should history essays be in past tense

Writing a Good History Paper

• Top Ten Reasons for Negative Comments
• Making Sure your Paper has Substance

Common Marginal Remarks on Style, Clarity, Grammar, and Syntax

Word and phrase usage problems, analyzing a historical document, writing a book review, writing a term paper or senior thesis, top ten reasons for negative comments on history papers.

(Drawn from a survey of the History Department ) 10. You engage in cheap, anachronistic moralizing .  9. You are sloppy with the chronology .  8. You quote excessively or improperly .  7. You have written a careless “one-draft wonder.” (See revise and proofread)  6. You are vague or have empty, unsupported generalizations .  5. You write too much in the passive voice.  4. You use inappropriate sources .  3. You use evidence uncritically.  2. You are wordy .  1. You have no clear thesis and little analysis.

Making Sure your History Paper has Substance

Get off to a good start..

Avoid pretentious, vapid beginnings. If you are writing a paper on, say, British responses to the rebellion in India in 1857, don't open with a statement like this: “Throughout human history people in all cultures everywhere in the world have engaged in many and long-running conflicts about numerous aspects of government policy and diplomatic issues, which have much interested historians and generated historical theories in many areas.” This is pure garbage, bores the reader, and is a sure sign that you have nothing substantive to say. Get to the point. Here’s a better start: “The rebellion in 1857 compelled the British to rethink their colonial administration in India.” This sentence tells the reader what your paper is actually about and clears the way for you to state your thesis in the rest of the opening paragraph. For example, you might go on to argue that greater British sensitivity to Indian customs was hypocritical.

State a clear thesis.

Whether you are writing an exam essay or a senior thesis, you need to have a thesis. Don’t just repeat the assignment or start writing down everything that you know about the subject. Ask yourself, “What exactly am I trying to prove?” Your thesis is your take on the subject, your perspective, your explanation—that is, the case that you’re going to argue. “Famine struck Ireland in the 1840s” is a true statement, but it is not a thesis. “The English were responsible for famine in Ireland in the 1840s” is a thesis (whether defensible or not is another matter). A good thesis answers an important research question about how or why something happened. (“Who was responsible for the famine in Ireland in the 1840s?”) Once you have laid out your thesis, don’t forget about it. Develop your thesis logically from paragraph to paragraph. Your reader should always know where your argument has come from, where it is now, and where it is going.

Be sure to analyze.

Students are often puzzled when their professors mark them down for summarizing or merely narrating rather than analyzing. What does it mean to analyze? In the narrow sense, to analyze means to break down into parts and to study the interrelationships of those parts. If you analyze water, you break it down into hydrogen and oxygen. In a broader sense, historical analysis explains the origins and significance of events. Historical analysis digs beneath the surface to see relationships or distinctions that are not immediately obvious. Historical analysis is critical; it evaluates sources, assigns significance to causes, and weighs competing explanations. Don’t push the distinction too far, but you might think of summary and analysis this way: Who, what, when, and where are the stuff of summary; how, why, and to what effect are the stuff of analysis. Many students think that they have to give a long summary (to show the professor that they know the facts) before they get to their analysis. Try instead to begin your analysis as soon as possible, sometimes without any summary at all. The facts will “shine through” a good analysis. You can't do an analysis unless you know the facts, but you can summarize the facts without being able to do an analysis. Summary is easier and less sophisticated than analysis—that’s why summary alone never earns an “A.”

Use evidence critically.

Like good detectives, historians are critical of their sources and cross-check them for reliability. You wouldn't think much of a detective who relied solely on a suspect’s archenemy to check an alibi. Likewise, you wouldn't think much of a historian who relied solely on the French to explain the origins of World War I. Consider the following two statements on the origin of World War I: 1) “For the catastrophe of 1914 the Germans are responsible. Only a professional liar would deny this...” 2) “It is not true that Germany is guilty of having caused this war. Neither the people, the government, nor the Kaiser wanted war....”  They can’t both be right, so you have to do some detective work. As always, the best approach is to ask: Who wrote the source? Why? When? Under what circumstances? For whom? The first statement comes from a book by the French politician Georges Clemenceau, which he wrote in 1929 at the very end of his life. In 1871, Clemenceau had vowed revenge against Germany for its defeat of France in the Franco-Prussian War. As premier of France from 1917 to 1920, he represented France at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. He was obviously not a disinterested observer. The second statement comes from a manifesto published by ninety-three prominent German intellectuals in the fall of 1914. They were defending Germany against charges of aggression and brutality. They too were obviously not disinterested observers. Now, rarely do you encounter such extreme bias and passionate disagreement, but the principle of criticizing and cross-checking sources always applies. In general, the more sources you can use, and the more varied they are, the more likely you are to make a sound historical judgment, especially when passions and self-interests are engaged. You don’t need to be cynical as a historian (self-interest does not explain everything), but you do need to be critical and skeptical. Competent historians may offer different interpretations of the same evidence or choose to stress different evidence. You will not find a single historical Truth with a capital “T” on any matter of significance. You can, however, learn to discriminate among conflicting interpretations, not all of which are created equal. (See also: Analyzing a Historical Document )

Be precise.

Vague statements and empty generalizations suggest that you haven't put in the time to learn the material. Consider these two sentences: “During the French Revolution, the government was overthrown by the people. The Revolution is important because it shows that people need freedom.” What people? Landless peasants? Urban journeymen? Wealthy lawyers? Which government? When? How? Who exactly needed freedom, and what did they mean by freedom? Here is a more precise statement about the French Revolution: “Threatened by rising prices and food shortages in 1793, the Parisian sans-culottes pressured the Convention to institute price controls.” This statement is more limited than the grandiose generalizations about the Revolution, but unlike them, it can open the door to a real analysis of the Revolution. Be careful when you use grand abstractions like people, society, freedom, and government, especially when you further distance yourself from the concrete by using these words as the apparent antecedents for the pronouns they and it. Always pay attention to cause and effect. Abstractions do not cause or need anything; particular people or particular groups of people cause or need things. Avoid grandiose trans-historical generalizations that you can’t support. When in doubt about the appropriate level of precision or detail, err on the side of adding “too much” precision and detail.

Watch the chronology.

Anchor your thesis in a clear chronological framework and don't jump around confusingly. Take care to avoid both anachronisms and vagueness about dates. If you write, “Napoleon abandoned his Grand Army in Russia and caught the redeye back to Paris,” the problem is obvious. If you write, “Despite the Watergate scandal, Nixon easily won reelection in 1972,” the problem is more subtle, but still serious. (The scandal did not become public until after the election.) If you write, “The revolution in China finally succeeded in the twentieth century,” your professor may suspect that you haven’t studied. Which revolution? When in the twentieth century? Remember that chronology is the backbone of history. What would you think of a biographer who wrote that you graduated from Hamilton in the 1950s?

Cite sources carefully.

Your professor may allow parenthetical citations in a short paper with one or two sources, but you should use footnotes for any research paper in history. Parenthetical citations are unaesthetic; they scar the text and break the flow of reading. Worse still, they are simply inadequate to capture the richness of historical sources. Historians take justifiable pride in the immense variety of their sources. Parenthetical citations such as (Jones 1994) may be fine for most of the social sciences and humanities, where the source base is usually limited to recent books and articles in English. Historians, however, need the flexibility of the full footnote. Try to imagine this typical footnote (pulled at random from a classic work of German history) squeezed into parentheses in the body of the text: DZA Potsdam, RdI, Frieden 5, Erzgebiet von Longwy-Briey, Bd. I, Nr. 19305, gedruckte Denkschrift für OHL und Reichsleitung, Dezember 1917, und in RWA, Frieden Frankreich Nr. 1883. The abbreviations are already in this footnote; its information cannot be further reduced. For footnotes and bibliography, historians usually use Chicago style. (The Chicago Manual of Style. 15th edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.) On the Writing Center’s website you can find a useful summary of Chicago citation style prepared by a former history major, Elizabeth Rabe ’04 ( Footnotes ). RefWorks (on the library’s website) will convert your citations to Chicago style. Don’t hesitate to ask one of the reference librarians for help if you have trouble getting started on RefWorks.

Use primary sources.

Use as many primary sources as possible in your paper. A primary source is one produced by a participant in or witness of the events you are writing about. A primary source allows the historian to see the past through the eyes of direct participants. Some common primary sources are letters, diaries, memoirs, speeches, church records, newspaper articles, and government documents of all kinds. The capacious genre “government records” is probably the single richest trove for the historian and includes everything from criminal court records, to tax lists, to census data, to parliamentary debates, to international treaties—indeed, any records generated by governments. If you’re writing about culture, primary sources may include works of art or literature, as well as philosophical tracts or scientific treatises—anything that comes under the broad rubric of culture. Not all primary sources are written. Buildings, monuments, clothes, home furnishings, photographs, religious relics, musical recordings, or oral reminiscences can all be primary sources if you use them as historical clues. The interests of historians are so broad that virtually anything can be a primary source. (See also: Analyzing a Historical Document )

Use scholarly secondary sources.

A secondary source is one written by a later historian who had no part in what he or she is writing about. (In the rare cases when the historian was a participant in the events, then the work—or at least part of it—is a primary source.) Historians read secondary sources to learn about how scholars have interpreted the past. Just as you must be critical of primary sources, so too you must be critical of secondary sources. You must be especially careful to distinguish between scholarly and non-scholarly secondary sources. Unlike, say, nuclear physics, history attracts many amateurs. Books and articles about war, great individuals, and everyday material life dominate popular history. Some professional historians disparage popular history and may even discourage their colleagues from trying their hand at it. You need not share their snobbishness; some popular history is excellent. But—and this is a big but—as a rule, you should avoid popular works in your research, because they are usually not scholarly. Popular history seeks to inform and entertain a large general audience. In popular history, dramatic storytelling often prevails over analysis, style over substance, simplicity over complexity, and grand generalization over careful qualification. Popular history is usually based largely or exclusively on secondary sources. Strictly speaking, most popular histories might better be called tertiary, not secondary, sources. Scholarly history, in contrast, seeks to discover new knowledge or to reinterpret existing knowledge. Good scholars wish to write clearly and simply, and they may spin a compelling yarn, but they do not shun depth, analysis, complexity, or qualification. Scholarly history draws on as many primary sources as practical. Now, your goal as a student is to come as close as possible to the scholarly ideal, so you need to develop a nose for distinguishing the scholarly from the non-scholarly. Here are a few questions you might ask of your secondary sources (bear in mind that the popular/scholarly distinction is not absolute, and that some scholarly work may be poor scholarship). Who is the author? Most scholarly works are written by professional historians (usually professors) who have advanced training in the area they are writing about. If the author is a journalist or someone with no special historical training, be careful. Who publishes the work? Scholarly books come from university presses and from a handful of commercial presses (for example, Norton, Routledge, Palgrave, Penguin, Rowman & Littlefield, Knopf, and HarperCollins). If it’s an article, where does it appear? Is it in a journal subscribed to by our library, listed on JSTOR , or published by a university press? Is the editorial board staffed by professors? Oddly enough, the word journal in the title is usually a sign that the periodical is scholarly. What do the notes and bibliography look like? If they are thin or nonexistent, be careful. If they are all secondary sources, be careful. If the work is about a non-English-speaking area, and all the sources are in English, then it's almost by definition not scholarly. Can you find reviews of the book in the data base Academic Search Premier? If the book was published within the last few decades, and it’s not in there, that’s a bad sign. With a little practice, you can develop confidence in your judgment—and you’re on your way to being a historian. If you are unsure whether a work qualifies as scholarly, ask your professor. (See also: Writing a Book Review )

Avoid abusing your sources.

Many potentially valuable sources are easy to abuse. Be especially alert for these five abuses: Web abuse. The Web is a wonderful and improving resource for indexes and catalogs. But as a source for primary and secondary material for the historian, the Web is of limited value. Anyone with the right software can post something on the Web without having to get past trained editors, peer reviewers, or librarians. As a result, there is a great deal of garbage on the Web. If you use a primary source from the Web, make sure that a respected intellectual institution stands behind the site. Be especially wary of secondary articles on the Web, unless they appear in electronic versions of established print journals (e.g., The Journal of Asian Studies in JSTOR). Many articles on the Web are little more than third-rate encyclopedia entries. When in doubt, check with your professor. With a few rare exceptions, you will not find scholarly monographs in history (even recent ones) on the Web. You may have heard of Google’s plans to digitize the entire collections of some of the world’s major libraries and to make those collections available on the Web. Don’t hold your breath. Your days at Hamilton will be long over by the time the project is finished. Besides, your training as a historian should give you a healthy skepticism of the giddy claims of technophiles. Most of the time and effort of doing history goes into reading, note-taking, pondering, and writing. Finding a chapter of a book on the Web (as opposed to getting the physical book through interlibrary loan) might be a convenience, but it doesn’t change the basics for the historian. Moreover, there is a subtle, but serious, drawback with digitized old books: They break the historian’s sensual link to the past. And of course, virtually none of the literally trillions of pages of archival material is available on the Web. For the foreseeable future, the library and the archive will remain the natural habitats of the historian. Thesaurus abuse. How tempting it is to ask your computer’s thesaurus to suggest a more erudite-sounding word for the common one that popped into your mind! Resist the temptation. Consider this example (admittedly, a bit heavy-handed, but it drives the point home): You’re writing about the EPA’s programs to clean up impure water supplies. Impure seems too simple and boring a word, so you bring up your thesaurus, which offers you everything from incontinent to meretricious. “How about meretricious water?” you think to yourself. “That will impress the professor.” The problem is that you don’t know exactly what meretricious means, so you don’t realize that meretricious is absurdly inappropriate in this context and makes you look foolish and immature. Use only those words that come to you naturally. Don’t try to write beyond your vocabulary. Don’t try to impress with big words. Use a thesaurus only for those annoying tip-of-the-tongue problems (you know the word and will recognize it instantly when you see it, but at the moment you just can’t think of it).  Quotation book abuse. This is similar to thesaurus abuse. Let’s say you are writing a paper on Alexander Hamilton’s banking policies, and you want to get off to a snappy start that will make you seem effortlessly learned. How about a quotation on money? You click on the index of Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations , and before you know it, you’ve begun your paper with, “As Samuel Butler wrote in Hudibras ,  ‘For what is worth in anything/ But so much money as ’t will bring?’” Face it, you’re faking it. You don’t know who Samuel Butler is, and you’ve certainly never heard of Hudibras , let alone read it. Your professor is not fooled. You sound like an insecure after-dinner speaker. Forget Bartlett’s, unless you're confirming the wording of a quotation that came to you spontaneously and relates to your paper.  Encyclopedia abuse. General encyclopedias like Britannica are useful for checking facts (“Wait a sec, am I right about which countries sent troops to crush the Boxer Rebellion in China? Better check.”). But if you are footnoting encyclopedias in your papers, you are not doing college-level research.

Dictionary Abuse. The dictionary is your friend. Keep it by your side as you write, but do not abuse it by starting papers with a definition. You may be most tempted to start this way when you are writing on a complex, controversial, or elusive subject. (“According to Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary , liberalism is defined as...”). Actually, the dictionary does you little good in such cases and makes you sound like a conscientious but dull high-school student. Save in the rare case that competing dictionary definitions are the subject at hand, keep dictionary quotations out of your paper.

Quote sparingly

Avoid quoting a secondary source and then simply rewording or summarizing the quotation, either above or below the quotation. It is rarely necessary to quote secondary sources at length, unless your essay focuses on a critical analysis of the author’s argument. (See also: Writing a Book Review ) Your professor wants to see your ability to analyze and to understand the secondary sources. Do not quote unless the quotation clarifies or enriches your analysis. When in doubt, do not quote; instead, integrate the author’s argument into your own (though be sure to acknowledge ideas from your sources, even when you are paraphrasing). If you use a lot of quotations from secondary sources, you are probably writing a poor paper. An analysis of a primary source, such as a political tract or philosophical essay, might require lengthy quotations, often in block format. In such cases, you might need to briefly repeat key points or passages as a means to introduce the author’s ideas, but your analysis and interpretation of the text’s meaning should remain the most important aim. (See also: Using primary sources and Use scholarly secondary sources .)

