Final answer:
Historical texts are typically written in past tense, providing a sense of completion to events. Using present-tense verbs, however, creates a sense of immediacy, making events feel current and active. Maintaining verb tense consistency is essential, although strategic shifts in tense can be used to challenge conventions and affect the narrative.
Step-by-step explanation:
Historical texts are usually written in past tense, which serves to narrate events that have already occurred and lends a sense of completion and objectivity to the account. In contrast, using present-tense verbs in a historical account, as observed in Euchner's writing, creates a sense of immediacy and urgency, drawing readers into the narrative as if the events are unfolding in real-time. This method can be particularly effective in making historical events feel more vivid and engaging to the reader. For example, stating 'The historian Eduardo Galeano argues' instead of 'argued' in a historical analysis uses the literary present tense, which is often used in discussions of literary works or historical narratives to make them seem more immediate and relevant to the current discussion.
It's important to maintain verb tense consistency throughout a piece of writing unless you intentionally shift tenses to reflect changes in the timeline of events. Verb tense consistency is crucial for clarity and coherence in writing, guiding the reader smoothly through the different aspects of the narrative or analysis. If an author chooses to include present-tense narratives in a largely past-tense context, such as in a historical text, it is often to purposefully challenge conventions for a rhetorically effective outcome.