Number 61
A former colleague responding to last week's comments on the use of the present tense said (says?) that the "literary present" is used to discuss fictional events, and the past tense for historical events, and refers to a UC San Diego web site. I'm accustomed to the present tense in literary commentary (e.g., "In Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark feels compelled to take action without absolute certainty, but the audience sees his father's ghost too.") I don't care for it in novels ("Tiffany straightens the rug without disturbing the cat" ~ does she do this constantly or did she do it at a specific time?) I really don't like it in news or documentaries or history ("Jack Paar dies.")
My old colleague wrote (writes?):
I recall being variously amused and frustrated during my days as an editor of books on religious issues by authors' choices in this regard. In this context especially, the selection of tense was not just a matter of style; by my reckoning, it was also political, whether the authors acknowledged it or not. . . .Even given the wiggle room here effected by opening the door to use of the literary present in describing texts in which "writers or artists . . . express themselves in their [nonfictional] work" ("Plato argues . . ."; "Paul writes . . ."), there remains to my ear the ring of fiction associated with the use of the literary present ~ and it is a point of enormous controversy whether certain biblical texts are more properly characterized as objective historical records or "literature" (which some consider a euphemism for outright fiction).
So I always had to wonder what to do with the verbs when an author would use the present tense in describing, say, Christ's passion or a miracle account. Was it a subtextual relegation of the story to the category of literature or myth? Or was it just fallout from an unfamiliarity with the distinction between the literary and historical present? And if I elected to change the tense, was I subverting an intended critical position? Moreover, scholars, as they are wont to do, have laid claim to positions all along the spectrum between the poles of viewing biblical texts as fact or as fiction. What tense suffices in that great gray zone?
Very often, when scriptwriters and others try to use the present tense to narrate the past, and then jump back and forth between farther and nearer past, they confuse the tenses, displaying either a general ignorance or carelessness (they need to hire a good editor!) But documentaries on the Bible tend to have an air of scholarly distance and unbelief, which may account for the use of the "literary" present tense, correctly or otherwise ~ i.e., they don't think it's really history, although very often the programs are about archaeological finds, etc.
Here are a few expressions Fred and I heard growing up, from our parents who came from geographically different but more and/or less Scottish stock.
From my West Virginia folks:
A cocked hat is "a hat with the brim turned up in two or three places, especially a three-cornered hat; a tricorn." I don't know why you'd freeze into that shape, but my mother used to warn us against it.
I'm not talking just to hear my head roar.
When I was a little kid I heard this as "head drawer," which was confusing, but I got the gist when Mom was mad.
Foolishness! It wouldn't make good foolishness.
How my grandfather expressed scorn.
From Fred's southern Ohio grandmother:
This describes a person so worthless that he can't even support lice.
Her bladder is hanging at her eyes.
Describes someone who's weepy.
It seems the Celtic mood typically comprised warning, scorn, or contempt.
A TV craftperson referred to a "soft, manipulative type clay." Probably the clay was creative too (see PO 13). I'm reminded of this verse from the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam:
And strange to tell, among that Earthen Lot
Some could articulate, while others not:
And suddenly one more impatient cried ~
"Who is the Potter, pray, and who the Pot?"
Last week I watched a movie on TV based on the true story of a teenager who had his mother and grandmother killed for their money. In the movie, the boy played Caligula in a school play, which was used to further plot and character development, or deterioration, rather. The oddest thing about the TV production was a disclaimer in the credits saying that while they used extracts from the play Caligula by Camus, they did not intend to imply that these extracts were representative of Camus' play or his intentions or the character Caligula. I assume the producers got the required permissions, but why a disclaimer? They can't be afraid of a lawsuit by Camus, who is dead, nor by his estate; nor of literary critics who might sue for misinterpretation or perhaps simply for disagreeing with them, I shouldn't think; and is it possible to defame Caligula's character? I don't get it.
"No, no, they do but jest, poison in jest; no offence i' the world." Hamlet, 3.2
Parvum Opus is a publication of KeithOps / Opus Publishing Services. Feel free to comment in the Guestbook, linked below the back issue links.
Feel free to e-mail me with comments or queries. If you don’t want to receive Parvum Opus, please reply with “unsubscribe,” “quit,” “enough,” or something like that in the subject line, and I’ll take you off the mailing list.
Return to KeithOps.