Know your audience

Unless instructed otherwise, you should assume that your audience consists of educated, intelligent, nonspecialists. In fact, your professor will usually be your only reader, but if you write directly to your professor, you may become cryptic or sloppy (oh well, she’ll know what I’m talking about). Explaining your ideas to someone who doesn't know what you mean forces you to be clear and complete. Now, finding the right amount of detail can, admittedly, be tricky (how much do I put in about the Edict of Nantes, the Embargo Act, or President Wilson’s background?). When in doubt, err on the side of putting in extra details. You’ll get some leeway here if you avoid the extremes (my reader’s an ignoramus/my reader knows everything).

Avoid cheap, anachronistic moralizing

Many of the people and institutions of the past appear unenlightened, ignorant, misguided, or bigoted by today’s values. Resist the temptation to condemn or to get self-righteous. (“Martin Luther was blind to the sexism and class prejudice of sixteenth-century German society.”) Like you, people in the past were creatures of their time; like you, they deserve to be judged by the standards of their time. If you judge the past by today’s standards (an error historians call “presentism”), you will never understand why people thought or acted as they did. Yes, Hitler was a bad guy, but he was bad not only by today’s standards, but also by the commonly accepted standards of his own time. Someday you’re going to look pretty foolish and ignorant yourself. (“Early twenty-first century Hamilton students failed to see the shocking inderdosherism [that’s right, you don’t recognize the concept because it doesn’t yet exist] implicit in their career plans.”)

Have a strong conclusion

Obviously, you should not just stop abruptly as though you have run out of time or ideas. Your conclusion should conclude something. If you merely restate briefly what you have said in your paper, you give the impression that you are unsure of the significance of what you have written. A weak conclusion leaves the reader unsatisfied and bewildered, wondering why your paper was worth reading. A strong conclusion adds something to what you said in your introduction. A strong conclusion explains the importance and significance of what you have written. A strong conclusion leaves your reader caring about what you have said and pondering the larger implications of your thesis. Don’t leave your reader asking, “So what?”

Revise and proofread

Your professor can spot a “one-draft wonder,” so don't try to do your paper at the last moment. Leave plenty of time for revising and proofreading. Show your draft to a writing tutor or other good writer. Reading the draft aloud may also help. Of course, everyone makes mistakes, and a few may slip through no matter how meticulous you are. But beware of lots of mistakes. The failure to proofread carefully suggests that you devoted little time and effort to the assignment. Tip: Proofread your text both on the screen and on a printed copy. Your eyes see the two differently. Don’t rely on your spell checker to catch all of your misspellings. (If ewe ken reed this ewe kin sea that a computer wood nut all ways help ewe spill or rite reel good.)

Note: The Writing Center suggests standard abbreviations for noting some of these problems. You should familiarize yourself with those abbreviations, but your professor may not use them.  

Remarks on Style and Clarity

Wordy/verbose/repetitive..

Try your hand at fixing this sentence: “Due to the fact that these aspects of the issue of personal survival have been raised by recently transpired problematic conflicts, it is at the present time paramount that the ultimate psychological end of suicide be contemplated by this individual.” If you get it down to “To be or not to be, that is the question,” you’ve done well. You may not match Shakespeare, but you can learn to cut the fat out of your prose. The chances are that the five pages you’ve written for your history paper do not really contain five pages’ worth of ideas.

Misuse of the passive voice.

Write in the active voice. The passive voice encourages vagueness and dullness; it enfeebles verbs; and it conceals agency, which is the very stuff of history. You know all of this almost instinctively. What would you think of a lover who sighed in your ear, “My darling, you are loved by me!”? At its worst, the passive voice—like its kin, bureaucratic language and jargon—is a medium for the dishonesty and evasion of responsibility that pervade contemporary American culture. (“Mistakes were made; I was given false information.” Now notice the difference: “I screwed up; Smith and Jones lied to me; I neglected to check the facts.”) On history papers the passive voice usually signals a less toxic version of the same unwillingness to take charge, to commit yourself, and to say forthrightly what is really going on, and who is doing what to whom. Suppose you write, “In 1935 Ethiopia was invaded.” This sentence is a disaster. Who invaded? Your professor will assume that you don't know. Adding “by Italy” to the end of the sentence helps a bit, but the sentence is still flat and misleading. Italy was an aggressive actor, and your passive construction conceals that salient fact by putting the actor in the syntactically weakest position—at the end of the sentence as the object of a preposition. Notice how you add vigor and clarity to the sentence when you recast it in the active voice: "In 1935 Italy invaded Ethiopia." I n a few cases , you may violate the no-passive-voice rule. The passive voice may be preferable if the agent is either obvious (“Kennedy was elected in 1960”), irrelevant (“Theodore Roosevelt became president when McKinley was assassinated”), or unknown (“King Harold was killed at the Battle of Hastings”). Note that in all three of these sample sentences the passive voice focuses the reader on the receiver of the action rather than on the doer (on Kennedy, not on American voters; on McKinley, not on his assassin; on King Harold, not on the unknown Norman archer). Historians usually wish to focus on the doer, so you should stay with the active voice—unless you can make a compelling case for an exception.

Abuse of the verb to be.

The verb to be is the most common and most important verb in English, but too many verbs to be suck the life out of your prose and lead to wordiness. Enliven your prose with as many action verbs as possible. ( “In Brown v. Board of Education it was the opinion of the Supreme Court that the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.”) Rewrite as “ In Brown v. Board of Education the Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ violated the Fourteenth ”

Explain/what’s your point?/unclear/huh?

You may (or may not) know what you’re talking about, but if you see these marginal comments, you have confused your reader. You may have introduced a non sequitur ; gotten off the subject; drifted into abstraction; assumed something that you have not told the reader; failed to explain how the material relates to your argument; garbled your syntax; or simply failed to proofread carefully.  If possible, have a good writer read your paper and point out the muddled parts. Reading your paper aloud may help too.

Paragraph goes nowhere/has no point or unity.

Paragraphs are the building blocks of your paper. If your paragraphs are weak, your paper cannot be strong. Try underlining the topic sentence of every paragraph. If your topic sentences are vague, strength and precision—the hallmarks of good writing—are unlikely to follow. Consider this topic sentence (from a paper on Ivan the Terrible): “From 1538 to 1547, there are many different arguments about the nature of what happened.”  Disaster looms. The reader has no way of knowing when the arguing takes place, who’s arguing, or even what the arguing is about. And how does the “nature of what happened” differ from plain “what happened”? Perhaps the writer means the following: “The childhood of Ivan the Terrible has provoked controversy among scholars of Russian history.” That's hardly deathless prose, but it does orient the reader and make the writer accountable for what follows in the paragraph. Once you have a good topic sentence, make sure that everything in the paragraph supports that sentence, and that cumulatively the support is persuasive. Make sure that each sentence follows logically from the previous one, adding detail in a coherent order. Move, delete, or add material as appropriate. To avoid confusing the reader, limit each paragraph to one central idea. (If you have a series of supporting points starting with first, you must follow with a second, third , etc.) A paragraph that runs more than a printed page is probably too long. Err on the side of shorter paragraphs.

Inappropriate use of first person.

Most historians write in the third person, which focuses the reader on the subject. If you write in the first person singular, you shift the focus to yourself. You give the impression that you want to break in and say, “Enough about the Haitian revolution [or whatever], now let’s talk about me!” Also avoid the first person plural (“We believe...”). It suggests committees, editorial boards, or royalty. None of those should have had a hand in writing your paper. And don’t refer to yourself lamely as “this writer.” Who else could possibly be writing the paper?

Tense inconsistency.

Stay consistently in the past tense when you are writing about what took place in the past. (“Truman’s defeat of Dewey in 1948 caught the pollsters by surprise.”) Note that the context may require a shift into the past perfect. (“The pollsters had not realized [past perfect] that voter opinion had been [past perfect] changing rapidly in the days before the election.”) Unfortunately, the tense problem can get a bit more complicated. Most historians shift into the present tense when describing or commenting on a book, document, or evidence that still exists and is in front of them (or in their mind) as they write.  (“de Beauvoir published [past tense] The Second Sex in 1949. In the book she contends [present tense] that woman....”) If you’re confused, think of it this way: History is about the past, so historians write in the past tense, unless they are discussing effects of the past that still exist and thus are in the present. When in doubt, use the past tense and stay consistent.

Ill-fitted quotation.

This is a common problem, though not noted in stylebooks. When you quote someone, make sure that the quotation fits grammatically into your sentence.  Note carefully the mismatch between the start of the following sentence and the quotation that follows:  “In order to understand the Vikings, writes Marc Bloch, it is necessary, ‘To conceive of the Viking expeditions as religious warfare inspired by the ardour of an implacable pagan fanaticism—an explanation that has sometimes been at least suggested—conflicts too much with what we know of minds disposed to respect magic of every kind.’” At first, the transition into the quotation from Bloch seems fine. The infinitive (to conceive) fits. But then the reader comes to the verb (conflicts) in Bloch’s sentence, and things no longer make sense. The writer is saying, in effect, “it is necessary conflicts.” The wordy lead-in and the complex syntax of the quotation have tripped the writer and confused the reader. If you wish to use the whole sentence, rewrite as “Marc Bloch writes in Feudal Society , ‘To conceive of...’” Better yet, use your own words or only part of the quotation in your sentence. Remember that good writers quote infrequently, but when they do need to quote, they use carefully phrased lead-ins that fit the grammatical construction of the quotation.

Free-floating quotation.

Do not suddenly drop quotations into your prose. (“The spirit of the Progressive era is best understood if one remembers that the United States is ‘the only country in the world that began with perfection and aspired to progress.’”) You have probably chosen the quotation because it is finely wrought and says exactly what you want to say. Fine, but first you inconvenience the reader, who must go to the footnote to learn that the quotation comes from The Age of Reform by historian Richard Hofstadter. And then you puzzle the reader. Did Hofstadter write the line about perfection and progress, or is he quoting someone from the Progressive era? If, as you claim, you are going to help the reader to judge the “spirit of the Progressive era,” you need to clarify. Rewrite as “As historian Richard Hofstadter writes in the Age of Reform , the United States is ‘the only country in the world...’” Now the reader knows immediately that the line is Hofstadter’s.

Who’s speaking here?/your view?

Always be clear about whether you’re giving your opinion or that of the author or historical actor you are discussing. Let’s say that your essay is about Martin Luther’s social views. You write, “The German peasants who revolted in 1525 were brutes and deserved to be crushed mercilessly.” That’s what Luther thought, but do you agree?  You may know, but your reader is not a mind reader. When in doubt, err on the side of being overly clear.

Jargon/pretentious theory.

Historians value plain English. Academic jargon and pretentious theory will make your prose turgid, ridiculous, and downright irritating. Your professor will suspect that you are trying to conceal that you have little to say. Of course, historians can’t get along without some theory; even those who profess to have no theory actually do—it’s called naïve realism. And sometimes you need a technical term, be it ontological argument or ecological fallacy. When you use theory or technical terms, make sure that they are intelligible and do real intellectual lifting.  Please, no sentences like this: “By means of a neo-Althusserian, post-feminist hermeneutics, this essay will de/construct the logo/phallo/centrism imbricated in the marginalizing post-colonial gendered gaze, thereby proliferating the subjectivities that will re/present the de/stabilization of the essentializing habitus of post-Fordist capitalism.”

Informal language/slang.

You don’t need to be stuffy, but stay with formal English prose of the kind that will still be comprehensible to future generations. Columbus did not “push the envelope in the Atlantic.” Henry VIII was not “looking for his inner child when he broke with the Church.” Prime Minister Cavour of Piedmont was not “trying to play in the major leagues diplomatic wise.” Wilson did not “almost veg out” at the end of his second term. President Hindenburg did not appoint Hitler in a “senior moment.” Prime Minister Chamberlain did not tell the Czechs to “chill out” after the Munich Conference, and Gandhi was not an “awesome dude.”

Try to keep your prose fresh. Avoid cliches. When you proofread, watch out for sentences like these: “Voltaire always gave 110 percent and thought outside the box. His bottom line was that as people went forward into the future, they would, at the end of the day, step up to the plate and realize that the Jesuits were conniving perverts.” Ugh. Rewrite as “Voltaire tried to persuade people that the Jesuits were cony, step up to the plate and realize that the Jesuits were conniving perverts.” Ugh. Rewrite as “Voltaire tried to persuade people that the Jesuits were conniving perverts.”

Intensifier abuse/exaggeration.

Avoid inflating your prose with unsustainable claims of size, importance, uniqueness, certainty, or intensity. Such claims mark you as an inexperienced writer trying to impress the reader. Your statement is probably not certain ; your subject probably not unique , the biggest, the best, or the most important. Also, the adverb very will rarely strengthen your sentence. Strike it. (“President Truman was very determined to stop the spread of communism in Greece.”) Rewrite as “President Truman resolved to stop the spread of communism in Greece.”

Mixed image.

Once you have chosen an image, you must stay with language compatible with that image. In the following example, note that the chain, the boiling, and the igniting are all incompatible with the image of the cold, rolling, enlarging snowball: “A snowballing chain of events boiled over, igniting the powder keg of war in 1914.” Well chosen images can enliven your prose, but if you catch yourself mixing images a lot, you're probably trying to write beyond your ability. Pull back. Be more literal.

Clumsy transition.

If your reader feels a jolt or gets disoriented at the beginning of a new paragraph, your paper probably lacks unity. In a good paper, each paragraph is woven seamlessly into the next. If you find yourself beginning your paragraphs with phrases such as “Another aspect of this problem...,” then you are probably “stacking note cards” rather than developing a thesis.

Unnecessary relative clause.

If you don’t need to restrict the meaning of your sentence’s subject, then don’t. (“Napoleon was a man who tried to conquer Europe.”) Here the relative clause adds nothing. Rewrite as “Napoleon tried to conquer Europe.” Unnecessary relative clauses are a classic form of wordiness.

Distancing or demeaning quotation marks.

If you believe that a frequently used word or phrase distorts historical reality, don’t put it in dismissive, sneering quotation marks to make your point (“the communist ‘threat’ to the ‘free’ world during the Cold War”). Many readers find this practice arrogant, obnoxious, and precious, and they may dismiss your arguments out of hand. If you believe that the communist threat was bogus or exaggerated, or that the free world was not really free, then simply explain what you mean.

Remarks on Grammar and Syntax

Ideally, your professor will help you to improve your writing by specifying exactly what is wrong with a particular passage, but  sometimes you may find a simple awk in the margin. This all-purpose negative comment usually suggests that the sentence is clumsy because you have misused words or compounded several errors. Consider this sentence from a book review:

“However, many falsehoods lie in Goldhagen’s claims and these will be explored.”

What is your long-suffering professor to do with this sentence? The however contributes nothing; the phrase falsehoods lie is an unintended pun that distracts the reader; the comma is missing between the independent clauses; the these has no clear antecedent ( falsehoods? claims? ); the second clause is in the passive voice and contributes nothing anyway; the whole sentence is wordy and screams hasty, last-minute composition. In weary frustration, your professor scrawls awk in the margin and moves on. Buried under the twelve-word sentence lies a three-word idea: “Goldhagen often errs.” When you see awk, check for the common errors in this list. If you don’t understand what’s wrong, ask.

Unclear antecedent.

All pronouns must refer clearly to antecedents and must agree with them in number. The reader usually assumes that the antecedent is the immediately preceding noun. Do not confuse the reader by having several possible antecedents. Consider these two sentences:

“Pope Gregory VII forced Emperor Henry IV to wait three days in the snow at Canossa before granting him an audience. It was a symbolic act.”

To what does the it refer? Forcing the Emperor to wait? The waiting itself? The granting of the audience? The audience itself? The whole previous sentence? You are most likely to get into antecedent trouble when you begin a paragraph with this or it , referring vaguely back to the general import of the previous paragraph. When in doubt, take this test: Circle the pronoun and the antecedent and connect the two with a line. Then ask yourself if your reader could instantly make the same diagram without your help. If the line is long, or if the circle around the antecedent is large, encompassing huge gobs of text, then your reader probably will be confused.  Rewrite. Repetition is better than ambiguity and confusion.

Faulty parallelism.

You confuse your reader if you change the grammatical construction from one element to the next in a series. Consider this sentence:

“King Frederick the Great sought to expand Prussia, to rationalize agriculture, and that the state support education.”

The reader expects another infinitive, but instead trips over the that . Rewrite the last clause as “and to promote state-supported education.” Sentences using neither/nor frequently present parallelism problems. Note the two parts of this sentence:

“After 1870 the cavalry charge was neither an effective tactic, nor did armies use it frequently.”

The sentence jars because the neither is followed by a noun, the nor by a verb. Keep the parts parallel.

Rewrite as “After 1870 the cavalry charge was neither effective nor frequently used.”

Sentences with not only/but also are another pitfall for many students. (“Mussolini attacked not only liberalism, but he also advocated militarism.”) Here the reader is set up to expect a noun in the second clause, but stumbles over a verb. Make the parts parallel by putting the verb attacked after the not only .

Misplaced modifier/dangling element.

Do not confuse the reader with a phrase or clause that refers illogically or absurdly to other words in the sentence. (“Summarized on the back cover of the American paperback edition, the publishers claim that...”) The publishers are not summarized on the back cover. (“Upon finishing the book, many questions remain.”) Who finished the book? Questions can’t read. Avoid following an introductory participial clause with the expletives it or there . Expletives are by definition filler words; they can’t be agents. (“Having examined the origins of the Meiji Restoration in Japan, it is apparent that...”) Apparent to whom?  The expletive it didn’t do the examining. (“After going on the Long March, there was greater support for the Communists in China.”) Who went on the Long March? There didn’t go on the Long March. Always pay attention to who’s doing what in your sentences.

Run-on sentence.

Run-on sentences string together improperly joined independent clauses. Consider these three sentences:

“Galileo recanted his teaching that the earth moved privately he maintained his convictions.” “Galileo recanted his teaching that the earth moved, privately he maintained his convictions.” “Galileo recanted his teaching that the earth moved, however, privately he maintained his convictions.”

The first fuses two independent clauses with neither a comma nor a coordinating conjunction; the second uses a comma but omits the coordinating conjunction; and the third also omits the coordinating conjunction (however is not a coordinating conjunction). To solve the problem, separate the two clauses with a comma and the coordinating conjunction but. You could also divide the clauses with a semicolon or make separate sentences. Remember that there are only seven coordinating conjunctions ( and, but, or, nor, for, so, yet ).

Sentence fragment.

Write in sentences. A sentence has to have a subject and a predicate. If you string together a lot of words, you may lose control of the syntax and end up with a sentence fragment. Note that the following is not a sentence:

“While in Western Europe railroad building proceeded rapidly in the nineteenth century, and in Russia there was less progress.”

Here you have a long compound introductory clause followed by no subject and no verb, and thus you have a fragment. You may have noticed exceptions to the no-fragments rule. Skilful writers do sometimes intentionally use a fragment to achieve a certain effect. Leave the rule-breaking to the experts.

Confusion of restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses.

Consider these two versions of the same sentence:

1. “World War I, which raged from 1914-1918, killed millions of Europeans.” 2. “World War I that raged from 1914-1918 killed millions of Europeans.”

The first sentence has a nonrestrictive relative clause; the dates are included almost as parenthetical information. But something seems amiss with the second sentence. It has a restrictive relative clause that limits the subject (World War I) to the World War I fought between 1914 and 1918, thus implying that there were other wars called World War I, and that we need to distinguish among them. Both sentences are grammatically correct, but the writer of the second sentence appears foolish.  Note carefully the distinction between that (for use in restrictive clauses, with no comma) and which (for use in nonrestrictive clauses, with a comma).

Confusion about who’s doing what.

Remember—history is about what people do, so you need to be vigilant about agency. Proofread your sentences carefully, asking yourself, “Have I said exactly who is doing or thinking what, or have I inadvertently attributed an action or belief to the wrong person or group?” Unfortunately, there are many ways to go wrong here, but faulty punctuation is among the most common. Here’s a sentence about Frantz Fanon, the great critic of European imperialism. Focus on the punctuation and its effect on agency: “Instead of a hierarchy based on class, Fanon suggests the imperialists establish a hierarchy based on race.” As punctuated, the sentence says something absurd: that Fanon is advising the imperialists about the proper kind of hierarchy to establish in the colonies. Surely, the writer meant to say that, in his analysis of imperialism, Fanon distinguishes between two kinds of hierarchy. A comma after suggests fixes the immediate problem. Now look at the revised sentence. It still needs work. Better diction and syntax would sharpen it.  Fanon does not suggest (with connotations of both hinting and advocating); he states outright. What’s more, the comparison of the two kinds of hierarchy gets blurred by too many intervening words. The key point of the sentence is, in effect, “instead of A, we have B.” Clarity demands that B follow A as closely as possible, and that the two elements be grammatically parallel. But between the elements A and B, the writer inserts Fanon (a proper noun), suggests (a verb), imperialists (a noun), and establish (a verb). Try the sentence this way: “Fanon says that the imperialists establish a hierarchy based on race rather than class.” Now the agency is clear: We know what Fanon does, and we know what the imperialists do. Notice that errors and infelicities have a way of clustering. If you find one problem in a sentence, look for others.

Confusion about the objects of prepositions.

Here’s another one of those common problems that does not receive the attention it merits. Discipline your prepositional phrases; make sure you know where they end. Notice the mess in this sentence: “Hitler accused Jewish people of engaging in incest and stating that Vienna was the ‘personification of incest.’” The reader thinks that both engaging and stating are objects of the preposition of. Yet the writer intends only the first to be the object of the preposition. Hitler is accusing the Jews of engaging , but not of stating ; he is the one doing the stating . Rewrite as “Hitler accused the Jews of incest; he stated that Vienna was the ‘personification of incest.’” Note that the wordiness of the original encouraged the syntactical mess. Simplify. It can’t be said too many times: Always pay attention to who’s doing what in your sentences.

Misuse of the comparative.

There are two common problems here. The first might be called the “floating comparative.” You use the comparative, but you don’t say what you are comparing. (“Lincoln was more upset by the dissolution of the union.”) More upset than by what? More upset than who? The other problem, which is more common and takes many forms, is the unintended (and sometimes comical) comparison of unlike elements. Consider these attempts to compare President Clinton to President George H. W. Bush. Often the trouble starts with a possessive:

“President Clinton’s sexual appetite was more voracious than President Bush.”

You mean to compare appetites, but you've forgotten about your possessive, so you absurdly compare an appetite to a man. Rewrite as “more voracious than President Bush’s.” A variation of this problem is the unintended comparison resulting from the omission of a verb:

“President Clinton liked women more than President Bush.”

Re-write as “more than did President Bush.”

A misplaced modifier may also cause comparison trouble: “Unlike the Bush administration, sexual scandal nearly destroyed the Clinton administration.” Rewrite as  “Unlike the Bush administration, the Clinton administration was nearly destroyed by sexual scandal.” Here the passive voice is better than the misplaced modifier, but you could rewrite as “The Bush administration had been free of sexual scandal, which nearly destroyed the Clinton administration.”

Misuse of apostrophe.

Get control of your apostrophes. Use the apostrophe to form singular or plural possessives (Washington’s soldiers; the colonies’ soldiers) or to form contractions (don’t; it’s). Do not use the apostrophe to form plurals. (“The communists [not communists’] defeated the nationalists [not nationalists’] in China.”)

Comma after although.

This is a new error, probably a carryover from the common conversational habit of pausing dramatically after although . ( “Although , coffee consumption rose in eighteenth-century Europe, tea remained far more popular.”) Delete the comma after although . Remember that although is not a synonym for the word however , so you cannot solve the problem in the sentence by putting a period after Europe . A clause beginning with although cannot stand alone as a sentence.

Comma between subject and verb.

This is a strange new error. (“Hitler and Stalin, agreed to a pact in August 1939.”) Delete the comma after Stalin. Finally, two hints: If your word-processing program underlines something and suggests changes, be careful. When it comes to grammar and syntax, your computer is a moron. Not only does it fail to recognize some gross errors, it also falsely identifies some correct passages as errors. Do not cede control of your writing decisions to your computer. Make the suggested changes only if you are positive that they are correct. If you are having trouble with your writing, try simplifying. Write short sentences and read them aloud to test for clarity. Start with the subject and follow it quickly with an active verb. Limit the number of relative clauses, participial phrases, adjectives, adverbs, and prepositional phrases. You will win no prizes for eloquence, but at least you will be clear. Add complexity only when you have learned to handle it.

An historical/an historian.

The consonant “H” is not silent in historical and historian , so the proper form of the indefinite article is “A.”

Avoid the common solecism of using feel as a synonym for think, believe, say, state, assert, contend, argue, conclude, or write. (“Marx felt that the bourgeoisie exploited the proletariat.” “Emmeline Pankhurst felt that British women should be able to vote.”) The use of feel in these sentences demeans the agents by suggesting undisciplined sentiment rather than carefully formulated conviction. Concentrate on what your historical actors said and did; leave their feelings to speculative chapters of their biographies. As for your own feelings, keep them out of your papers. (“I feel that Lincoln should have freed the slaves earlier.”) Your professor will be delighted that the material engages both your head and your heart, but your feelings cannot be graded. If you believe that Lincoln should have acted earlier, then explain, giving cogent historical reasons.

The fact that.

This is a clumsy, unnecessary construction. ( “The fact that Nixon resigned in disgrace damaged the Republican Party.”) Re-word as “Nixon resigned in disgrace, damaging the Republican Party.” Never use the hideous phrase due to the fact that.

In terms of.

This phrase is filler. Get rid of it. (“Bismarck was a success in terms of uniting Germany.) Rewrite as “Bismarck successfully united Germany.”

Attend carefully to the placement of this limiting word. Note, for example, these three sentences:

“The government only interred Japanese Americans during World War II.” “The government interred only Japanese Americans during World War II.” “The government interred Japanese Americans only during World War II.”

The first limits the action to interring (as opposed to, say, killing); the second limits the group interred (i.e., not Italian Americans); the third limits the time of interring (i.e., not during other wars).

Thus and therefore.

More than likely, you have not earned these words and are implying that you have said more than you actually have. Use them sparingly, only when you are concluding a substantial argument with a significant conclusion.

Misuse of instead.

Instead is an adverb, not a conjunction. Consider this sentence: “Charles Beard argued that the framers of the constitution were not idealists, instead they promoted their economic interests.” Revise as “The framers of the constitution, Charles Beard argued, did not uphold ideals; instead , they promoted their economic interests.” Now the instead appears properly as an adverb. (Note also that the two clauses are now parallel—both contain transitive verbs.)

Essentially and basically.

These are usually either filler words (the written equivalent of “uh” or “um”) or weasel words that merely call attention to your vagueness, lack of conviction, or lazy unwillingness to qualify precisely. (“ Essentially , Churchill believed that Nazi Germany presented a grave danger to Britain.”) Delete essentially and basically unless you are writing about essences or bases.

Both share or both agree.

These are redundant. If two people share or agree , they are both involved by definition. (“Stalin and Mao both agreed that capitalism belonged in the dustbin of history.”) Delete both .

This word means one of a kind. It is an absolute. Something cannot be very unique, more unique, or somewhat unique.

Incredible.

In casual conversation incredible often means extraordinary, astonishing, or impressive (“Yesterday’s storm was incredible.”). To avoid confusion in historical prose, you should stick with the original meaning of incredible : not believable. If you write that “William Jennings Bryan gave incredible speeches,” you’re saying that you don’t believe his speeches, or that his audiences didn’t believe them at the time—in other words, that he appeared to be lying or mistaken. You probably mean that he gave great speeches. If you write that “It’s incredible that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor,” you’re calling into question the very existence of a historical event. You probably mean that the Japanese attack was unwise or reckless. English is rich with adjectives. Finding the best one forces you to think about what you really mean.

As a synonym for subject matter, bone of contention, reservation, or almost anything else vaguely associated with what you are discussing, the word issue has lost its meaning through overuse. (“There were many issues involved with Truman’s decision to use the atomic bomb, and some historians have issues with his decision.”) Stop talking about issues and get to the point.

Beware of the word literally . It’s commonly misused, and you almost never need it in historical prose. Literally means actually, factually, exactly, directly, without metaphor. The careful writer would never say, “Roosevelt literally swamped Landon in the election of 1936.” One imagines Roosevelt (in his wheelchair no less!) dumping the hapless Landon off a pier in the Everglades on election night. The swamping was figurative, strictly a figure of speech. The adverb literally may also cause you trouble by falsely generalizing the coverage of your verb. “London was literally destroyed by the blitz.” This suggests that the whole city was destroyed, when, in fact, only parts were destroyed. Rewrite as “The blitz destroyed parts of London.” Now you’ve qualified properly (and gotten rid of the passive).

When you’re tempted to use this word, resist. Like issue , involve tells the reader too little. (“Erasmus was involved in the Renaissance.”) This statement could mean virtually anything. Delete it and discuss specifically what Erasmus said or did.

This is a fine old word with many precise meanings, but as an overused synonym for feature, side, or part, it is usually a sign of insipid prose (“Another aspect of the issues in this area is the fact that...”). Just get directly to the point.

Most good writers frown on the use of this word as a verb.(“Eisenhower’s military background impacted his foreign policy.”) Affected, influenced, or shaped would be better here. Impacted suggests painfully blocked wisdom teeth or feces. Had an impact is better than impacted , but is still awkward because impact implies a collision.

Here is another beloved but vapid word. (“Many factors led to the Reformation.”) Such a sentence usually opens a vague, boring, weaseling paragraph. If you believe (quite reasonably) that the Reformation had many causes, then start evaluating them.

Meaningful.

Overuse has drained the meaning from meaningful . (“Peter the Great took meaningful steps to westernize Russia.”) Just get to the point.

Interesting.

The adjective interesting is vague, overused, and does not earn its keep. (“Burckhardt had an interesting perspective on the Renaissance.”) This sentence is filler. Delete it and explain and analyze his perspective.

The events that transpired.

Your professor will gag on this one. Events take place or happen by definition, so the relative clause is redundant. Furthermore, most good writers do not accept transpire as a synonym for happen. Again, follow the old rule of thumb: Get right to the point, say what happened, and explain its significance. You don’t need any filler about events and transpiring .

The reason is because.

This phrase is awkward and redundant. Replace it with the reason is, or better still, simply delete it and get right to your reason.

For all intensive purposes.

The phrase is for all intents and purposes , and few good writers use it in formal prose anyway.

Take for granite.

This is an illiteracy. The phrase is “ take for granted .”

Should of/could of.

You mean should have or could have .

Center around.

Good writers frown on this phrase because it’s illogical and jarring. Use center on or center in. Attention to a small detail like this indicates that you’re thinking carefully about what you’re saying, so when the big problems confront you, you’ll be disciplined and ready.

Begs the question.

Recently, many people have started to use this phrase to mean raises, invites, or brings up the question. (“Stalin’s purges beg the question of whether he was paranoid.”) Actually, begging the question is the common logical fallacy of assuming your conclusion as part of your argument. (“In the late nineteenth century, many Americans moved to the cities because of urbanization.”) Note that the use of abstractions (e.g., urbanization) encourages begging the question . Understanding this fallacy is central to your education. The formal Latin term, petitio principii, is too fancy to catch on, so you need to preserve the simple English phrase. If something raises a question, just say so.

Historic/historical confusion.

Everything in the past or relating to the past is historical. Resist the media-driven hype that elevates the ordinary to the historic . (“A three-alarm fire last night destroyed the historic site of the first Portuguese-owned dry cleaners in Cleveland.”) Reserve the word historic for the genuinely important events, persons, or objects of the past. The Norman invasion of England in 1066 was indeed historic . Historically , historians have gathered annually for a historical convention; so far, none of the conventions has been historic .

Affect/effect confusion.

The chances are that the verb you want is affect , which means to have an influence on (“The Iranian hostage crisis affected [not effected] the presidential election of 1980”). Effect as a verb means to bring about or cause to exist ( effect change). Effect as a noun means result or consequence (“The effect of the Iranian hostage crisis on the election...”).

While/whereas confusion.

If you’re stressing contrast, the word you want is whereas . While stresses simultaneity. “Hobbes had a dismal view of human nature, whereas [not while] Rousseau believed that man had a natural sense of pity.”

It’s/its confusion.

This is the classic bonehead error. Note that the spell checker won’t help you. And remember— its’ is not a word at all.

Reign/rein confusion.

A queen reigns during her reign. You rein in a horse with reins.

Their/there/they’re confusion.

You do know the difference. Pay attention.

Everyday/every day confusion.

As an adjective, everyday (one word) means routine. If you wish to say that something happened on every successive day, then you need two words, the adjective every and the noun day . Note the difference in these two sentences: “Kant was famous for going on the same constitutional at the same time every day . For Kant, exercise and thinking were everyday activities.”

