hux

I checked 'The Blind Assassin' by Atwood because I was sure she wrote like this in that and sure enough, there are lots of examples. "In the morning I would help Laura to dress -- that had been my task even when mother was alive -- and make sure she brushed her teeth and washed her face. At lunchtime Rennie would sometimes let us have a picnic." Of course, Atwood is writing about a woman (she begins most chapters in present tense) who walks around and reminisces about her childhood (which is where the word 'would' begins to occur more often) though it doesn't occur as much when she's reminiscing about her adult past. I still don't know if there is a name for this technique though. Or when it's acceptable to use it.

Exactly, so what would that type of narration be called? It's obviously first person, past tense, but there's something else going on, a kind of 'distant first person' quality. I'm generally starting chapters in that way, then focusing in on a particular day or event and switching to the more conventional style (I stood on the hill and... etc).

Interesting but doesn't really cover it. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a term, phrase, or something out there that clarifies the difference. 'I stood on the hill and waited for Julie'... plonks you into the narration a little more whereas... 'I would stand on the hill and wait for Julie'... feels more like I'm telling a story from a greater distance. I'm using them both interchangeably and I fear this is probably bad.

I'm writing a novel but I'm not very good with the technical side of writing. The book is first person narrative, past tense, but I find myself often writing in a way that is muddying the water a little. In other words, instead of writing something like: 1) We sat on the wall and watched the kids playing football in the street... I find myself writing: 2) We would sit on the wall and watch the kids playing football in the street... Is there a term for this second style? It feels more distant (past, past tense) but I'm mixing it with the former style which is confusing me.

I read the book years ago and it had no impact on me and I certainly wouldn't want to read it again. At the time I thought the writing was superb, I now tend to view it as... adjective heavy.

We were never leaving. Run the clock down then extension then 2nd referendum (which doesn't involve leave as an option). And that's when things will really get interesting.

In part II, the son does indeed blame his mother, and the mother accepts she was to blame.

I have no problem separating the artist from the art. In the case of Jackson, I'm not sure it's entirely relevant. Other than hardcore fans, who is listening to his stuff? Most of it is pretty dated now.

Fascinating and disturbing watch. Not sure how anyone can keep deluding themselves that he wasn't a paedophile. So patently was. Simpsons have already announced that they're pulling the Michael Jackson episode from TV And streaming services.

Girl You'll be a Woman Soon - Urge Overkill

Happiness is a Warm Gun - The Beatles

Book - Ham on Rye. TV - Orange is the new black (binge-watched the whole thing). Movie - Bros: After the screaming stops (unintentially hilarious) or Avengers Infinity war (lot of fun with a genuinely dark ending).

The Exciters -- Tell Him

Of Mice and Men -- John Steinbeck

Depeche Mode -- Just Can't Get Enough