I had someone critique a story of mine, and I can't for the life of me figure out what she meant by one particular comment. I would ask her, but she isn't quite available right now--having just been assigned somewhere for a few months.

She said, "one little problem you had was heavy past tense...Some can't be helped because of the nature of the narrative, but any ounce of past tense that can be eliminated should be."

Do you have parts in your story that have flashbacks, or backstory explanations, or anything else that sounds along the lines of "he had done this" or "she remembered having thought this"?

There's past tense, and then there's deep past tense. Past tense is "he was doing the dishes", and deep past tense is "he had been doing the dishes". Of course, there are probably real literary terms for this that I'm not aware of, but I think I'm doing okay making the distinction clear. Your friend is probably right by saying that you should avoid deep past tense as much as possible, though, if in fact she's thinking of the same thing I am.

One trick I've been using is that when I start a flashback, I use deep past tense to show that it is indeed a flashback; but once that is established, I jump as soon as is feesible back into regular past tense for the rest of the scene. It shows that the person remembering it is playing it through memory as though it was happening again, in real time, and not just a memory; and that is valuable in keeping your audience's attention engaged, as well as just avoiding the tediousness of writing in deep past tense.

Of course, I could be completely off the mark. Haven't read your stuff.

Shasta

*edit: deep=heavy. Duh. *smacks forehead*

Or your friend may have picked up a tip that really isn't very helpful from an overly energetic writing instructor. In the worst case, it might be that she has gotten the idea that stories really should always be written in the present tense, on which subject don't get me started. In any case, I'm pretty sure the terminology she's using is off, so the suggestion may well be off, too.

Shasta, I appreciated you points about use of "had" and introduction of flashbacks with that tense.

A caution about flashbacks: I'd suggest (again this is parroting things I've learned from OSC) they tend to stop the story from proceeding and insert a chunk of backstory instead. See my rant in another thread about chunks of backstory.

When you say "he had been doing something," you are using what is called "past perfect tense." (Not sure why, but those are the terms.)

There is also the possibility that the critiquer is reacting to the word "was" and trying to tell you that you are using it too much. ("Was" is a form of "to be" which is a "static" verb as opposed to an "active" verb.)

If you can rewrite a sentence so that you don't use "was"--write it with a more active verb--that may help.

Example: "her hair was brown" just sits there, but "her brown hair shone in the sun" is a bit more active, and "her brown hair flashed in the sunlight as the wind played with it" is even more active (and, I hope, more interesting <shrug> ).

If you can't figure out from these ideas what your critiquer was actually trying to say, I'd recommend that you file it up on a shelf in your brain somewhere and hope that if it really is a problem, someone else will mention it in a more understandable way.

quote:

---

When you say "he had been doing something," you are using what is called "past perfect tense." (Not sure why, but those are the terms.)

---

Try th is, go through the story and look for had, was, had been---try to reword the sentence without those words--try hard sometimes it takes a lot of thught. I think you will be surprised by the results.

Almost always for the better.

She was already washing out the bloodstains when he arrived.

The problem was, the sandwich could hear him.

Was there balm in Gilead? Rumor had it they were sold out.

The sandwich could hear him and that created a problem. Tells what the problem is more directly.

Did they have balm in Gilead? Rumor said they didn't. Rumor had it--cliche and an odd construct. Rumor doesn't have anything--fits with she tossed her head ect.

If you stand by the get rid of it when you can, your wiritng will be much smoother and say better what you mean---

The bloodstains were already being washed out when he arrived.

The problem was that he could be heard by the sandwich. (This is NOT passive because of the first clause: the first clause has a subject, the word "problem." Notice that the REAL passive construction, "could be heard" doesn't even use "was"!)

Was there balm in Gilead? It was rumored they were sold out.

The first example is one that uses the past progressive tense. This is tense, not voice! (Passive and active are examples of voices. Past progressive and present are examples of tenses.)

The second example is an example of the "there is" construction, rendered in Spanish as "hay," in French as "il y a" and in German as "es gibt" (none of which use any form of the verb "to be" in those languages) It is not a particularly active way to deliver information, but is an appropriate method when there is no actor. Passive vs. active comes in when there is an actor and the actor is not named, e.g. saying "She was paid fifty dollars" rather than "The glue man paid her fifty dollars." In a "there is" (or "the problem was") construction, there is no actor. You're simply describing a state or condition. Again, you could make it more active, but you might not want to, and this is NOT passive voice.

The third example is another "there is" example. See example 2.

You can tell a true passive construction because it acts as a helper for another verb. "She was given fifty dollars:" "was" acts as a helper verb to "given." Similarly notice my passive construction using "be" as the helper verb (same verb, different tense) in "be heard."

You can also detect passive voice because there is an actor, but the actor is implied rather than stated, as with the glue man, whose presence is implied in "she was given fifty dollars" (because someone would have to give it to her) but stated in "the glue man gave her fifty dollars."

The short version: The word "was" does not always indicate passive voice.

Luc

quote:

---

She was already washing out the bloodstains when he arrived.

---

quote:

---

She washed out the bloodstains before we arrived.

---

quote:

---

The bloodstains were already being washed out when he arrived.

---

The first and third examples say that the washing was going on when he arrived. The second says the washing was already accomplished before he got there. (Take out the "already" and it's easier to spot.)

quote:

---

The problem was, the sandwich could hear him.

---

quote:

---

The sandwich could hear him and that created a problem. Tells what the problem is more directly.

---

The first example is more in keeping with the popular vernacular, a more natural conversational construct. The second really doesn't exactly define the problem; maybe the problem is the listening sandwich, maybe not. The sentence says it "created" a problem, not that it "was" the problem. The created problem could be that he was afraid he was going nuts, could be that he had to whisper around the sandwich or write notes to his wife so the sandwich couldn't hear, could be that the sandwich didn't hear well and got it all mixed up or required the guy to talk loudly or repeat things, could be the sandwich heard him and was going to tell.

quote:

---

Was there balm in Gilead? Rumor had it they were sold out.

---

quote:

---

Did they have balm in Gilead? Rumor said they didn't. Rumor had it--cliche and an odd construct. Rumor doesn't have anything--fits with she tossed her head ect.

---

"Is there no balm in Gilead...?" (Jeremiah 8:22) is the referenced quote here, and in my very subjective opinion, the first example echoes it better.

"Rumor had it" may be a cliche and rumor may not "have" anything, but like "the problem was," seems to be a more conversational expression, probably context appropriate.

I hope my posts here have come across expressing the respect I feel for you as a writer, regardless of disagreements as to particular usages.

That said, while I am wholly in favor of routing out the passive voice when appropriate, I am also wholly aware of the pitfalls of doing so, e.g., changing the meaning of a sentence in our zeal to do away with the passive. Washing while someone arrives and washing before someone gets there are two different things.

Actually, Luc, you're right in that "The word 'was' does not always indicate passive voice." The presence of any state of being verb does not automatically mean passive voice. As long as the subject is the doer--and being can be considered doing--the voice is active. It's only when the subject is being acted upon that the voice is passive--the subject just sits back and lets it happen. Perhaps a better example for that one sentence would be:
She washed out the blood stains.
The blood stains were washed out by her.