing an enemy that wants to kill them? A sickening feeling when stabbing into a gut? Feelings of clumsiness? There's thousands of ways to handle these important scenes without just blurting it out.

Further, if these characters have an arc taking them in the opposite direction (Bob becomes a master sword fighter) it's important to establish his fear and awkwardness and the changes that take place along the way to his arc end (clam, poised, & confident killer).

If I saw these types of sentences during revision, I'd look at them as a chance to show. Instead of spoon feeding your reader, filter it through your POV & allow your reader to figure out what it all means just as Bob does.

 

[Penpilot]

Adding to what T.A.S. said.

For myself, sometimes I leave it and other times I look for a different way to convey the information.

For a few examples of what could be done. Not necessarily better just different approaches.

"Bob had never seen an ice troll before."

Bob's uncle told stories of trolls, but Bob never thought he'd see one.
A troll... A troll. His first troll he's seen in all his years.

"Bob had only used his sword once."

Bob's sword only ever left it's scabbard once, three years ago in Neverland.
Drawing his sword in combat for only the second time in his life, Bob took a fighting stance.

 

[BWFoster78]

I'm a little late to the party on this one, but a few comments...

1.

Bob had never seen an ice troll before.

What's the difference between the above and:

Bob had never seen an ice troll.

Ditch the "before." It's unnecessary, redundant, and extraneous.

2. Be wary of writing too passive. "Had" is inherently a boring verb. If you're using it occassionally, it's not a biggie. Combine a bunch of 'em with some "wases" and "woulds," and you're going to put your reader to sleep.

3. In the past, I would have agreed with the two posters above me regarding the telling. I'm backing off that stance a little. I'm finding that, in my quest for a deeper POV, I like my writing more with some telling mixed in. I still agree that too much telling is a bad thing, but I think that trying to eliminate all telling just for the sake of it hindered my writing a bit.

Thanks!

Brian

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

...In the past, I would have agreed with the two posters above me regarding the telling. I'm backing off that stance a little. I'm finding that, in my quest for a deeper POV, I like my writing more with some telling mixed in. I still agree that too much telling is a bad thing, but I think that trying to eliminate all telling just for the sake of it hindered my writing a bit.

I don't disagree with this sentiment. I was only trying to make the point that if there is an abundance of past perfect, then maybe there is too much telling, or at least, some opportunity to use showing as another revision option.

 

[BWFoster78]

I don't disagree with this sentiment. I was only trying to make the point that if there is an abundance of past perfect, then maybe there is too much telling, or at least, some opportunity to use showing as another revision option.

I'm finding show versus tell to be an incredibly complex issue. It's hard to find the right balance.

I agree with you overall that showing is much more engaging. I've read a lot of beginner pieces, and telling simply doesn't pull in the reader in the same manner that showing does.

You know me; I like easy rules. Always show is much more simple.

Now that I've accepted that sometimes telling is better, trying to use it correctly is a challenge.

 

[Ireth]

Ditch the "before." It's unnecessary, redundant, and extraneous.

This one, I think, depends on context. If you have Bob and Carl talking about ice trolls when they're not in the presence of one, and Bob thinks about how he's never seen one, then the "before" can be omitted. If Bob is looking up at one that's lumbering toward him, obviously he is seeing it, but he's never seen one prior to that moment. Therefore it doesn't make sense to omit "before" in that context.

 

[BWFoster78]

This one, I think, depends on context. If you have Bob and Carl talking about ice trolls when they're not in the presence of one, and Bob thinks about how he's never seen one, then the "before" can be omitted. If Bob is looking up at one that's lumbering toward him, obviously he is seeing it, but he's never seen one prior to that moment. Therefore it doesn't make sense to omit "before" in that context.

I disagree.

What you're saying is that, contextually, it's okay to write:

"Look, Bob. There's an ice troll."

"I've never seen an ice troll before now."

To me, the "before now" is still redundant since the author has shown them currently seeing an ice troll.

 

[JSDR]

Heh. I prefer it in subtext.

"Gadzooks, Bob! An Ice troll!"
"They're larger than the books/my tutors said they'd be."