Past Present vs Past Simple: It’s all in the past, right?

I don't think anyone would be surprised to learn that I take part in a decent number of online forums for writers and editors. It's about connecting with other writers and editors, building my network. And I will admit that many of my interactions on social media feed the ideas for the posts on this blog.

Today's blog post is no different.

In a recent post in one of my forums, I came across a writer who had said that they had been taught that when using past perfect tense, it was best to transition to past simple quickly afterward.

I don't know about anyone else, but even now, I look at that and my head hurts. You don't want to know the thoughts that go through my mind with such statements. (I actually made a note in one of my manuscripts to maim and torture the grammar police.) But this is not the first time that I've encountered a writer who insisted on using such terminology. (Why they would even bother… Well, there's a reason I made a note to maim and torture the grammar police.)

Yes, these literary terms have specific meanings, and many English teachers will insist that you get them right. So, let's get to it and define what the different versions of past tense verbs are.

Here's hoping that we don't totally get confused along the way.

The different versions of past tense

To put it as simply as possible, past perfect is the tense that indicates that something had been completed before anything else happened. (Wow, even the definition is in past perfect.)

Example: Sally had drunk two bottles of water before breakfast.

It's the word had that makes it past perfect.

Contrast this with past simple, which refers to events in the past with no additional classifiers.

Example: Sally drank two bottles of water.

This shouldn't be confused with the past progressive tense, which uses a combination of the word was and -ing words, and is used to show an action that was ongoing in the past.

Example: Sally was drinking a third bottle of water when her brother knocked it out of her hand.

Note that in this example, the first verb (was drinking) is past progressive, but the second verb (knocked) is past simple. I do need to point out that the usage of the word was does not define the progressive nature of the verb, but rather the -ing word does.

And to totally confuse the issue, there is past perfect progressive tense, which uses both had and the -ing words in combination to show an ongoing action that is now completed.

Example: Sally had been drinking those bottles of water to prove to her jerk of a brother she could drink that much in a short time.

Just from the examples alone, hopefully, you can see that each version of past tense has its uses. They convey a different message and sense of the passage of time.

The form used the most is…

Well, most writing that uses past tense uses past simple. It's cleaner, using far less words, and gets straight to the point.

Anything using the words such as was or had will likely be slashed down by an editor, unless there is a specific reason why a passage reads better for using the progressive or perfect versions of past tense.

I even recommend to my clients to employ a Was edit, slaying the word was. It's not a generic search and replace, but it does tighten language.

Narrative will use the form needed to give the appropriate sense of time.

To put it blunt, only an English major will likely care what these different versions of past tense are called. But within storytelling, it is important to understand how these different versions of past tense give a sense of the passage of time.

Consider these two sentences.

The girl was three years old.

The girl had been three years old.

When using the word was, we get a sense that the girl is three years old at the time of the story narrative. However, had been gives the impression that the narrative is talking about an event that happened some time before the narrative takes place, like the narrator is doing a flashback or something.

Consider these sentences.

Bryton leaned against the tree.

Bryton was leaning against the tree.

Bryton had been leaning against the tree.

The first sentence simply states where we might find Bryton within the scene. The second sentence gives the impression that Bryton was and still is leaning against the tree. However, the third sentence implies that at some point Bryton was leaning against the tree, but he isn't any longer.

All three sentences are grammatically correct, but they all have different meanings.

In response to the statement that sparked this literary term explained blog post… Yes, it is a good idea to move to past simple shortly after using past perfect, but exactly how you do that will depend on what the narrative is trying to explain.

If you encounter another literary or industry term that you don't understand and would like explained, just drop us a line.