I am on an apparently futile campaign to reduce the silly use of the historical present when describing events that took place in the past. One hears this especially on NPR and C-Span by authors of history books describing their work. I suspect this was the trap that Trump fell into when talking about Frederick Douglass in the present tense, for which he was ridiculed. When you hear history professors talk about their subjects in the present tense (not that Trump ever would but that's beside the point) I suppose it becomes ingrained and the supposition formed that's the way one should talk about events that might have occurred hundreds of years ago.
Ben Yagoda has a cogent rant in the pages of Lingua Franca from several years back with numerous examples. Used sparingly, the historical present can supply a vividness to a description, but used consistently it diminishes the effect and makes the speaker sound moronic, like Trump. While Yagoda implies this is an affectation reserved to NPR visitors, I suspect it's prevalent elsewhere, but not obvious since NPR is the only station with any content at all.
When writing about the content of a book, on the other hand, it would seem the historical present is far more appropriate as the book is extant and not dead so retelling the story in the present makes more sense. Describing events that took place years ago in the present does not. To butcher Yagoda only slightly, "in discussing the past, the historical present lacks the authority, the range, the depth, and the power of the past tense. . .it’s essentially a novelty item. It’s tacky. Give it a rest."
No comments:
Post a Comment