fixed phrases, and fiction's past-tense narrative mode

F.E. · Aug 27, 2012

There are fixed phrases (or idiomatic phrases) that we use all the time. But when a tensed verb is part of that fixed phrase, then that phrase--if altered--might not work as part of a sentence in fiction that uses past-tense narrative mode. I might have run into such a phrase, and I want to see what other people might think. (Aside: There's always that problem of "word weirding", where if a person reads the same sentence over and over then that sentence starts sounding weird to him/her.)

I'll provide an excerpt that includes the phrase. I'm including a block of the surrounding narrative so as to provide the context. In Stephen King's horror novel, Needful Things, (which is written in omniscient POV) on page 450:

When she had cut a ragged rubber smile in the rapidly deflating tire, she went around to the one on the passenger-side front and did it again. She was still anxious to get back to her picture, but she found she was glad she had come, just the same. This was sort of exciting. The thought of Henry's face when he saw what had happened to his precious Thunderbird was actually making her horny. God knew why, but she thought that when she finally got back on board the Lisa Marie, she might have a new trick or two to show The King.

She moved on to the rear tires. The bayonet did not cut quite so easily now, but she made up for it with her own enthusiasm, sawing energetically through the sidewalls of the tires.

.
.
.
It's that sentence:

1. God knew why, but she thought that when she finally got back on board the Lisa Marie, she might have a new trick or two to show The King.

That phrase "God knew why" seemed to me to be not quite right. In present-tense narrative, the corresponding sentence (#2) seems to be fine:

2. God knows why, but she thinks that when she finally gets back on board the Lisa Marie, she might have a new trick or two to show The King.

And if only the phrase was changed to present-tense, while the rest of the sentence stayed in past-tense, that (#3) seems to be fine too:

3. God knows why, but she thought that when she finally got back on board the Lisa Marie, she might have a new trick or two to show The King.

.
There's two senses to that phrase "God knows why". One sense is the literal sense, e.g. "God knows why I did it. You can pray and ask him to tell you." The second sense is where the literal meaning is mostly bleached out, e.g. "God knows why I keep him! He cheats on me at the drop of a hat!" It's that second sense that I think is being used in that King's excerpt. (Maybe I'm wrong?)

(And now "word weirding" is affecting me again, as I'm now wondering about the acceptability of the phrase "God know why". Ugh.)
.
(This issue might be similar to the problem of using the phrase "that is" when it is used as a supplement indicator, e.g. Tom and Bill do not appreciate each other's value to the company--that is, if they are in the same room they will kill each other. The phrase "that was" wouldn't work as a supplementary indicatory in past-tense narrative.)
.
Anyway, ... Did that phrase "God knew why" in the King's excerpt seem jarring to anybody else? Or is it just me.

JohnnyGottaKeyboard · Aug 28, 2012

F.E. said:
Anyway, ... Did that phrase "God knew why" in the King's excerpt seem jarring to anybody else? Or is it just me.

It did, though I will readily confess that I almost certainly would have instantaneously dismissed my uneasiness and proceeded on with the story had I been reading the book in bed.

I do wonder if what King had in mind (at the risk of second-guessing the Master), wasn't something along the lines of:

"She thought 'When I finally get back on board the Lisa Marie, I might have a new trick or two to show The King.' God knows why she thought it, she certainly hadn't shown him much so far." Thereby utilizing the fixed phrase in its commonly accepted tense.

It's a big assumption, but I do suspect he was going for a very similar meaning. I DO NOT think he was inserting a literal reference to God knowing something about the character's motivation for thinking that particular thought...Unless God's POV had been used elsewhere in the text.

Fallen · Aug 28, 2012

Oh heck, it's one of those...

The way I maybe wrongly see it... God knows why (present) would signify narrator presence (or author stance), one outside of the girl, not a fixed phrase. I'd read it that the author was thinking that.

*groans* What a question, F.E.

I'd love to know how authors handle these.

Bufty · Aug 28, 2012

The phrase - God knew why - did cause me to hesitate as I read it but I must confess I think that was because I had been primed by your post into looking for whatever phrase it was to which you were referring.

