About tense in stories: this is bothersome, I promise

Question

Hi,

The excerpt below is from a book by David Sedaris, and I would like to know what kind of picture you'll have when you read the underlined part in terms of "time, or tense."

I am Japanese, and for Japanese writings it's not rare to write a story using past tense, and also present tense. Even if some sentences are written in present tense, the reader won't get confused with the context, and they actually give the story vividness.

Now I am kind of confused if there's this kind of technique in English writings. "Her her name include no s's, she probably would have..." the sentence below, is quite clear for me - it's something that didn't happen in the past - but when I read "If I wanted to spend.." I felt like, the tense is ambiguous, because it's only happening in his imagination and in English you use the past tense to say like, "if I had a million dollars, I would buy…"

So, would you tell me the picture you have when you read a sentence like this?

(He, David, has a lisp issue here and Samson is a speech therapist.)
She was in love with the sound of her own name and seemed to view my speech impediment as a personal assault. If I wanted to spend the rest of my life as David Thedarith, then so be it. She, however, was going to be called Miss Chrissy Samson. Had her name included no s's, she probably would have bypassed a career in therapy and ….."

Thank you,

M

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

mitsuwao23I felt like, the tense is ambiguous, because it's only happening in his imagination and in English you use the past tense to say like, "if I had a million dollars, I would buy…"

No. It's not ambiguous. If I wanted to spend ... is just what it looks like - the past tense.

She probably said, at the time, speaking to Sedaris, "If you want to spend the rest of your life ..., then that is your problem".

When he reports the same idea in his account of it, it becomes (without the introductory She said that):

(She said that) if I wanted to spend the rest of my life ..., then so be it.

OK?

CJ

Mitsuo23 · Answer

Thank you, CJ.

So she actually said it, OK, but how about these sentences? It's from the same story.

I had no interest in football or basketball but had learned it was best to pretend otherwise. If a boy didn't care for barbecued chicken or potato chips, people would accept it as a matter of personal taste, saying, "Oh well, I guess it takes all kinds." You could turn up your nose at the president or Coke or even *** (if you wanted), but there were names for boys who didn't like sports.

I don't think David actually know the kids who don't like potato chips. So this is not what actually happened. Why doesn't this be like, if a boy didn't care (or if a boy had not cared) for them, people would have accepted it…

Where is the line between them?

Thank you,

M

Mitsuo23 · Answer

CJ,

Please forgive me for relying on you this much, but you're definitely one of the articulate people here.

I wasn't quoted the writing below earlier, because I couldn't figure out why I feel uncomfortable with these "would"s.

(from the same story)

Whereas those around me might grow up to be lawyers or movie stars, my only option was to take a vow of silence and become a monk. My former classmates would call the abbey, wondering how I was doing, and the priest would answer the phone. "You can't talk to him!" he'd say. "Why, Brother David hasn't spoken to anyone in thirty-five years!"

And the reason I am feeling uncomfortable was, again, tense. I don't know if he's talking about something in the past, or he is at present and imagining something that might happen in the future. One of this kind like, She would look better with shorter hair.

And the word that causes this confusion is, My "former" classmates. Because of it, I don't where David is.

Would you give some advice to solve my confusion?

Thank you,

M

CalifJim · Answer

mitsuwao23If a boy didn't care for barbecued chicken or potato chips, people would accept it as a matter of personal taste, saying, ...

= If a boy did not like barbecued chicken or ..., people [were willing to / used to / tended to] accept it as .... People did not have particularly negative opinions of boys who expressed a dislike for certain foods.

mitsuwao23You could turn up your nose at the president or ...

= It was possible for you (=a boy) to turn up your nose at the president or .... A boy who expressed extreme dislike of the president or other things like that was able to do that (without attracting negative attention).

mitsuwao23I don't think David actually ~~know~~ knew the kids who ~~don't~~ didn't like potato chips.

He must have known a few kids who didn't like certain foods; otherwise he wouldn't be able to talk about such kids in general, as he is doing here. Potato chips is just mentioned as a possible example.

CJ

CalifJim · Answer

mitsuwao23I don't know if he's talking about something in the past, or he is at present and imagining something that might happen in the future. One of this kind like, She would look better with shorter hair.

He's imagining the future.

He's thinking that by the time he becomes a monk, his classmates will be former classmates because he won't be going to class with them any more. He'll be a monk.

CJ

Mitsuo23 · Answer

Thank you, CJ, for the reply. The first half sounded good for me.

I know I will sound a bit silly but will explain what confusing me here.

Speaking of the monk part, my understanding is, he's saying that he will be a monk around the time he's former classmates become lawyers or movies stars. So these "would"s in the part should be, simply, "will-in-the-past." Now, I'm wondering why these don't be like:

Whereas those around me might grow up to be lawyers or movie stars, my only option was to take a vow of silence and become a monk. My former classmates would've called the abbey, wondering how I was doing, and the priest would've answered the phone. (If I really became)

Because his now is a grown-up and is a writer. So it didn't eventually happen.

Is this because what he is writing is a story, but not a documentary report? Or he is implying that there are still possibilities that he will he a monk in the future. Or…

I may be thinking too much, but when I try to translate this part, it becomes nonsense, meaning there should be something I haven't understood correctly.

Thank you always,

m

CalifJim · Answer

mitsuwao23Thank you, CJ, for the reply. The first half sounded good ~~for~~ to me.
I know I will sound a bit silly but will explain what is confusing me here.

Speaking of the monk part, my understanding is, he's saying that he ~~will~~ would be a monk around the time ~~he's~~ his former classmates ~~become~~ became lawyers or movies stars. So these "would"s in the part should be, simply, "will-in-the-past." Now, I'm wondering why these ~~don't be~~ aren't like:
Whereas those around me might grow up to be lawyers or movie stars, my only option was to take a vow of silence and become a monk.

My former classmates would've called the abbey, wondering how I was doing, and the priest would've answered the phone. (If I ~~really became~~ had really become ...) Nope. If he wrote this, it would indicate an imagined version of the past. He wants an imagined version of the future as he saw it then, i.e., a future of the past. Isn't that "will-in-the-past"?

Because ~~his~~ he's now --is-- a grown-up and is a writer. So it didn't eventually happen.
Is this because what he is writing is a story, but not a documentary report? No. That's irrelevant except insofar as narrative style changes temporal viewpoint more often than documentaries.

Or he is implying that there are still possibilities that he will he a monk in the future. No!

Or…
I may be thinking too much, but when I try to translate this part, it becomes nonsense, meaning there ~~should~~ must be something I haven't understood correctly.

mitsuwao23lWhereas those around me might grow up to be lawyers or movie stars, my only option was to take a vow of silence and become a monk. My former classmates would call the abbey, wondering how I was doing, and the priest would answer the phone. "You can't talk to him!" he'd say. "Why, Brother David hasn't spoken to anyone in thirty-five years!"
The whole passage is in the past. The first sentence is "the real past". If it were in the present, it would be something like this:

Maybe those around me [will / are going to] grow up to be lawyers or movie stars, but not me. My only option is to take a vow of silence and become a monk.

The past of this is: Maybe those around me [would / were going to] grow up to be lawyers or movie stars, but not me. My only option was to take a vow of silence and become a monk.

(The author uses slightly different word choices, but the idea is the same. Note that we can express maybe ... will ... as may and maybe .. would ... as might.)

The rest of the passage (after the first sentence) can be thought of as "the imagined past", or more accurately, the imagined future of that past. If it were in the present, it would be something like this:

My former classmates [will / are going to] (I imagine) call the abbey, wondering how I am doing, and the priest [will / is going to] (I imagine) answer the phone. "You can't talk to him!" [he'll / he's going to] say.(I imagine). .... This is the imagined future of the present.

The past of the passage above is:

My former classmates [would / were going to] (I imagine) call the abbey, wondering how I was doing, and the priest [would / was going to] (I imagine) answer the phone. "You can't talk to him!" [he'd / he was going to] say.(I imagine). .... This is the imagined future of the past.

Any clearer? Better? Worse?

CJ

Mitsuo23 · Answer

Oh, no, no,

You mean, he will quite the school today and be a monk? Is that the way I should read the part?

Then the "would"s seem to be making sense.

Oh, boy. that's where I should've payed more attention.

M

Mitsuo23 · Answer

Thank you for taking you time. Sometimes we pass each other.

CalifJim
mitsuwao23My former classmates would've called the abbey, wondering how I was doing, and the priest would've answered the phone. (If I really became had really become ...) Nope. If he wrote this, it would indicate an imagined version of the past. He wants an imagined version of the future as he saw it then, i.e., a future of the past. Isn't that "will-in-the-past"?
Absolutely. I was thinking he was explaing an imagined version of him who became an adult, not an imagined version of him who would become an adult. But since David is actually an adult right now, I didin't know where david was. I couldn't understand the would's and the context.

But if he in the story quite the school and become a monk anytime soon, meaning the character is still a kid. the "will-in-the-past"s make sense.

Any more suggestions or advice would be appreciated.

M

CalifJim · Answer

OK. I have more or less finished. Go back and read the whole thing again and see what you think.

CJ

About tense in stories: this is bothersome, I promise

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions