I thought I understood tenses

Question

I'm writing a story in the past tense, third person, deep POV. Similar to the first person, that implies that some of the narration can be read as the character's thoughts. Here are two trite examples:

Direct thought, e.g. these are the actual words he heard in his mind:

He stared at the foreclosure notice in his hand. They can't do this, he thought.

Free indirect thought, e.g. this is his thought, or the gist of it, or a paraphrasing, etc.:

He stared at the foreclosure notice in his hand. They can't do this.

In both cases, the sentence is in past tense but the thought is in present tense. This mimicks dialogue. I prefer to use the latter form, because it doesn't require a filter word, and is emotionally much closer to the character.

But... I have sent a couple of short stories to beta readers, and they've been pulling out the red markers about my tense switches.

Here are a few lines they had singled out. I'm going to tackle them in the order of my escalating confusion.

The force with which she slammed the door made the windows rattle. Gosh, that woman has a temper.

The slamming of the door is an action, and is relayed in past tense. The comment about her temper is a thought, and is in present tense. To me, that seems correct.

she’d been nagging him about the damned cupboard door that won’t stay shut.

The nagging is an action that happened in the past. The door that won't stay shut is a fact that is still true during the scene being narrated. It's not the same as the example above, but the POV character knows the door won't stay shut, even if he doesn't think The door won't stay shut. Changing it to say the door wouldn't stay shut, leaves it open for interpretation whether the door still had that problem at the time of the narration.

The final example, from another story in past tense, third-person.

Death, it seems, fears no man.

This one breaks my brain. To the character it seemed at the time, so that's an action in the past. My mistake, I get it. But Death not fearing man is surely a universal truth, unbound by time. Arrrrgh!

Please help me out. In which of these instances should I use present tense, and in which mustn't I? And why? What's the rule?

Answer 1

You do, you do understand tenses.

Direct thought follows the same rules as direct speech, except that it is italicized rather than quoted. The same Wikipedia article describes both. This means it is rendered in the present tense, unless the character is speaking or thinking of the events of the past or future.

Free Indirect Thought follows the same rules as [Free] Indirect Speech. Since it is a summary of the character's thoughts, or words (in the case of Indirect Speech) it is rendered in the same tense as the narrative voice. This is a very common technique in the majority of current stories that I read. Also, I have a strong preference for this style of writing so that might color my perceptions.

Also, this means that an author could write a piece in third person present tense and the indirect speech and thought would also be in present tense. I can't imagine it myself. But tastes and skills vary.

However, some verbs change their meaning between present and past tense

In a few of your examples, the past tense of can't changes connotations. That is because can't is an informal word and couldn't does not quite mean the same things. Can't can mean it's unfair or its inconceivable or it's impossible, whereas couldn't means not possible or failed. So, to preserve your meaning when you switch to Indirect Thought from Direct Thought the phrases might need tinkering.

As I write this answer, it occurs to me that this might be a really good test for dialog and thought. If I switched it to the other form, would it still be effective. This might indicate that what I'm communicating is either great or immaterial or not well formed.

In one of your examples, 'They can't do that!' It has emotion, but lacks specificity — unfairness v. Impossibleness for example. This might give you a guide on how to flex your prose to better communicate your scenes.

Answer 2

There's not an exact right or wrong here, it's a matter of stylistic choices. Your beta readers disagree with yours --that's part of why you have beta readers, but ultimately you're still the writer and the final arbiter.

The force with which she slammed the door made the windows rattle. Gosh, that woman has a temper.

The lack of any visual cuing to indicate this is a thought makes it seem like the narrator, not the the character. Italics would help:

The force with which she slammed the door made the windows rattle. Gosh, that woman has a temper.

If you don't like those, you're relying on the reader to come with you on your free indirect thoughts --in other words to learn to recognize that you're using them without cuing.

she’d been nagging him about the damned cupboard door that won’t stay shut.

I'm with your beta readers here. Shifting tenses takes you out of the moment, and for no particular gain. The last thing you want is for your tense choices to call attention to themselves. If you need a justification, it's because the cupboard's state is relevant in the moment being recalled, not in the present moment.

Death, it seems, fears no man.

You correctly identified your problem --not "fears" but "seems."

Death, it seemed, fears no man

reads perfectly fine.

Answer 3

Can't comment due to rep, apologies.

It's all written quite well, except that there's no visual cue. The tense changes seem random without something to help contextualize it. If you use italics then everything in your examples would be a familiar approach for most readers.

If they have to learn and adjust to your approach, they'll struggle to be engaged & immersed (which is a death sentence for any writing).