Generally, I've been told that I should maintain consistency of tenses in my writing. That is, if I begin a piece of writing in the past tense, I should ensure that all verbs agree with that through the document. But as I read more articles, books, and other such things, I get confused by the verb tenses used by these other authors.
For example, I copied a portion of an article below. I believe it started in the past tense, yet the second paragraph switched to the present tense (it sounds like the…) In the third paragraph, the past and present usage is mixed (the word gave is in past tense, yet remain is in the present tense). I understand that the writing in the article is most likely correct. But why can it switch verb tenses and be ok while I was told in school by my professor to keep my essays in a single tense? Is there a guideline I can adhere to?
REPRESSED for decades, the anger burst like a summer storm. Rioting
youths flooded city streets. The shaken regime granted hasty
concessions: freer speech; an end to one-party rule; real elections.
But when Islamists surged towards victory in the first free elections
the army stepped in, provoking a bloody struggle that lasted until the
people, exhausted, acquiesced to a government similar in outlook,
repression and even personnel to that which they had revolted against
in the first place.It sounds like the recent history of several Arab countries: Bahrain,
Egypt, Libya, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen, the states of the 2011 Arab
spring, have seen some or all of the story unfold. But this is also,
and originally, Algeria, a quarter of a century earlier—the first
major political crisis in the age of modern Islamism.A flurry of freedom in the late 1980s gave way to a vicious civil war
in the 1990s that left as many as 200,000 dead and Algeria’s Islamists
more or less defeated, but not eradicated. Today the country’s
citizens remain powerless spectators to a continued stand-off between
what they call le pouvoir—the entrenched oligarchy that controls the
state, the oil money and the army—and the now-marginalised Islamist
radicals, who serve more as a justification for ongoing repression
than as any sort of inspiration to ordinary people.
Best Answer
The excerpt changes tenses because it's talking about things at different times. The first paragraph describes completed actions which took place in the past, hence the use of past tense. The second uses the present because it's talking about things at the current time or the recent past. The third begins by talking about the past, then proceeds to discuss the current state.
Think of the first paragraph like a big quotation. It's not describing any specific actual events - indeed, the second paragraph says that the first could describe several places - just some generic history. Because it's talking about history, it's in the past tense.
It sounds in the second paragraph is talking about the first paragraph. This is in the present because you're currently reading the article. Its words sound a certain way at the time you read them. Incidentally, I find this:
somewhat confusing; specifically, the aside about Algeria. I get the meaning (I think!), but I think the remark should be expanded a bit, and probably in the past tense.
The third paragraph opens by discussing completed actions in the past:
This first sentence sets the stage with some historical context. After giving us a bit information about the past, it goes on to describe the present state of affairs, appropriately shifting to the present tense to do so:
Past, present and future match up with the times being described. Very generally speaking, you should work towards maintaining a single tense in your writing, especially if you aren't comfortable with the fine details of changing them. But there are plenty of reasons to change tenses. For example: