Past Perfect - the forgotten verb tense?

I confess, most of what I know about verb tense comes from French classes, not English, but I think it behooves writers to understand at least the concepts of grammar, if not the terminology, and one concept I see being shunned by quite a few writers is the past perfect.

I think this comes from the desire to write more simply and directly? I often see people referring to the structure of past perfect as "extra words" or "complications" that should be cut. But I think words aren't extra if they add meaning, and I think past perfect absolutely adds meaning.

So, grammatically, past perfect is what you use to show that an action in the past occurs before another action in the past. So we use "had" + the past participle to indicate this. The tense is "perfect" because the action in the past is completed. For example:

I had run into her before, but she'd never been as venomous as she was now.​

"Had" is clear, and "run" is, conveniently, the past participle of "to run". And if we drop the past perfect, we'd lose some of the shades of meaning from that sentence.

I ran into her before, but she was never as venomous as she was now.
​

Is the second sentence simpler? I guess, but... it's not as clear. How about:

The plane flew away when I reached the boarding gate.​

vs.

The plane had flown away when I reached the boarding gate.
​

I'm all for simple writing, but I don't like the idea of ignoring useful tools. Am I right when I hypothesize that it's the quest for simplicity behind the dislike of the past perfect? And can anyone think of great examples that show how useful the past perfect can be?


ETA: Ooh, this is a good one, from https://examples.yourdictionary.com/past-perfect-tense-examples.html

"My neighbor asked if we had seen her dog." - if we got rid of the past perfect, we'd have "My neighbour asked if we saw her dog," which is really unclear. Is the neighbour trying to figure out if her dog is currently visible, or what?

ETA2: from the same source...

"I had just gone outside when it started to rain." - makes a lot more sense than "I went outside when it started to rain," right? I think this one is my current favourite example!

 

Good one.

And a nice way to avoid the appalling "I had had".

I had had a headache since the day before, but it disappeared when I saw his face.​

vs

I'd had a headache...​

 

As a writer who loves past perfect and uses it often, I fully agree with you. It does add meaning. While I'm perfectly happy with the advice that extra words should be up for consideration first when trying to whittle down a too-long book, I'd very much advise cutting structural words like tense constructors. Fluff can get axed, but not the stuff which actually adds meaning.

 

How about this lovely example though?

"All the faith he had had had had no effect on the outcome of his life."

 

You can get rid of ONE with the contraction... All the faith he'd had... but I think the rest are just going to sit there in their glory!

(Maybe "All the faith he'd had'd had no effect..."? Nah. That's nasty.)

 

I had had flowned at the aerodrome many years afor before. SIMPLE

I rans the out after her was - but she was never a was - as venomous a was - as she was now was was wasing INTERMEDIATE

Not as many friends as I had'd'd'd in those early years. PROGRESSIVE

 

I think maybe this comes from the accepted convention to establish that we're talking about events in the distant past, and then switch to simple to avoid having "had" in every sentence. Had is fine to use, but if you write a long passage in past perfect, it DOES start to get in the way in my opinion.

Like:

I had run into her before, and she'd been venomous then.

"You look well," I'd said.

"Fuck you."

"Jesus. No need for that."

She gave an ugly laugh. "It's exactly what you need."

Even though we switch to simple in the last sentence, it's still clear we're in past. So maybe some people get muddled, either in editing (taking away the initial 'had's) or they haven't internalised the convention properly?

 

I feel like it's a reasonably new convention, or else one that's not universally adopted? I've certainly encountered it, but I don't think I really like it... well, no, I think it'd be fine if it's operating as a sort of flashback, if that makes sense? Like, if it's clearly not the character reflecting on the incident anymore, but has turned into the character re-living it? Then I'm fine with regular past tense. But for me it needs to be a clear flashback situation before it makes sense to me.

 

I was thinking this but struggling with how to put it. I tend to start long discussions of the past with past perfect, and then I-hope-subtly switch to simple past a couple of sentences in. And then find some way to signal the return to story present, at the end. It's a dance that I may or may not do well.

 

Yeah, I think that's when it's mostly used. I'm thinking in my example, the encounter would go on a lot longer - if it were really just four or five sentences, I'd include all the 'hads' and be done with it.

But pages where nearly every line includes 'had'? I think it's pretty established that That's Bad.

 

Yip...parochial style.

 

I'll be honest, there are quite a few grammar concepts that I'm completely unaware of, and can't see myself ever bothering to learn.

 

You may not know the terminology, but you're probably aware of the concepts.

Like, if I asked you "Were you at the party when the crime occurred?" You might say, "No, I'd already left by that time." That's past perfect. You can use it without naming it.

 

Appalling? Not really. Unfamiliar, perhaps, but I think it flows well enough as long as it isn't parked on a billboard by its lonesome. But let's face it, the verb "to have" (along with its conjugations) is not all that strong a performer as a principal verb anyway, and there are easy enough ways to mitigate the adjacent repeated word, if you feel the need.

I had suffered a headache since the day before.
I had already had the headache for two days.​