Past simple, past perfect

Question

I have a question about the usage of the past tense AFTER introducing the past perfect in the text. For instance:

1. I met John Smith for the first time in 2000. I had met other people named John Smith, but none of them WAS the guy I met in 2000.

2. I met John Smith for the first time in 2000. I had met other people named John Smith, but none of them HAD BEEN the guy I met in 2000.

In a sense, I am asking whether after introducing the past perfect, I should keep using the same tense - the past perfect - when speaking about events happened in the same time window, or if I am allowed to "switch back" to the past simple, despite speaking about those events.

Answer 1

The simple past seems idiomatic to me. Using the past perfect again seems awkward and unnatural.

Consider the three verbs in this sentence:

(A) to meet (in the first sentence)

(B) to meet (in the second sentence)

(C) to be

The use of the past perfect in verb B is necessary in order to make your meaning clear. You're placing the action of B farther in the past than the action of A.

For C, you're stating a permanent fact that has always been true and always will be true. If person X and person Y are not the same person, then they always have separate human beings and always will be.

A simpler example of the coordination of tenses:

When I was a kid, I loved walking to Lover's Point and watching the animals in the tide pools. That part of town doesn't get a lot of tourists. I would spend hours there without getting bored.

The middle sentence is stating a general, permanent fact about this area. Therefore it doesn't have to be in the past tense like the other two sentences.