Historians Speaking in the Present Tense

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 .

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)

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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.

A friend of mine, historian Dr. Owen Emerson, is one of those involved in ‘The Boleyns’. I haven’t managed to watch it yet.

I watch a lot of historical documentaries and I've really never noticed it. But then I loved the Wolf Hall trilogy.

I'm enjoying The Boleyns, I hadn't realised how little I knew about their history before Anne arrived at Court.

In Denmark this started as a trend amongst journalists, and when we took them up on it, they said that speaking of things in the present tense made them more interesting to the listener or reader.

All right, if the reader or listener has no conception of grammer - otherwise it is plain annoying and to hear a historian do it would drive me mad.

Richard the first took part in the First Crusade - turning that sentence into the present tense is a gimmick a teacher might just use to waken a sleepy class up, but shouldn't be employed in a serious discussion for an adult audience.

Wheniwasyourage

Oh, I'm so glad to find that I'm not the only one who hates it! It drives me to distraction, and the off switch. Thank you, grannyrebel7 for starting the thread.

Silverbridge, I must say that I prefer the second version of the passage you quote and find it does give me a sense of immediacy and involvement, whereas the original (?) version in the present tense, just annoys me. I don't care whether it's the Historical Present or the Christmas Present, I hate it!

I preferred the second version, too.

I have to confess that, although I was lent a copy, I couldn't bring myself to read Mantel's first book. It just annoys me too much.

Oh, I'm so glad to find that I'm not the only one who hates it! It drives me to distraction, and the off switch. Thank you, grannyrebel7 for starting the thread.

Silverbridge, I must say that I prefer the second version of the passage you quote and find it does give me a sense of immediacy and involvement, whereas the original (?) version in the present tense, just annoys me. I don't care whether it's the Historical Present or the Christmas Present, I hate it!

Lillie

you come across it a lot from guides who are sort of presenters in museums or historical places
they use it when you visit the globe for example where most of the presenters are enthisiastic young actors
it seems to work

Well, I'm guide in a historical place and I don't feel the slightest need to pretend that what happened decades ago is happening in the present.

I take your point about Hilary Mantel's book Silverbridge but as others have said in documentaries the Historical Present (didn't know it had a name, thanks GrannyRose15) is just annoying ?

you come across it a lot from guides who are sort of presenters in museums or historical places
they use it when you visit the globe for example where most of the presenters are enthisiastic young actors
it seems to work

True!

Kate54

Ah yes but that’s fiction! In documentaries etc I also find it annoying but historians themselves seem to love it. Very odd.

Indeed, but it could equally have been said to camera by, say, Lucy Worsley or similar.

Kate Williams uses it a lot. I wish I were as knowledgable as she.

Ah yes but that’s fiction! In documentaries etc I also find it annoying but historians themselves seem to love it. Very odd.

I enjoy it too. It brings a sense or immediacy and involves the reader or viewer in the actions and events.

The opening lines of Hilary Mantel’s The Mirror and the Light which begins immediately after the execution of Anne Boleyn:

Once the queen’s head is severed, he walks away. A sharp pang of appetite reminds him that it is time for a second breakfast, or perhaps an early dinner. This morning’s circumstances are new and there are no rules to guide us. The witnesses who have knelt for the passing of the soul, stand up and put on their hats. Under the hats, their faces are stunned.

But then he turns back, to say a word of thanks to the executioner …

The small body lies on the scaffold where it has fallen; belly down, hands outstretched, it swims in a pool of crimson, the blood seeping between the the planks.

Compare:

Once the queen’s head was severed, he walked away. A sharp pang of appetite reminded him that it was time for a second breakfast, or perhaps an early dinner. That morning’s circumstances were new and there were no rules to guide them. The witnesses who had knelt for the passing of the soul, stool up and put on their hands. Under the hats, their faces were stunned.

But then he turned back, to say a word of thanks to the executioner …

The small body lay on the scaffold where it had fallen; belly down, hands outstretched, it swam in a pool of crimson, the blood seeped between the the planks.

The phrase there are no rules to guide us involves the reader too.

I wonder which version people prefer?

Curiously, in French, they used the futuretense. Very disconcerting!
And what about Charles II long suffering wife? She would’ve interesting too…

I m a tipsy mare I get so engrossed in the story it’s never affected me I just don’t ‘see it’

I understand all the comments here but I have grown to quite like it. It is supposed to give a sense of immediacy and involve us more. For me it is like when I rewind something to watch again. It has been and gone but I want to bring it back fresh and real to the present. It works well in writing too.

I can't bear it! It seems to be infectious too. DH does it without noticing.