Historical present tense.

I HATE it. Can't read a novel written in that tense either.

Agree completely. It's especially annoying when they start off in the past tense then correct themselves to present. I agree about the novels, too.

Damon Runyan wrote his Broadway stories in it - which was fine by me... and it got got carried over into the dialogue in "Guys and Dolls" of course.

It doesn't worry me at all. Does this help?

www.txstate.edu/slac/writing/documentation/present_tense.html

There are contexts where the use of the present tense in a narrative gives a greater immediacy than the past tense. I'm reading a detective story at them moment in which the narrative of detection is written in the past tense but what is going on in a kidnapped child's situation is in the present. This is an effective device and quite disturbing.

I'm with annodomini and can't quite understand why it's a problem for some readers!

I don't have a problem with it.

janerowena thank you for the link. The article suggests that you use present tense when discussing a literary work (eg Austen says in 'Pride & Prejudice) and past tense when writing about events in the past. Fiction is something else again. I don't have a problem with the first two; makes sense. I do have a problem with, 'Henry comes to the conclusion that Anne cannot carry a child to term because their marriage is illegal' No! No! No! And with fiction, even though it is a matter of style.

I'll make an exception for Damon Runyon.

Thanks for the link. I have read several other articles about its use, but I still don't like it , particularly in historical tv or radio programmes. Lilygran's example is perfect? I guess historians are so passionate about their subjects that they are transported into the moment by using the present tense!

Sorry about the unintentional question marks which litter my typing when using the I pad.

I rather like it.

In novels it can make you feel almost as if you are there, watching it happen.

Exactly jingle - which is why writers use it :-)

I found the Mill on the Floss confusing [still haven't finished reading it] in that it was a historical book [to me] that was written at the time but included recent past history [does that make sense ?] or Cold Comfort Farm that was [at the time] written about the future.

Was it? Cold Comfort Farm, I mean...

That's what I meant by 'immediacy' jingl.

Tegan - Did you mean Animal Farm? Nothing very futuristic about Cold Comfort Farm...

It was feetle; there was mention of people flying around in aeroplane type things in it.

..it was set in an 'unspecified near future' where people used air taxis and tv phones and Mayfair had become a slum district. I didn't pick up on it when I first read it [although should have noticed the stuff about Mayfair!].

Written in 1932, set after 1946 (thank you, Wikipedia). Hard to pick up on as there's no reference to any historic events one would recognise.

There's mention of a war of some kind that has never happened [again thanks to wikipedia [the gospel that is ].

WellMicelf and Lilygran , at least I'm not alone in this. I. know John Humphrys doesn't like it either as I said , but he irritates a lot of people too so I'm told!!!!