Had I simply come across that phrase in context while reading the book it could well make sense and I doubt I would have given it a second thought.

Snick · Aug 28, 2012

F.E. said:
.
Anyway, ... Did that phrase "God knew why" in the King's excerpt seem jarring to anybody else? Or is it just me.

It does not seem jarring to me. It fits where it is.

F.E. · Aug 28, 2012

"God knows why"

JohnnyGottaKeyboard said:
I do wonder if what King had in mind (at the risk of second-guessing the Master), wasn't something along the lines of:

"She thought 'When I finally get back on board the Lisa Marie, I might have a new trick or two to show The King.' God knows why she thought it, she certainly hadn't shown him much so far." Thereby utilizing the fixed phrase in its commonly accepted tense.

It's a big assumption, but I do suspect he was going for a very similar meaning.

That's interesting. That's a possibility that I had missed.

Since the novel was written in omniscient POV, the author could've been having his omniscient narrator make that aside (to the reader).

I had only been looking at the other possibility, that the character was thinking that fixed-expression "God knows why!" to herself, besides also thinking that thought (interior monologue) that was expressed in the remainder of that sentence.

But it is good to see that other people noticed that issue with that fixed phrase, too.
.
.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I'm thinking that your interpretation might actually be the one that the author was going for:

God knows why, but she thought that X

where the fixed-expression was being said by the omniscient narrator. And it is possible that either the author or an editor downstream accidently made that verb tense switch in order to make the phrase consistent with past-tense narrative mode, not realizing that the phrase was being used in its non-literal sense.

Maryn · Aug 28, 2012

I found it jarring. I'd have rewritten it.

Maryn, with a shrug

F.E. · Aug 28, 2012

Fallen said:
Oh heck, it's one of those...

The way I maybe wrongly see it... God knows why (present) would signify narrator presence (or author stance), one outside of the girl, not a fixed phrase. I'd read it that the author was thinking that.

*groans* What a question, F.E. I'd love to know how authors handle these.

Dang. That's two people who saw that interpretation--that the omniscient narrator was saying that phrase. So far I'm the lone Indian that missed it.

Though to be fair to me, usually the type of omniscient narrator that King uses in his novels tend not to be too explicitly out there in front of the reader with asides like that. (imo)

F.E. · Aug 28, 2012

Bufty said:
The phrase - God knew why - did cause me to hesitate as I read it but I must confess I think that was because I had been primed by your post into looking for whatever phrase it was to which you were referring.

Yes, that was something I was afraid might happen, that the reader would be primed to be looking for something. That was a reason why I tried to surround that sentence with other prose, in an attempt to partially hide it.

It's good to see that a BrE speaker also thought something might've been wrong with that sentence (since I'm AmE).

F.E. · Aug 28, 2012

Snick said:
It does not seem jarring to me. It fits where it is.

Which is reasonable, since that sentence did make its way past all the editors and got printed.

F.E. · Aug 28, 2012

Maryn said:
I found it jarring. I'd have rewritten it.

Maryn, with a shrug

That's good to hear; so for once it might not have been just me.

Bufty · Aug 28, 2012

No, no - I didn't think something might be wrong - I simply hesitated on it because that was obviously the phrase to which you were were referring.

F.E. said:
Yes, that was something I was afraid might happen, that the reader would be primed to be looking for something. That was a reason why I tried to surround that sentence with other prose, in an attempt to partially hide it.

It's good to see that a BrE speaker also thought something might've been wrong with that sentence (since I'm AmE).

Snick · Aug 28, 2012

F.E. said:
Which is reasonable, since that sentence did make its way past all the editors and got printed.

And won't it be nice when you look at that in thirty years and say, "Well, it got this far, so it couldn't have been all that bad."

F.E. · Aug 28, 2012

I'd love to know how authors handle these.

With difficulty.

Writers of fiction that use past-tense narrative mode will often have problems with trying to fit some fixed expressions or idiomatic phrases into their prose. (Some problems might not be solvable.)

