Arguments against literary present in nonfiction history:
* Distancing the reader: Literary present often creates a sense of immediacy and closeness. However, in history, the events are already in the past, and using present tense can feel artificial or even jarring.
* Confusion with the past: While it can be exciting to "bring the past alive", using present tense might confuse readers about the time frame, particularly when describing events or people in the past.
* Imposing authorial voice: Present tense can make the author's voice more prominent and potentially detract from the historical narrative.
When literary present *might* be appropriate:
* Specific sections: You could use present tense for dramatic moments or specific events to heighten their impact.
* Personal accounts: If you are directly quoting a historical figure's diary entry, you might use the present tense to reflect their original wording.
* Creative non-fiction: In a more creatively written historical piece, present tense might be used for stylistic reasons.
Overall, the choice depends on the author's style and the overall tone of the book. If you're unsure, it's always best to consult with a professional editor or experienced writer for their opinion.
Consider these alternatives:
* Past tense: This is the most common and traditional approach for nonfiction historical writing.
* Historic present: This involves using present tense to narrate past events in a dramatic and engaging way, often with a clear distinction between the past and the present.
Ultimately, the choice is yours. Choose the tense that best serves your narrative and helps you achieve your desired effect.