Timely Tenses: Considering Present Tense Narration

When the jury of the Man Booker Prize 2010 chose three novels for their short-list that were written in present tense they earned some harsh criticism. To some, like Philipp Pullman, present tense narration seemed to be no more than an annoying fad, “a silly affectation,” which he criticises as a limitation to narrative possibility.1 Nevertheless, present tense narration is spreading fast, not only among Booker Prize nominees and winners. Indeed, it has become so common that it hardly seems to draw much attention anymore. But what is the appeal of present tense narration to contemporary authors? What effect does the choice of present tense narration have on the ways stories are told and read? This paper will address and compare the use of present tense narration in recent British novels by authors such as Hilary Mantel (Wolf Hall, Bring up the Bodies), Ali Smith (Hotel World, The Accidental ), Tom McCarthy (C) and others, looking for similarities and differences in their respective narrative rationale. In view of the heterogeneous and complex use of present tense in contemporary fiction, I would like to suggest, merely pointing to the pace of contemporary life and the simultaneity of new communication media does not suffice to adequately address a phenomenon that has become a characteristic feature of 21st century narration. 1 Laura Roberts. “Philip Pullman and Philip Hensher criticise Booker Prize for including present tense novels.” The Telegraph. 11. Sept. 2010.

Prognostic implications of coronary calcification in patients with obstructive coronary artery disease treated by percutaneous coronary intervention: a patient-level pooled analysis of 7 contemporary stent trials

OBJECTIVE To investigate the long-term prognostic implications of coronary calcification in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for obstructive coronary artery disease. METHODS Patient-level data from 6296 patients enrolled in seven clinical drug-eluting stents trials were analysed to identify in angiographic images the presence of severe coronary calcification by an independent academic research organisation (Cardialysis, Rotterdam, The Netherlands). Clinical outcomes at 3-years follow-up including all-cause mortality, death-myocardial infarction (MI), and the composite end-point of all-cause death-MI-any revascularisation were compared between patients with and without severe calcification. RESULTS Severe calcification was detected in 20% of the studied population. Patients with severe lesion calcification were less likely to have undergone complete revascularisation (48% vs 55.6%, p<0.001) and had an increased mortality compared with those without severely calcified arteries (10.8% vs 4.4%, p<0.001). The event rate was also high in patients with severely calcified lesions for the combined end-point death-MI (22.9% vs 10.9%; p<0.001) and death-MI- any revascularisation (31.8% vs 22.4%; p<0.001). On multivariate Cox regression analysis, including the Syntax score, the presence of severe coronary calcification was an independent predictor of poor prognosis (HR: 1.33 95% CI 1.00 to 1.77, p=0.047 for death; 1.23, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.49, p=0.031 for death-MI, and 1.18, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.39, p=0.042 for death-MI- any revascularisation), but it was not associated with an increased risk of stent thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS Patients with severely calcified lesions have worse clinical outcomes compared to those without severe coronary calcification. Severe coronary calcification appears as an independent predictor of worse prognosis, and should be considered as a marker of advanced atherosclerosis.

Where Empires Meet: Orientalism and Marginality at the Former Russo-British Frontier

This article explores the intersection of orientalism and marginality in two regions at the former Russo-British frontier between Central and South Asia. Focussing on Tajikistan’s Gorno-Badakhshan and Gilgit-Baltistan in today’s Pakistan, an analysis of historical and contemporary orientalist projections on and in the two border regions reveals changing modes of domination through the course of the twentieth century (British, Kashmiri, Pakistani and Russian, Soviet, Tajik). In this regard, different local experiences of “ colonial ” rule, both in Gorno-Badakhshan and Gilgit-Baltistan, challenge “ classical ” periodisations of colonial/postcolonial and colonial/socialist/postsocialist. This article furthermore maintains that processes of marginalisation in both regions can be interpreted as effects of imperial and Cold War contexts that have led to the establishment of the frontier. Thus, a central argument is that neither the status of the frontier between Central and South Asia as a stable entity, nor the periodisations that have conventionally been ascribed to the two regions as linear timelines can be taken for granted.