usage of ていた in 俺の一撃は、彼のもう一本の剣にギリギリで弾かれていた


I see this kind of thing occasionally, and by that I mean the usage of ていた
forms:

> 俺の一撃は、彼のもう一本の剣にギリギリで弾かれ **ていた**

in narrative where the た form:

> 俺の一撃は、彼のもう一本の剣にギリギリで弾かれ **た**

would have meant the same thing to me. What is the difference in
meaning/nuance I'm missing here?




It is the speaker's (or author's) _**temporal viewpoint**_ that makes the
difference in the tense choices. More specifically in this case, it is a
question of whether one's temporal viewpoint is on the present moment or a
time in the past.

_**Past tense passive voice**_ for a present viewpoint:

> 「[俺]{おれ}の[一撃]{いちげき}は、[彼]{かれ}のもう[一本]{いっぽん}の[剣]{つるぎ}にギリギリで[弾]{はじ}かれ **た** 。」
>
> "My shot _**was**_ just barely _**repelled**_ by his other sword."

_**Past perfect passive voice**_ for a past viewpoint:

> 「俺の一撃は、彼のもう一本の剣にギリギリで弾かれ **ていた** 。」
>
> "My shot _**had**_ just barely _**been repelled**_ by his other sword."

It would not be very productive to discuss how important the difference is in
nuance when all we have is a single sentence. Generally speaking, the
difference in nuance would tend to be relatively minimal unless the larger
context proves otherwise.

If the other sentences immediately before or after this sentence were in the
pluperfect as well, it would be fairly strange to write this one in the plain
past tense.

It is all about the flow.

