2nd/3rd conditional

[Dominik92]

Hello all.

I am reading a book from S. King and don't understand the way of using 2nd conditional there:

Chris and Teddy were a long way in front, almost halfway across the bridge. Vern was between them and me. I had to go on. If I turned (had turned) back, I would be (would have been) a pussy for life.


He was dead and he was all alone, and I realized that if I didn't stop thinking (hadn't stopped thinking) about it I was going to cry. ( I would have cried - I would have been going to cry - not sure whether this is correct)

What leads the writer to use 2nd and not 3rd conditional? Isn't it wrong? What he wants to emphasise?

Thank you

 

[Raymott]

No, it's not wrong. He did it for a few reasons:
- The past perfect isn't necessary.
- Stephen King readers don't need complicated writing when they can get simple writing.
- It gives a sense of immediacy and presence. (the most important reason).

 

[Tarheel]

He is afraid that if he doesn't keep going his buddies will make fun of him. And (he thinks) that ten years in the future (or whenever) they will still be making fun of him for that.

 

[emsr2d2]

Stand By Me by Stephen King. Great short story and, just for once for his books, a film version that's almost as good.

 

[Dominik92]

The writer is presenting as reported speech/thoughts his actual thoughts, and backshifting the tenses. His thoughts at the time were:

If I turn back, I will be ...
If I don't stop thinking ..., I am going to cry.

The thing which confused me the most was that it is all in the past tenses. It seems to me that King is viewing things from the perspective of a few years since they happened - past simple. Therefore it surprises me that he suddenly starts looking at things from the perspective as if he were there now even though the sentence before or even the first part of the sentence brfore that conditional was viewed otherwise. What's more sometimes the writer uses the 3rd conditional almost in the same cases as he used the 2nd in my sentences above.

 

[emsr2d2]

Stephen King has a very unique way of writing (in my opinion). He makes the reader put himself in the place of the character very effectively. I honestly think that parsing his writing will leave you dissatisfied. Just read his works - they're incredible.

 

[emsr2d2]

Ha ha! You got me! I started to type "very particular" and changed my mind after I'd typed "very".

 

[emsr2d2]

I believe you.

Thousands wouldn't.

 

[Dominik92]

I agree with you guys. This book is amazing. I haven't finished it yet but this time tomorrow I will have read it. However I wish I could read it without those interuptions....hopefully one day

 

[Dominik92]

As I continued reading I found the third conditional. "Did you take it?" I asked. I had never asked him before, and if you had told me I ever would I would have called you crazy.

Why here isn't used that "reported speech" as Piscean mentioned earlier? According to this , in my original sentences should have been used the 3rd conditional. I am stuck here little bit...

 

[Raymott]

It's the same principle.
THINKS: "If I turn back, I will be ..." WRITES: "If I turned back, I would be ..."
THINKS: "I have never asked him before ..." WRITES: "I had never asked him before ..."

It's still back shifting. You might find it easier to follow by forgetting about conditionals and just looking at the basic tenses.
Present -> Simple past.
Present perfect -> Past perfect.

 

[Dominik92]

It's the same principle.
THINKS: "If I turn back, I will be ..." WRITES: "If I turned back, I would be ..."
THINKS: "I have never asked him before ..." WRITES: "I had never asked him before ..."

It's still back shifting. You might find it easier to follow by forgetting about conditionals and just looking at the basic tenses.
Present -> Simple past.
Present perfect -> Past perfect.

I couldn't imagine doing the same with this part: If you had told me I ever would I would have called you crazy. - so he thinks: If you told me I ever will I would call you crazy?

To sum it up: I should look at it as his specific style used in this book and don't care about "corectness" of those conditionals.

 

[Tarheel]

Well, I have never been inside somebody else's head, but I think it's pretty normal for a person's thoughts to shift from past to present and back again. Just put yourself in the character's shoes and understand that he's thinking about what has happened and what might happen. It's pretty common for people to talk that way. It must pretty common for them to think that way too.