Had had

"He had had this happen to him many times before."

Is this correct? Is there another way of putting it that is generally less obvious than "had had"?

 

It's technically okay, but it is a bit annoying, and it's easy enough to work around.

This had happened to him many times before.

the "had had" basically emphasises what one "had" does fine.

 

It's grammatically correct. I'd get around the weird sound with a contraction.
"He'd had this happen..."

 

Contractions are fine, but it's best to avoid heavy use of them in narrative unless it's a first person or otherwise colloquially-inclined telling. It's not like I never use them, but it's best not to litter your prose with too many of them.

If that was in speech, it'd be great though.

 

Cheers, peoples!

 

I'd like to note that the use of the first "had"(s) is to imply further distance of the clause's state(tense), and that without that additional "had" the tense would be closer to the present -- even though the sentence is still written in past tense.

 

Not really. The second had is the primary verb ikn past particple form, the first is the auxilliary verb that generates past perfect tense. Past perfect consists of the past partiple preceded by had.

had given
had proven
had touched
had lost
had had

 

it's correct, but unwieldy... and is [borderline?] passive voice, which is generally to be avoided...

the active voice 'this had happened to him before' may be better, depending on the context...

 

I don't think that it's grammatically incorrect, but i'd probably rewrite it as "This had happened to him many times before."

ChickenFreak