Forum: Editors/Reviewers Hangout

It sounds like something a character is saying to themselves

Because it's 1st-person, to me it's as if the character is saying it to the reader. During editing, I catch myself using common phrases like that. It's like the 1st-person narrator, telling the story in past tense, jumps out of the story to make that expression.

I agree. I'd normally put inner dialogues (thoughts) in present tense—because, for the protagonist, it IS in the present, not the past—However, that's not an inner dialogue, it's actually an example of breaking the forth wall (speaking directly to the reader, and thus breaking the entire story context).

That said, I do frequently do that too, as often, it's a great way to interject a little ironic humor into an otherwise overly dramatic, tense scene, so I see it more as a 'release value' for the reader, a way for them to chuckle, take a deep breath, and let go of some of the previously building story tension. (i.e. as such, it doesn't count in that context, as it's serving a non-story related objective).

Again, I've seen many cases where breaking the fourth wall is a highly effective technique, yet that's in experienced hands. Though in most cases, it's more problematic than beneficial.

However, just because a specific story is written as 'happening in the past', doesn't mean you can't mix tenses. There are standard guidelines for that (i.e. you separate the tenses into separate sentence fragments), yet certain things simply read better as 'present tense Action Verbs' rather than passive, non-active verbs.

Of course, MANY readers HATE those mixed-tense sentences, so you need to carefully consider your readers and their expectations in such matters (i.e. 'writing FOR your readers').

Changing it to past tense may be possible, but to me almost more awkward.

That's why I brought it up. My instinct when writing is to use the present tense version because it's a common expression. But while editing, I change it to past tense to keep the tense consistent (it's not internal thought. It is the narrator, but in present tense it seems he's outside the story.)

"Why? who the hell knows." is creepy or jarring
"Why? who the hell knew." additionally implies he now know.

"Who knows?" is an idiom. It's often used to express uncertainty, doubt, or the idea that the answer to a question or the outcome of a situation is unknown or unpredictable.

If it was said in dialogue or thought, it would definitely be "knows." But it was part of the narrative from a 1st-person narrator. Since it's part of the narrative, I feel it should conform to the tense of the narrative. In this case past tense. But maybe as an idiom that's not so.

As I said, my instinct when writing something like that is to use the present tense idiom. Then, during editing, I "correct" the tense. But I wonder if that's correct. That's why I asked. But it seems no one knows for sure.

Based on your snippet, I would veer towards the past tense. But I think I'd need more context and idea of the narrator's perspective before deciding. What did the narrator know at the time, since we appear to be receiving their internal thoughts, and what does the narrator know now?

ETA: I would have used 'who knew' as a straight past tense form of 'who knows', but a quick google shows its main nuance is sarcastic or ironic, which is probably not what the author intended to convey. Perhaps avoidance is the best strategy :-(

AJ

but a quick google shows its main nuance is sarcastic or ironic, which is probably not what the author intended to convey.

I think that's exactly what the author intended. Throughout the story, the father was baffled by his 14-yo daughter's teenage mind.

Throughout the story, the father was baffled by his 14-yo daughter's teenage mind.

I think 'who knew' is normally taken to mean everyone knew eg "So Lance Armstrong was a drugs cheat - who knew!"

AJ

Who knew?

Wasn't that a rhetorical question? Black Coffee allegedly punctuated it with an exclamation mark.

AJ

In that case, shouldn't that be a interrobang? They're not used often, but sometimes you really do need both the exclamation and the question mark.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there's no hint of present tense in that sentence. You've got a tense agnostic participle (proclaiming) here, and it's even used in a broken sentence. The participle refers back to a missing part of the sentence (to whatever "each" was doing at the time they proclaimed this). I know that it seems cool writing style nowadays to decorate relative clauses with full stops, one reason why I found Hunger Games such an exhausting read, but it's incorrect.

All the participle does is condense the expression:
...while at the same time, each proudly proclaimed...

That you're leaving out the "had" is just colloquial language. Also incorrect in the strictest sense, but so common that barely anybody cares. It has nothing to do with the participle.