Refer/allude confusion.

To allude means to refer to indirectly or to hint at. The word you probably want in historical prose is refer , which means to mention or call direct attention to. “In the first sentence of the ‘Gettysburg Address’ Lincoln refers [not alludes ] to the fathers of the nation [he mentions them directly]; he alludes to the ‘Declaration of Independence’ [the document of four score and seven years earlier that comes to the reader’s mind, but that Lincoln doesn’t directly mention].”

Novel/book confusion.

Novel is not a synonym for book. A novel is a long work of fiction in prose. A historical monograph is not a novel —unless the historian is making everything up.

Than/then confusion.

This is an appalling new error. If you are making a comparison, you use the conjunction than . (“President Kennedy’s health was worse than [not then ] the public realized.”)

Lead/led confusion.

The past tense of the verb to lead is led (not lead ). “Sherman led [not lead ] a march to the sea.”

Lose/loose confusion.

The opposite of win is lose , not loose . “Supporters of the Equal Rights Amendment suspected that they would lose [not loose ] the battle to amend the constitution.”

However/but confusion.

However may not substitute for the coordinating conjunction but. (“Mussolini began his career as a socialist, but [not however ] he later abandoned socialism for fascism.”) The word however has many proper uses; however , [note the semicolon and comma] graceful writers use it sparingly.

Cite/site/sight confusion.

You cited a source for your paper; ancient Britons sited Stonehenge on a plain; Columbus’s lookout sighted land.

Conscience/conscious confusion.

When you wake up in the morning you are conscious , though your conscience may bother you if you’ve neglected to write your history paper.

Tenet/tenant confusion.

Your religion, ideology, or worldview all have tenets —propositions you hold or believe in. Tenants rent from landlords.

All are not/not all are confusion.

If you write, “ All the colonists did not want to break with Britain in 1776,” the chances are you really mean, “ Not all the colonists wanted to break with Britain in 1776.” The first sentence is a clumsy way of saying that no colonists wanted to break with Britain (and is clearly false). The second sentence says that some colonists did not want to break with Britain (and is clearly true, though you should go on to be more precise).

Nineteenth-century/nineteenth century confusion.

Historians talk a lot about centuries, so you need to know when to hyphenate them. Follow the standard rule: If you combine two words to form a compound adjective, use a hyphen, unless the first word ends in ly. (“ Nineteenth-century [hyphenated] steamships cut the travel time across the Atlantic.”) Leave out the hyphen if you’re just using the ordinal number to modify the noun century. (“In the nineteenth century [no hyphen] steamships cut the travel time across the Atlantic.”) By the way, while you have centuries in mind, don’t forget that the nineteenth century is the 1800s, not the 1900s. The same rule for hyphenating applies to middle-class and middle class —a group that historians like to talk about.

Bourgeois/bourgeoisie confusion.

Bourgeois is usually an adjective, meaning characteristic of the middle class and its values or habits. Occasionally, bourgeois is a noun, meaning a single member of the middle class. Bourgeoisie is a noun, meaning the middle class collectively. (“Marx believed that the bourgeoisie oppressed the proletariat; he argued that bourgeois values like freedom and individualism were hypocritical.”)

Your professor may ask you to analyze a primary document. Here are some questions you might ask of your document. You will note a common theme—read critically with sensitivity to the context. This list is not a suggested outline for a paper; the wording of the assignment and the nature of the document itself should determine your organization and which of the questions are most relevant. Of course, you can ask these same questions of any document you encounter in your research.

• What exactly is the document (e.g., diary, king’s decree, opera score, bureaucratic memorandum, parliamentary minutes, newspaper article, peace treaty)?
• Are you dealing with the original or with a copy? If it is a copy, how remote is it from the original (e.g., photocopy of the original, reformatted version in a book, translation)? How might deviations from the original affect your interpretation?
• What is the date of the document?
• Is there any reason to believe that the document is not genuine or not exactly what it appears to be?
• Who is the author, and what stake does the author have in the matters discussed? If the document is unsigned, what can you infer about the author or authors?
• What sort of biases or blind spots might the author have? For example, is an educated bureaucrat writing with third-hand knowledge of rural hunger riots?
• Where, why, and under what circumstances did the author write the document?
• How might the circumstances (e.g., fear of censorship, the desire to curry favor or evade blame) have influenced the content, style, or tone of the document?
• Has the document been published? If so, did the author intend it to be published?
• If the document was not published, how has it been preserved? In a public archive? In a private collection? Can you learn anything from the way it has been preserved? For example, has it been treated as important or as a minor scrap of paper?
• Does the document have a boilerplate format or style, suggesting that it is a routine sample of a standardized genre, or does it appear out of the ordinary, even unique?
• Who is the intended audience for the document?
• What exactly does the document say? Does it imply something different?
• If the document represents more than one viewpoint, have you carefully distinguished between the author’s viewpoint and those viewpoints the author presents only to criticize or refute?
• In what ways are you, the historian, reading the document differently than its intended audience would have read it (assuming that future historians were not the intended audience)?
• What does the document leave out that you might have expected it to discuss?
• What does the document assume that the reader already knows about the subject (e.g., personal conflicts among the Bolsheviks in 1910, the details of tax farming in eighteenth-century Normandy, secret negotiations to end the Vietnam war)?
• What additional information might help you better interpret the document?
• Do you know (or are you able to infer) the effects or influences, if any, of the document?
• What does the document tell you about the period you are studying?
• If your document is part of an edited collection, why do you suppose the editor chose it? How might the editing have changed the way you perceive the document? For example, have parts been omitted? Has it been translated? (If so, when, by whom, and in what style?) Has the editor placed the document in a suggestive context among other documents, or in some other way led you to a particular interpretation?

Your professor may ask you to write a book review, probably of a scholarly historical monograph. Here are some questions you might ask of the book. Remember that a good review is critical, but critical does not necessarily mean negative. This list is not meant to be exhaustive, nor is it a suggested outline. Of course, you can ask these same questions of any secondary historical work, even if you’re not writing a review.

• Who is the author, and what are his or her qualifications? Has the author written other books on the subject?
• When was the book written, and how does it fit into the scholarly debate on the subject? For example, is Smith writing to refute that idiot Jones; to qualify the work of the competent but unimaginative Johnson; or to add humbly to the evidence presented by the redoubtable Brown’s classic study? Be sure not to confuse the author’s argument with those arguments he or she presents only to criticize later.
• What is the book’s basic argument? (Getting this right is the foundation of your review.)
• What is the author’s method? For example, does the author rely strictly on narrative and anecdotes, or is the book analytical in some way?
• What kinds of evidence does the author use? For example, what is the balance of primary and secondary sources? Has the author done archival work? Is the source base substantial, or does it look thin? Is the author up-to-date in the scholarly literature?
• How skillfully and imaginatively has the author used the evidence?
• Does the author actually use all of the material in the bibliography, or is some of it there for display?
• What sorts of explicit or implicit ideological or methodological assumptions does the author bring to the study? For example, does he or she profess bland objectivity? A Whig view of history? Marxism?
• How persuasive is the author’s argument?
• Is the argument new, or is it old wine in new bottles?
• Is the argument important, with wide-ranging implications, or is it narrow and trivial?
• Is the book well organized and skillfully written?
• What is your overall critical assessment of the book?
• What is the general significance, if any, of the book? (Make sure that you are judging the book that the author actually wrote, not complaining that the author should have written a different book.)

Here are some tips for those long, intimidating term papers or senior theses:

• Start early. If you don’t, none of these tips will matter. Big trouble is looming if you don’t have a specific topic by the end of the first week. You should be delving into the sources during the second week.
• Keep in mind all of the dos and don’ts in this booklet.
• Work closely with your professor to assure that your topic is neither too broad nor too narrow.
• Set up a schedule with your professor and check his or her policy about reading rough drafts or parts of rough drafts. Then keep your professor informed about what you’re doing. You don’t want any unpleasant surprises. You certainly don’t want to hear, “I haven’t seen you for weeks, and it sounds like you’re way off base. How can you possibly get this done with only two weeks left in the semester?”
• Make an appointment with Kristin Strohmeyer, the history reference librarian in Burke Library. She will help you to find and use the appropriate catalogs and indexes.
• Use your imagination in compiling a bibliography. Think of all of the possible key words and subjects that may lead you to material. If you find something really good, check the subjects under which it is cataloged. Comb the notes and bibliographies of books and articles you’ve already found.
• Much of what you need will not be in our library, so get to know the friendly folks in the Interlibrary Loan department.
• Start early. This can’t be said too often.
• Use as many primary sources as you can.
• Jot down your ideas as they come to you. You may not remember them later.
• Take careful notes on your reading. Label your notes completely and precisely. Distinguish meticulously and systematically between what you are directly quoting and what you are summarizing in your own words. Unintended plagiarism is still plagiarism. Stay clean as a hound’s tooth. Write down not just the page of the quotation or idea, but also the whole run of pages where the matter is discussed. Reread all of your notes periodically to make sure that you still understand them and are compiling what you will need to write your paper. Err on the side of writing down more than you think you will need. Copious, precise notes won’t come back to haunt you; skimpy, vague notes will. Just accept that there is something anal about good note-taking.
• If you take notes directly into your computer, they will be easy to index and pull up, but there are a couple of downsides. You will not be able to see all of them simultaneously, as you can note cards laid out on a big table. What you gain in ease of access may come at the price of losing the big picture. Also, if your notes are in your computer, you may be tempted to save time and thought by pasting many of them directly into your paper. Note cards encourage you to rethink and to rework your ideas into a unified whole.
• Don’t start to write until you have a good outline.
• Make sure that your paper has a thesis. (See the entry State a clear thesis. )
• Check and recheck your facts.
• Footnote properly. (See the entry Cite sources carefully .)
• Save plenty of time to proofread.
• Start early.

Top Ten Signs that you may be Writing a Weak History Paper

10. You’re overjoyed to find that you can fill the required pages by widening all margins.

9. You haven’t mentioned any facts or cited any sources for several paragraphs.

8. You find yourself using the phrase “throughout history mankind has...”

7. You just pasted in another 100 words of quotations.

6. You haven’t a clue about the content of your next paragraph.

5. You’re constantly clicking on The Britannica, Webster’s, and Bartlett’s.

4. Your writing tutor sneaks another look at her watch as she reminds you for the third time to clarify your thesis.

3. Your main historical actors are this, it, they, the people, and society, and they are all involved with factors, aspects, impacts, and issues.

2. You just realize that you don’t understand the assignment, but it’s 3:00 A.M, the paper is due at 9:00, and you don’t dare call your professor.

1. You’re relieved that the paper counts for only 20 percent of the course grade.

Final Advice

You guessed it — start early.

Studying History at Hamilton

Students will learn to use interdisciplinary methods from the humanities and social sciences to probe the sources of the past for answers to present questions. They will learn to draw comparisons and connections among diverse societies across a range of historical eras. They will further learn to convey their findings through writing that is clearly structured, precise, and persuasive.

Tutor Appointments

Peer tutor and consultant appointments are managed through TracCloud (login required). Find resources and more information about the ALEX centers using the following links.

Office / Department Name

Nesbitt-Johnston Writing Center

Contact Name

Jennifer Ambrose

Writing Center Director

Help us provide an accessible education, offer innovative resources and programs, and foster intellectual exploration.

Site Search

Contact [email protected]

• Writing History: Past Tense versus Present Tense

Earlier this week, I wrote about verb tense and knowing when to use past perfect tense in historical writing . This was in response to Laura asking me for a post on verb tense in historical writing. Thanks again to Laura for the great suggestion for a series of posts!

This time, we’re going to focus on whether it’s okay to use present tense in historical writing, which generates a lot of debate and controversy within history writing circles.

Past or present?

When I was getting a history degree as an undergraduate, I was always taught to write my history papers in the past tense. This was true for term papers, as well as for the sizeable seminar paper I was required to submit as the capstone for my degree.

This requirement differed from what I’d always been taught in literature classes, which was to discuss texts in present tense. So, in a literature paper, no matter how old of a text that I was analyzing, I always wrote about it in the present tense.

As someone who double-majored in both English and history, I’ll confess to sometimes confusing myself when I was working on papers in each discipline, but the requirements make sense for each field. For historians, traditionally, the past is the past, and writing about it now doesn’t make it become the present. On the flip side, literature studies approach their field from a less time-dependent perspective—the elements that one can analyze from a text are not constrained by the time period in which you’re writing.

So, I learned pretty quickly to write about novels and short stories and poems in present tense for literature classes and then write about historical events and primary and secondary sources in past tense for my history classes. Sometimes, that meant writing about novels in past tense for history classes.

In recent years, though, it’s been increasingly more common for historians and historical nonfiction writers to use present tense, which is referred to as historical present when applied to events that happened in the past. Chicago Manual of Style , the default style guide for American publishing, has no objection to the use of historical present.

As you can imagine, this change in approach to tense is not universally accepted.

Battle lines are drawn

If you do a deep dive on the internet about present tense in historical nonfiction writing, you will find a lot of strong opinions on both sides.

What both sides agree on (but very much disagree on the desirability of) is that present tense brings an immediacy to discussions of the past that past tense doesn’t.

Let’s look at our examples from last time when we were playing around with past versus present tense.

“Hitler invaded Poland in September 1939” versus “Hitler invades Poland in September 1939.”

“In 1953, Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay successfully summited Everest” versus “In 1953, Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay successfully summit Everest.”

“General Pickett’s men advanced against Cemetery Ridge” versus “General Pickett’s men advance against Cemetery Ridge.”

For proponents of present tense, the advantage here is that it puts you, the reader, right there and makes the event more vivid and immediate to you, no matter how many years, decades, or centuries have passed since then. You’re right there as tanks roll through Poland, as Hillary and Norgay set foot on the highest mountain in the world, and as soldiers start advancing across a brutal battlefield.

It’s a standard narrative technique, and they see no reason not to employ it to draw readers in.

For opponents of past tense, the problem is that you’re not there and never will be, no matter how much you use present tense. For them, it seems distracting and gimmicky and can also even convey a lack of neutrality and distance that historical writing often strives for. It’s essentially too informal and excited sounding.  

Should I use present or past tense when I’m writing history?

For me, personally, my inclination is to write history in past tense. That’s what I was taught to do, and I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong or even boring about past tense. As someone who also has a background in literature and is very interested in applying fictional techniques to nonfiction narrative, though, I can also see the argument in favor of how immediately gripping present tense can be.

My advice, therefore, would depend on the context of your writing—for whom are you writing?

If you’re writing for a general audience, they’re unlikely to have strong opinions on what tense you use, and they may be in need of more persuading to read history. In that case, present tense likely won’t cause you any problems and may even be a selling point for some of those reluctant readers. Be aware, though, that some people who aren’t historians are also not a fan of present tense. They trip over it for the same reason some historians dislike it–they feel like it’s an artificial attempt to make something seem like it’s happening now and they can’t suspend their disbelief to roll with it.

If you’re writing for an audience of historians or history buffs, they likely do have strong opinions on using past versus present tense and are already motivated to read history for the sake of history. In that case, erring on the side of caution and sticking with past tense is your safest bet and can even make you seem more professional. Fans of historical present may not be pleased, but you’re not technically doing anything wrong by following the traditional convention here.

Who’s publishing you is also worth considering for this issue. If you’re working with a history publisher, they may well have a marked preference, so it’s worth asking or checking for press-specific guidelines to see if they explain their stance on tense. More general interest publishers are unlikely to be as opinionated—though they might be—and will often default to Chicago Manual of Style , which, as noted earlier, isn’t opposed to present tense for past events. For self-publishing, likely audience is your best bet for determining whether to use past or present tense in writing about history.

Your purpose for writing may also play into your decision on which tense to use and will likely intersect with your decision on the intended audience. If your primary purpose is to provide a narrative about history, present tense may help you bring those events to life quite vividly. If your primary purpose is to analyze, however, present tense may not strike the right academic tone like past tense would. As a rule, though there are some exceptions, a focus on narrative also suggests what you’re working on is likely targeted toward a more general audience than something that’s primary purpose is analysis, which again would make present tense more likely to work for the former and past tense more appropriate for the latter.

Is present tense ever okay in historical writing for people who don’t like historical present?

