Future tense could also be correctly used for most things in paragraphs below, but not always. In particular, when referring to elements outside the main body of the text such as appendices, references, footnotes, acknowledgements, etc.
I find this a bit confusing, so it is simpler for me to only use present tense and never use future tense, which is perfectly acceptable. When describing any thing you write in preceding paragraphs, use past tense. The only exception is that when writing in appendices, you should refer to the main body of the text in present tense. Technically, you should probably also use present tense if referring to the main body in other ancillary sections [references, footnotes, acknowledgements, etc.
I now follow with several annotated examples to illustrate these points. The above examples are a plot summary and a direct quotation, both of which use the literary present. You can remember to write about literature in the present tense because you are currently reading or thinking about it. Every time you open a book it seems as though the events are currently happening; every time you read an essay it is as though you are currently speaking to the writer. Non-English Papers If you are writing a paper in another subject, notably the sciences and social sciences, these rules will not necessarily apply.
Check with your professor for guidelines in your course. In history classes, for example, the events you are writing about took place in the past, and therefore you should use the past tense throughout your paper.
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 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. 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. 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. 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. Resist the temptation. Impure seems too simple and boring a word, so you bring up your thesaurus, which offers you everything from incontinent to meretricious.
Use only those words that come to you naturally. Quotation book abuse. This is similar to thesaurus abuse. How about a quotation on money? Your professor is not fooled. You sound like an insecure after-dinner speaker. Encyclopedia abuse. 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.
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. 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. 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. 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. Explaining your ideas to someone who doesn't know what you mean forces you to be clear and complete.
When in doubt, err on the side of putting in extra details. Resist the temptation to condemn or to get self-righteous. 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. 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.
If ewe ken reed this ewe kin sea that a computer wood nut all ways help ewe spill or rite reel good. You should familiarize yourself with those abbreviations, but your professor may not use them. You may not match Shakespeare, but you can learn to cut the fat out of your prose. 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. 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. Who invaded? Your professor will assume that you don't know. 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 Italy invaded Ethiopia. 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. 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. 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.
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.
It suggests committees, editorial boards, or royalty. None of those should have had a hand in writing your paper. Tense inconsistency. Stay consistently in the past tense when you are writing about what took place in the past.
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. In the book she contends [present tense] that woman 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. The infinitive to conceive fits.
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. 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? You may know, but your reader is not a mind reader.
When in doubt, err on the side of being overly clear. 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. 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. Try to keep your prose fresh. Avoid cliches. 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. 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. Once you have chosen an image, you must stay with language compatible with that image.
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. Unnecessary relative clause. Distancing or demeaning quotation marks. 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 Awkward. This all-purpose negative comment usually suggests that the sentence is clumsy because you have misused words or compounded several errors.
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?
In weary frustration, your professor scrawls awk in the margin and moves on. 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. It was a symbolic act. 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.
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.Either the effort or the failure to do so makes me feel panicky Show only the well-pressed and well-shined final product. Li young lee a story essays Li young lee Mathematica notebook viewer for years, and even though most in size up to terabytes of data.
Show only the well-pressed and well-shined final product. For example, have parts been omitted? The abbreviations are already in this footnote; its information cannot be further reduced. Historical essays and book reviews present special problems. You may be most tempted to start this way when you are writing on a complex, controversial, or elusive subject.
Thou shalt write as if thy reader is intelligent—but totally uninformed on any particular subject: hence, thou shalt identify all persons, organizations, etc.
Here are some questions you might ask of your document. Get control of your apostrophes. In popular history, dramatic storytelling often prevails over analysis, style over substance, simplicity over complexity, and grand generalization over careful qualification. In other words, "Homer composed poetry long ago, but we today interpret it along certain lines. Develop your thesis logically from paragraph to paragraph. Short paragraphs seldom develop ideas or nuances.
This is an illiteracy. In this case, the principle that I follow is simple, regardless of whether I am describing what other people have done or describing my own work: Historical occurrences should be in past tense. The other problem, which is more common and takes many forms, is the unintended and sometimes comical comparison of unlike elements. It's very vivid, isn't it, quite intense even? The reason is because. You are vague or have empty, unsupported generalizations.
She is knocked out from getting most of us ready: I hold my neck stiff against the pressure of her knuckles as she hastily completes the braiding and the beribboning of my hair
Consider these two versions of the same sentence: 1. We historians demand the same qualities stressed in any stylebook— good grammar and syntax. But between the elements A and B, the writer inserts Fanon a proper noun , suggests a verb , imperialists a noun , and establish a verb. Beware of the word literally. Has the document been published? In popular history, dramatic storytelling often prevails over analysis, style over substance, simplicity over complexity, and grand generalization over careful qualification.
You mean should have or could have.
Those cases are exceptions.