Grammar question

[stickygirl]

In writing third person, can I mix past tense and present? For example

'The Scottish highlands are known for sudden storms and blizzards, but Tom set out, despite the advice he was given and found himself in trouble.'

Or should it be...

'The Scottish highlands were known for sudden storms and blizzards, but Tom set out, despite the advice he was given and found himself in trouble.'

...if I'm describing an accepted and enduring fact? In my head, the highlands have always been dangerous and will remain that way in the future. Is the rule to keep everything in past tense? It feels leaden.
Asking for me

 

[Rob_Royale]

The first example feels right, as the narrator is offering a fact and then explaining what happed when the fact was ignored.

 

[BeechLeaf]

Yes, it's a general and enduring state, so present tense is fine. It's a bit more authorial voice than character's POV: 'were' could encode what Tom knew.

 

[anthrodisiac]

There are lots of opinions about what you "should" or "shouldn't" do in these cases. However, it's not grammatically incorrect, so you write it as you see fit.

Yes, it's a general and enduring state, so present tense is fine. It's a bit more authorial voice than character's POV: 'were' could encode what Tom knew.

BeechLeaf stole the fucking words out of my mouth, the bastard!* does indeed possess a wise and sagacious mind. Depending how close the POV is and the narrative voice you plan to use for the story, you could use: were, are, had always been.

*

 

[TheLobster]

Narrative past is like writing from infinite future, so even the general “always true” statements (gnomic tense, as the cunning linguists call it) should be written in simple past tense.

So, the first example is incorrect.

 

[Baztrachian]

'The Scottish highlands are known for sudden storms and blizzards, but Tom set out, despite the advice he was given and found himself in trouble.'

Here's my two cents as an editor:

"Several of the locals had warned Tom about the fickle winter weather in the Scottish Highlands. Ignoring their sage advice he set out anyway and quickly found himself in trouble."

 

[Bryan_C]

I think either is probably correct, but the second (past tense) sounds more natural to my ear. Or, what Baztrachian said.

 

[SmilingLez]

I would also use are vs were unless the Scottish Highlands are going to change

 

[anthrodisiac]

Well, the other consideration is: in what context is this sentence taking place? POV and voice are one consideration, but if there are other sentences linked to this one, it might change how you would want to write it. On its own, I think it's acceptable to use present tense (I wouldn't personally, but that's a style choice, one I usually associate more with Literary Fiction or omniscient narrator), but there could be other factors that would influence the tense. I couldn't possible give examples, because there are way too many possibilities in my mind about what those could be and how they would work, but if your concern is "is this grammatically incorrect," then the answer is no.

I will add that I have a personal dislike of mixing tenses within the same sentence. If they were split into two sentences, I'd probably feel less "bleagh" toward it than I currently do. At present, I'm really not a fan of it, but like I said before, I don't want to step on someone else's stylistic choices unless they're actively hurting the sentence/story, and this one isn't so egregious that I'd advocate firmly against it. More a polite, "might want to reconsider," than anything.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I second what @TheLobster said.

The flipping between the present and past tense in the first example basically takes the reader to the narrator's time (present) rather than the character's time (past). It's both wrong and awkward at the same time.

Not to mention that it could be factually wrong. Well, not in this case, as the Scottish Highlands have been like that since before the Earth was even created.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

The first (present) tells the story from a present point of view, presumably the narrator. Using the past tense puts it closer to Tom's actions, so if the whole story is his POV that's better.

But the sentence is a bit long and clunky, but less so when it's all in the same tense.

I'd consider splitting it, say: 'The Scottish highlands were known for sudden storms and blizzards. But Tom set out, despite knowing that, and soon found himself in trouble.'

 

[GuiltyCowboy]

I prefer the first option, feels more natural, though the second could also work. Depends how the rest is written to be honest.

I have to say, like Kumquatqueen, that i do find the sentence a bit clunky: I think it's because you've separated 'despite the advice he was given' from 'The Scottish highlands are known for sudden storms and blizzards' and they basically perform the same function in the sentence; it's that repetition that makes it clunky, to my mind.

You could try to combine them (eg 'Despite the advice he was given about the Scottish highlands' sudden storms and blizzards, Tom set out - and soon found himself in trouble')? Though I note that I instinctively inserted a 'soon' into your sentence and I think it's good practice to guard aginst that sort of thing.

 

[Britva415]

In my head, the highlands have always been dangerous and will remain that way in the future.

Unless your head is in the story, that isn't persuasive. What about in the in-universe people's heads? Tom ignored someone's advice, so, how would you spell this from their points of view?

Would you write "the Highlands are known to Tom (or his advisors) to..." or would you write "the Highlands were known to Tom (or his advisors) to...?"

You can look at it this way even if it is your own head in the story. "The Highlands (are or were) known to me to be dangerous, so, I advised Tom..."