Most of the heated discussions that break out about tense (I resisted the urge to make a pun about tense arguments since I already used that in the last post 😊 ) relate specifically to talking about the past.

There are times when present tense is unavoidable in historical writing, and in these instances, even people who are not fans of historical present don’t object to using present tense in these scenarios.

One of these instances is if something is still a matter of current fact. Even if you talk about the invasion of Poland in 1939 in past tense, you wouldn’t say “Warsaw was in Poland.” It’s still in Poland today, just as it was in 1939, so you’d use present tense there: “Warsaw is in Poland.” If you’re dealing with a historical context that has had fluid boundaries, then switching tense may even help clarify that for readers. (For example: “Today, Lviv is part of Ukraine, but in 1939, it was in Poland and called Lwów.”)

Providing one’s own conclusions is also a valid reason to use present tense in historical writing that is otherwise using past tense. So, in a hypothetical discussion of the start of World War II, the conclusions you’re arguing for are when you’d switch to present tense. It’s also okay to discuss contemporary research in present tense, as well as effects of the past that continue into the present day. Again, these aren’t scenarios where you’re writing about the past anymore. In these instances, you’re writing about contemporary effects, thoughts, and arguments, so present tense makes sense. Past tense may even seem odd and stilted in these moments.

I’ve not decided on the next topic I’ll write about it. I have a couple of different topics I’m considering, but I’m also open to suggestions. Are there any questions you have about writing that you’d like me to answer?

Recommended Posts

Tombstone versus Wyatt Earp: Foils

Tombstone versus Wyatt Earp: Antagonists

Tombstone versus Wyatt Earp: Conflict

Tombstone versus Wyatt Earp: Narrative Structure

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Verb Tenses in Academic Writing | Rules, Differences & Examples

Verb Tenses in Academic Writing | Rules, Differences & Examples

Published on September 22, 2014 by Shane Bryson . Revised on September 18, 2023.

Tense communicates an event’s location in time. The different tenses are identified by their associated verb forms. There are three main verb tenses: past ,  present , and  future .

In English, each of these tenses can take four main aspects:  simple ,  perfect ,  continuous  (also known as  progressive ), and  perfect continuous . The perfect aspect is formed using the verb  to have , while the continuous aspect is formed using the verb  to be .

In academic writing , the most commonly used tenses are the  present simple , the  past simple , and the  present perfect .

Table of contents

Tenses and their functions, when to use the present simple, when to use the past simple, when to use the present perfect, when to use other tenses.

The table below gives an overview of some of the basic functions of tenses and aspects. Tenses locate an event in time, while aspects communicate durations and relationships between events that happen at different times.

It can be difficult to pick the right verb tenses and use them consistently. If you struggle with verb tenses in your thesis or dissertation , you could consider using a thesis proofreading service .

Check for common mistakes

Use the best grammar checker available to check for common mistakes in your text.

Fix mistakes for free

The present simple is the most commonly used tense in academic writing, so if in doubt, this should be your default choice of tense. There are two main situations where you always need to use the present tense.

Describing facts, generalizations, and explanations

Facts that are always true do not need to be located in a specific time, so they are stated in the present simple. You might state these types of facts when giving background information in your introduction .

• The Eiffel tower  is in Paris.
• Light  travels faster than sound.

Similarly, theories and generalizations based on facts are expressed in the present simple.

• Average income differs by race and gender.
• Older people express less concern about the environment than younger people.

Explanations of terms, theories, and ideas should also be written in the present simple.

• Photosynthesis  refers to  the process by which plants  convert sunlight into chemical energy.
• According to Piketty (2013), inequality grows over time in capitalist economies.

Describing the content of a text

Things that happen within the space of a text should be treated similarly to facts and generalizations.

This applies to fictional narratives in books, films, plays, etc. Use the present simple to describe the events or actions that are your main focus; other tenses can be used to mark different times within the text itself.

• In the first novel, Harry learns he is a wizard and travels  to Hogwarts for the first time, finally escaping the constraints of the family that raised him.

The events in the first part of the sentence are the writer’s main focus, so they are described in the present tense. The second part uses the past tense to add extra information about something that happened prior to those events within the book.

When discussing and analyzing nonfiction, similarly, use the present simple to describe what the author does within the pages of the text ( argues , explains , demonstrates , etc).

• In The History of Sexuality , Foucault asserts that sexual identity is a modern invention.
• Paglia (1993) critiques Foucault’s theory.

This rule also applies when you are describing what you do in your own text. When summarizing the research in your abstract , describing your objectives, or giving an overview of the  dissertation structure in your introduction, the present simple is the best choice of tense.

• This research  aims  to synthesize the two theories.
• Chapter 3 explains  the methodology and discusses ethical issues.
• The paper  concludes with recommendations for further research.

The past simple should be used to describe completed actions and events, including steps in the research process and historical background information.

Reporting research steps

Whether you are referring to your own research or someone else’s, use the past simple to report specific steps in the research process that have been completed.

• Olden (2017) recruited 17 participants for the study.
• We transcribed and coded the interviews before analyzing the results.

The past simple is also the most appropriate choice for reporting the results of your research.

• All of the focus group participants agreed  that the new version  was an improvement.
• We  found a positive correlation between the variables, but it  was not as strong as we  hypothesized .

Describing historical events

Background information about events that took place in the past should also be described in the past simple tense.

• James Joyce  pioneered the modernist use of stream of consciousness.
• Donald Trump’s election in 2016  contradicted the predictions of commentators.

The present perfect is used mainly to describe past research that took place over an unspecified time period. You can also use it to create a connection between the findings of past research and your own work.

Summarizing previous work

When summarizing a whole body of research or describing the history of an ongoing debate, use the present perfect.

• Many researchers  have investigated the effects of poverty on health.
• Studies  have shown a link between cancer and red meat consumption.
• Identity politics has been a topic of heated debate since the 1960s.
• The problem of free will  has vexed philosophers for centuries.

Similarly, when mentioning research that took place over an unspecified time period in the past (as opposed to a specific step or outcome of that research), use the present perfect instead of the past tense.

• Green et al.  have conducted extensive research on the ecological effects of wolf reintroduction.

Emphasizing the present relevance of previous work

When describing the outcomes of past research with verbs like fi nd ,  discover or demonstrate , you can use either the past simple or the present perfect.

The present perfect is a good choice to emphasize the continuing relevance of a piece of research and its consequences for your own work. It  implies that the current research will build on, follow from, or respond to what previous researchers have done.

• Smith (2015) has found that younger drivers are involved in more traffic accidents than older drivers, but more research is required to make effective policy recommendations.
• As Monbiot (2013)  has shown , ecological change is closely linked to social and political processes.

Note, however, that the facts and generalizations that emerge from past research are reported in the present simple.

While the above are the most commonly used tenses in academic writing, there are many cases where you’ll use other tenses to make distinctions between times.

Future simple

The future simple is used for making predictions or stating intentions. You can use it in a research proposal  to describe what you intend to do.

It is also sometimes used for making predictions and stating hypotheses . Take care, though, to avoid making statements about the future that imply a high level of certainty. It’s often a better choice to use other verbs like  expect ,  predict,  and  assume to make more cautious statements.

• There  will be a strong positive correlation.
• We  expect  to find a strong positive correlation.
• H1  predicts a strong positive correlation.

Similarly, when discussing the future implications of your research, rather than making statements with will,  try to use other verbs or modal verbs that imply possibility ( can ,  could ,  may ,  might ).

• These findings  will influence  future approaches to the topic.
• These findings  could influence future approaches to the topic.

Present, past, and future continuous

The continuous aspect is not commonly used in academic writing. It tends to convey an informal tone, and in most cases, the present simple or present perfect is a better choice.

• Some scholars are suggesting that mainstream economic paradigms are no longer adequate.
• Some scholars suggest   that mainstream economic paradigms are no longer adequate.
• Some scholars have suggested   that mainstream economic paradigms are no longer adequate.

However, in certain types of academic writing, such as literary and historical studies, the continuous aspect might be used in narrative descriptions or accounts of past events. It is often useful for positioning events in relation to one another.

• While Harry is traveling to Hogwarts for the first time, he meets many of the characters who will become central to the narrative.
• The country was still recovering from the recession when Donald Trump was elected.

Past perfect

Similarly, the past perfect is not commonly used, except in disciplines that require making fine distinctions between different points in the past or different points in a narrative’s plot.

Sources in this article

We strongly encourage students to use sources in their work. You can cite our article (APA Style) or take a deep dive into the articles below.

Bryson, S. (2023, September 18). Verb Tenses in Academic Writing | Rules, Differences & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 11, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/verbs/tenses/

Aarts, B. (2011).  Oxford modern English grammar . Oxford University Press.

Butterfield, J. (Ed.). (2015).  Fowler’s dictionary of modern English usage  (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Garner, B. A. (2016).  Garner’s modern English usage (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Is this article helpful?

Shane Bryson

Shane finished his master's degree in English literature in 2013 and has been working as a writing tutor and editor since 2009. He began proofreading and editing essays with Scribbr in early summer, 2014.

Other students also liked

Tense tendencies in academic texts, subject-verb agreement | examples, rules & use, parallel structure & parallelism | definition, use & examples, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

How to Write History Essays

How to write history essays is a question that students have asked for many years. And many students mistakenly believe that it is a very difficult task.

However, it is not as difficult as it seems. There are some basic steps that you can follow to make sure that your essay is well-written and informative.

Once you've mastered the basics of writing a history essay, you will be surprised just how easy it is. In this article, we will discuss the different aspects of writing a history essay and what makes good historical writing.

We will also provide steps in preparing a history essay and Dos and Don'ts in history essay writing. So, if you are looking to write a great history essay, read on!

What is History Essay?

Many students who ask us; can you write my essay in most cases don't really understand what is needed in writing this type of essay. Now, a history essay is a piece of written work that focuses on the user's historical perspective.

The purpose of a history essay is to communicate the writer's knowledge about a specific event, person, or place in history. A history essay can be either an argumentative essay or a descriptive essay.

An argumentative essay presents an argument for or against a specific claim, while a descriptive essay provides a detailed description of one particular event, person, or place.

History Essay: Sources to Use

All our history essay writers acknowledge that a thorough history essay is as good as its sources. This means that the credibility and validity of your essay will be judged not only on the strength of your argument but also on the quality and relevancy of your sources.

If you can back up your argument with credible sources, your reader will be more likely to take your argument seriously. There are two sources you can use in your history essay; primary and secondary sources. We explain each of them below;

Primary sources

These are first-hand accounts of an event that was created at the time the event took place. This can include letters, diary entries, speeches, and other documents.

Using primary sources is important because it allows you to see the event from the perspective of someone who was actually there. This can give you a better understanding of what happened and why.

Secondary sources

These are interpretations of primary sources. This can include books, articles, and other works that analyze and discuss primary sources.

Using secondary sources is important because it allows you to see how historians have interpreted the primary sources. This can give you a different perspective on the event and help you form your own opinion.

History Essay Formats

History essays have two common formats: the chronological format and the thematic format. The chronological format is where you arrange your essay in chronological order.

This means that you will start with the earliest event and end with the most recent event. The thematic format is where you arrange your essay around a specific theme.

For example, you could write about the causes of the American Civil War or the impact of the Industrial Revolution.

Both formats have their advantages and disadvantages. The chronological format is good for giving an overview of a specific time period.

The thematic format is good for discussing specific events in more depth. Ultimately, the format you choose will depend on your preference and your assignment's requirements.

How to Choose History Essay Topics

A good history essay should be challenging and encourage you to critically engage with the material. However, it should also be accessible enough that you can confidently approach the task without feeling overwhelmed.

The best way to find a good balance is to choose a specific and manageable topic. For example, rather than writing an essay on the entire history of the United States, you could write about the impact of the Industrial Revolution on American society.

This narrow focus will allow you to really delve into the details and explore different aspects of the topic in depth. When choosing a topic, it is also important to consider available resources.

There is no point in choosing a topic so obscure that there is almost no material to work with. Choosing a good topic for your history essay is an important first step in ensuring you get a great grade.

With a little planning, you can set yourself up for success. Below are some history essay topic examples you may want to consider:

• How did the Industrial Revolution change American society?
• What were the causes of the American Civil War?
• What was the impact of World War II on American society?
• The rise of the civil rights movement in the United States.
• The history of immigration in the United States.

History Essay Outline

A good history essay should have a clear and concise structure. By following an outline, you can ensure that your essay is well-organized and flows smoothly.

An essay's basic structure is composed of three parts:

• The introduction
• Body paragraphs, and
• The conclusion.

The introduction should give an overview of the main points of your essay. It should also introduce the reader to the main historical characters and events you will discuss.

The body paragraphs are where you will develop your argument and support your thesis statement. Each body paragraph should focus on a specific point.

The conclusion should summarize your main points and briefly restate your thesis statement. Below is a simplified guide on how to go about these different parts of your essay:

How to Start a Strong History Essay

The best way to start a history essay is to first understand the question that has been asked. Once you clearly understand what is being asked, you can begin to formulate your thesis statement.

Your thesis statement is the central argument of your essay. It should be concise and clear and state your position on the topic.

Once you have a thesis statement, you can begin to outline your essay. Begin by brainstorming ideas and organizing them into main points.

These main points will form the body paragraphs of your essay. As you brainstorm, you may also want to consider the resources that are available to you.

Do you have access to primary sources? What about secondary sources? By considering your resources, you can start to narrow down your focus and choose a specific angle to approach the topic.

How to Write Body Paragraphs

Each body paragraph should focus on a specific point. This point should be directly related to your thesis statement.

As you write each body paragraph, you will want to provide evidence to support your main point. This evidence can come in the form of quotes from historical texts, statistics, or data.

When using evidence, it is important to be sure to cite your sources. This will show that you have done your research and are familiar with the material.

It is also important to explain how this evidence supports your main point. This will help solidify your argument and ensure your reader understands the connection between the evidence and your thesis.

How to Write a Conclusion

The conclusion of your essay should briefly sum up your main points and restate your thesis statement. You may also want to briefly discuss the implications of your argument. What does your argument mean for the larger history of the topic?

By considering the implications of your argument, you can show that you have thought critically about the topic and made a well-reasoned argument.

Steps in Preparing a Historical Essay

• Choose a topic
• Research your topic
• Develop a thesis statement
• Outline your essay
• Write your essay
• Edit and proofread your essay

Dos and Don'ts in History Essay Writing

• Do narrow down your focus to a specific time period, event, or individual
• Do use primary and secondary sources to support your argument
• Do cite your sources using proper MLA or APA format
• Don't choose a topic that is too broad
• Don't rely solely on secondary sources
• Don't plagiarize your sources

What tense should a history essay be written in?

Generally, history essays are written in the past tense. This tense is used to describe events that have already happened.

What makes good historical writing?

Good historical writing is clear, concise, and well-organized arguments supported by evidences.

How many paragraphs should a history essay have?

There is no set number of paragraphs for a history essay. However, most essays will typically have 3-5 body paragraphs.

Writing a good history essay doesn't have to cause so much stress. Follow the steps outlined above to plan and write a well-organized essay that packs a punch.

If you still struggle to come up with a good paper, perhaps buying an essay at our service could save you.

• free Outline $5
• free Unlimited Amendments $30
• free Title Page $5
• free Bibliography $15
• free Formatting $10
• 25+ years of experience in the custom writing market
• Satisfied and returning customers
• A wide range of services
• 6-hour delivery available
• Money-back guarantee
• 100% privacy guaranteed
• A professional team of experienced paper writers
• Only custom-written papers
• Free amendments upon request
• Constant access to your paper's writer
• Free extras by request

We use cookies. What does it mean? OK

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

Tense Use in Essays: Past vs. Present

2-minute read

• 16th April 2016

It’s mostly time travellers who worry about the more convoluted aspects of grammatical tense , but the issue of tense use in academic writing is, nonetheless, controversial.

To be specific, there is much disagreement about tense use in essays : specifically, is past or present tense best? Today, we look into this tricky problem.

Present Tense

The present tense is used when discussing current events or states. It will often be the dominant tense used in academic writing due to the number of situations to which it applies:

• Stating general principles or theories (e.g. ‘The third law of thermodynamics states …’)
• Describing a fact (e.g. ‘Catalysts increase the rate of a reaction…’)
• Expressing an opinion or making a claim (e.g. ‘I believe further research is required…’)
• Analysing the results of an experiment (e.g. ‘The results show that…’)

In all these cases, the present tense shows that something applies at the current time or emphasises its relevance to the present.

