Past vs. present tense: too much of a stickler?

[Vark]

Before I take a detour in class and clarify usage of past and present tense in the case of referring to writers and their work, I wonder whether I am being too much of a stickler. Normally, I correct uses of past tense when an essay contains something like "He wrote in his famed historical novel . . . " noting that it should be "He writes in..." Or, correcting "In her article 'Reflections on the Bastille,' she wrote xxx" such that it reads, "In her article 'Reflections on the Bastille,' she writes xxx." Should I just let it go?

[Hibush]

In this case, I think your usage is common but not literally correct. The students' usage is unassailable.

[jerseyjay]

I wonder if this is discipline specific. As a historian, it seems silly to write in the present tense about something that happened a long time ago.

At the same time, in literary criticism, it is common to write in the present tense when dealing with writings that are old.

In the case that you gave, I think it depends on whether the writer is dealing with the "famed historical novel" as a historical act or a literary one. If I were writing a biography of (say) Howard Fast, I might write: Howard Fast wrote Freedom Road, as part of his efforts to highlight the importance of race in American history. In his famed historical novel, Fast told the story of Reconstruction." However, if I were writing a literary analysis of Fast, I might write something like: "In his famed historical novel, Freedom Road, Howard Fast tells the story of the fight against white supremacy in the period after the Civil War."

So I guess my bottom line is that you should, if you think it is important, establish a style that works best for your class/subject and tell students they should follow it, while recognizing in different contexts different styles are useful (similar in the way I won't let my history students use the MLA citation style in their senior theses, while I assume the English department requires them to do so).

[mamselle]

Sequence of tenses within a paragraph or longer passage is also a consideration.

I definitely correct misused tense constructions, but I don't use the over-simplified basis the OP is working from to do it.

I'd elaborate more now, but I've just finished a 4-hour teaching stint, ending with a student who's 1/3 of the way through the third section of the Moonlight Sonata, and I'm  bushed.

Tomorrow after sleep my braincells upstir I can.

M.

[Puget]

Huh, now I know where the weird misuse use of present tense in some of my students' psych papers probably comes from-- they must learn it in English classes. Along with many other things we have to un-teach them, like overly-flowery language and using multiple terms for the same things because "you should use a variety of words". Not saying there is anything wrong with these things in their appropriate fields, but they are wrong in science writing.

[mleok]

This doesn't seem like an issue of grammar, as much as an issue of style. Personally, I prefer what the student wrote.

[Parasaurolophus]

I'm not sure exactly what our disciplinary conventions are, but I usually reserve the present tense for living authors and the past for the deaders. Schopenhauer sure said some things, but he can't say or argue much these days.

But perhaps I'm wrong to do so.

[mleok]

I'm not sure exactly what our disciplinary conventions are, but I usually reserve the present tense for living authors and the past for the deaders.

Yes, I do the same.

[jerseyjay]

I try to teach my students that each discipline has its own norms--of writing, of reading, of research, and of framing discussion. Sometimes these are at great variance with one another, and the axiomatic practice of one field are forbidden in another. This sometimes drives students mad, but it part of being an educated person. Too many professors seem to have fossilized, however, and assume that their way of doing something is the only possible way. (Add in different national and linguistic contexts, and if becomes more confusing.)

In literature there is something called the historical present tense, in which you use the present to describe events that happened in the past. It works sometimes in novels, memoirs, etc. If I, as a historian, wrote something in this tense, it would be thrown back at me. (Although I do sometimes use it when narrating an event in class: So Columbus goes to Queen Isabella, and what does she tell him?)

In Italian, however, it is much more common to write in the present tense to describe the past than it is in English.

Part of being an educated person is recognizing different ways that language is used, by different people in different contexts.

Again, to the OP: by all means, make your students use the present tense to describe what Thomas Paine wrote, and make the students use MLA citations. I will make them use the past tense and Chicago-style footnotes. I won't pretend mine is the only way, and neither should you. 

[Hegemony]

I think it doesn't matter.

[Caracal]

I think it doesn't matter.

It's the kind of thing that is correct and appropriate to teach and comment on in student papers, but isn't worth obsessing about. In a thesis or something, it makes sense to insist on the correct convention for the discipline. Most of the time, its pretty low down on the list of priorities for me.

[marshwiggle]

I think it doesn't matter.

It's the kind of thing that is correct and appropriate to teach and comment on in student papers, but isn't worth obsessing about. In a thesis or something, it makes sense to insist on the correct convention for the discipline. Most of the time, its pretty low down on the list of priorities for me.

Definitely. How many people do as I do, and say things like "Last class we talked about...", when, in fact, I talked about (whatever); the students were silent.

[marshwiggle]

I'm not sure exactly what our disciplinary conventions are, but I usually reserve the present tense for living authors and the past for the deaders.

Yes, I do the same.

I realized that in some fields it might depend on whether a person's ideas were corrected by later ones. So "so-and-so said blah, but Other-so-and-so shows that blahblah." The author of the currently accepted idea gets the present tense; authors of discredited ideas get the past tense. (So "alive or dead" is determined by the idea, not the person, in the above distinction.)

[Caracal]

I think it doesn't matter.

It's the kind of thing that is correct and appropriate to teach and comment on in student papers, but isn't worth obsessing about. In a thesis or something, it makes sense to insist on the correct convention for the discipline. Most of the time, its pretty low down on the list of priorities for me.

Definitely. How many people do as I do, and say things like "Last class we talked about...", when, in fact, I talked about (whatever); the students were silent.

I actually use the present tense a fair amount in class when talking about historical events. Mostly, it is when I'm trying to set up a scene, or get students to to try to empathize with, or understand the choices and dilemmas of people from the past. "So, Washington has a problem, he needs to convince Dunmore that he acted correctly, but..."

Very occasionally, you'll see the present tense used that way in academic history writing. I can think of a few books where the author starts a chapter with a sort of theatrical set piece imagining how some event might have taken place, or what some figure might have been thinking. Usually these sections are in italics to indicate that this is informed speculation and the author isn't claiming that this did happen exactly in this way, or that they can really prove this is what the person was thinking. I suppose using the present tense serves as both a way to convey the idea of contingent event taking place, but also is a way of emphasizing that it isn't historical writing in the way that the rest of the chapter in past tense will be.

However, you should know the conventions before you break them and it is useful to get students to understand the difference between academic and colloquial usage. Again though, tense is not the worst example of inappropriate colloquial language that I see.

[WidgetWoman]

STEM discipline here. I'd be happy if they'd just choose one tense and be consistent with it. I get whiplash when they bounce between present, past and <shudder> future </shudder>