 

[Voboy]

In writing third person, can I mix past tense and present? For example

'The Scottish highlands are known for sudden storms and blizzards, but Tom set out, despite the advice he was given and found himself in trouble.'

Or should it be...

'The Scottish highlands were known for sudden storms and blizzards, but Tom set out, despite the advice he was given and found himself in trouble.'

...if I'm describing an accepted and enduring fact? In my head, the highlands have always been dangerous and will remain that way in the future. Is the rule to keep everything in past tense? It feels leaden.
Asking for me

There aren't really any rules, but the present tense sounds "right."

I would jazz up the rest a little, though.

 

[anthrodisiac]

Thank goodness you have a very consistent answer to your question.

 

[Cagivagurl]

Forget the rules....
Go with what sounds / feels right when read aloud...
Rules are only guidelines, and are meant to be broken...

That's my defence... Because I'm shit at grammar....

 

[HectorBidon]

In writing third person, can I mix past tense and present?

It's been done before.

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife."

 

[stickygirl]

Thanks everyone - I let the comments accumulate while I slept so this is an interesting read over my morning coffee. The sentence is for illustration and who ever Tom is, I'm sure he'll have survived.

An editor pointed out to me after reading a proof, that mixing tenses was incorrect, so I thought I'd take a poll here. In the context of my story, it is set on a real life island and there are numerous guidebooks written - in present tense of course. I think the narration style of those guides got into my head. Guidebooks often use present tense: 'Take the easterly road and you find the picturesque fishing village of Lickofingery.' as narration present but 'The road runs in a circuit round the island, so they took the clockwise direction.' which is back to mixing tenses, isn't it?

There is quite a bit of descriptive narration and I believe there is a danger including that amount of present tense ( the patchwork of fields sweep into the distant hillside ) might unbalance the story itself ( they found a path that led through the dunes to the beach ). So... I'm going to play safe and stick everything into past tense.

 

[XerXesXu]

'Despite the advice he was given, that the Scottish highlands ARE known for sudden storms and blizzards, Tom set out and found himself in trouble.'

Rejig, and you have no problem.

 

[TheLobster]

'Despite the advice he was given, that the Scottish highlands ARE known for sudden storms and blizzards, Tom set out and found himself in trouble.'

Isn't this indirect speech now? Which would be another reason to pull the present tense into the past, even in regular writing and not just fictional narration.

 

[LisaMayTurner]

You are making life too difficult for yourself.

"People had told him about the highlands being pretty fearsome and dangerous, but Tom set out knowing this; he was a tough walker and a bit stupid."

 

[Duil2]

As an editor I'd always advise not to mix tenses but as mentioned already it's the author's choice at the end of the day.

 

[XerXesXu]

Isn't this indirect speech now? Which would be another reason to pull the present tense into the past, even in regular writing and not just fictional narration.

No.

You pointed out that the tense/aspect/mood is gnomic, rendered as the PRESENT in English. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnomic_aspect)

Direct attribution = He said, 'The Scottish highlands ARE known for sudden storms and blizzards.'

Indirect attribution = the advice was, the Scottish highlands ARE known for sudden storms and blizzards. You just remove the quotation marks.

Even though you are right - there's no arguable reason for using the past tense, you're struggling too hard to prove yourself wrong.

I would have gone with the present tense simply on 'ear'. The past tense sounds wierd. Why would anyone advise Pete what was, but may not be now? It was 'now' he wanted to know about.

I would add, this seems to be one of those nit-picks that only the unreasonable reader, possibly because of a warped education, would notice, or care a fig over.

 

[consistentlyrepudiated]

I second what @TheLobster said.

The flipping between the present and past tense in the first example basically takes the reader to the narrator's time (present) rather than the character's time (past). It's both wrong and awkward at the same time.

Not to mention that it could be factually wrong. Well, not in this case, as the Scottish Highlands have been like that since before the Earth was even created.

Disagree. The narrative past isn't written from an infinite future; it is written in a defined present.

There’s no absolute rule here, and while many editors push for strict past-tense consistency, many writers break it on purpose. Sometimes you want to emphasize that something is still an ongoing truth, or to keep the reader right inside the character’s head.

"He knew water boils at 100 degrees" sounds right.
"He knew water boiled at 100 degrees" sounds off - like maybe the laws of physics changed?

Same thing in first person:
“What was I thinking?”

Some editors would freak out and tell you to italicize it or rewrite it so it doesn't break the fourth wall. But that's exactly how a real person thinks - a natural response when reliving the moment. So unless the narrator is some detached ghost writer, the editors can fuck off.

 

[TheLobster]

Disagree. The narrative past isn't written from an infinite future; it is written in a defined present.

Is it, though? Maybe sometimes, especially in first person narratives, but unless the author dropped explicit hints that the act of storytelling takes place at a particular time, the default assumption is that the narration itself is timeless. And because it’s using past tense, it naturally follows that everything that happened, happened in the past.