The present tense can also do this in a literature review, since it frames research in terms of its current significance. This shows that you’re engaged with ongoing debate in your field of study, not simply describing out-of-date research.

The past tense is used when describing events that have already happened. In academic writing, this could be writing up a completed experiment.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

For example, the past tense can be used in methodology and results sections. Likewise, the past tense is useful when writing a case study, since this is almost always about something that has already occurred.

While you can use the past tense in a literature review, saying that someone ‘believed’ something may imply that they changed their mind. As such, the past tense can be used for discussing ‘dead’ ideas (i.e. things that no-one holds true any more) or something that someone has since disavowed.

Future Tense

The future tense is useful for discussing things that are yet to happen, such as when we commit to doing something (e.g. ‘I will continue to research this issue’).

Generally, you won’t need to do this too often in academic writing. However, the future tense can be useful in the following situations:

• Making predictions about the future
• Offering recommendations based on your results
• Suggesting new avenues of research

In all these cases, the future tense will help you express yourself more clearly.

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Get help from a language expert. Try our proofreading services for free.

3-minute read

What Is a Content Editor?

Are you interested in learning more about the role of a content editor and the...

4-minute read

The Benefits of Using an Online Proofreading Service

Proofreading is important to ensure your writing is clear and concise for your readers. Whether...

6 Online AI Presentation Maker Tools

Creating presentations can be time-consuming and frustrating. Trying to construct a visually appealing and informative...

What Is Market Research?

No matter your industry, conducting market research helps you keep up to date with shifting...

8 Press Release Distribution Services for Your Business

In a world where you need to stand out, press releases are key to being...

How to Get a Patent

In the United States, the US Patent and Trademarks Office issues patents. In the United...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

• Library Catalogue

The Student Learning Commons blog is your online writing and learning community

Grammar Camp: Verb tenses in essays -- chronology or relativity?

An important grammatical component of verbs is that they signify tense (i.e., the time when the action of the verb happened) through modification of their forms. Tense allows a reader to differentiate actions or events as things that have occurred, are occurring, or will occur. In writing, tense is used in two ways:

• When setting up a chronological order of events or actions, and
• When relating different events or actions to a particular topic at hand.

In academic writing, the type of paper determines which of the two ways a writer will use verb tense. For instance, argumentative papers often use the present tense, because the aim of the paper is to prove or refute a point in real time. Reports, on the other hand, often employ a mix of past and present and/or future tense, because the aim of reports is to describe the results of a series of events that have previously occurred and then to comment on the effect of those events moving forward. The best way to know what tense to use in your paper is to understand the difference between chronology and relativity in writing and to examine the aim of your paper accordingly.

The main purpose of a chronology is to establish a timeline of events. Writing chronologically relates to the reader a sequence of events that have an established preceding and succeeding occurrence. Papers that are written chronologically will, by default of style, use the past and present tenses for sure, and may also use the future tense. The past tense will be used to establish a preceding event or action, the future tense will establish a potential succeeding event or action. Most importantly, however, the present tense will bind this timeline and establish the significance of the preceding and succeeding events in conjunction with the present. A key thing to remember about writing chronologically is that each sequence of events both influences and is influenced by each other: the past event influences how the present event will unfold. Each time sequence must be connected to the other in a linear fashion.

A good example of a chronologically written academic paper is a scientific experiment report. Apart from the hypothesis and other functional details, the main crux of a scientific report is written as a timeline of the experiment(s) that happened, the results, a present tense discussion of the results, and usually a section about potential experiments in the future.

Relativity simply refers to the idea that certain things that often take a course of action in adherence to universal rules can sometimes bend those rules in particular circumstances. This idea is central to academic writing and is often used by authors in various disciplines. It is a style of writing that students regularly see, but do not always actively recognize. In writing, the idea of relativity is often masked by professors in other terms, such as: “staying on topic,” “including only that which is relevant,” “make sure your evidence connects to your thesis,” and so forth. The point is that when we write about a topic, we can go in any direction of time in talking about the topic, but our main focus is the topic. This approach is different from writing chronologically. Here, we are not aiming to describe past events about our topic and connect them to the present or future linearly; instead, we aim to present information about our topic by the use of different pieces of evidence that have been established in multiple time frames.

A good example of a relatively written academic paper is an argumentative paper, where we are seeking to prove a point in real time, but to do so we must pull evidence for our argument from multiple sources in the past and present. Perhaps we look to past experiments or articles or to current social issues or even our class lectures to help us prove our argument. The point is when we pull information from multiple sources, written at different times, we don’t just present our evidence from past to present chronologically; rather, we fit the information into our argument relatively.

Which style should you use for your paper? 

There is no hard and fast rule to know exactly which writing style to adopt for your paper, but, often, the type of paper you are writing, question you are answering, or topic you are addressing can point you in the right direction. Some questions you should ask are:

• Is this a descriptive or an informative paper?

Descriptive papers most likely are chronological, while informative papers tend to be relative.

• Is the focus here on multiple events or an underlying theme linking these events?

If the focus is on the connection of multiple, individual events themselves, you are likely to be describing a sequence of events chronologically. If, however, you are asked to talk about a particular theme that arises in multiple events, you are likely being asked to talk about the events relative to each other with respect to the theme that binds them.

• Are all the parts of my resources relevant to answering the question?

This question is really speaking the idea that not all parts of a resource (background, description, event, present, etc.) are always necessary to explain when incorporating that resource into your paper. If your paper is theme/topic based, it will likely require only the most relevant parts of your resources that also talk about your current theme/topic and not how the resource got to that theme/topic.

• Would a background description help my reader to understand my topic better?

Again, this question is exploring whether your topic is one that requires a timeline description in order for the message to be conveyed well. The answer here really depends on the type of paper. For instance, argumentative papers often do well with a little background about the topic, but most of the time is spent on pulling relative facts together in real time. Comparatively, a report about how a particular historical event changed a particular technology, for example, will undoubtedly do better with an informative timeline of how the event came about, what it was, and how it affected the technology in question. 

• Does my research from resources written in the past still convey the same message or still connect to my topic today?

Often, students tend to filter and skim through different resources searching for keywords related to their theme/topic without looking into the relativity of the resource itself. Some resources, while very informative, may not hold the same temporal, social, or economic value today. Their arguments may not apply to the world today. In these cases, such resources, even in a relatively written paper, will not help convey the message of your paper’s theme/topic.

Some overall principles 

When writing relatively , always use the present tense when talking about your resources. This means that even if you are talking about an article in the past, you want to say that the author of the article “says” so and so presently in an infinite way. This signifies to your reader that the point made by the past article still stands today and relates to your theme/topic.

When writing chronologically , always keep your tenses the same. If you are talking about the past, your verbs should be conjugated to the past. It is only when you are connecting a past event with an effect in the future, that a sentence should have two differently conjugated verbs. Furthermore, these different verbs should be descriptive.

For example:

“World War II was an event which pushed on the boundaries of gender, and changed women’s place in the workforce forever [all past tense verbs] . We can still see   [present tense verb] the influences of WWII on women as, ever since the end of the war, the number of women in the workforce relative to men has increased [past perfect tense]  and continues to increase   [present tense]  to the point where it is normal for men and women to work today." 

Here the first sentence is describing what WWII was and did. The second sentence links that to the present, and the verbs here are descriptive of what has happened and is happening. Still each verb is conjugated to match the particular timeframe it is talking about.

The ultimate principle for academic papers is this, if you are unsure whether you should be providing a timeline for your topic or writing relatively about your topic, always be sure to check with your professor or TA .

-Deeya B., former SLC Writing and Learning Peer and SFU alumni 

Get in touch! Have an idea for a future blog post? Want to become a contributor to the SLC In Common Blog? Have a writing or learning question you've always wanted answered?  Contact us  and we'll reply. We read all questions and feedback and do our best to answer all writing/learning strategies-related questions directly on the blog within three weeks of receipt. 

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Verb Tenses in Academic Writing | Rules, Differences & Examples

Verb Tenses in Academic Writing | Rules, Differences & Examples

Published on 20 October 2022 by Shane Bryson . Revised on 11 September 2023.

Tense communicates an event’s location in time. The different tenses are identified by their associated verb forms. There are three main verb tenses: past ,  present , and  future .

In English, each of these tenses can take four main aspects:  simple ,  perfect ,  continuous  (also known as  progressive ), and  perfect continuous . The perfect aspect is formed using the verb  to have , while the continuous aspect is formed using the verb  to be .

In academic writing , the most commonly used tenses are the  present simple , the  past simple , and the  present perfect .

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

Tenses and their functions, when to use the present simple, when to use the past simple, when to use the present perfect, when to use other tenses.

The table below gives an overview of some of the basic functions of tenses and aspects. Tenses locate an event in time, while aspects communicate durations and relationships between events that happen at different times.

It can be difficult to pick the right verb tenses and use them consistently. If you struggle with verb tenses in your thesis or dissertation , you could consider using a thesis proofreading service .

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

The present simple is the most commonly used tense in academic writing, so if in doubt, this should be your default choice of tense. There are two main situations where you always need to use the present tense.

Describing facts, generalisations, and explanations

Facts that are always true do not need to be located in a specific time, so they are stated in the present simple. You might state these types of facts when giving background information in your introduction .

• The Eiffel tower  is in Paris.
• Light  travels faster than sound.

Similarly, theories and generalisations based on facts are expressed in the present simple.

• Average income differs by race and gender.
• Older people express less concern about the environment than younger people.

Explanations of terms, theories, and ideas should also be written in the present simple.

• Photosynthesis  refers to  the process by which plants  convert sunlight into chemical energy.
• According to Piketty (2013), inequality grows over time in capitalist economies.

Describing the content of a text

Things that happen within the space of a text should be treated similarly to facts and generalisations.

This applies to fictional narratives in books, films, plays, etc. Use the present simple to describe the events or actions that are your main focus; other tenses can be used to mark different times within the text itself.

• In the first novel, Harry learns he is a wizard and travels  to Hogwarts for the first time, finally escaping the constraints of the family that raised him.

The events in the first part of the sentence are the writer’s main focus, so they are described in the present tense. The second part uses the past tense to add extra information about something that happened prior to those events within the book.

When discussing and analyzing nonfiction, similarly, use the present simple to describe what the author does within the pages of the text ( argues , explains , demonstrates , etc).

• In The History of Sexuality , Foucault asserts that sexual identity is a modern invention.
• Paglia (1993) critiques Foucault’s theory.

This rule also applies when you are describing what you do in your own text. When summarising the research in your abstract , describing your objectives, or giving an overview of the  dissertation structure in your introduction, the present simple is the best choice of tense.

• This research  aims to synthesise the two theories.
• Chapter 3 explains  the methodology and discusses ethical issues.
• The paper  concludes with recommendations for further research.

The past simple should be used to describe completed actions and events, including steps in the research process and historical background information.

Reporting research steps

Whether you are referring to your own research or someone else’s, use the past simple to report specific steps in the research process that have been completed.

• Olden (2017) recruited 17 participants for the study.
• We transcribed and coded the interviews before analyzing the results.

The past simple is also the most appropriate choice for reporting the results of your research.

• All of the focus group participants agreed  that the new version  was an improvement.
• We  found a positive correlation between the variables, but it  was not as strong as we  hypothesised .

Describing historical events

Background information about events that took place in the past should also be described in the past simple tense.

• James Joyce  pioneered the modernist use of stream of consciousness.
• Donald Trump’s election in 2016  contradicted the predictions of commentators.

The present perfect is used mainly to describe past research that took place over an unspecified time period. You can also use it to create a connection between the findings of past research and your own work.

Summarising previous work

When summarising a whole body of research or describing the history of an ongoing debate, use the present perfect.

• Many researchers  have investigated the effects of poverty on health.
• Studies  have shown a link between cancer and red meat consumption.
• Identity politics has been a topic of heated debate since the 1960s.
• The problem of free will  has vexed philosophers for centuries.

Similarly, when mentioning research that took place over an unspecified time period in the past (as opposed to a specific step or outcome of that research), use the present perfect instead of the past tense.

• Green et al.  have conducted extensive research on the ecological effects of wolf reintroduction.

Emphasising the present relevance of previous work

When describing the outcomes of past research with verbs like fi nd ,  discover or demonstrate , you can use either the past simple or the present perfect.

The present perfect is a good choice to emphasise the continuing relevance of a piece of research and its consequences for your own work. It implies that the current research will build on, follow from, or respond to what previous researchers have done.

• Smith (2015) has found that younger drivers are involved in more traffic accidents than older drivers, but more research is required to make effective policy recommendations.
• As Monbiot (2013)  has shown , ecological change is closely linked to social and political processes.

Note, however, that the facts and generalisations that emerge from past research are reported in the present simple.

While the above are the most commonly used tenses in academic writing, there are many cases where you’ll use other tenses to make distinctions between times.

Future simple

The future simple is used for making predictions or stating intentions. You can use it in a research proposal  to describe what you intend to do.

It is also sometimes used for making predictions and stating hypotheses . Take care, though, to avoid making statements about the future that imply a high level of certainty. It’s often a better choice to use other verbs like  expect ,  predict,  and  assume to make more cautious statements.

• There  will be a strong positive correlation.
• We  expect  to find a strong positive correlation.
• H1  predicts a strong positive correlation.

Similarly, when discussing the future implications of your research, rather than making statements with will,  try to use other verbs or modal verbs that imply possibility ( can ,  could ,  may ,  might ).

• These findings  will influence  future approaches to the topic.
• These findings  could influence future approaches to the topic.

Present, past, and future continuous

The continuous aspect is not commonly used in academic writing. It tends to convey an informal tone, and in most cases, the present simple or present perfect is a better choice.

• Some scholars are suggesting that mainstream economic paradigms are no longer adequate.
• Some scholars suggest   that mainstream economic paradigms are no longer adequate.
• Some scholars have suggested   that mainstream economic paradigms are no longer adequate.

However, in certain types of academic writing, such as literary and historical studies, the continuous aspect might be used in narrative descriptions or accounts of past events. It is often useful for positioning events in relation to one another.

• While Harry is traveling to Hogwarts for the first time, he meets many of the characters who will become central to the narrative.
• The country was still recovering from the recession when Donald Trump was elected.

Past perfect

Similarly, the past perfect is not commonly used, except in disciplines that require making fine distinctions between different points in the past or different points in a narrative’s plot.

Sources for this article

We strongly encourage students to use sources in their work. You can cite our article (APA Style) or take a deep dive into the articles below.

Bryson, S. (2023, September 11). Verb Tenses in Academic Writing | Rules, Differences & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 9 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/english-language/verb-tenses/

Aarts, B. (2011).  Oxford modern English grammar . Oxford University Press.

Butterfield, J. (Ed.). (2015).  Fowler’s dictionary of modern English usage  (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Garner, B. A. (2016).  Garner’s modern English usage (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Is this article helpful?

Shane Bryson

Shane finished his master's degree in English literature in 2013 and has been working as a writing tutor and editor since 2009. He began proofreading and editing essays with Scribbr in early summer, 2014.

Other students also liked

Subject-verb agreement | examples, rules & use, english mistakes commonly made in a dissertation | examples.

Writing academically: Tenses

• Academic style
• Personal pronouns
• Contractions
• Abbreviations
• Signposting
• Paragraph structure
• Using sources in your writing

Jump to content on this page:

“Quote” Author, Book

In simple terms, verb tenses refer to the past, present or future. Verb tenses tell the reader when something happened, and are used to convey what is or is not known at the time of writing.

If you are reporting on your own or others’ specific research activities (such as methods that were used, or results that were found) then you would generally use the past tense.

• An experiment was conducted…
• It was found that…
• Brown (2010) found that…

In the example based on Brown’s research, the writer was referring to a specific result that Brown found when he conducted his research in 2010, and is therefore written in the past tense.

Present tense

Use the present tense if you are making general statements that draw on previous research, and usually indicates what is known at the time of writing , for example:

Example: 

• The research shows...
• The results of the experiment suggest that…
• Brown’s (2010) study suggests that…

In the above example based on Brown’s research, the writer makes a reference to what is known at the time of writing , and so it is written in the present tense.

Here is an example of using both the past and present tense in your writing:

Example:  Brown (2010) conducted a survey of 1000 students. The results of his survey suggest that all his students are geniuses.

