why the use of simple past??!!

[sara88]

Hello all
I was reading a book and this sentence brought my attention. I was wandering why does the writer uses the simple past as the past continious seems the correct one for me. See if I'm wrong!!:
"I had never read anything as disturbing as these ten verses. I could not stop thinking about them day and night, when I ate, when I walked to and from work, when I sat alone, when I whatched tv, when I lay in bed......"
Why not was eating, was walking, was watching.....because it conveys a past continious action.
Clarify it for me please.
sara

[bhaisahab]

Hello all
I was reading a book and this sentence brought my attention. I was wandering why does the writer uses the simple past as the past continious seems the correct one for me. See if I'm wrong!!:
"I had never read anything as disturbing as these ten verses. I could not stop thinking about them day and night, when I ate, when I walked to and from work, when I sat alone, when I whatched tv, when I lay in bed......"
Why not was eating, was walking, was watching.....because it conveys a past continious action.
Clarify it for me please.
sara

Personally, I agree with you, it would be better if it had stayed in the past simple, but authors write what they want to write.

[David L.]

The author is saying, it doesn't matter whether you ask me after the first bite of my food, or any time during the period of time implied by 'was eating' - I'd be thinking about the scenes right until the last bite; and then I might walk...and still be thinking about them. The time period, the duration of any activity, is immaterial: I eat, I think about them. I walk, I think about them.

The style of writing is of a montage, snapshots, an instance of each of these activities to portray 'he's still thinking about them'. To use a continuous tense would destroy the dramatic effect of the prose - it's like a drum beat: I eat - boom - I think about them -boom - I walk - boom - I think about them.