Tenses used in "In Love: A Memoir of Love and Loss"

[kadioguy]

[From the book In Love: A Memoir of Love and Loss]

Q. 1
Parts A and B are told in present tenses, while parts C and D are in past tenses. Why?

I think that it is because the writer is like a storyteller. She tells us what happens as the story progresses. That's why part A and part B are in present tenses.

Now, the two characters (she and her husband) are on the plane, so everything that happened before they got on the plane is in past tenses—that is, parts C and D.

Is this correct?

Q. 2
It is all nearly normal, like so much that we’ve done these last few years, like the flight itself and everything that precedes it—the trip to the airport, the TSA (our petty but deep pleasure at having TSA PreCheck, noting the much longer, shoes-off lines to the left of us), the pretty good meal at JFK.

Then I think that "precedes" should be "preceded" because those things happened before "now" (on the plane). Well, maybe the writer is telling us what happens every time before they get on the plane. But I'd still prefer to use the past tense to indicate this particular trip. So, would both tenses work here?

What do you think?

 

[jutfrank]

Is this correct?

Yes.

What do you think?

You're asking why the verb 'precedes' is in the present tense. She's still in the narrative present in this sentence. The narrative switch to the past is just about to be made.

 

[kadioguy]

She's still in the narrative present in this sentence.

Then I think that in this part "had" would have been better to be "has", for two reasons:

1. He got (had) Alzheimer’s sometime in the past, and he still has it now.
2. Most importantly, to maintain consistency with the rest of the narrative (in the narrative present).

What do you think?

As we usually do, we take a car service to the airport so we can be fancy and also avoid the park-and-schlep, and even before Brian had Alzheimer’s, our combined lack of direction adds twenty minutes to all transportation transitions.

 

[jutfrank]

What do you think?

About your idea that using has is better? No, it isn't. The present tense has doesn't work in this sentence, because of before. It doesn't interfere with tense consistency.

 

[kadioguy]

About your idea that using has is better? No, it isn't. The present tense has doesn't work in this sentence, because of before. It doesn't interfere with tense consistency.

As we usually do, we take a car service to the airport so we can be fancy and also avoid the park-and-schlep, and even before Brian had Alzheimer’s, our combined lack of direction adds twenty minutes to all transportation transitions.
---
"Adds" is not affected by "had" (to be "added") because it is still in the narrative present, right? (Well, this shift in tense looks a little weird/confusing to me.)

 

[dunchee]

Yes.

Look at it this way:
... avoid the park-and-schlep, and our combined lack of direction adds twenty minutes to all transportation transitions, even before Brian had Alzheimer’s.