In this example the writer refers to a specific survey that Brown conducted (past tense) in 2010. The writer then conveys how the results of Brown’s survey are still considered worthy today by writing in the present tense ( suggest ).

Compare this to the following example:

Example:  Brown (2010) conducted a survey of 1000 students. The results of his survey suggested that all his students were geniuses, but his later work (Brown, 2015) suggests this is not the case.

As previously, Brown’s specific study of 2010 is referred to in the past tense. But we now find that a later study by Brown (2015) appears to be in disagreement with his earlier 2010 study. Consequently the writer now refers to the conclusions drawn from the 2010 study in the past tense ( suggested ), and it is the results of Brown’s 2015 study – which represents what is known at the time of writing - that is referred to in the present tense ( suggests ).

Future tense

The future tense is not often used in academic writing because it tends to imply a level of certainty that academics can find uncomfortable. If you use verbs such as will or shall then be certain of your certainty! Otherwise use verbs that express possibility, such as could or may .

The exception is in research proposals where you are writing about what you intend to do - so the future tense is used.

• << Previous: Personal pronouns
• Next: Voice >>
• Last Updated: Nov 10, 2023 4:11 PM
• URL: https://libguides.hull.ac.uk/writing
• Login to LibApps
• Library websites Privacy Policy
• University of Hull privacy policy & cookies
• Website terms and conditions
• Accessibility
• Report a problem

© Damen , 2002

14. Present-Tense vs. Past-Tense Verbs.

The tense of the verb in a sentence reflects the time at which the action is set. In historical studies that is, by definition, in the past. The vast majority of verbs used in history papers are past-tense (e.g. came, saw, conquered). When the topic is literature, however, it's a different matter. The action which takes place in works of fiction exists in a timeless world. So, in describing characters or recapitulating the plots found in literature, it's best to use the present tense.

Here's how to construct tenses properly for both types of paper.

Literary References . When describing the action or characters in a work of literary fiction, use the present tense: "At the midpoint of The Odyssey , the hero Odysseus journeys to the realm of the dead." It's best in this case to use the present tense ("journeys"), because stories like Homer's epics exist in a timeless realm where they can happen over and over again each time we read them. The present tense highlights the vividness with which they re-occur whenever they pass through our minds and, because they're works of fiction, they can and do relive with every re-reading.

This isn't necessarily true of the authors themselves, however. Discussing Homer, not his epics, calls for the past tense, because he's dead and can't come to life the way his works can. So, when writing about the man, you should speak in the past tense ("Homer composed his epics spontaneously in performance"), in contrast to recapitulating the tales he told ("The theme of Achilles' anger runs throughout The Iliad .") or recording his activity as a narrator ("Homer narrates the death of Hector."). Thus, literary papers usually entail a balance of past-tense and present-tense verbs.

History References . Conversely, past-tense verbs should dominate history papers because the vividness of the present tense pertains less to the discussion of history than it does to literature. While it's possible to describe the historical past in the present tense, such a posture belongs more naturally to casual conversation than formal writing. That is, when a speaker is trying to make his account of something which happened in the past seem more real to a listener, he may use the present tense, saying, for instance, "So, yesterday I'm standing in line at this store and some man comes in and robs it!" Here, a past action ("yesterday") is being expressed in the present tense ("I'm standing," "comes," "robs"), with the speaker acting as if both he and the listeners were there when the event occurred.

The use of past tenses, on the other hand, makes it seem as if the speaker is more aloof and remote from what happened: "Yesterday I stood in line at a store and a man came in and robbed it." Because of the past tenses ("stood," "came," "robbed"), the speaker appears to care less about the past actions he's relating. Thus, to avoid the sense that they are neutral and unconcerned, speakers often use the present tense when relating a past action, since it lends the story a sense of being right there right then. After all, that's what the present tense is, by definition, "right here right now."

The problem with "right here right now" in writing assignments for a history class is the writer doesn't have to engage the reader in the story. The writing has the reader's full and undivided attention at all times, because I'm the reader and I'm totally involved—I guarantee it!—in whatever you have to say. Nor do you need to encourage me to see the past vividly. I do that naturally, because it's my job and I love it. So, for your writing assignments in a history course, please don't use the present tense, when describing the past. Use the past tense, instead.

The Past Tense . Furthermore, to the same extent that the present tense is unnecessary in this particular context, the past tense is helpful. By stating the facts of history rather coolly in the past tense you appear calm and collected, which, in turn, makes your judgment seem more sober and reasoned. You don't look excited or excitable, and that's a good thing for a historian who's trying to convince others to see the past a certain way. Arguments in this arena work better when they appear to come from cool heads.

Let's look at how this works. Say you're describing Charlemagne's troubles with his Saxon neighbors, and you compose your words in the following way, using the present tense:

As a result, almost every year of his reign Charlemagne is forced to go and vanquish the Saxons yet again and has to re-Christianize them on the spot.

It's very vivid, isn't it, quite intense even? But it doesn't sound very critical or reasoned. Now, say you use the past tense:

As a result, almost every year of his reign Charlemagne was forced to go and vanquish the Saxons yet again and had to re-Christianize them on the spot.

Less exciting, true, but it seems more composed, less agitated or swept away with passion—or biased. And that makes for more dispassionate and thus more persuasive historical writing. By appearing aloof, you're simply more likely to win over your readers, in this arena at least.

Mixing Past Tenses and Present Tenses . Including present-tense verbs in historical, academic prose can also lead to trouble when, as is inevitable, you must at some point revert to past-tense verbs. Here's what it sounds like when you mix present and past tenses:

Almost every year of his reign Charlemagne is forced to go and vanquish the Saxons again and has to re-Christianize them on the spot. It was a serious problem and he never completely resolved it.

The contrast between the present-tense forms ("is forced," "has to re-Christianize") and past-tense forms ("was," "resolved") is something short of graceful. Moreover, to vacillate between these can be disconcerting to your readers. I mean, are we supposed to imagine we are right there alongside Charlemagne suffering his troubles, or viewing him from a safe historical distance and reflecting calmly upon his tribulations with the Saxons?

The answer is simple. If your paper is part of a historical study and you must by definition spend the majority of your time in the past tense, it's best just to stay there as much as possible. Whatever you do, try not to flip back and forth between past and present verb forms.

When the present tense is necessary in all types of formal writing . There are some notable exceptions to the rule of excluding present-tense verbs in academic prose. When modern scholars are drawing conclusions about the past, their words should be expressed in the present tense. Despite the fact that the data are taken from history, the opinion exists now and should be stated as such.

For example, while it's true that Caesar ruled long ago, the conclusions which current researchers infer from the surviving evidence about his life and reign are modern, living things. Thus, "Caesar's generalship leaves behind the impression of the right man at the right moment in history." In other words, if your point is that some thesis about the past exists today, state that opinion in the present tense: "This promotes the idea that . . ." or "Justinian's failures suggest that the internal disarray of the Byzantine Empire was his responsibility because . . ."

This applies not only to what we think, but also to what we see and how we see it. So, for instance, "The Bayeux Tapestry depicts William the Conqueror as having a fair and justified claim to the English throne . . ." or "The Magna Carta argues for the strong sense of feudalistic duty the English barons felt incumbent upon them . . ." It is also true of places which may have been the site of some important event in the past but still exist in the present, e.g. "The site of battle lies to the east of Rome." In sum, present-tense verbs are appropriate in historical argumentation, so long as the writer is discussing matters like geography or the current state of research, things that exist in the modern world.

• Have your assignments done by seasoned writers. 24/7
• Contact us:
• +1 (213) 221-0069
• [email protected]

Past, Present, and Future Tense in Essays: How to Switch

Past, Present, and the Future Tenses in Your Essay

Choosing the correct grammatical tense for your essay can be a challenge. You have to decide whether to use past, present, or future tense. A wrong choice impacts your essay negatively. It will lack clarity and flow. This is not a situation that you ought to find yourself in.

Most students struggle with choosing the right tense. For some, it is due to the lack of guidance on using grammatical tenses. Others are careless with their writing. The result is a poorly written essay that a reader cannot understand. However, it is a problem that you can deal with once and for all.

Reading the instructions will enlighten you on which tense to use in writing your essay. Your tutor can also guide you on how to use grammatical tenses. You get the guidelines of when to use a particular tense. The help prevents you from choosing the wrong tense.

The type of your essay also reveals which tenses you ought to use. All essays are not the same. They have some distinct rules that create a significant difference. You must be aware of those rules and follow them to the latter. For instance, using the right tense is something you must take seriously. 

Should an Essay be in Present, Past, or Future Tense?

Many students might find it challenging to choose the right tense. Some are yet to learn by heart the rules governing the use of tenses. They end up making the wrong choice.

Ultimately, the impact of their essay score is negative. Fortunately, it is a problem you can work on. 

Every essay needs to be clear and engaging, where the reader needs an easier time reading it. But, that is not the case with all students. Some find themselves using the wrong tenses.

Instead of using the present tense, they write essays in the past tense. But perhaps they do not know when to use a present, past, or future tense.

You can use present, past, and future tense in your essay. But there is a catch. Before you write your essay, you must know which tense fits it. You can either get guidance from your tutor or do your research. Above all, ensure the tense you use is consistent and clear.

Most essay writers use the present tense. It is simple and direct to the point. You can write short sentences that are easier to read and understand. The reader will use little time to read your essay. It will not be tiring to read it since the message is clear.

The present tense is common in academic writing. It allows you to write about current states of events more candidly. By using the present tense, you can easily describe theories. It will be easier to explain an event that is happening now. Generally, the present tense is ideal for writing essays.

Instances to Use Present Tense in an Essay

You do not have to write every essay in the present tense. There are instances under which it becomes a must. At that juncture, you have to play ball.

You must shun the past and future tenses to make your essay consistent. Deviating from the present tense might distort your sentence structure thereby complicating your essay.

The present tense is ideal for creating a sense of immediacy. The reader gets to experience every action as it unfolds. It is easier to grasp the information the writer is passing across. The clarity in the essay engages the reader .

This is one of the reasons why writing in the present tense is common.

Writing an essay in the present tense is much easier. You can write your essay within the shortest time possible, and meeting deadlines will not be an issue. Your essay will be simple and clear to the point, without any sophistication.

Use present tense in an essay where you refer to existing facts. The present tense shows that the fact is indeed true. It becomes easier for the reader to believe in what you are writing. Also, it describes the findings of a study in the present tense. That is also the case when expressing people’s claims and opinions .

Instances to Use Past Tense in an Essay

You must be careful with the tense you use in your essay. Each tense does come with its demands. For instance, past tense is ideal for emphasizing that people do not accept a particular idea. Use past tense to describe that idea for easier understanding.

If your essay describes historical events, you have to use past tense. It makes the description clearer to the reader. This is a clear indication that they can get a picture of the turn of events. This is very crucial for the flow of your essay.

Reading it becomes engaging and enjoyable without any sense of struggling to understand ideas.

Instances to Use Future Tense in an Essay

Not often do students use the future tense in essays. They either use present and past tenses, the former being the most common.

But some instances permit the use of future tense. It does play a significant role.

Use future tense to describe your essay’s research predictions, methods, and aims. It becomes easier to demystify what the researcher is up to.

Besides, if you recommend research sources or state the application of study findings, then use future tense. You can easily describe something that is yet to happen or likely to occur in the future.

Can You Combine All Tenses in Essay Writing?

You can also use all tenses in your essay. However, you need to take this step with a lot of caution. Remember, the reader needs to get your message. You have to do that with some pomp to make your essay an enticing read .

Combining all tenses will certainly do that job for you.

Describe the cause and impact of interlocking events in an essay by combining all tenses. Your target audience can now get the hang of the events from a much broader perceptive. However, you have to respect time settings.

It is crucial to avoid any confusion that might distort your message. Ensure you get rid of any sophistication bound to disturb the flow of thoughts in your write-up.

Combining all tenses can be a win or a loss for you. It depends on the context of your essay. Besides, you need to mind your reader.

Your essay should be on a standard that is easier to comprehend. Thus, proceed with caution. 

Make your point in a manner that captures the reader’s attention. Using all tenses can help you achieve that feat. However, the tenses should not appear haphazardly. If you are not careful, you might make it hard for your reader to understand your insinuating description.

Choosing the right tense for your essay is fundamental. It ensures that you can engage your reader in a comprehensive context easily. It starts by knowing when to use present, past, and future tense or combine them.

If your essay is about current events, it must be in the present tense. The reader gets to know what is happening at the very moment.

Use past tense to write an essay on past events. Describing those events will be much easier. You will do it with clarity hence not causing any confusion. On the other side, the future tense suits the description of events yet to occur.

You can also use the future tense to predict events that are about to happen. And if you want to polish your essay, care to combine all tenses, but do it with caution.

Watch this video to learn more about this.

When not handling complex essays and academic writing tasks, Josh is busy advising students on how to pass assignments. In spare time, he loves playing football or walking with his dog around the park.

Related posts

Writing a College Admission Essay

Is College Essay Mandatory: Universities It’s not an Option

Writing honors college essay

Honors College Essay: Tips, Prompt Examples and How to Write

Guide to writing narrative essay

How to Write a Narrative Essay: A Stepwise Guide and Length

BRYN DONOVAN

tell your stories, love your life

• Writing Inspiration
• Semi-Charmed Life
• Reading & Research

How to Write Flashbacks (So They Aren’t Clunky)

Hey there! I bet many of you will already know all about writing flashbacks. But when I first started writing stories, I was confounded by how exactly to handle past tense and past present tense in flashbacks and other passages about things that happened prior to the main narrative. I’ve seen people on writing forums ask about how to format sections like these, so I know I’m not the only one who’s been confused.

Now, some people will tell you there’s no such thing as a properly written flashback–they’re against them, full stop. Although I go along with a lot of the conventional wisdom about writing, I think flashbacks are fine. I write them, and more often than not, I enjoy them as a reader. But even if you’re anti-flashback, you still may run into issues with past tense versus past perfect tense. Although present tense is becoming more popular in fiction, most of it is still written in the past tense. That means when you start talking about something that happened before the current narrative, you need to use past perfect tense.

[AdSense-B]

Just to be clear: this is past tense. (I’m going to write it based on what’s happening in my apartment right now.)

Outside, a police siren wailed, and Pippin started barking. “Quiet,” Bryn said. She picked up his favorite rubber toy, making it squeak. The dog ran over to her, hoping for a game of fetch.

And this is past perfect tense:

Outside, a police siren had wailed, and Pippin had started barking. “Quiet,” Bryn had said. She’d picked up his favorite rubber toy, making it squeak. The dog had run to her, hoping for a game of fetch.

You’ll notice that I made “she had” into a contraction. When I use past perfect tense in a novel, I usually make “she had,” “he had,” “I had,” “we had,” and “they had” into contractions for a smoother and quicker read—a trick I picked up from my editor.

But if you go on for several paragraphs, all those “hads” are going to sound clunky, even if you make some of them into contractions. You’ll get sick of writing them, and readers will get sick of reading them. So what do you do?

Here’s what I don’t recommend: putting the flashback in italics. Readers may get confused and think it’s describing a dream, which is a more standard reason to format a long passage in italics.

Instead, here’s one easy way to handle verb tenses in flashbacks and long passages about past events.

Write the first paragraph or the first few sentences of your flashback or long passage in past present tense.

Then, slip into simple past tense for most of your flashback. I usually start a new paragraph before I go into the simple past tense, rather than mixing two tenses in a paragraph, but this is a stylistic choice, and it may depend on what you’re writing about and even on the rhythm of the sentences.

You can switch back to past perfect tense for the last paragraph of the flashback. Here’s another option for making the transition from the flashback. If something else jogs the main character’s thoughts and makes them aware of what’s happening around them—for instance, if there’s a knock on the door, or you talk about how the candle on the table burns out—that will shift the reader back into the main timeline as well. In cases like this, you don’t even really need to switch back to past perfect tense at the end.

I’ve noticed that when a few writers are in the middle of a flashback or any passage that happened before the main narrative, they switch into simple past tense, but sprinkle in past perfect in a couple of places. That’s an option, and I think it really depends on the flow of the sentences.

Does that all make sense? I hope so! If you’re thinking about writing a book, check out my book Blank Page to Final Draft . It addresses a lot of issues I see in my day job as an executive editor, and it’s full of mini-lessons to improve your writing style!

