 The way things were and the way things will be seems to be part of reality in a way that, for example, Bilbo’s finding the One Ring is not, it’s merely part of a fiction. History is not a fiction, it’s part of our world, so historical truths and future truths should, seemingly, be part of the overall account of how the world is. But that is puzzling, given that things change and, hence, the way things were is incompatible with the way things are now. How can they both contribute to the way reality is if they are incompatible? McTaggart’s argument focuses on a particular instance of this concerning the A-properties. Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon is past. But it was present, and so its presentness is a feature of our world’s history. But our world’s history, as we just said, is part of the complete account of how our world is, and so the complete account of how our world is includes both Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon being past and it being present, and yet those are incompatible features. The defender of the A-series replies by insisting that in giving the complete account of how reality is we have to take seriously the fact that reality changes and that it is, therefore, different ways successively, and there is no inconsistency in things being one way and then another, incompatible, way. So it’s not that reality is such that Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon is both past and present, it’s that reality is such that Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon was future, and was present, and is now past.