[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 31 KB, 720x748, Annihiliated.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19761466 No.19761466 [Reply] [Original]

When quoting historians and other writers in a history essay, should you write "wrote" for deceased historians and "writes" for those who are still alive?

E.g.,

>"John Smith wrote that "such and such" was the case. [John Smith, 1864]"

>"Mary Sue writes that "such and such" was the case. [Mary Sue, 2017]

>> No.19761480

Always "wrote". Why? It's easier and it works.

>> No.19761493

>>19761480
Thank you.

>> No.19761847

>>19761466
>"AJP Taylor told me that 'such and such' was the case."

>> No.19761865

>>19761466
I mean it's 2022 and you're quoting a source from 2017. Unless she has a time-machine she did not write that in the present.

>> No.19762019

You should nearly always use present tense when quoting another author unless you're making a point about when they were writing, such as "Because the French Revolution was still taking shape at the time, Burke wrote that "blah blah" and proved himself to be quite prescient."
Amazing that people on this board don't know this very basic rule.

>> No.19762026

>>19762019
Exactly

>> No.19762069

>>19762019
>anon's headcanon
>a rule
lol

>> No.19762494

You should use "wrote" only if you want to present that information as outdated or incorrect. You should use "writes" if you want to present that information in support of your claims.

>> No.19762512

>>19762019
This. It's called the "literary present." I'm a STEM monkey and even I learned this in my first year undergrad writing class.