Historians Speaking in the Present Tense

I am not intelligent or do not have a degree in history, which is probably why I like it spun in the present tense.
I never thought it insulting.

Historic present has its place, but its unremitting employment in the Hilary Mantel blockbusters drives me mad.

I watched this last night with enjoyment and did not find the use of the historic present disconcerting as it was employed consistently, although there were too many talking heads.

MaizieD

FarNorth

I like the 'historical present' being used in a limited way, to involve the hearer/reader.
A lot of it at once could get a bit wearing, tho.

I cannot understand how it can 'involve' the hearer/reader. It's history. We all know what 'history' is, it's a narrative about past events. Trying to make it sound as though it's currently happening seems to me to be verging on insulting the intelligence of the audience by deciding they can only be engaged with the topic if it's presented as happening NOW.

I suppose I see it as similar to places like the Jorvik Centre and Mary King's Close - an aid to imagining the past.
No-one believes they really are in the past, in those places.

I wouldn't be campaigning to keep it, I don't suppose, but I quite like it sometimes.

Yes, it works well sometimes.
It reminded me that DH pointed out years ago that when at my family home we talked about people in exactly the same way whether they were alive or dead, and he couldn't keep track of them (he stopped trying to, quite sensible)

This thread has reminded me how long I’ve been on Gransnet, as I started the same thread in 2014 ! Imthink most people approved of it then , but I was interested to know that John Humphrys doesn’t like it either. It still really annoys me .