"Was" for 'is'...

[-K2-]

I'm having a bit of trouble with a very short line. The subject 'is' still actively working as a Reaper, however 'was' reads better (to me, which doesn't make it right). Is 'was' ever used in a present tense? I've searched and searched a number of sites yet have not found an answer.

Everything before hand has already established numerous times, what the subject's profession is. The line is there simply to emphasize that she is singled out, at risk, being hunted etc. because of her profession. Here is the rough line shown both ways:

She was not in the clear yet, and Rokka-Kae, was a Reaper.

She was not in the clear yet, and Rokka-Kae, is a Reaper.

Thanks for your help,

K2

 

[HareBrain]

Definitely "was". Even if the subject is still working as a reaper in the story-world, the whole story-world only exists in past tense.

 

[The Judge]

Is there a narrator here, eg someone who is telling the story and/or writing this down at a later time? In those circumstances changing the tense in this way is OK eg "I was always on my guard in the field, but then I am a Fiend." -- she's relating how she acted at the time, but confirming that she is -- and therefore was -- someone who would act in that way.

Otherwise it's "was" for everything. And remove the comma after "Kae" please!

EDIT: by the way, the line doesn't immediately make sense as written with "and" but it would with "but" -- ie the latter it would effectively say that she's not in the clear yet, but it doesn't matter as she's a Reaper so she will get clear at some point.

 

[Ursa major]

She was not in the clear yet, and Rokka-Kae, was a Reaper.

Apart from your worry about tense, the comma that ought not to be there, and the and/but question, for such a short sentence it comes across as clumsy and unnecessary.

It seems that you want to say that she is not in the clear AND that, because of her profession, she would be hunted anyway.

You say that her profession is well established. Have the risks of pursuing that profession also been well established? Is it clear (it isn't to me) that Reapers are easy to spot... or, instead, that those who hunt Reapers know that she is one and so will go after her anyway?

Until we know, it's hard to say whether or not a simple

She was not yet in the clear.​

would suffice.

 

[-K2-]

Thanks everyone for your responses. That answers the was/is issue, and brings up others worth directly addressing or considering.

Thanks again!

K2

 

[-K2-]

EDIT: by the way, the line doesn't immediately make sense as written with "and" but it would with "but" -- ie the latter it would effectively say that she's not in the clear yet, but it doesn't matter as she's a Reaper so she will get clear at some point.

The line sums up a chapter and doesn't read well as a continuation of the previous paragraph. The point of it (the line), was meant to simply reinforce what the reader should keep in mind during the next chapter. I understand what you are saying, however, changing 'and to but,' twists the phrase into the exact opposite of what I was trying to convey. Does that make sense? (doesn't mean I'm right, just trying to explain).

...It seems that you want to say that she is not in the clear AND that, because of her profession, she would be hunted anyway.

You say that her profession is well established. Have the risks of pursuing that profession also been well established? Is it clear (it isn't to me) that Reapers are easy to spot... or, instead, that those who hunt Reapers know that she is one and so will go after her anyway?

Until we know, it's hard to say whether or not a simple

She was not yet in the clear.​

would suffice.

First off, please note my response to The Judge above as to line itself. That (your initial line noted above) is exactly what I wanted to say. 'She is not in the clear, and her profession makes her a target.' What the 'title' of her profession is, is established and that the area she just entered because of it makes her a target.

Further, that chapter was solely devoted to her fear entering that area, wherein instantly there is an attempt to find and kill her. The chapter then rolls around her clever way of avoiding that, foiling the attempt, the brutality of the area (from all sides), and then a surprising twist in that she turns against those who she is aligned with/works for. Although, that doesn't mean she is not still hunted.

Easy to spot, yes and no (would take too long to explain for little consequence), suffice to say, due to being a Reaper if caught in this area she will be killed on sight. Everything else about being a Reaper (what they do, who they are, etc.) will not be entirely disclosed for some time (mid-way in 'finished' novel No.2). This is simply the last line, of the first chapter, of the first novel, meant to establish that she is in a lot of danger, it is a dangerous, uncompromising and brutal place, and she is basically now alone due to her own sense of right and wrong.

Does that answer what you asked?

Thanks again everyone. Sorry if my questions are more basic than you're used to.

K2

 

[tinkerdan]

I think that tense needs to be established or maybe a reason for breaking tense needs established.

