One of my biggest pet peeves is the use of the word “now” as describing a single point of time while in the past tense. Is this proper English? I would think not, but I’ve seen it all over the place, often by authors who should know better.
Wouldn’t “Then” be better usage?
An example is:
“It was Wednesday night. Now, Montfort asked his question to the Teeming Millions.”
I think it would be better to omit the adverb entirely, at least in the example your provided.
I’m not an English expert, but w/o some good examples, I can’t even give an opinion. Of course, if you are quoting some one, you’d use “now” as the person said. In most other cases, if you have to use the time adverb, I would think “then” is correct.
If the author started the sentence relating to Monfort with the word “now” they ought to be taken out and shot - as I should be for starting this post with the word “if”.
I sense it as forming a conceptual close connection between the present (reader’s) moment and the narrated moment. It helps to draw the reader into the scene as an eyewitness; it helps one to see from the point of view of the character(s) in the scene. If it’s done skillfully.
“Although Vanessa had trusted Amelia up until the unpleasant encounter in the Copacabana, she was now laboring under no illusions about her erstwhile confidante.”
Jomo sez: it can be legit as a literary device. As seasoned philologers of language usage can tell you, rigorous application of logic cannot be the only criterion of good written style. There are other asthetic and psychological considerations.
Look at this site which describes the “historical present” tense:
This usage dates from the late Old English period, according to the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionay
Interesting. I believe everyone in this thread so far is essentially right, with the possible exception of “reprise”, who would probably admit if pressed that shooting is a bit excessive for any purely linguistic failure. But running down the list:
Montmart - yes, “Now” is awkward in this example, and in many cases like it. You raise a legitimate grump on the usage, which is frequently so clumsy that it disturbs what John Gardner called “the continuous waking dream” of fiction.
barbitua8 - yes, eliminating the adverb “now” would neatly sidestep the objection in Montmart’s proffered example with little or no loss of meaning, as it would equally well in many of the real life cases that drove him to post in the first place.
reprise - your sentiment is clear and understandable.
Jomo Mojo - yes, the authors in such cases are clearly trying to draw the reader into a sense of the moment, while establishing that moment as a particular point in the past. Your example is particularly good, since it is clearly critical in that instance to establish “now” as a point in the fictional chronology, rather than in the reader’s personal timeline.
Snooooopy - yes, and thanks for the great reference! I hadn’t run across the bartleby.com site before, but it’s bookmarked now.
bibliophage - yes, thanks for establishing the venerability of the practice. Clearly it’s not a recent habit of a poorly educated or less demanding age, but a chronic attempt to deal with a common narrative problem.
My own contribution to this discussion is simply to summarize from the above that the practice, call it perhaps the “relative Now”, is just a pedestrian literary device trying to foster a sense of immediacy in the midst of a solidly past-tense narrative. Unfortunately, it is easy to use badly, and in such cases would be better off avoided entirely. But for better or worse, language is still more art than science or math, and this usage is neither legally or morally wrong. All that matters is whether it works, and that will always be a case by case, reader by reader judgement. Although I think developing writers should be warned to consider whether the potential gain is worth the risk.
posted by reprise:
What’s wrong with starting a sentence with “If?”
Now then…what were you saying?