[spacer height=”20px”]

How do you feel about flashbacks? Do you have other tips for making transitions into and out of flashbacks more smooth? Let us know in the comments! Thanks for reading!

Share this:

34 thoughts on “ how to write flashbacks (so they aren’t clunky) ”.

My current project is book two in a four-book series. I’m using the same characters so it’s necessary to explain some of their history from the first book. I want book two to work as a stand-alone. I’m finding dialogue is a good way to do that.

It doesn’t take much. A short sentence here and there, not all at once but throughout the first few chapters. I explained the reason one of the characters was in jail and on a work-release program to help the community by his conversations with other characters, and their conversations about him. It only takes a hint here and there to catch the reader up, and it also makes them curious if the information is fed to them a little at a time.

All of my characters have a history from the first book, of course. I’m reveling it a little at a time, like liquid from an eye dropper. Some of it may take several chapters and some may take the entire novel, depending on how my muse leads me. For now, dialogue and small bits of narrative are working well.

This sounds like a great project, Bonnie! And it sounds like you’re doing a great job of letting readers know where they are in the story.

Thank you, Bryn. I’m having a great time writing this four-book series set in a small town in the Missouri Ozarks. I love my characters. I don’t know what my market will be since there is no sex or murders, yet mystery and romance abound. It has a gentle Christian slant but no preaching—and there are guns. I have three publishers and an agent interested. They’ve asked for the full manuscript of the first book, so that is encouraging. I’m calling it Christian romantic mystery.

I’m revealing a little at a time not reveling. ?

Thanks for the tips Bryn. Flashbacks can be difficult at times.

Thanks for reading, Cheryl! Hope you have a great weekend. 🙂

I don’t mind flashbacks as long as they are short and to the point. A couple of paragraphs at most and I like them handled the way you describe. However, my preference is to see history revealed as Bonnie describes above. ?

Thank you, JoHawkTheWriter. It works for me but everyone has their own way.

Thanks for this topic, Bryn. I enjoy flashbacks as long as it’s clear the sequence is a flashback (and, importantly, as long as it serves a purpose). I like the method of starting in past present and switching to simple past…if done well, it’s sneaky and draws the reader in without them noticing. If I ever get to Book Three in my series, there’ll be a mix of present events with one of the main character’s origin story…so whether it’s flashbacks or chapter structuring, I’ll have to figure out what method works best to tell the story. Have a great weekend!! ?

Ohh, I love learning about a character’s origin story once I’ve gotten to know him or her. So much fun! Have a great weekend yourself! 🙂

I’m reading a good novel now that jumps back and forth between 1942 and 1986. The author keeps the flashbacks in separate chapters, so each chapter is labelled 1942 or 1986, freeing the author to use the same verb tense in both parts of the story. I haven’t been confused in the least, especially since the main character is a child in ’42.

I like to use flashbacks when I feel a certain past event needs to be fully dramatized, especially for those big, life altering moments in my characters’ lives.

That’s just my approach, too!

Thank you so much for posting this, Bryn!!! I wish there was a way to save it so that I can go back to it often. Your examples are great.

Maybe try copy and paste?

If you’re a subscriber and receive the blog by email, what I do is move the email to a poetry or writing file on my mail server. But if you search “Bryn Donovan write flashbacks,” it will probably pop up, too.

Thank you, Atenni. I do get it in my email. I could use my brain once in a while, but it’s Friday….haha.

I’m retired, so every day is Saturday.

Savannah, I just subscribed to your blog and invite you to check out mine: alariepoet.com

Oh, so glad it’s helpful! Thanks for reading, Savannah. 🙂

Flashbacks can be tough. Thank you for sharing this.

You did a great job of explaining! I remember when an editor told me to switch to past perfect tense and I had to look online to see what she was talking about! I like your method or the “eye dropper” method. I don’t usually like reading a flashback that pops up in the middle of the action and a character decides at that point to take time out to think back.

Hi, Jena! I agree…flashbacks in the middle of the action are tricky. Sometimes it doesn’t seem plausible that the character would be just standing there, mentally reliving the past… 🙂 And if it’s right in the middle of the action, sometimes you want to get on with the story in the present day! That is such a great issue and I never see people talking about it. Thanks for commenting!

What I have been doing in the novel that I’m working on is separating the flashbacks by chapters. Except for a couple scenes where it wouldn’t make sense to place them elsewhere. I enjoy playing with past perfect and simple past tenses to see which reads more easily. Thanks for your help Bryn 🙂

Oh, I’ve done that, too, Robin–when it’s a long flashback, sometimes it makes sense for it to get its own chapter! I’m glad you mentioned that. Thanks for commenting!

This is a great succinct post about punctuation! I’m an editor, and I find myself trying to fix a lot of tense issues. These are all really solid fixes for moving between a moment in story-present and a moment in story-past. Thanks for putting it clearly 🙂

Thanks, P.R.! Yeah, tense issues are so tricky for writers. Thanks for reading, and for the kind words 🙂

Thx for this info. I love flashbacks. Personally, I’ve always felt that characters have a past, a history I must include when I’m writing. I can’t help myself….lol….A contest judge once told me in a flashback, one “had” in the beginning and one “had” at the ending. This pretty much covers what you said.

I like that perspective on flashbacks, Tabitha—it can give the characters more depth. Thanks for commenting!

I’m gratified to find someone else who thinks the the past perfect is overused and over recommended. Some editors seem to insist that even a simple once clause or sentence memory must be in past perfect, i.e. “When James rode away to join the cavalry I was lost and alone.” Was to be re-written “When James had ridden away….etc.” The past perfect should be used when you want to describe an action that was completed in the past. It conveys a completion not only of the event but its effects. It seems to me when the effect lingers and one is simply remembering, simple past is just fine, even in a memory. For example, When their mother died the children became orphans. Who would insist on “When their mother had died, the children became orphans.?”

I am, however a bit confused by the term “past present tense.” Could you clarify?

• Pingback: How to Write Flashbacks (So They Aren’t Clunky) — by Bryn Donovan | Nia Markos

currently writing my first book. i want to explain in flashbacks certain things as to not bore the reader. Keep them intrested in the story to find out how they got to this point.

• Pingback: Daily Writing Prompts: 365 Ways to Practice Craft - Now Novel

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Discover more from BRYN DONOVAN

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

College Nut

Should College Essays be in Present or Past Tense?

Understanding the purpose of college essays.

College essays are an essential part of the college application process, providing an opportunity for students to showcase their personality, character, and writing abilities. These essays can be personal statements, creative writing, or reflection pieces, but they all serve the same purpose: to give admissions committees a glimpse into who the student is beyond their grades and test scores.

The Importance of Tense in Writing

Tense is an essential aspect of writing, determining the time frame in which the events of the text take place. In English, there are three main tenses: past, present, and future. Each of these has a specific purpose, and their use depends on the context of the text.

The Pros and Cons of Using the Present Tense in College Essays

The present tense is used to describe events that are happening at the moment or are ongoing. It can also be used to describe facts or general truths. Using the present tense in college essays can have some advantages, such as:

1. Creating a Sense of Presence

Using the present tense can make the writing feel more immediate, as if the events are happening right now. This can help the reader feel more engaged with the text and create a stronger emotional connection to the writer.

2. Highlighting Personal Growth

Using the present tense can be an effective way to showcase how the writer has grown over time. By describing their current thoughts and feelings, the writer can demonstrate how they have learned and changed since the events they are describing.

On the other hand, using the present tense can also have some disadvantages:

1. Causing Confusion

Using the present tense to describe past events can be confusing for the reader, who may not be sure when the events took place. This can make it harder for the reader to follow the narrative and understand the writer’s message.

2. Limiting Flexibility

Using the present tense can limit the writer’s flexibility in terms of storytelling. It can be challenging to describe events that took place in the past using the present tense without it feeling awkward or forced.

The Pros and Cons of Using the Past Tense in College Essays

The past tense is used to describe events that have already happened. It is the most common tense used in storytelling because it provides a clear chronological order of events. Using the past tense in college essays can have some advantages, such as:

1. Creating a Clear Narrative

Using the past tense can help to create a clear narrative structure, making it easier for the reader to follow along with the writer’s story. It also provides a sense of closure, as the events described have already happened.

2. Demonstrating Reflection

Using the past tense allows the writer to reflect on past events, providing insights into their thoughts and feelings at the time. This can help the reader understand the writer’s growth and development over time.

However, using the past tense can also have some disadvantages:

1. Creating Distance

Using the past tense can create a sense of distance between the reader and the events being described. This can make it harder for the reader to feel emotionally connected to the writer and their story.

2. Limiting Creativity

Using the past tense can limit the writer’s creativity, as they are bound by the chronological order of events. It can be challenging to describe events out of order or use creative storytelling techniques when using the past tense.

The choice of tense in college essays ultimately depends on the writer’s goals and the context of the text. Both the present and past tenses have their advantages and disadvantages, and there is no one right answer. However, it is essential to consider the reader’s experience and readability when making this decision. By understanding the purpose of college essays and the role of tense in writing, students can create compelling and engaging essays that showcase their unique voice and perspective.

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content

Baruch College Writing Center

Tense Use in Literary Response Essays

This guide highlights verb tense in writing about literature.

It can be difficult to decide when to use the past and present tenses in any academic paper, but especially when writing about fiction. It is common practice to use the literary present when relating events from a story, novel, play, or movie, which means describing plot in the present tense ( “Frankenstein creates the monster . . “) even if the writer relayed the events in the past.

Sometimes, though, you need to shift between tenses. In the following excerpt from an essay on Max Frisch’s play, The Arsonists , notice the shifts in tense. While the writer consistently uses the present tense in her essay, she is required to switch to the past tense for specific purposes.

Max Frisch’s 1958 play, The Arsonists , serves as a parable for the bourgeoisie’s abstentious role during Hitler’s rise to power. In fact, the play is commonly considered a criticism of the middle class’s passivity in stopping the spread of Nazi ideology. The protagonist, Gottlieb Biedermann, lets two arsonists, Schmitz and Eisenring, enter his home and bring barrels of gasoline into his attic. Despite clear warning signs, Biedermann denies the potential danger in order to maintain his public image as a do-gooder, allowing the two beggars to sleep under his roof. By the end, he is convinced that they are not arsonists and even supplies them with matches, thus bringing about the destruction of the city. Biedermann represents all of German society, which did not actively try to stop the Nazis despite citizens’ knowledge of the Holocaust’s atrocities. But this play can be applied to a broader scope of social issues. Although it easily translates to Nazi Germany, its message depends on the audience’s personal interpretation, as Frisch leaves its morality open-ended.

← The present tense is used to describe a common interpretation of the work.

← The present tense is used to provide a plot summary .

← The writer switches briefly to simple past to describe a historical event .

← The writer switches back to present tense for the thesis statement , her own interpretation of the work.

Frisch subscribed to Bertolt Brecht’s theories, which pushed him to address historical issues. The older dramatist introduced a new form of theater, called epic theater, which rejected dramatic theater’s cathartic values for a more critical approach. Before, theater had been meant to allow the audience to identify personally with the characters, but for Brecht and Frisch, plays were supposed to engage the audience not emotionally but rationally (Brecht, 71). Thus, when Frisch wrote The Arsonists , he intended it as a representation of a historical moment, meant to heighten its audience’s awareness.

← In this paragraph, the writer uses past tenses to provide background information about the work. She describes the literary movement that influenced the author, as well as the author’s intentions when he wrote the play .

In The Arsonists , the chorus of firemen that intervenes between scenes brings up the main moral criticism in the play: Biedermann’s passiveness in stopping the arsonists. Frisch frames the issue as a choice between reason and fate. On the one hand, “Reason can save us from evil” (Frisch, 3). On the other hand, “Fate means we don’t need to ask / Why the city is burning / No need to ask how the terror began” (3). By accepting fate, Biedermann lets himself be transported by the events and ultimately allows for destruction. When the leader of the chorus confronts Biedermann by asking “What were you thinking?” the protagonist responds , “Thinking? … I have the right not to think at all” (42). Biedermann thus refuses to use reason, as it is easier to accept fate than to risk being blamed for inhumanity towards Schmitz and Eisenring. The chorus concludes the play by denouncing this choice: “Stupidity dressed up as fate, / Always stupidity / Blazing and burning / Until it can not be put out” (80). The chorus guides the audience towards a critique of Biedermann and blames him for not having used reason to understand what was happening in his house and to stop the arsonists.

← The writer switches back to present tense for further plot description and to provide evidence for her claims.

← Past tenses can sometimes be used during plot summary. The writer uses past forms here to show that these events happened before the main events of the narration, in this case before the chorus blames Biedermann for his actions

Spring Hours of Operation

In-Person Office Hours: Monday-Thursday: 9AM-8PM Friday: 9AM-3PM

Online/In-person Sessions Available: Monday-Thursday: 9AM-8PM Friday: 9AM-3PM Saturday: 10AM-4PM

Jump to navigation

Call for Papers: 'Time, Play and Games'

Call for Papers: Journal of Gaming & Virtual Worlds

Special Issue: ‘Time, Play and Games’

Guest Edited by Federico Alvarez Igarzábal and Chris Hanson ( [email protected] )

Deadline for Submissions: 15 May 2024

View the full call here>>

https://www.intellectbooks.com/journal-of-gaming-virtual-worlds#call-for-papers

Time is a fundamental aspect of our lived experience. Everything we do is to some extent informed by past experiences, guided by our present state of mind, and geared towards achieving a particular state of affairs in the future – however close or far ahead it may be. If we enjoy a certain situation, time seems to accelerate. The opposite is true of boring moments, which seem to last longer than the clock indicates. And we structure our lives by segmenting the continuous flow of time in units of different magnitudes (hours, days, months), of which we keep track with technologies like watches and calendars.

All of this is true as well of play and games. Without time, there is no play. Yet time in video games can behave differently to real, physical time. We can fast-forward it, pause it and reset it to undo the consequences of bad decisions with a few button presses. Time in games can be discrete (turn-based) instead of continuous, and events in their narratives often wait for the players to arrive to a certain point in space to occur. Game temporality is also not homogeneous and may be experienced differently by individual players, or even by the same player in disparate circumstances. Our encounters with games are always informed by our previous experiences with other games and modes of play. Our memories shape our present moment, helping to guide our play experience from developing successful strategies to shaping our expectations for particular game genres. We also must make time to play, carving out temporal windows in our daily lives to engage with games, be they persistent online worlds, games which reward daily gameplay, and idle or casual games, among others. Linear media present their own temporal particularities, like sudden jumps in time. But they have arguably also been increasingly influenced by the temporality of video games, with recent years seeing more frequent releases of films and series with Groundhog-Day-like time loops, temporal reversals, time travel, circular narratives and branching timelines such as multiverses remediating game temporality into other forms.

We invite scholars to contribute papers to a Special Issue of the Journal of Gaming & Virtual Worlds on the theme of ‘Time, Play and Games’. We welcome essays on wide range of approaches to the consideration of time in both digital and analogue games, including but not limited to:

·       Time loops, repetition and circular structures

·       Multiverse, timelines and time travel

·       Gender and time

·       Time as tripartite structure: past, present, future

·       Memory and genre (e.g. generic expectations for an FPS)

·       Queer temporalities

·       Remediation and cross-pollination between films/television, comic books and other forms

·       Differing time windows in games including present-based play vs. future-oriented strategies

·       Disability and time

·       Differing modes of time perception

·       Tabletop/analogue RPGs long-running campaigns

·       Legacy board games and games changing over time

·       ‘Seasons’ and refreshed content in AAA titles

·       Spatiotemporality and relationships between space and time

·   Representations of the past in ‘historical’ games such as Total War: Rome

·       Interacting with history for educational purposes such as in Assassin Creed’s ‘Discovery Tour’ mode

·       Ruins in games and implied histories as part of world-building

·       Timelines in game franchises (e.g. The Legend of Zelda)

·       Time manipulation in games such as slow motion, reversing, fast forwarding (e.g. SimCity)

·       Time compression and dilation

·       Present tense of interaction vs. past tense of narration

·       Game preservation and the archive

·       Esports and livestreaming

·       Slow play

·       Speedrunning

·       Work time vs. play time.

Proposals should include a 300–500 word abstract and a title and be sent to [email protected] by 15 May 2024 . Accepted submissions will be asked to submit full 5000–6000 word articles by 15 September 2024 . No payment from the authors will be required.