1

Sitting up in bed, his cheeks still flushed with heat, Bill had finished the boat—but when George reached for it, Bill held it out of reach. “Now get me the paraffin.” “Where is it?” “It’s on the cellar shelf as you go downstairs,” Bill said. George had gone obediently to get these things. He could hear his mother playing the piano. Stephen King's It

Why is past perfect in order here?

The chronological order is this: Bill said to bring these things by pointing where they were (downstairs), then George went to bring them and as he was going to bring them he heard his mother playing the piano. This is the second chapter of the story.

The first chapter told about events that happened after Bill had pointed to these things and after George had brought them. The first chapter told about George running along beside a paper boat that had been made from the things that Bill had asked George to bring.

11
  • There is insufficient context to say why the usage of the present perfect is appropriate if indeed it is. Literally, it means that the time when George looked for some things occurred before the time that Bill told him where one of them (?) was. The piano playing seems irrelevant to the topic and uncertain as to time. Commented May 29, 2022 at 14:36
  • Sorry, I didn't provide enough context. The chronological order is actually this: Bill said to bring these things then George went to bring them and as he was going to bring them he heard his mother playing the piano.
    – Let
    Commented May 29, 2022 at 14:47
  • 1
    "The first chapter told about events that happened after Bill had pointed to these things and after George had brought them." that's why had gone is used - because it's looking back to an earlier time. I don't know why the author didn't use Bill had said, but you don't have to use the past perfect for every verb if the narrative reads better without. Commented May 29, 2022 at 15:50
  • 1
    This is very, very simple: If what George did comes BEFORE what Bill said, the past perfect is fine. There is alwayssomething preceding some past action, in fact or implied, when you use this tense.
    – Lambie
    Commented May 29, 2022 at 16:01
  • 1

1 Answer 1

2

Because it is using (or perhaps setting) "story time" - the temporal focus, relative to which going to get the things is in the past.

If this is the beginning of the narrative, then it is establishing the story time, as a later time from which George is looking back to going to fetch the things. If it is not at the beginning, then the story time may already have been established.

The fact that Bill spoke in the simple past means that Bill's speaking is at story time, not the time when George went to fetch things, (though by its meaning, he has only just gone to fetch the things).

 earlier ------------------- later ('now' in the story)

George going to fetch ------------ Bill says... George can hear ...

6
  • Perhaps I didn't provide enough context. The chronological order is actually this: Bill said to bring these things then George went to bring them and as he was going to bring them he heard his mother playing the piano.
    – Let
    Commented May 29, 2022 at 14:47
  • In that case, the tenses are anomalous, and the author is being careless or deliberately confusing. We often don't use the past perfect when we could, if the temporal relationships are clear. But to begin a narrative with a simple past and then follow it with a past perfect is unusual, and invites an explanation such as the one I gave.
    – Colin Fine
    Commented May 29, 2022 at 14:50
  • I guess the author could have used the past perfect here because the previous chapter was about the future of the story, that is it told about events that happened after George had already gotten the things.
    – Let
    Commented May 29, 2022 at 14:59
  • Yes, that is what I would expect. But "Bill said" is anomalous.
    – Colin Fine
    Commented May 29, 2022 at 15:43
  • 1
    Right. Th author is moving "story time" on. First, it's when he's sitting up in bed, and had finished the boat is previous. So said is at story time. Then the had gone, because it clearly follows said, is moving "story time" to a later time, so now getting the things is in the past relative to the (new) story time.
    – Colin Fine
    Commented May 29, 2022 at 16:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .