: A question about Past Participle vs Simple Past in a novel The novel is in past tense and the character is recounting things that happened before the novel began. Should I be using the past

It's been mentioned on this board before, but rules which arbitrarily declare any part of a language off-limits are ridiculous. They may be meant to give guardrails to new writers, but all they end up doing is making people frantic that they are Breaking A Rule. So ignore that idea.

In this instance, past tense vs. past participle indicates actions that took place in the past, but one is the "present" of the novel and the other is a completed action farther back in the past.

To elucidate:

She closed the book. Her father had given it to her as a gift three months ago. When she had first read it, it had given her goosebumps.

She closed the book is in the present of the story, even if it's being told in past tense. It's what she just did right now.

Three months ago, her father gave her a book. Three months ago (or less), she read the book, and she got goosebumps.

Those actions took place in the distant past, and they were completed. To separate them from the "present-past" of the story's actions, you use the past participle.

Your other example is a little trickier. Let's break it up:

She closed the book.

Present of the story.

Her father gave it to her as a gift three months ago.

This tense doesn't work. Gave in this specific sentence is the present of the story. You need to use had given.

When she first read it, it gave her goosebumps.

This can be parsed as "a continuing action in the past," as opposed to "a completed action in the past." It had given her goosebumps means it happened and it's done. Because you're using When here, it indicates that the actions happened farther back in the past, so you can get away with the "present-past" of she first read it, it gave her goosebumps. She's kind of remembering being back at that moment and reliving it.

Try setting your sentences in the present tense as an experiment and see if that makes it clearer:

She turns the final page with a sigh, closes the book, and hugs it to her chest. Her father had given it to her as a gift three months ago. When she had first read it, it had given her goosebumps.

versus:

She turns the final page with a sigh, closes the book, and hugs it to her chest. Her father gave it to her as a gift three months ago. When she first read it, it gave her goosebumps.

No matter what, Her father gave simply doesn't ring right. It has to be Her father had given.

---

(0)

English tenses are too complex to be summed up in simple rules. What you have written is correct. Many things in English are 'correct', but they are not necessarily the best thing.

I teach students to stick to one tense or another, until they can move between them for effect. As an example, 'had given', the past perfect tense, suggests that an action happened before another action. However, 'gave' is a past simple where an action started and finished in the past, suggesting that something happened regularly in the past.

You could rephrase part of what you said: 'When she read it, it was giving her goosebumps / it gave her goosebumps / it had given her goosebumps / it had been giving her goosebumps.' The effect of using each tense -- past progressive, past simple, past perfect, past perfect progressive -- is different. What is right depends on what you want the reader to think, feel and believe.

An added complication: past tense narratives can contain sections in what is sometimes called the present historic tense to create tension. For example: He stepped out onto the ledge. He takes one step at a time. He doesn't look down. He doesn't think. He just does it.

---

(0)