Besides those problems, fiction writers will sometimes also have some inherent problems with various grammatical constructions, depending on which type of story POV is used. (For instance, if I remember correctly, I think a close 3rd POV might have some difficulties with left dislocation constructions when the "dislocated subject" contains a pronoun that refers to the pov character.)

I've seen some of these problems on writing forums when writers ask questions like, Something seems wrong with this sentence, but I'm not quite sure why, what do you think? (For instance, that supplement indicator "that is" issue has bitten various writers when writing their past-tense narrative fiction.)

There is no simple straightforward rule to convert fiction that has been written in present-tense narrative mode into past-tense narrative mode. And not all grammatical constructions are equally acceptable for all types of story POV.

It's tough for native English speakers; and they had the advantage of growing up surrounded by the language and have already developed a "natural ear" for English grammar. Just imagine the problems that ESL speakers will face, especially when trying to write fiction in English. (edited-to-add: But then maybe other languages have similar issues.)

imo.

F.E. · Aug 28, 2012

There is no simple straightforward rule to convert fiction that has been written in present-tense narrative mode into past-tense narrative mode. And not all grammatical constructions are equally acceptable for all types of story POV.

One easy way to show this is through the use of the "try and V" construction. E.g.

1. Always, I try and be useful at work.

Note that converting from 1st person to 3rd person singular will not work if merely the pronouns are substituted,

2. *Always, she tries and be useful at work.

A possible close version would be one that uses a different construction--an ordinary coordination--but, unfortunately, that has a different meaning from what is in the original #1:

3. Always, she tries and is useful at work.

Though, using a different construction--the "try to V"--here will probably give the best practical attempt:

4. Always, she tries to be useful at work.

So, in order to switch from 1st to 3rd person singular, the construction "try and V" has to be replaced with a different type of construction. (I.e. A simple pronoun substitution won't do it.

)
.
.
This same construction--"try and V"--doesn't have a straightforward way of being converted into past-tense narrative. The original version, which is in present-tense narrative (due to "I try"):

1. Always, I try and be useful at work.

A possible past-tense attempt (which fails):

5. *Always, I tried and be useful at work.

Using a different construction might give a practical alternative (and notice that #6 has a different meaning from the original #1):

6. Always, I tried and was useful at work.

7. Always, I tried to be useful at work.

So a writer would have to use a different construction if he wants a past-tense sentence.
.
.
Hope this is interesting to someone else.

(Ah, who am I kidding. Procrastination is procrastination.)

F.E. · Aug 31, 2012

"that is"

(This issue might be similar to the problem of using the phrase "that is" when it is used as a supplement indicator, e.g. Tom and Bill do not appreciate each other's value to the company--that is, if they are in the same room they will kill each other. The phrase "that was" wouldn't work as a supplementary indicatory in past-tense narrative.)

Speaking of which,

It seems that the supplement indicator "that is" is being used in Stephen King's horror novel, Needful Things, (which is written in omniscient POV) on page 77:

Suddenly it was 1955 again, he had just gotten his license, and he was driving to the Western Main Schoolboy Championship game--Castle Rock vs. Greenspark--in his dad's '53 Ford convertible. It was an unseasonably warm November day, warm enough to pull that old ragtop down and tack the tarp over it (if you were a bunch of hot-blooded kids ready, willing, and able to raise some hell, that was), and there were six of them in the car. Peter Doyon had brought a flask of Log Cabin whiskey, Perry Como was on the radio, Hugh Priest was sitting behind the white wheel, and fluttering from the radio antenna had been a long, luxuriant fox-tail, just like the one he was now looking at in the window of this store.

It's that parenthetical part:

(if you were a bunch of hot-blooded kids ready, willing, and able to raise some hell, that was),

That jarred me. The "that was" adjunct doesn't make sense to me.

I'd think that the phrase ought to be "that is", as I'd think it to be a fixed expression:

(if you were a bunch of hot-blooded kids ready, willing, and able to raise some hell, that is),

.
Originally I was looking at that page due to the high frequency of the word "Suddenly". It was used twice within the top half of page 77, and then it was used again on top of page 78; also there was the use of the word "sudden" on the top of page 77.

. . . (I guess every writer has his crutch words.)

Susan Coffin · Aug 31, 2012

I didn't find it jarring at all.

ArtsyAmy · Sep 1, 2012

I'm debating whether I would have found the phrase jarring if I'd read it in the book. I suppose I must have found it at least a little jarring, because immediately after reading the phrase, I thought, Oh, yeah, I'm supposed to be looking to see if there's something odd-sounding here, and that might be it." It's hard to tell how jarring it would have been if I had not been influenced by your question--if I didn't know something was coming that might sound odd.

F.E. · Sep 5, 2012

"For you see"

I'd just run across another fixed expression using a possibly tensed verb (when I used the expression myself): For you see. E.g.,

1. For you see, they only had enough food for one.
2. For you see, they only have enough food for one.
3. For you see, they will only have enough food for one.

If fiction prose was in past-tense narrative mode, then there is the possibility that an editor or someone might "accidentally" mark a sentence similar to #1, and that sentence might end up looking like:

1b. *For you saw, they only had enough food for one.

The resulting sentence really doesn't make much sense.

(Aside: At first glance, the "see" in "For you see" seems to be present tense. I don't know the history of this phrase, and so perhaps originally the phrase might have been using a plain form (i.e. base form, or bare infinitive), but I doubt it. -- e.g. "For (do) you see?")

WWWalt · Aug 26, 2013

F.E. said:
For instance, if I remember correctly, I think a close 3rd POV might have some difficulties with left dislocation constructions when the "dislocated subject" contains a pronoun that refers to the pov character.

I'm curious about this. If one is consistently using a third-person pronoun to refer to a certain character in all other contexts, why would such a pronoun as part of a left dislocation construction be problematic?

For instance, that supplement indicator "that is" issue has bitten various writers when writing their past-tense narrative fiction.

What is the generally accepted solution to this problem?

WWWalt · Aug 26, 2013

F.E. said:
At first glance, the "see" in "For you see" seems to be present tense.

Yes, but the more relevant word in that phrase, I think, is "you." By including this word in the narrative text, you are explicitly referring to your reader, not to anyone involved in the story. And the reader is, by definition, always reading your words at the present moment.

So, as I see it, even if your narrative is in the past tense, when you address the reader directly, you're stepping outside that narrative, however briefly, and the tense needs to reflect this.

I don't think this is particularly related to the phrase "you see" (with or without the preceding preposition); it's true of any phrase where you're speaking directly to your reader: "know what I mean?", "you must understand", etc. (Whether including such phrases in your writing is appropriate is another question entirely.)

Chase · Aug 26, 2013

I sincerely hope you got a court order to exhume this question put to rest only a couple of weeks short of a year ago.

The wishy washy answer is keep the phrase fixed or switch it to the tense in which you're writing, whichever fits your style.

WWWalt · Aug 26, 2013

Chase said:
I sincerely hope you got a court order to exhume this question put to rest only a couple of weeks short of a year ago.

If the question had indeed been put to rest, I wouldn't have needed to trot it out again.

(In fact, a search engine led me to this thread... and I'll say that "that is" is a nearly impossible phrase to search on, as long as search engines continue to be ignorant of when someone is talking about a phrase instead of merely using it.)

The wishy washy answer is keep the phrase fixed or switch it to the tense in which you're writing, whichever fits your style.

Suppose my style is "the right way"?

Chase · Aug 26, 2013

Then by all means, write the right way. :welcome:

Bufty · Aug 27, 2013

Welcome, Walt. :welcome:

Do you and F.E. know each other?

fixed phrases, and fiction's past-tense narrative mode

F.E.

JohnnyGottaKeyboard

Who let this guy in...?

Fallen

Stood at the coalface

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?

Snick

F.E.

Maryn

At Sea

F.E.

F.E.

F.E.

F.E.

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?

Snick

F.E.

F.E.

F.E.

Susan Coffin

Tell it like it Is

ArtsyAmy

F.E.

WWWalt

WWWalt

Chase

It Takes All of Us to End Racism

WWWalt

Chase

It Takes All of Us to End Racism

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?