So I was writing a biography and my teacher (Who is not an English teacher, he is a math teacher) made several marks on my paper for my use of would. For example, I wrote,
"He would publish his first mathematical paper at the age of eighteen."
My teacher said I should have used published instead of would publish. He also said in class that since it is a biography that takes place in the past that this wasn't the correct use of past tense. I don't think he is right and I feel that this issue is more a stylistic difference. However, I am unsure as well so any help would be appreciated. I will put some more example below too.
1) me-> "One year later he went on to earn his Ph.D…"
him-> should have been earned and I should've got rid of went on to
2) me-> "He would be associated with the project until 1955."
him-> should have been was and not would be
3) me-> "Von Neumann would go on to write, "[boring qoute]"
him-> should have been went and not would go
4)
me-> "Between 1927-1930 Von Neumann would teach Mathematics at University of Berlin."
him-> should have been taught and not would teach
Best Answer
You could write it the way you did as long as it is that tense throughout the biography. You are writing it in a style and tense that indicates you are telling events from a standpoint that you know are going to happen before they do, which is fine. In fact, it is good storytelling. The way your teacher prefers to write it is as if it is written from a factual stand point where it already happened, in a perhaps sequential order telling what happened first, then what happened next which makes sense also. So yes, in a way it is only a stylistic difference. As long as you choose one tense and stick with it throughout your biography, it is grammatically correct and makes sense.