However In my own convoluted way I'd ditch all the punctuation and go straight to the heart and switch it up a bit.

Rokka-Kae was a Reaper, and she was not yet in the clear.

Rokka-Kae is a Reaper and she's not yet in the clear.

However--and this goes up to not quite understanding your position and perhaps being too lazy to go through the above paragraph several times--if her profession and its dangers are known then....

Rokka-Kae was a Reaper.
Should say it all.

 

[-K2-]

Good stuff @tinkerdan ; I like the changeup in phrasing. I'll give it a solid think!

Thanks for the help.

K2

 

[The Judge]

The line sums up a chapter and doesn't read well as a continuation of the previous paragraph. The point of it (the line), was meant to simply reinforce what the reader should keep in mind during the next chapter. I understand what you are saying, however, changing 'and to but,' twists the phrase into the exact opposite of what I was trying to convey. Does that make sense? (doesn't mean I'm right, just trying to explain).

Yes, sorry, I should have added another EDIT after the first one that I'd re-read your post and seen I'd not fully taken on board the italicised bits and their purport, and then Ursa responded and made it clear I was barking up the wrong tree. Sorry about that.

The sentence itself, though, is still perhaps not the best it could be, especially not for a final line of a chapter, which ought to have some punch to it.

If I were writing this, rather than going minimalist as per Ursa and tinkerdan, I'd consider expanding it, eg something like:

But Rokka-Kae was a Reaper. She was in the Deep-DooDoo Area. So she wasn't in the clear yet.​

or

But Rokka-Kae was in the Deep-DooDoo. And she was a Reaper. She wasn't in the clear yet.​

These are obviously my voice, rather than yours, but I'm a great fan of three-fold clauses like this and they can be very effective.

Anyhow, just another line of thought for you, which perhaps might help you finalise what you want from it.

 

[-K2-]

Thanks @The Judge ; I'll think on all that.

Just an 'aside,' the 211k-word Western novel I have mentioned, I broke up the 90-chapters into 11-sections (1-novel, 11-sections, 90-chapters). Anywho... I ended each section with a very brief "And so." Though I'd never use it as a constant in every effort, in that one I liked it quite a bit.

Ex.:
1. And so, Kay ran.
3. And so, Kay dreamed of Hummingbird.
5. And so, Scout raged.
11. And so, as she fondly reminisced upon her many years of freedom, bathed in blood hunting men… Kaé’nótá'e’ha would (edit).

I think that to some degree, I was making a little summation and lead-in phrase to the next chapter by this one sentence, much like those "and so(s)."

K2

 

[Ursa major]

Does that answer what you asked?

Yes, but it does not make me like the sentence -- She was not in the clear yet, and Rokka-Kae was a Reaper -- any more than I did before.

As I now know that it's the last sentence of a chapter, I'm inclined to believe that you are straining to create an extra sense of threat -- and by telling rather than showing -- that is not really needed (unless you doubt that what has gone before will not make the reader believe that Rokka-Kae is already in real danger).

Alternatively you may be wanting to add a bit of mystery, but:

1. Are you not risking the creation of an expectation that you are not going to fulfil? The last thought that will be in the readers' heads will be "So Rokka-Kae is a Reaper. I wonder what that means." You are not going to be telling them what it means for half a book, at which point (unless you keep saying that Rokka-Kae is a Reaper) they'll have forgotten about it.
2. I can't help feeling that the danger, if nothing else, of being a Reaper should be featured earlier in the chapter in order to increase the tension (i.e. to increase the stakes during the period when the stakes need to be set high).

Whatever the reason you had for stating that Rokka-Kae is a Reaper in the last sentence of the chapter, if you want to keep the reader reading -- which is what mentioning a threat to the character, or creating a mystery, should be doing -- keep the tension the tension high. So instead of a bland, "she was not in the clear yet", perhaps you ought to mention (briefly) why she thinks that she is not yet in the clear, such as (off the top of my head, so not specific to your book):

Rokka-Kae had escaped for now, but she feared... no, she knew that they would not give in so easily.​

 

[-K2-]

Yes, but it does not make me like the sentence -- She was not in the clear yet, and Rokka-Kae was a Reaper -- any more than I did before.

Well, I definitely cannot argue with you there, I think it reads rather poorly myself. The point of me presenting it (though I'm still not sure what will replace it), was to address the 'was/is' issue.

With that issue out of the way and again thanks to everyone for helping me with it, I still need something which "I" will have to work out.

What I will argue, though may have poorly explained above, is that it (that sentence) is not intended to 'add' excitement, trepidation, hint at some mystery and so on. It is first of all meant to simply end one chapter (which shows the danger and her fear via action), secondly make it clear that the danger is not over (in case the person ends reading for the day there... so, I guess in a sense perhaps add some anticipation as to what's next?), and lastly leave the reader as they move into the next chapter with the knowledge that shi is still in danger, because she is a Reaper.

They don't need to know what a Reaper is, why she would be in danger because of it, what the danger is or where the threat comes from (past what was previously demonstrated) or really much else regarding that phrase.

To save you a lot of reading (in that a thorough synopsis would really help at this point), quite simply, in this ward of a walled off section of the city, the citizens living there under crushing conditions, will kill all Reapers because they work for the government, and their "job" is to basically terrorize and slaughter as many citizens as they choose... Rokka-Kae however has never done her job (as the government wants/needs, yes, needs). She still "harvests," however, she makes it a point to go after criminal citizens abusing the other citizens, so helps the majority.

In any case, the next chapter is devoted to her desperately trying to distance herself from this ward, but, she instantly encounters a somewhat comical character who latches onto Kae and puts her at constant risk... But, aids her considerably later on.

So again, she is still in danger needing to get out of the ward (.125 km2), and because she is a Reaper while there is risking being killed on sight (oh btw, there are one million people crammed into 3.13-km2, so it's tight ).

I agree, it's a clumsy phrase and needs to be fixed to be catchy and as you note, make the reader look forward to the next chapter). But past that it's of little consequence.

Thanks again!

K2

 

[-K2-]

Alternatively you may be wanting to add a bit of mystery, but:

1. Are you not risking the creation of an expectation that you are not going to fulfil? The last thought that will be in the readers' heads will be "So Rokka-Kae is a Reaper. I wonder what that means." You are not going to be telling them what it means for half a book, at which point (unless you keep saying that Rokka-Kae is a Reaper) they'll have forgotten about it.
2. I can't help feeling that the danger, if nothing else, of being a Reaper should be featured earlier in the chapter in order to increase the tension (i.e. to increase the stakes during the period when the stakes need to be set high).

Also for what it is worth, regarding item No. 1, a half-novel later is not correct, nor is what I said being 1-1/2 novels later (mid- of second novel)... The 'whole truth' doesn't occur until 1-7/8 novel lengths into it. That said, what Rokka-Kae does until that point is not what a Reaper does. However, there are other examples and partial explanations throughout.

As an example (and please bear with me, this is simply a rough first draft), 3/4 of the way through that first chapter, this dialogue takes place:

"Central Dispatch! Cease firing at the D-7 gate, the attackers are dead!" Rokka-Kae frantically called in.

‘Understood Reaper-379, Central Dispatch... You are ordered to begin harvesting the rioters. Clear the area of all Weeds in range. Estimate is four thousand, over.’

"Central, negative! The rioters have all been harvested, cease firing!"

‘Reaper-379, Section-4 Command...’ a new voice began. ‘You are ordered to expend all ordnance on the Weeds in the area. Begin harvesting, now! Confirm and comply, over!’

The fact that she is a Reaper is actually of minor consequence throughout the story. However, rebelling against that system as a Reaper, and having opportunities others wouldn't because of it (as in bridging two cultures, government/citizens) makes it a worthwhile tool. Reapers are simply the tip of the spear of an unimaginably oppressive and abusive government. A necessary component... here again a synopsis is really needed to understand it.

As to item No. 2, that sense of danger and proof thereof starts at the beginning of the chapter, and runs throughout. I could post virtually any line of dialogue or paragraph from it and in one form or another her fear is demonstrated or proven well founded. So, I have no concerns there.

Thanks again!

K2

 

[Danny McG]

Rokka-Kae the Reaper may scare a lot of people, but not Blue Oyster Cult.

 

[-K2-]

Rokka-Kae the Reaper may scare a lot of people, but not Blue Oyster Cult.

Just for the record, The term "Reaper" in the story relates to farming terminology. The government workers in 'Pastoral' areas are Planters, Gleaners and Reapers. Don't fear the farmer... unless you're a weed, or sheep

K2