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

[jerseyjay]

I am grading senior theses in history. I should say that as long as the students are consistent, I don't really care. What really makes me shudder is when they do not alphabetize their bibliographies.....

[artalot]

I teach art history and I generally advise students to use the past tense when describing what an artist did (she painted a still life of fruit), but the present tense to describe a work of art (the brush strokes used to define the pears are thick and visible). This is because a work of art still exists in front of you while the artist is usually dead. Things get sticky for living artists, but that's another issue.
So, I think I actually disagree slightly with your usage. That said, I'm with everyone else, I explain how my discipline writes about the past, but am really interested in consistency. If the verb is in agreement with the noun, I take it as a win. I don't get picky until the capstone paper.

[Hibush]

I teach art history and I generally advise students to use the past tense when describing what an artist did (she painted a still life of fruit), but the present tense to describe a work of art (the brush strokes used to define the pears are thick and visible). This is because a work of art still exists in front of you while the artist is usually dead. Things get sticky for living artists, but that's another issue.

For living artists, I suppose it matters on whether they are done with the work. The uncultured among us may think that happens once the work is sent off for sale. But an interesting topic of discussion in art history,

[aside]

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.

We're using the royal "we."

[bio-nonymous]

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.

We're using the royal "we."

^+100 ;)

[Langue_doc]

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.

We're using the royal "we."

^+100 ;)

Me too; should that be "us, too"?

[mamselle]

Or, "We, also"?

;--}

M.

[kaysixteen]

The 'historic present' was even a thing in Latin.  It is fine.

[Hibush]

The 'historic present' was even a thing in Latin.  It is fine.

In what situations does classic Latin use the historic present, and where is the border to use past?

[downer]

Doesn't it depend a great deal on context?

Seneca tells us "All cruelty springs from weakness."
Seneca wrote "All cruelty springs from weakness." in his work "The Happy Life."
Seneca believed "All cruelty springs from weakness."

It is partly stylistic too, but I would do a doubletake if a student wrote
'Seneca postulates "All cruelty springs from weakness."'

[ergative]

Or, "We, also"?

;--}

M.

The present author, likewise.

[jerseyjay]

The 'historic present' was even a thing in Latin.  It is fine.

Well, yes, if the students write their papers in Latin. Or even Italian. But my students tend to write their papers in English (although I give them the option to write in Spanish or Portuguese when I teach Latin American history).

As others have said, I often use the present for class discussions. But in written work, historians use the past tense. I won't fail a student--or perhaps even mark a student lower--for using the present tense in a paper, but it is part of becoming literate in English usage. In the same way an Anglophone learning Italian should know how to use the passato remoto and passato prossimo correctly; it is not strictly a question of grammar but of usage. 

[Hibush]

The present author, likewise.

One journal I publish in might let that one go. The present author is sorely tempted to slip it in the ms just to see what happens.

[reverist]

The present author, likewise.

Or as a wise philosopher once said, "We too can't not die in a freak gasoline fight accident."

[Hegemony]

Reverist, hahahaha! I get the reference, even though I don't read good.